|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 87
CO-RESPONDENT (to Peter): You simply and continuously confuse facts with hypotheses (= explanations of facts). Just to make sure that we agree on that: 1. There are facts, or are there not? (I assume for a moment that you agree there are facts). Example for a fact: ‘People are getting angry’. RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that people are getting angry)? CO-RESPONDENT: To be precise, my statement ‘people are getting angry’ is actually not a fact but a generalisation based on observations of facts. A factual statement would be: ‘A friend of mine got angry.’ RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that a friend of yours got angry)? CO-RESPONDENT: By means of sense data (hearing him shout, seeing him getting red in his face), which I then subsequently interpreted as signs of ‘anger’ and by means of communication (asking him of he was angry and he confirmed). RICHARD: Have you ever got angry (at any time at all including childhood)? CO-RESPONDENT: Yes, I have got angry in the past. I can recall various occasions in which I felt anger. Now how do I know anger? I know it by experience. I experienced ‘anger’. RICHARD: So you know from first-hand experience that it is a fact you got angry; that friend of yours knows from first-hand experience it is a fact he got angry; each and every one of those people getting angry knows from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry? CO-RESPONDENT: Now here it becomes tricky. RICHARD: It is not tricky at all ... RESPONDENT: Not to you, but to No. 89 it’s tricky (also used as a turn of phrase for something hard to explain) ... RICHARD: If I may interject? There is nothing to explain (let alone there be something hard to do so with) as all I am doing is asking three more straightforward questions, in the context of three previously answered straightforward questions, so as to elicit affirmation that such a summary is cogent before proceeding. RESPONDENT: ... in those terms it’s tricky to me also, others may not care less. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to present the three questions sequentially, then? Viz.:
Unless/until there is a reply to the affirmative there is no point in continuing. RESPONDENT: My interpretation from the way you correspond (steamroll/ verbally attack) is that ... RICHARD: If I might interject once more? The following example should be self-explanatory:
RESPONDENT: ... [is that] peace on earth is no where to be found in your correspondence. RICHARD: Golly ... all I did was ask my co-respondent whether they have ever got angry and, as they replied in the affirmative, I further enquired as to whether they, therefore, know from first-hand experience that it is a fact they got angry. Viz.:
How on earth you can interpret that as being steamrolling/ verbally attacking (let alone devoid of peace on earth) has got me beat ... and the same applies to my next enquiry:
And my next after that:
And what I wrote after that:
If I might suggest? Instead of interpreting my words try taking them at face value ... as I say what I mean, and mean what I say, it will make comprehension a whole lot easier. RESPONDENT: You are just another vain ego on your pedestal imagining your own subjective interpretation (and that is all it can ever be, verbal or otherwise) is the final arbiter. RICHARD: Hmm ... I see you have boned up on subjectivism RESPONDENT: And the interpretations of your correspondents amount to jack shit. RICHARD: Here are you own words from above (edited for the sake of clarity in communication):
And, as I am clearly asking for affirmation that both my summary, of three previously answered straightforward questions, and my follow-up elucidation of same was cogent, I will pass without further comment. RESPONDENT: So what’s new? RICHARD: In terms of your apparent predilection for having egg on your face ... nothing. Viz.:
CO-RESPONDENT (to Peter): You simply and continuously confuse facts with hypotheses (= explanations of facts). Just to make sure that we agree on that: 1. There are facts, or are there not? (I assume for a moment that you agree there are facts). Example for a fact: ‘People are getting angry’. RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that people are getting angry)? CO-RESPONDENT: To be precise, my statement ‘people are getting angry’ is actually not a fact but a generalisation based on observations of facts. A factual statement would be: ‘A friend of mine got angry.’ RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that a friend of yours got angry)? CO-RESPONDENT: By means of sense data (hearing him shout, seeing him getting red in his face), which I then subsequently interpreted as signs of ‘anger’ and by means of communication (asking him of he was angry and he confirmed). RICHARD: Have you ever got angry (at any time at all including childhood)? CO-RESPONDENT: Yes, I have got angry in the past. I can recall various occasions in which I felt anger. Now how do I know anger? I know it by experience. I experienced ‘anger’. RICHARD: So you know from first-hand experience that it is a fact you got angry; that friend of yours knows from first-hand experience it is a fact he got angry; each and every one of those people getting angry knows from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry? CO-RESPONDENT: Now here it becomes tricky. RICHARD: It is not tricky at all ... RESPONDENT: Not to you, but to No. 89 it’s tricky (also used as a turn of phrase for something hard to explain) ... RICHARD: If I may interject? There is nothing to explain (let alone there be something hard to do so with) ... RESPONDENT: And I will say it again. For ‘you there is nothing to explain ... RICHARD: As all I am doing is asking my co-respondent three more straightforward questions, in the context of three previously answered straightforward questions, so as to elicit affirmation that such a summary is cogent before proceeding there is nothing to explain (let alone there be something hard to do so with). RESPONDENT: ... [For ‘you there is nothing to explain] to me there is ... RICHARD: In which case: what is there to explain about me asking my co-respondent three more straightforward questions, so as to elicit affirmation that such a summary is cogent before proceeding, in the context of three previously answered straightforward questions other than that explanation (that they are simply to elicit affirmation that such a summary is cogent before proceeding)? * RESPONDENT: ... in those terms [a turn of phrase for something hard to explain] it’s tricky to me also, others may not care less. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to present the three questions sequentially ... RESPONDENT: Where did I say I was discussing your three questions? RICHARD: Here is the sequence (copy-pasted from above):
Do you see that I asked my co-respondent a three-part question (in the context of the three previously answered straightforward questions further above)? If so, do you also see that my co-respondent replied to that three-part question by saying that it (the e-mail exchange in general) becomes tricky there (at that part of the exchange)? If so, do you further see that you interjected before my elucidation of how it (that part of the exchange) is not tricky so as to inform me that, in the terms of the word ‘tricky’ meaning something hard to explain, it (that part of the exchange) is tricky to you also? RESPONDENT: They have nothing to do with the behaviour I am commenting on! RICHARD: In which case you can only be referring to that elucidation of mine, which you snipped off so as to interject, as there is no other part of the exchange in question that is not on this page. Viz.:
If you could point out where that is tricky to you (in terms of being something hard to explain) it will be most appreciated.
CO-RESPONDENT (to Peter): You simply and continuously confuse facts with hypotheses (= explanations of facts). Just to make sure that we agree on that: 1. There are facts, or are there not? (I assume for a moment that you agree there are facts). Example for a fact: ‘People are getting angry’. RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that people are getting angry)? CO-RESPONDENT: To be precise, my statement ‘people are getting angry’ is actually not a fact but a generalisation based on observations of facts. A factual statement would be: ‘A friend of mine got angry.’ RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that a friend of yours got angry)? CO-RESPONDENT: By means of sense data (hearing him shout, seeing him getting red in his face), which I then subsequently interpreted as signs of ‘anger’ and by means of communication (asking him of he was angry and he confirmed). RICHARD: Have you ever got angry (at any time at all including childhood)? CO-RESPONDENT: Yes, I have got angry in the past. I can recall various occasions in which I felt anger. Now how do I know anger? I know it by experience. I experienced ‘anger’. RICHARD: So you know from first-hand experience that it is a fact you got angry; that friend of yours knows from first-hand experience it is a fact he got angry; each and every one of those people getting angry knows from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry? CO-RESPONDENT: Now here it becomes tricky. RICHARD: It is not tricky at all ... RESPONDENT: Not to you, but to No. 89 it’s tricky (also used as a turn of phrase for something hard to explain) ... RICHARD: If I may interject? There is nothing to explain (let alone there be something hard to do so with) ... RESPONDENT: And I will say it again. For ‘you there is nothing to explain ... RICHARD: As all I am doing is asking my co-respondent three more straightforward questions, in the context of three previously answered straightforward questions, so as to elicit affirmation that such a summary is cogent before proceeding there is nothing to explain (let alone there be something hard to do so with). (...) RESPONDENT: ... in those terms [a turn of phrase for something hard to explain] it’s tricky to me also, others may not care less. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to present the three questions sequentially ... RESPONDENT: Where did I say I was discussing your three questions? RICHARD: Here is the sequence (copy-pasted from above):
Do you see that I asked my co-respondent a three-part question (in the context of the three previously answered straightforward questions further above)? If so, do you also see that my co-respondent replied to that three-part question by saying that it (the e-mail exchange in general) becomes tricky there (at that part of the exchange)? If so, do you further see that you interjected before my elucidation of how it (that part of the exchange) is not tricky so as to inform me that, in the terms of the word ‘tricky’ meaning something hard to explain, it (that part of the exchange) is tricky to you also? RESPONDENT: They have nothing to do with the behaviour I am commenting on! RICHARD: In which case you can only be referring to that elucidation of mine ... RESPONDENT: There you go again with your VAIN ASSUMPTIONS! RICHARD: As there is no other part of the exchange in question, than that elucidation of mine, which is not on this page it was the only assumption to be made. RESPONDENT: I am not at all referring to that elucidation of yours, let alone ‘can only be’. RICHARD: In which case there is only the three previously answered straightforward questions (at the top of this page) left for you to be commenting on. RESPONDENT: What I am referring to – if you had cared to ‘re-read’ what I wrote with both eyes open this time – was the way you dictatorially assert your interpretation/ hypotheses as the final arbiter and communicate with your correspondents as though theirs amount to jack shit. RICHARD: As you have now made it abundantly clear that you are not referring to either my three-part
question or my elucidation of same then just where is that asseverated dictatorial assertion of my supposed
interpretation/ hypotheses ostensibly communicated as though my co-respondent’s purported interpretation/ hypotheses allegedly
amounts to nothing Incidentally, I read what you wrote in your initial e-mail RESPONDENT: Listen mate, its your problem not mine if you think your shit don’t stink. RICHARD: Ha ... and when all else fails drop back onto the rugged appeal of ockerdom (as in c’mon now, wake up to yourself, you’re not god almighty y’know), eh? Just because somebody happens to live/reside on the landmass known as Australia it does not necessarily make them an ocker. RESPONDENT: I’m just using the internet (fortunately indeed) to speak out when I smell a rat too. RICHARD: As any and all odorosity you are sniffing comes solely from your interpretation of what you interpret to be the way my correspondence is conducted you need look no further than that penchant you have readily displayed time and again, of reading things into my words which are simply not there, for the odorivector of same.
CO-RESPONDENT (to Peter): You simply and continuously confuse facts with hypotheses (= explanations of facts). Just to make sure that we agree on that: 1. There are facts, or are there not? (I assume for a moment that you agree there are facts). Example for a fact: ‘People are getting angry’. RICHARD: [snip] CO-RESPONDENT: To be precise, my statement ‘people are getting angry’ is actually not a fact but a generalisation based on observations of facts. A factual statement would be: ‘A friend of mine got angry.’ RICHARD: [snip] CO-RESPONDENT: By means of sense data (hearing him shout, seeing him getting red in his face), which I then subsequently interpreted as signs of ‘anger’ and by means of communication (asking him of he was angry and he confirmed). RICHARD: [snip] CO-RESPONDENT: Yes, I have got angry in the past. I can recall various occasions in which I felt anger. Now how do I know anger? I know it by experience. I experienced ‘anger’. RICHARD: [snip] CO-RESPONDENT: Now here it becomes tricky. RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: Not to you, but to No. 89 it’s tricky (also used as a turn of phrase for something hard to explain) ... RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: And I will say it again. For ‘you there is nothing to explain ... RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: ... in those terms [a turn of phrase for something hard to explain] it’s tricky to me also, others may not care less. RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: Where did I say I was discussing your three questions? RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: They have nothing to do with the behaviour I am commenting on! RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: There you go again with your VAIN ASSUMPTIONS! RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: I am not at all referring to that elucidation of yours, let alone ‘can only be’. RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: What I am referring to – if you had cared to ‘re-read’ what I wrote with both eyes open this time – was the way you dictatorially assert your interpretation/hypotheses as the final arbiter and communicate with your correspondents as though theirs amount to jack shit. RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: Listen mate, its your problem not mine if you think your shit don’t stink. RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: I’m just using the internet (fortunately indeed) to speak out when I smell a rat too. RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: The only thing I am interested in discussing with you Richard is your condescending verbal attacks on your correspondents and your inability to see it – i.e. smell your own shit. Anytime. RICHARD: I snipped out every above word of mine as it has become patently obvious that anything
actually written by me just gets in the way of your interpretation of same So, which interpretation are you planning on kicking off your interpretative discussion with ... your interpretation that my (now-snipped) words constituted a condescending verbal attack on my co-respondent or your previous interpretation that my (now-snipped) words indicated a dearth of peace on earth? And this is why I ask:
Here is what a dictionary has to say about that objective (dative and accusative) pronoun:
As you have made it abundantly clear that you are not referring to my three-part question previously mentioned and easily identified (or my elucidation of same for that matter), then is your version of [quote] ‘it’ [endquote] a phantom ‘it’, perchance? If so, ‘tis no wonder you are experiencing that as being [quote] ‘something hard to explain’ [endquote].
CO-RESPONDENT (to Peter): You simply and continuously confuse facts with hypotheses (= explanations of facts). Just to make sure that we agree on that: 1. There are facts, or are there not? (I assume for a moment that you agree there are facts). Example for a fact: ‘People are getting angry’. RICHARD: [snip] CO-RESPONDENT: To be precise, my statement ‘people are getting angry’ is actually not a fact but a generalisation based on observations of facts. A factual statement would be: ‘A friend of mine got angry.’ RICHARD: [snip] CO-RESPONDENT: By means of sense data (hearing him shout, seeing him getting red in his face), which I then subsequently interpreted as signs of ‘anger’ and by means of communication (asking him of he was angry and he confirmed). RICHARD: [snip] CO-RESPONDENT: Yes, I have got angry in the past. I can recall various occasions in which I felt anger. Now how do I know anger? I know it by experience. I experienced ‘anger’. RICHARD: [snip] CO-RESPONDENT: Now here it becomes tricky. RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: Not to you, but to No. 89 it’s tricky (also used as a turn of phrase for something hard to explain) ... RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: ... in those terms [a turn of phrase for something hard to explain] it’s tricky to me also, others may not care less. RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: Where did I say I was discussing your three questions? RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: They have nothing to do with the behaviour I am commenting on! RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: There you go again with your VAIN ASSUMPTIONS! RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: I am not at all referring to that elucidation of yours, let alone ‘can only be’. RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: What I am referring to – if you had cared to ‘re-read’ what I wrote with both eyes open this time – was the way you dictatorially assert your interpretation/hypotheses as the final arbiter and communicate with your correspondents as though theirs amount to jack shit. RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: Listen mate, its your problem not mine if you think your shit don’t stink. RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: I’m just using the internet (fortunately indeed) to speak out when I smell a rat too. RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: The only thing I am interested in discussing with you Richard is your condescending verbal attacks on your correspondents and your inability to see it – i.e. smell your own shit. Anytime RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: [snip] RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: [snip] RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: [snip] RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: [snip] RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: [snip] RICHARD: [snip] RESPONDENT: Oh this goes way back Richard. I am not only referring to this particular thread, far from it. RICHARD: As this is the thread you specifically chose in order to inform me that your interpretation of my words is that [quote] ‘peace on earth is no where to be found’ [endquote] in my correspondence then it is obviously the thread in which to start discussing the only thing you are interested in discussing with me (your interpretation of my words as being condescending verbal attacks on my correspondents). Accordingly, here are my words, reinserted for your convenience, in the sequence they were written:
If you could explain how you interpret those words of mine as being a condescending verbal attack on my co-respondent it will be most appreciated.
(...) RICHARD (to Respondent): ... here are my words, reinserted for your convenience, in the sequence they were written:
If you could explain how you interpret those words of mine as being a condescending verbal attack on my co-respondent it will be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: OK although one wonders why you need to be reminded, I will say it again. RICHARD: I have received nothing as yet, despite six e-mails from you, to be [quote] ‘reminded’ [endquote] of ... you are yet to explain it (just how you go about interpreting those words of mine as being a condescending verbal attack on my co-respondent) for the first time. RESPONDENT: The verbal aggression I was ‘interpreting’ in that thread was your (as usual) dictatorial arbitration. RICHARD: I do understand that you are interpreting [quote] ‘verbal aggression/dictatorial arbitration’ [endquote] ... the question is: whereabouts in that text of mine (re-posted above in its entirety) is there anything even remotely resembling same such as to occasion you to do so? It is your call.
(...) RICHARD (to Respondent): ... here are my words, reinserted for your convenience, in the sequence they were written:
If you could explain how you interpret those words of mine as being a condescending verbal attack on my co-respondent it will be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: OK although one wonders why you need to be reminded, I will say it again. RICHARD: I have received nothing as yet, despite six e-mails from you, to be [quote] ‘reminded’ [endquote] of ... you are yet to explain it (just how you go about interpreting those words of mine as being a condescending verbal attack on my co-respondent) for the first time. RESPONDENT: The verbal aggression I was ‘interpreting’ in that thread was your (as usual) dictatorial arbitration. RICHARD: I do understand that you are interpreting [quote] ‘verbal aggression/ dictatorial arbitration’ [endquote] ... the question is: whereabouts in that text of mine (re-posted above in its entirety) is there anything even remotely resembling same such as to occasion you to do so? It is your call. RESPONDENT: Are you writing to me? RICHARD: I am writing to the person who is currently writing to this mailing list under the name ‘[No. 87]’ (if that is what you mean). RESPONDENT: Because it seems more like you are writing to yourself ... RICHARD: No matter what it [quote] ‘seems more like’ [endquote] to you I am most certainly not writing to myself ... if I were I would have got a straight answer, a detailed answer, an answer complete with reference to the text in question, by return mail (instead of the seven vacuous e-mails received from you). RESPONDENT: ... and I can make neither head nor tail of it. RICHARD: Just what part of [quote] ‘if you could explain how you interpret those words of mine [reposted above in their entirety for your convenience] as being a condescending verbal attack on my co-respondent it will be most appreciated’ [endquote] is it that you can make neither head nor tail of? It is still your call.
RESPONDENT: ‘Dissing Richard’? Why take it so personal? Why so miffed? We of the instinctual passions are simply scrutinizing and questioning your claims and have found your own correspondence chock full of the same (if not more) ‘derision, disparagement, scorn, mockery, disdain, belittlement, vilification, denigration, contempt, castigation, disapprobation, denunciation, condemnation and discrimination (as evidenced by bad-mouthing, backbiting and a whole range of slurs, smears, censures, admonishments, reproaches, reprovals, and so on)’ as those of us you have so much ‘fun at the keyboard’ berating. (...) RICHARD: The title of this e-mail – ‘Dissing Richard’ – is a play on the wording my
co-respondent used, which in itself was a double entendre, when they changed it from the original It would appear that the humour passed right over your head.
RESPONDENT (to Richard): My interpretation, by the way you correspond (steamroll/ verbally attack), is that peace on earth is no where to be found in your correspondence. You are just another vain ego up on your pedestal imagining your own subjective interpretation (and that is all it can ever be, verbal or otherwise) is the final arbiter, and the interpretations of your correspondents amount to jack shit. RESPONDENT No. 60: So many of us see the same thing, and have for years. I’m sure we’ve all wondered many times whether it was just us, or whether there was really something there to see. How could we all be imagining this? (...) (...) RESPONDENT No. 60: (to Richard): (...) Selflessness, absence of malice and sorrow, should (I think, and remember from various times in life, not just PCE’s) result in an easeful and friendly manner that isn’t defensive, pedantic, prone to rub people’s noses in their every mistake, lord it over people, put them down, etc. It should be an obvious improvement that everyone wants to emulate. but instead you seem for all money to be a prick that everyone bends over backwards to make allowances for on account of you having something to offer. PETER: It appears to have well and truly escaped your attention that by far the majority of correspondence that Richard has answered on this mailing list since he last had a break from writing has been from correspondents who are bending over backwards to personally attack him for the sole reason that not only has he something to offer and does freely offer it but also because he will not back down from having something to offer and from freely offering it. RESPONDENT No. 28: What I find curious is that Richard is so compelled to respond to all these ^attacks^. RICHARD: As Richard is not at all [quote] ‘compelled’ [endquote] to respond to any e-mail whatsoever then what you are not only finding curious but have even been motivated into taking extra steps about (of using both the time to type out and the bandwidth with which to send same) has no existence outside of your imaginative/ intuitive facility. Now, why someone – anyone – would do all that is surely something to be curious about, non? RESPONDENT No. 28: If I was in his place I would deal with the flurry of gnats the same way I deal with Richard’s posts now – with the delete button. Presto! RICHARD: As you are not in Richard’s place, but are kinda stuck in a solipsistic cul-de-sac, then the difference betwixt you and Richard is that he actually cares about his fellow human and thus would prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later. Put succinctly: here in this actual world they are not experienced as if gnats, flurrying or otherwise, to be dealt with by deletion. RESPONDENT No. 28: My momma always told me it takes two to argue. RICHARD: Is there any other advice your mother gave you which you are not taking heed of? RESPONDENT No. 28: Yeah ... don’t pick on crazy people. RICHARD: While I appreciate your honesty (in acknowledging both what you are doing and what that is motivated by) you are targeting the wrong person. Viz.:
And this:
And again:
RESPONDENT No. 28: In all sincerity, your mental balance seems to be deteriorating. RICHARD: As I intimately know, via first-hand experience, that what [quote] ‘seems’ [endquote] to you to be happening has no existence outside of your intuitive/ imaginative facility then your sincerity is entirely misplaced. CO-RESPONDENT: No mad man would agree that he is mad, non? RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following (so as to refresh your memory as to just what particular type of crazy person my co-respondent, in all their sincerity, has chosen to pick on):
That term (popularly known as ‘psychopath’) properly refers to a person with an ‘Antisocial Personality
Disorder’ who, according to the DSM-IV Now, whilst copyright regulations preclude me from publicly listing those twenty-two criteria, it would not
have taken anyone with access to the internet very long at all to determine for themself that, as it is patently obvious that what
[quote] ‘seems’ [endquote] to my co-respondent to be happening most certainly has no existence outside of their intuitive/
imaginative facility, their sincerity is indeed entirely misplaced ... yet it would not be at all surprising if it turns out that
you did not do such an elementary thing as that before reaching for your keyboard to type out your latest load of hogwash CO-RESPONDENT: Do you talk like this in live interactions as well? RESPONDENT: Most probably does ... RICHARD: As it was you who kicked-off that entire interpretative-not-literalistic approach to my
words, which has been a feature of the majority of the posts to this mailing list since then, this is an apt place as any to
enquire as to whether you too interact, in-person, the same way you do here ... which is, essentially, to disregard/ discount what
another actually has to say and palter on In case that is not clear enough: were you to talk to me, in-person, the way you do in print there is no [quote] ‘most probably does’ [endquote] about it ... I most certainly would talk like this as the same or similar is nothing new to me. For example:
RESPONDENT (to Richard): My interpretation, by the way you correspond (steamroll/ verbally attack), is that peace on earth is no where to be found in your correspondence. You are just another vain ego up on your pedestal imagining your own subjective interpretation (and that is all it can ever be, verbal or otherwise) is the final arbiter, and the interpretations of your correspondents amount to jack shit. RESPONDENT No. 60: So many of us see the same thing, and have for years. I’m sure we’ve all wondered many times whether it was just us, or whether there was really something there to see. How could we all be imagining this? (...) (...) CO-RESPONDENT (to Richard): Do you talk like this in live interactions as well? RESPONDENT: Most probably does ... RICHARD: As it was you who kicked-off that entire interpretative-not-literalistic approach to my words, which has been a feature of the majority of the posts to this mailing list since then, this is an apt place as any to enquire as to whether you too interact, in-person, the same way you do here ... which is, essentially, to disregard/ discount what another actually has to say and palter on about the only thing you are interested in discussing (fabrications and trumpery which rest upon no evidence whatsoever but rely solely upon intuition and imagination). In case that is not clear enough: were you to talk to me, in-person, the way you do in print there is no [quote] ‘most probably does’ [endquote] about it ... I most certainly would talk like this as the same or similar is nothing new to me. For example:
RESPONDENT: No point in replying. RICHARD: That is because there was no point in launching your interpretative-not-literalistic approach
to my words in the first place ... and to think it all began with such a simple thing as me asking my co-respondent three more
straightforward questions, in the context of three previously answered straightforward questions, so as to elicit affirmation that
such a summary is cogent before proceeding Not that they ever did answer the questions actually asked, of course, but as it is not their integrity which is currently under the spotlight that is neither here nor there at this stage.
CO-RESPONDENT: At a raw food potluck, after someone asked me ‘what percent raw’ are you, and me answering that I’m neither vegan (I eat meat) nor a raw foodist (I eat cooked and raw food), I was dubbed a ‘cooked foodist’. That really clarified the whole ‘ist’ furphy even more for me. All of us who drive to work are ‘drivists’ etc . All us who eat are ‘foodists’. This shows that a ‘ist’ truly does not have to involve any dogma or belief whatsoever (of course, any sensible person already knows that, but I still found this little incident interesting nonetheless). A ‘ist’ can simply be an activity one does. Such as a actualist – ie one who applies attentiveness with the pure intent to end malice and sorrow in themselves. RICHARD: Copy-paste the following into the search-engine box at www.onelook.com/ ... the entire range, from abacist (a person who makes calculations with an abacus), to zymurgist (a person who studies the chemical process of fermentation in brewing and distilling) runs into the thousands:
There is the occasional oddity ... for example:
Even though it is probably nothing more than the Oxford Dons just having an off-day, when they penned that definition, I cannot resist ... I hereby declare myself to be an unabacist/ an unzymurgist. RESPONDENT: = conceptualist RICHARD: = (nonce-word) neologist.
CORRESPONDENT No. 87 (Part Three) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
