|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 96
Continued from Mailing List AF, No. 44 RESPONDENT: Can you people verify what this man called Richard is saying? RICHARD: What this man called Richard is saying can verified by recalling a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – which authentication is the only verification worthy of the name – just as he has made abundantly clear on the home page of his portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site for anyone to read. Viz.:
So as to forestall an obvious question the following may be well worth re-posting:
RESPONDENT: He can be right or scizophrenic. RICHARD: There are two main ways the word ‘schizophrenic’ is used. For some examples:
As only a psychiatrist – who, unlike a psychologist, is a medical doctor as well – has the necessary professional qualifications to make a diagnosis of schizophrenia (and who would be able to spell the word correctly) it is reasonable to assume you are referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word. As it is you who makes the allegation it behoves you to either substantiate your contention, with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions, or withdraw it unconditionally. RESPONDENT: How can you ever know? RICHARD: In a word: experientially. RESPONDENT: Try to repeat the experiment, but the failure will be bitter. RICHARD: If you could provide some details of how you went about trying to repeat what the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago did – such as how long you tried it for (that identity did it, night and day, for eleven years), how sincere and dedicated your trying was (that identity was utterly sincere and totally dedicated), how pure your intent was to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth to be apparent (that identity’s intent was completely pure), and so on and so forth – it should shed some light upon ... (1) why you failed ... and (2) why your failure was bitter. If you do not provide such details your above comment will be treated as being the rhetoric it quite probably is. RESPONDENT: Is he one authority? RICHARD: He is indeed ... for as far as it is possible to ascertain there is nobody else actually free from the human condition.
RESPONDENT No. 90: I’ve got the horrible feeling you might be right, that I might just be refining the art of asking a pointless question. Nevertheless I would appreciate several examples of the modus operandi in action on this mailing list ... RICHARD: Just for starters: [No. 90]: ‘If the universe is experiencing itself through this flesh and
blood body ... [Richard]: ‘If I may interject? The universe experiences itself as this flesh and blood body (and the distinction
is not trivial). [No. 90]: ‘... and if actual pleasure comes from just being that experience without possession or identity,
doesn’t it follow that the end of the flesh and blood body leaves behind something which continues in some way to experience
itself (in other forms)? [Richard]: ‘No. [No. 90]: ‘*But why?* [emphasis added]. * [No. 90]: ‘And if that, is it not
possible to say that in some way ‘I’ continue after the flesh and blood body dies? [Richard]: ‘No. [No. 90]: ‘*But why?*
[emphasis added]. * [Respondent No. 90]: ‘I don’t mean ‘I’ as a psychic or spiritual entity, a ‘realised state’,
rather ‘the universe experiencing itself’ continues; ‘the experience of this’ that is actually known remains. [Richard]:
‘No. [No. 90]: ‘*But why?* [emphasis added]. [No. 90]: ‘Please don’t just say ‘no’. Tell me how no. [Richard]:
‘I never did just say ‘no’ in that initial exchange ... I went on to immediately tell you (now sequentially further below)
how the way you mean ‘I’ cannot possibly be in some way said to continue after the flesh and blood body dies. I will put it
all back in its original sequence for your convenience: ... [snip all but the last sentence of the re-presented sequence] ...
[Richard]: ‘No ... all I am saying is that at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as
this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to
experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms’. [endquote]. Do you now see that I have already told you how no?
[endquote]. Just so there is no misunderstanding: you intercalated those three highlighted ‘but-whys’ the second-time around
... they were not in the initial exchange. RESPONDENT: What a stupidity Mr. Richard to comment about a state that you don’t know and you never been. RICHARD: Just what [quote] ‘stupidity’ [endquote] is there in me explaining that, at the death of this flesh and blood body, the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms? Before you respond I will draw your attention to the fact that 99.00% of the mass of an average human body is made up of just six elements – oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), nitrogen (3%), calcium (1.5%) and phosphorus (1.0%) – with potassium (0.35%), sulphur (0.25%), sodium (0.15%), magnesium (0.05%), copper, zinc, selenium, molybdenum, fluorine, chlorine, iodine, manganese, cobalt, iron (0.70%) and trace amounts of lithium, strontium, aluminium, silicon, lead, vanadium, arsenic and bromine constituting the bulk of the remaining 1.0%. RESPONDENT: You are speaking about what will happen after the body dies. RICHARD: Indeed I am ... at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will most certainly not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: How do you know? RICHARD: By it being patently obvious that at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: Does not exist for you the ‘I don’t know?’ RICHARD: It most certainly does not exist in regards to whether or not the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will continue in some way, at the death of this flesh and blood body, by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms.
(...) RESPONDENT: What a stupidity Mr. Richard to comment about a state that you don’t know and you never been. RICHARD: Just what [quote] ‘stupidity’ [endquote] is there in me explaining that, at the death of this flesh and blood body, the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms? Before you respond I will draw your attention to the fact that 99.00% of the mass of an average human body is made up of just six elements – oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), nitrogen (3%), calcium (1.5%) and phosphorus (1.0%) – with potassium (0.35%), sulphur (0.25%), sodium (0.15%), magnesium (0.05%), copper, zinc, selenium, molybdenum, fluorine, chlorine, iodine, manganese, cobalt, iron (0.70%) and trace amounts of lithium, strontium, aluminium, silicon, lead, vanadium, arsenic and bromine constituting the bulk of the remaining 1.0%. RESPONDENT: You are speaking about what will happen after the body dies. RICHARD: Indeed I am ... at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will most certainly not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: How do you know? RICHARD: By it being patently obvious that at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: Does not exist for you the ‘I don’t know?’ RICHARD: It most certainly does not exist in regards to whether or not the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will continue in some way, at the death of this flesh and blood body, by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: So Mr. Richard, if we place in a bottle the elements you mention we will create a human being? RICHARD: This is an apt moment to point out that were you to have subscribed to this mailing list in order to have a typical religionist/ spiritualist versus humanist/ rationalist debate you would have been wasting the only indubitably non-renewable resource you have at your disposal ... your time. RESPONDENT: You equated a human being with a cake? RICHARD: As you have just frittered away another vital opportunity to engage in genuine discussion it is apposite to point out that, just like any other living creature, you are but a missed heart-beat or two away from death each moment again. RESPONDENT: One teaspoon of this and a teaspoon of that? RICHARD: As that, your third prefatory question in a row, is nothing other than a rhetorical device to launch your exclamatory inference (immediately below) from it is becoming increasingly obvious just what it is that you have subscribed to this mailing list for. RESPONDENT: What a naivety!!!!!!!!! RICHARD: As that hyperbole serves no other purpose than to lend a pseudological legitimacy to your inaccurate summing-up (immediately below) it may as well be left to just sit there, in all its tawdry glamour, for a more useful purpose ... that of sober reflection, at a later date mayhap, upon the consequences of missed opportunities. RESPONDENT: This for sure happens for the first time on earth and in human history. RICHARD: Here is a notion for you: why not to cut to the chase now and be up-front about just what god/ goddess it is, that you favour as being the creator of human beings, rather than needlessly waste more time? It sure would save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails.
RESPONDENT: Can you people verify what this man called Richard is saying? RICHARD: What this man called Richard is saying can verified by recalling a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – which authentication is the only verification worthy of the name – just as he has made abundantly clear on the home page of his portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site for anyone to read. Viz.: [Richard]: ‘I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name)’. [endquote]. So as to forestall an obvious question the following may be well worth re-posting: [Co-Respondent]: ‘Before one can investigate beliefs, morals, etc does there have to be a recalled memory of a PCE? [Richard]: ‘No, there is sufficient information presented on The Actual Freedom Trust web site to establish a prima facie case worthy of further investigation – rather than capricious dismissal – which examination may very well induce recall ... or a fresh pure consciousness experience (PCE). The PCE enables one to know, for oneself, that actualism is not a philosophy’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: He can be right or scizophrenic. RICHARD: There are two main ways the word ‘schizophrenic’ is used. For some examples: ‘schizophrenic: 1. (psychiatry) characteristic of or having schizophrenia; 2 (transf. & fig.) characterised by mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements, attitudes, etc’. (Oxford Dictionary). ‘schizophrenic: 1. of, relating to, or affected with schizophrenia; 2. of, relating to, or characterised by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements’. (American Heritage® Dictionary). ‘schizophrenic: 1. of schizophrenia: relating to or resulting from schizophrenia; 2. offensive term: an offensive term meaning characterised by conflicts and contradictions (insult)’. (Encarta Dictionary). As only a psychiatrist – who, unlike a psychologist, is a medical doctor as well – has the necessary professional qualifications to make a diagnosis of schizophrenia (and who would be able to spell the word correctly) it is reasonable to assume you are referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word. As it is you who makes the allegation it behoves you to either substantiate your contention, with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions, or withdraw it unconditionally.RESPONDENT: The fact that I spelled the word scizophrenic instead of schizophrenic, does not change the fact or the meaning. RICHARD: That is what is known as a ‘straw-man’ argument (wherein a respondent invents something neither said nor implied and then answers their own invention as if they are having a meaningful discussion) ... the above is simply an explanation as to why it is reasonable to assume you are referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word. Besides which it would take a rash psychiatrist indeed to make a diagnosis by e-mail, anyway. RESPONDENT: The word schizophrenic is not the fact of shizophreny. RICHARD: And your allegation is not the fact of mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions, either, until you substantiate your contention with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates it to be so. RESPONDENT: The word book is not the book. RICHARD: Neither is the word allegation ... yet the allegation itself still sits there, still unsubstantiated, looking even more silly than the first time around as this opportunity to substantiate it with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates what is being communicated gets frittered away on grade-school semantics. RESPONDENT: Is just a symbol for communicating. RICHARD: Indeed ... and what you are communicating has no validity unless you substantiate it with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions. RESPONDENT: So why are you so much bothering about the spelling? RICHARD: Oh, it is no bother at all to point out that somebody with the necessary professional qualifications to make such a diagnosis would be able to spell the word correctly ... just as it is not a bother to point out that you have yet to either substantiate your contention, with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions, or withdraw it unconditionally. It is your call.
RESPONDENT: Can you people verify what this man called Richard is saying? RICHARD: What this man called Richard is saying can verified by recalling a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – which authentication is the only verification worthy of the name – just as he has made abundantly clear on the home page of his portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site for anyone to read. Viz.: [Richard]: ‘I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name)’. [endquote]. So as to forestall an obvious question the following may be well worth re-posting: [Co-Respondent]: ‘Before one can investigate beliefs, morals, etc does there have to be a recalled memory of a PCE? [Richard]: ‘No, there is sufficient information presented on The Actual Freedom Trust web site to establish a prima facie case worthy of further investigation – rather than capricious dismissal – which examination may very well induce recall ... or a fresh pure consciousness experience (PCE). The PCE enables one to know, for oneself, that actualism is not a philosophy’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: He can be right or scizophrenic. RICHARD: There are two main ways the word ‘schizophrenic’ is used. For some examples: ‘schizophrenic: 1. (psychiatry) characteristic of or having schizophrenia; 2 (transf. & fig.) characterised by mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements, attitudes, etc’. (Oxford Dictionary). ‘schizophrenic: 1. of, relating to, or affected with schizophrenia; 2. of, relating to, or characterised by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements’. (American Heritage® Dictionary). ‘schizophrenic: 1. of schizophrenia: relating to or resulting from schizophrenia; 2. offensive term: an offensive term meaning characterised by conflicts and contradictions (insult)’. (Encarta Dictionary). As only a psychiatrist – who, unlike a psychologist, is a medical doctor as well – has the necessary professional qualifications to make a diagnosis of schizophrenia (and who would be able to spell the word correctly) it is reasonable to assume you are referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word. As it is you who makes the allegation it behoves you to either substantiate your contention, with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions, or withdraw it unconditionally.RESPONDENT: I don’t want to play games with you. RICHARD: Yet, even so, you still go ahead and do so anyway, eh? RESPONDENT: I am Psychiatrist. RICHARD: Well then ... on what two (or more) of the ‘Criterion A’ symptoms specified in the DSM IV-TR do you (rashly) base your e-mail diagnosis that this man called Richard can be schizophrenic? RESPONDENT: You said that a psychiatrist will know how to spell the word schizofrenic. But because I am Italian, I can misspell many words. RICHARD: Hmm ... in what way is the word spelt in Italiano, then? RESPONDENT: I wonder though how you could not find that through your’s so called PCE’s? RICHARD: First of all PCE’s are not [quote] ‘so called’ [endquote] – they are indeed called PCE’s – and, secondly, only an identity can have a PCE and, lastly, a PCE does not bestow omniscience. RESPONDENT: Do you see your stupidity? RICHARD: As that falls into the category known as ‘the fallacy of many questions’ (as in the classic ‘have you lost your horns’ and the more popular ‘have you stopped beating your spouse’ examples) your query cannot be answered as-is. RESPONDENT: I am not crude, I describe you as you are. RICHARD: The word crude is not what immediately leaps to mind upon reading the way you describe somebody ... it is the word pathetic which does. Meanwhile, back to the topic at hand, as it is you who (rashly) makes the diagnosis it behoves you to either validate your determination, with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates those two (or more) ‘Criterion A’ symptoms specified in the DSM IV-TR, or withdraw it unconditionally. Over to you.
RESPONDENT: What a stupidity Mr. Richard to comment about a state that you don’t know and you never been. RICHARD: Just what [quote] ‘stupidity’ [endquote] is there in me explaining that, at the death of this flesh and blood body, the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms? Before you respond I will draw your attention to the fact that 99.00% of the mass of an average human body is made up of just six elements – oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), nitrogen (3%), calcium (1.5%) and phosphorus (1.0%) – with potassium (0.35%), sulphur (0.25%), sodium (0.15%), magnesium (0.05%), copper, zinc, selenium, molybdenum, fluorine, chlorine, iodine, manganese, cobalt, iron (0.70%) and trace amounts of lithium, strontium, aluminium, silicon, lead, vanadium, arsenic and bromine constituting the bulk of the remaining 1.0%. RESPONDENT: You are speaking about what will happen after the body dies. RICHARD: Indeed I am ... at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will most certainly not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: How do you know? RICHARD: By it being patently obvious that at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: Does not exist for you the ‘I don’t know?’ RICHARD: It most certainly does not exist in regards to whether or not the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will continue in some way, at the death of this flesh and blood body, by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: Can you Mr. Richard show me one example that the ‘I don’t know’ exist for you? RICHARD: Sure ... here:
RESPONDENT: Please search all your correspondence. RICHARD: There was no need to – that example of not knowing something was posted only eleven days ago – plus you may find the following informative:
RICHARD: In 1985 I had the first of many experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment (as described in ‘A Brief Personal History’ on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust web site) and it had the character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was experienced at the time – and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism). Thus I knew even before becoming actually free that this condition was entirely new to human experience while still alive ...... furthermore, in the ensuing years, as I proceeded to penetrate deeper and deeper into the state of being known as spiritual enlightenment, the psychic footprints, as it were, of those who had explored some of the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself gradually became less and less in number and finally petered out altogether leaving only virgin territory wherever the (psychic) eye would look. (...) RESPONDENT: Consider this. Someone had the same experience with you, and he did not wrote about this in the net. RICHARD: To whom are you referring (that had the same experience)? RESPONDENT: How you claim the exclusivity about this for yourself? RICHARD: The records show you wrote your first e-mail to this mailing list only 10 hours and 26
minutes after I posted the following e-mail: If there is some part of that e-mail you do not comprehend you may very well find what you are looking for at
the following URL: RESPONDENT: May I ask you are you using drugs? RICHARD: I will refer you to the following:
RESPONDENT: Inside or outside? Because the brain can produce drugs by itself. RICHARD: What brain-produced drugs do you have in mind (no pun intended)?
RESPONDENT: Can you people verify what this man called Richard is saying? RICHARD: What this man called Richard is saying can verified by recalling a pure consciousness
experience (PCE) – which authentication is the only verification worthy of the name – just as he has made abundantly clear on
the home page of his portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site for anyone to read. Viz.: [Richard]: ‘I invite anyone to make
a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are
all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have
reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by
direct experience the facticity of what is written (which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name)’.
[endquote]. So as to forestall an obvious question the following may be well worth re-posting: [Co-Respondent]: ‘Before one can
investigate beliefs, morals, etc does there have to be a recalled memory of a PCE? [Richard]: ‘No, there is sufficient
information presented on The Actual Freedom Trust web site to establish a prima facie case worthy of further investigation –
rather than capricious dismissal – which examination may very well induce recall ... or a fresh pure consciousness experience
(PCE). The PCE enables one to know, for oneself, that actualism is not a philosophy’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: He can be right or scizophrenic. RICHARD: There are two main ways the word ‘schizophrenic’ is used. For some examples: ‘schizophrenic: 1. (psychiatry) characteristic of or having schizophrenia; 2 (transf. & fig.) characterised by mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements, attitudes, etc’. (Oxford Dictionary). ‘schizophrenic: 1. of, relating to, or affected with schizophrenia; 2. of, relating to, or characterised by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements’. (American Heritage® Dictionary). ‘schizophrenic: 1. of schizophrenia: relating to or resulting from schizophrenia; 2. offensive term: an offensive term meaning characterised by conflicts and contradictions (insult)’. (Encarta Dictionary). As only a psychiatrist – who, unlike a psychologist, is a medical doctor as well – has the necessary professional qualifications to make a diagnosis of schizophrenia (and who would be able to spell the word correctly) it is reasonable to assume you are referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word. As it is you who makes the allegation it behoves you to either substantiate your contention, with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions, or withdraw it unconditionally. RESPONDENT: The fact that I spelled the word scizophrenic instead of schizophrenic, does not change the fact or the meaning. RICHARD: That is what is known as a ‘straw-man’ argument (wherein a respondent invents something neither said nor implied and then answers their own invention as if they are having a meaningful discussion) ... the above is simply an explanation as to why it is reasonable to assume you are referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word. Besides which it would take a rash psychiatrist indeed to make a diagnosis by e-mail, anyway. RESPONDENT: The word schizophrenic is not the fact of shizophreny. RICHARD: And your allegation is not the fact of mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions, either, until you substantiate your contention with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates it to be so. RESPONDENT: The word book is not the book. RICHARD: Neither is the word allegation ... yet the allegation itself still sits there, still unsubstantiated, looking even more silly than the first time around as this opportunity to substantiate it with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates what is being communicated gets frittered away on grade-school semantics. RESPONDENT: Is just a symbol for communicating. RICHARD: Indeed ... and what you are communicating has no validity unless you substantiate it with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions. RESPONDENT: So why are you so much bothering about the spelling? RICHARD: Oh, it is no bother at all to point out that somebody with the necessary professional qualifications to make such a diagnosis would be able to spell the word correctly ... just as it is not a bother to point out that you have yet to either substantiate your contention, with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions, or withdraw it unconditionally. * RESPONDENT: I don’t want to play games with you. RICHARD: Yet, even so, you still go ahead and do so anyway, eh? RESPONDENT: I am Psychiatrist. RICHARD: Well then ... on what two (or more) of the ‘Criterion A’ symptoms specified in the DSM IV-TR do you (rashly) base your e-mail diagnosis that this man called Richard can be schizophrenic? RESPONDENT: You said that a psychiatrist will know how to spell the word schizofrenic. But because I am Italian, I can misspell many words. RICHARD: Hmm ... in what way is the word spelt in Italiano, then? RESPONDENT: Cool down. RICHARD: Ha ... it is winter here, on this part of the planet, and a gentle rain is softly falling all about. RESPONDENT: The word in Italiano is ‘scizofrenia’. RICHARD: If I may point out? The word in question is schizophrenic (‘schizofrenico’, or ‘schizofrenica’, in Italiano) ... not schizophrenia (‘schizofrenia’ in Italiano). RESPONDENT: Everybody can see one camouflaged anger in your email ... RICHARD: Not even a duly qualified psychiatrist can be cognisant of what [quote] ‘everybody’ [endquote] can see in my e-mail. RESPONDENT: ... [Everybody can see one camouflaged anger in your email] which is not in accord with the person you claim to be. RICHARD: As camouflaged anger is not one of the two (or more) ‘Criterion A’ symptoms specified in the DSM IV-TR, for a professional diagnosis of being schizophrenic, perhaps you might care to try again? RESPONDENT: May be narcissistic personality disorder? RICHARD: Am I to take it that you have all-of-a-sudden changed your mind? If so, on what five (or more) of the symptoms specified in the DSM IV-TR do you (rashly) base your e-mail diagnosis that Narcissistic Personality Disorder may be indicated? Before you reach for the keyboard again the following is well worth bearing in mind:
RESPONDENT: Can you people verify what this man called Richard is saying? RICHARD: What this man called Richard is saying can verified by recalling a pure consciousness
experience (PCE) – which authentication is the only verification worthy of the name – just as he has made abundantly clear on
the home page of his portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site for anyone to read. Viz.: [Richard]: ‘I invite anyone to make
a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are
all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have
reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by
direct experience the facticity of what is written (which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name)’.
[endquote]. So as to forestall an obvious question the following may be well worth re-posting: [Co-Respondent]: ‘Before one can
investigate beliefs, morals, etc does there have to be a recalled memory of a PCE? [Richard]: ‘No, there is sufficient
information presented on The Actual Freedom Trust web site to establish a prima facie case worthy of further investigation –
rather than capricious dismissal – which examination may very well induce recall ... or a fresh pure consciousness experience
(PCE). The PCE enables one to know, for oneself, that actualism is not a philosophy’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: He can be right or scizophrenic. RICHARD: There are two main ways the word ‘schizophrenic’ is used. For some examples: ‘schizophrenic: 1. (psychiatry) characteristic of or having schizophrenia; 2 (transf. & fig.) characterised by mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements, attitudes, etc’. (Oxford Dictionary). ‘schizophrenic: 1. of, relating to, or affected with schizophrenia; 2. of, relating to, or characterised by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements’. (American Heritage® Dictionary). ‘schizophrenic: 1. of schizophrenia: relating to or resulting from schizophrenia; 2. offensive term: an offensive term meaning characterised by conflicts and contradictions (insult)’. (Encarta Dictionary). As only a psychiatrist – who, unlike a psychologist, is a medical doctor as well – has the necessary professional qualifications to make a diagnosis of schizophrenia (and who would be able to spell the word correctly) it is reasonable to assume you are referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word. As it is you who makes the allegation it behoves you to either substantiate your contention, with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions, or withdraw it unconditionally. RESPONDENT: The fact that I spelled the word scizophrenic instead of schizophrenic, does not change the fact or the meaning. RICHARD: That is what is known as a ‘straw-man’ argument (wherein a respondent invents something neither said nor implied and then answers their own invention as if they are having a meaningful discussion) ... the above is simply an explanation as to why it is reasonable to assume you are referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word. Besides which it would take a rash psychiatrist indeed to make a diagnosis by e-mail, anyway. RESPONDENT: The word schizophrenic is not the fact of shizophreny. RICHARD: And your allegation is not the fact of mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions, either, until you substantiate your contention with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates it to be so. RESPONDENT: The word book is not the book. RICHARD: Neither is the word allegation ... yet the allegation itself still sits there, still unsubstantiated, looking even more silly than the first time around as this opportunity to substantiate it with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates what is being communicated gets frittered away on grade-school semantics. RESPONDENT: Is just a symbol for communicating. RICHARD: Indeed ... and what you are communicating has no validity unless you substantiate it with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions. RESPONDENT: So why are you so much bothering about the spelling? RICHARD: Oh, it is no bother at all to point out that somebody with the necessary professional qualifications to make such a diagnosis would be able to spell the word correctly ... just as it is not a bother to point out that you have yet to either substantiate your contention, with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions, or withdraw it unconditionally. * RESPONDENT: I don’t want to play games with you. RICHARD: Yet, even so, you still go ahead and do so anyway, eh? RESPONDENT: I am Psychiatrist. RICHARD: Well then ... on what two (or more) of the ‘Criterion A’ symptoms specified in the DSM IV-TR do you (rashly) base your e-mail diagnosis that this man called Richard can be schizophrenic? RESPONDENT: You said that a psychiatrist will know how to spell the word schizofrenic. But because I am Italian, I can misspell many words. RICHARD: Hmm ... in what way is the word spelt in Italiano, then? RESPONDENT: Cool down. RICHARD: Ha ... it is winter here, on this part of the planet, and a gentle rain is softly falling all about. RESPONDENT: The word in Italiano is ‘scizofrenia’. RICHARD: If I may point out? The word in question is schizophrenic (‘schizofrenico’, or ‘schizofrenica’, in Italiano) ... not schizophrenia (‘schizofrenia’ in Italiano). RESPONDENT: Everybody can see one camouflaged anger in your email ... RICHARD: Not even a duly qualified psychiatrist can be cognisant of what [quote] ‘everybody’ [endquote] can see in my e-mail. RESPONDENT: ... [Everybody can see one camouflaged anger in your email] which is not in accord with the person you claim to be. RICHARD: As camouflaged anger is not one of the two (or more) ‘Criterion A’ symptoms specified in the DSM IV-TR, for a professional diagnosis of being schizophrenic, perhaps you might care to try again? RESPONDENT: May be narcissistic personality disorder? RICHARD: Am I to take it that you have all-of-a-sudden changed your mind? If so, on what five (or more) of the symptoms specified in the DSM IV-TR do you (rashly) base your e-mail diagnosis that Narcissistic Personality Disorder may be indicated? Before you reach for the keyboard again the following is well worth bearing in mind: [Respondent]: ‘I don’t want to play games with you’. [endquote]. * RESPONDENT: Can everybody understand the difference between a person with love and the cruel psychopath named Richard? RICHARD: As you have changed your diagnosis for a third time it is apposite to point out that the vague term [quote] ‘psychopath’ [endquote] has long been replaced by the name ‘Antisocial Personality Disorder’ (aka ‘sociopath’). If that is indeed what you are now (rashly) diagnosing by e-mail then on what three (or more) of the symptoms
specified in the DSM IV-TR
RESPONDENT: Dear friends, here we have to dill with a strwnge phenomenon. Mr. Richard is saying that his was enlightened and he thought he was the parussia.In his own words. Then he met another person that was saying he was the parussia as well, and he said is impossible to be two parussias. Is like some craisy in the mental hospital saying he is Napoleon the grait and then he founds another one saying he is also Napoleon the grait.,so is not possible to be two Napoleons.....I have read about many so called enlightened persons, but nobody said I am Jessus or, this or that. The person, Mr. Richard was in halussination. I think nobody who read about Krishnamurti, Nisargadatta Maharaj etc, nobody said I am this or that. He (Mr. Richard) claims that he was enligntened for so many years,but he was just in one self deciving, halussinating state. RICHARD: You may find a kindred soul at the following URL: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=910415321 Just in case you cannot access that link the essence of it is as follows: (Respondent No. 44, Thursday 15/07/2004 7:19 AM AEST). (see 
Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 68c, 24 August 2005).
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 |
