Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

August 24 2005

RESPONDENT: I would like to point out that while there is a lot of talk of actual freedom being practical it is certainly not clear.

RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list ... I am only too happy to clarify that which you do not find clear.

RESPONDENT: PCE’s are said to be necessary at the start.

RICHARD: You are, presumably, referring to this (reposted only recently):

• [Richard]: ‘... I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. What one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are 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.
Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 12d, 23 November 2000).

RESPONDENT: Other places I have read that they are not, that actually dismantling the social identity could trigger one.

RICHARD: You are, presumably, referring to something like this:

• [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’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 38, 14 December 2002a).

RESPONDENT: That is not clear.

RICHARD: In the above exchange I was asked a specific question – whether there has to be a recalled memory of a PCE before beliefs, morals, etcetera, can be investigated – so I gave a specific answer in the negative (that there does not have to be a recalled memory of a PCE before beliefs, morals, etcetera, can be investigated) plus a reason why (there being sufficient information presented on The Actual Freedom Trust web site to establish a prima facie case worthy of further investigation rather than capricious dismissal) and a possible outcome (that such an examination may very well induce either recall or a fresh PCE ... adding that the PCE enables one to know, for oneself, that actualism is not a philosophy

RESPONDENT: Richard on a past post told someone he had been wrong about PCE’s being necessary.

RICHARD: You are, presumably, referring to this:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘(...) I am still struggling with some of the stuff, as I don’t clearly recall a PCE; but I am getting the feeling of well-being which is so good – which is a direct result of having freed myself from a lot of insidious emotions – the freeing of which allows me to enjoy this moment; I think I have reached a point of no-reversal in the sense that my doubts are not powerful enough now to negate my progress and experiential as well as intellectual understanding I have made of the actualism. (...).
• [Richard]: ‘Feedback such as this [snipped to its essentials for brevity] is much appreciated ... especially in view of the following (the very last words we exchanged 16 months ago): [Respondent]: ‘Where I am coming from is a ‘PCE’ less investigation – till I have a or/or know that I have one/or understand what it is ... still working on the ‘prima facie’ case :) [Richard]: ‘Okay ... I am interested to see how much you can comprehend of what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Web Page without recalling and/or having a PCE as an actual freedom from the human condition is unimaginable, inconceivable and unbelievable. It has to be lived to be known as an actuality’. [endquote]. I have always maintained that a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – or the recollection of such a moment of perfection – is essential in comprehending and putting into practice what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... and I am so pleased to see that this may not necessarily be the case’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 30, 16 November 20003.

RESPONDENT: That is a big whoops if you ask me.

RICHARD: I will indeed ask you ... what [quote] ‘big whoops’ [endquote] is it that you see in me being pleased that it *may not necessarily be the case* that a PCE – or the recollection of such a moment of perfection – is essential in comprehending and putting into practice what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site (peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as a flesh and blood body)?

RESPONDENT: I do not think that a PCE is necessary for one to break down ones social conditioning, identity and even investigate the instinctual passions.

RICHARD: Am I to take it that you have been able to break down your social conditioning, identity and even investigate the instinctual passions without recalling such a moment of perfection?

RESPONDENT: Has anyone else noticed discrepancies on this issue?

RICHARD: Just what [quote] ‘discrepancies’ [endquote] are you referring to?

RESPONDENT: What the hell can a memory of a PCE accomplish.

RICHARD: Just for starters ... knowing for oneself, experientially, just what it is that is reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust web site.

RESPONDENT: Some people have bad memories.

RICHARD: Am I to take it that you have a bad memory?

RESPONDENT: Some don’t know if they have are not.

RICHARD: Am I to take it that you do not know if you have are not?

RESPONDENT: This is the most abstract and difficult part for me to understand.

RESPONDENT: I can see clearly the other parts of actualism but this seems strange.

RICHARD: What other parts of actualism can you see clearly?

August 25 2005

RESPONDENT No. 96: 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: [snip link]. Just in case you cannot access that link the essence of it is as follows: ‘(...) AF for me is the product of a failing enlightenment. Richard wrote me that he was the ‘parousia’and met another that was in the same state, so he thought two can not be Jesus and gave up. It reminds me of a person that things he is Napoleon the grate and meets another person, who things he is Napoleon as well and the most logical of them gives up. Was the state Richard was, one enlighened state? Or one religious psychosis? Till now, when I was reading about enlightenment, I never found one to be Jesus, unless he was in a state of psychosis, because that is what the Greek word ‘parousia’means,the second representation of Jesus. That means he was not enlightened. He is lucky he escaped the psychosis’. [endquote]. (Respondent No. 44, Thursday 15/07/2004 7:19 AM AEST). (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 96, 24 August 2005a).

RESPONDENT: Richard, you thought you were Jesus when you were enlightened?

RICHARD: Another co-respondent gained a similar misconstruction from reading only the above quote. Viz.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... Richard himself destroyed all his writings during his enlightenment time, that is, when he thought to be the Paraclete (an appellation of the Holy Ghost).
• [Richard]: ‘If you could provide the text, with an appropriate reference, wherein Richard said he thought to be the Paraclete – a god spiritually, as distinct from fleshly, active in the world – for the eleven years 1981 to 1992 it would be most appreciated.
Incidentally, Richard burnt all what he had written, in that period, post-enlightenment/ awakenment ... not during’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 89a, 13 May 2005).

The word Parousia – ‘Greek = presence (of persons), from pareinai be present’ (Oxford Dictionary) – in Christian Theology, and as distinct from the word Paraclete, refers to the Second Advent (aka the second coming) of the Christ (aka the Anointed One) on earth and is derived from the Latin ‘Christus’, from the Greek ‘Khristos’ (meaning ‘anointed’), from ‘khriein’ (anoint), as a translation from the Hebrew ‘masiah’ (Messiah) and refers to ‘The Messiah or Lord’s Anointed of Jewish tradition’ according to the Oxford Dictionary.

I mention all this because ... no, I did not think I was Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene when I was enlightened.

RESPONDENT: If you don’t won’t to recount the whole thing could you just point me to a place where this is discussed on the site?

RICHARD: Here is where the above beat-up stems from:

• [Richard]: ‘If you were to re-read what you have quoted (further above) you will see that it is [quote] ‘an emotional play in a fertile imagination’ [endquote] which is fuelled by an actual hormonal substance ... and there is no way that an emotional play in a fertile imagination is, as you make out, actual (as in your ‘and are actual’ conclusion).
To give an obvious example: for about a week, in the early days of being enlightened, I was ‘The Parousia’ and it was not until I met another person who was similarly afflicted that it dawned upon me it was but an emotional play in a fertile imagination ... there was sufficient rationality operating to comprehend there could not be two (simultaneous) manifestations of the ‘Second Coming’.
Incidentally, this other person was far more deluded than I was ... they had manifested the typical stigmata’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44g, 8 July 2004a).

And that is it, in its entirety, written to a person on record as saying they use Greek in their everyday vocabulary.

So as to clarify this whole business I will re-post the following:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘What do you make of Krishnamurti’s dying statement that a great energy used his body and such an energy will not re-appear for many years?
• [Richard]: ‘He was accurately and correctly reporting his experience. That Christianity has their Parousia; that Buddhism has their Maitreya; that Islam has their Mahdi; that Hinduism has their Kalki; that Judaism has their Messiah; that Taoism has their Kilin and so on all comes from the same type of experience.
It is part and parcel of being enlightened (‘I Am That’ or ‘That Thou Art’).
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Was he delusional by any chance?
• [Richard]: ‘All enlightened beings are deluded ... the altered state of consciousness (ASC) known as spiritual enlightenment is a delusional state. I am not ‘guru-bashing’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti per se ... it is the ASC itself I am targeting.
I can use the accredited writings of virtually any enlightened being to demonstrate my points’. (Richard, List B, No. 33d, 23 January 2001).

All what a person does, when they liken the enlightened/ awakened experience of being the Parousia, the Maitreya, the Mahdi, the Kalki, the Messiah, the Kilin, and so on, to a patient in a psychiatric ward thinking they be Mr. Napoleon Bonaparte (or Ms. Marie Antoinette or whoever), is to air their ignorance of matters transcendental in public.

It is not a strange (as in atypical) phenomenon at all.

September 02 2005

RESPONDENT: I was just reading Richards reasons for thinking that eating meat is harmless.

RICHARD: Or, more accurately, you were just selectively reading one part of an explanation of mine as to why vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians are essentially no different to pacifists ... to be superficially altering behavioural patterns is to be merely rearranging the deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’.

RESPONDENT: Bottom line for him I suppose is that it is not done out of malice.

RICHARD: Put simply: it is not violence per se (as in physical force/ restraint) or the potential for violence which is the problem: it is ‘me’, as the emotions and passions, fuelling the violence, or fuelling the potential for violence, who begets all the misery and mayhem. Violence itself (as in physical force/ restraint) is essential lest the bully-boys and feisty-femmes would rule the world. And if all 6.0 billion peoples were to become happy and harmless overnight (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation) it would still be essential lest the predator animals should have the human animal for its next meal. Yet even if all the predator animals were to cease being predatory (à la the ‘lion shall lay down with lamb’ ancient wisdom) it would still be essential if the crops in the field be not stripped bare by the insect world. And so on and so on: taking medication – even traditional medicine – does violence to a whole host of bacterial life; so too does drinking water as one drop contains many miniscule creatures; even breathing does violence as a breath of air contains untold numbers of microscopic life-forms.

RESPONDENT: The animals will be so happy to know.

RICHARD: This is just a waste of a sentence.

RESPONDENT: Also he goes on a big rant about how you are bound to kill things, and even vegetable must undergo distress when pulled from the earth. I have never heard a more obvious evasion of a question in my life. You don’t have to eat meat. No one is forcing you to. You don’t just walk down the street and accidentally kill animals, you choose to eat them or not.

RICHARD: Every time you breathe air, drink water, eat food, take a step, sneeze, and so on, something, somewhere (if only on the microscopic level) is being killed by you. Being alive as a creature means other creatures inevitably die ... I watched a fascinating video, some time back, of fantastic camera work on the microscopic level: a drop of dew from an early morning rose had at least 1,000-10,000 tiny shrimp-like and crab-like creatures in it all swimming around and multiplying and eating each other.

A dew drop, mind you.

September 03 2005

RESPONDENT: I was just reading Richards reasons for thinking that eating meat is harmless.

RICHARD: Or, more accurately, you were just selectively reading one part of an explanation of mine as to why vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians are essentially no different to pacifists ... to be superficially altering behavioural patterns is to be merely rearranging the deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’.

RESPONDENT: So.

RICHARD: So you have missed the central point of that explanation ... to wit: to be superficially altering behavioural patterns – just as in pacifism (aka non-violence/ ahimsa) – is but a bandaid solution ... to be treating the symptoms and not the disease itself.

RESPONDENT: They feel empathy (a dirty little emotion) for harmless animals that have not done anything to anyone and they do something about it.

RICHARD: As those animals, just like the human animal, are born with instinctual passions – such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – per favour blind nature they are not harmless … as you acknowledge (albeit en passant) further below. Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘… if an *angry* marsupial comes after you than I suppose it is only fair to pull out an oozy and get to it’. [emphasis added].

Incidentally, empathy is usually considered to be a positive (aka a ‘good’) emotion and not a negative (aka a ‘bad’) one.

RESPONDENT: I think it is you who are rearranging deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’ with these lame defences (something you don’t do) of your version of peace on earth and good will toward ... well man.

RICHARD: It is not my version of the hymnic ‘peace on earth/good will to all mankind’ which is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site at all: it is, rather, the already always existing peace-on-earth of this actual world – as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – where it is startling obvious that it be something which no amount of behavioural pattern alteration will ever bring about.

*

RESPONDENT: Bottom line for him I suppose is that it is not done out of malice.

RICHARD: Put simply: it is not violence per se (as in physical force/ restraint) or the potential for violence which is the problem: it is ‘me’, as the emotions and passions, fuelling the violence, or fuelling the potential for violence, who begets all the misery and mayhem. Violence itself (as in physical force/restraint) is essential lest the bully-boys and feisty-femmes would rule the world. And if all 6.0 billion peoples were to become happy and harmless overnight (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation) it would still be essential lest the predator animals should have the human animal for its next meal.

RESPONDENT: What did a kangaroo kick your ass or something.

RICHARD: As kangaroos are not predator animals your query is doubly-irrelevant (it being also non-germane whether or not one particular human animal has been subject to predation).

RESPONDENT: When is the last time an animal stalked you for it’s prey.

RICHARD: Again, whether such predation has happened to one human animal in particular, or not, is beside the point.

RESPONDENT: No one has said anything about self defence, this is entirely novel to the discussion thus far.

RICHARD: If I may point out? In that explanation of mine (as to why vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians are essentially no different to pacifists), which you were just selectively reading, there are at least three paragraphs regarding the question of self-defence. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) What will one do – as a fruitarian causing no pain or the taking of life of anyone or anything – about those pesky things like mosquitoes, sand-flies, cockroaches, rats, mice and other ‘vermin’ that invade my house? Put up screens? What about outside? Will I slap them dead ... or just shoo them away? What will one do if attacked by a snake, a crocodile, a shark, a lion and so on? Do as the revered scriptures say and turn the other cheek? Will I humbly submit to my fate and be mauled severely myself – or even killed – simply because of a religious injunction, a moral scruple, a noble ideal, a virtuous belief, a passionate opinion, a deeply held ethical theory? In other words, have animals and insects been given the right, by some inscrutable god, to do with me whatsoever they wish? Is my survival dependent upon the non-existent benevolence of all those sentient beings that I am not going to cause distress to?
What then about germs, bacteria, bacillus, microbes, pathogens, phages, viruses and so on? Are they not entitled to remain alive and pain free? If one takes medication for disease, one is – possibly painfully – killing off the microscopic creatures that one’s body is the host too. Some religions – the Jain religion in India, for example – has its devout members wearing gauze over their nose and mouths to prevent insects from flying in and they even carry small brooms to sweep the path as they walk so that they will not accidentally step on some creature. It can really get out of hand. For instance, small-pox has been eradicated from the world by scientists as a means of saving countless human lives ... is this somehow ‘Wrong’? What is ‘Right’ in regards to what I do in order to stay alive? If I do none of these things then I will be causing pain and suffering to myself ... and I am a sentient being too. It is an impossible scenario, when pursued to its ultimate conclusion.
And then there is the matter of one’s fellow human beings. Some of them – in fact at times a lot of them – are desirous of invading the country that one is living peacefully in, with the avowed intent of killing, torturing, raping, pillaging and subjugating oneself and one’s fellow citizens. If one holds a strong and passionate belief in not causing any pain and suffering to other sentient beings then one must be more than a fruitarian ... one must be a pacifist as well. This amounts to hanging out a sign – if everybody else in the country one lives in adopts this specific belief – which says, in effect: ‘Please feel free to invade us, we will not fight back, for we hold firmly to the principle of not causing pain and suffering to any sentient being whatsoever’ (the Tibetan situation is a particular case in point). (...)’. (Richard, List A, No.16, No. 02).

RESPONDENT: But if an angry marsupial comes after you than I suppose it is only fair to pull out an oozy and get to it.

RICHARD: I will draw your attention to what you say (further below in this e-mail of yours):

• [Respondent]: ‘This is not about death per se, rather the manner of death and the capacity of the animal to experience pain’.

As you suppose it is only fair to kill a predating animal, in self-defence, with a submachine gun then the very basis of what you have to say, in your vegetarians versus omnivores diatribe, is rendered null and void.

September 07 2005

RESPONDENT: I was just reading Richards reasons for thinking that eating meat is harmless.

RICHARD: Or, more accurately, you were just selectively reading one part of an explanation of mine as to why vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians are essentially no different to pacifists ... to be superficially altering behavioural patterns is to be merely rearranging the deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’.

(...)

RESPONDENT: ... if an angry marsupial comes after you than I suppose it is only fair to pull out an oozy and get to it.

RICHARD: I will draw your attention to what you say (further below in this e-mail of yours): [Respondent]: ‘This is not about death per se, rather the manner of death and the capacity of the animal to experience pain’. [endquote]. As you suppose it is only fair to kill a predating animal, in self-defence, with a submachine gun then the very basis of what you have to say, in your vegetarians versus omnivores diatribe, is rendered null and void.

RESPONDENT: And this boys and girls is how you make people think you are smart. Evade the real question. Evade kids. If it is ok to kill in one instance it is ok to kill in all instances.

RICHARD: I was, of course, responding to what you delineated as being [quote] ‘the heart of the issue’ [endquote] in the very e-mail my above words are in response to ... namely:

• [Respondent]: ‘You have once again succeeded in entirely evading *the heart of the issue*. Your very participation in eating meat is perpetuating a cruel and thus harmful institution of animal slaughter. Not microscopic organisms that you would like to lump in the same category. This is not about death per se, rather *the manner of death and the capacity of the animal to experience pain*. [emphasises added]. (Friday 2/09/2005 2:11 PM AEST).

I do see, however, that you have provided an explanatory note to another just recently:

• [Respondent]: ‘I have put the question of eating meat to Richard and he evaded the real heart of the question. I know that you are not big on morality (...) but I have a problem with someone who claims to be free of malice yet indulges in a malice practice’. (Wednesday 7/09/2005 5:44 AM AEST).

If the [quote] ‘real heart of the question’ [endquote] is indeed morality – or ethicality for that matter – then you are on the wrong mailing list as this one is about facts and actuality ... as evidenced in the first two paragraphs of that explanation of mine you were just selectively reading. Viz.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Neither is eating a hamburger [harmless]. Just ask the cattle.
• [Richard]: ‘Actually, I was talking about having eliminated malice – what is commonly called evil – from oneself in its entirety. That is, the ‘dark side’ of human nature which requires the maintenance of a ‘good side’ to eternally combat it. By doing the ‘impossible’ – everybody tells me that you can’t change human nature – then one is automatically harmless ... which does not mean abstaining from killing. It means that no act is malicious, spiteful, hateful, revengeful and so on. It is a most estimable condition to be in.
As for killing cattle: the very fact that one is alive means consuming nutrients ... and staying alive means that something, somewhere, must die in order to supply these nutrients. This is a fact of life ... and the marvellous thing about a fact is that one can not argue with it. One can argue about a belief, an opinion, a theory, an ideal and so on ... but a fact: never. One can deny a fact – pretend that it is not there – but once seen, a fact brings freedom from choice and decision. Most people think and feel that choice implies freedom – having the freedom to choose – but this is not the case. Freedom lies in seeing the obvious, and in seeing the obvious there is no choice, no deliberation, no agonising over the ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ judgment. In the freedom of seeing the fact there is only action’. (Richard, List A, No. 16, No. 02).

September 08 2005

RESPONDENT: And by the way correcting peoples spelling mistakes ...

RICHARD: Here is the incident you are (presumably) referring to:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘He [Richard] 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’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 96, 9 August 2005).

As can be readily seen I was not, repeat not, correcting a spelling mistake ... I was providing a reason for assuming that my co-respondent was referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word.

RESPONDENT: ... [correcting peoples spelling mistakes] when you make them yourself (...) is just tawdry and impolite.

RICHARD: Here is the occasion you are (presumably) referring to:

• [Respondent]: ‘I was just reading Richards reasons for thinking that eating meat is harmless.
• [Richard]: ‘Or, more accurately, you were just selectively reading one part of an explanation of mine as to why vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians are essentially no different to pacifists ... to be superficially altering behavioural patterns is to be merely rearranging the deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’.
(...)
• [Respondent]: ‘Oh yeah I almost forgot. You were so nice to correct our nutty Italian friends spelling in so gracious a manner I thought I might return the favour. It is ‘Behavioral’, not ‘Behavioural’. You would think someone with so much insight into human behaviour would know how to spell it. Eat up mate’. (Friday 2/09/2005 2:11 PM AEST).

I will draw your attention to the following:

• ‘behavioural (also -ior-): of, pertaining to, or forming part of behaviour; behaviouralism: behavioural science [the science of animal (and human) behaviour] esp. as applied to politics; behaviouralist: a practitioner of behaviouralism, (adv) of or pertaining to behaviouralism or behaviouralists; behaviourally: as regards behaviour’. (Oxford Dictionary).

September 09 2005

RESPONDENT: And by the way correcting peoples spelling mistakes ...

RICHARD: Here is the incident you are (presumably) referring to:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘He [Richard] 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’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 96, 9 August 2005).

As can be readily seen I was not, repeat not, correcting a spelling mistake ... I was providing a reason for assuming that my co-respondent was referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word.

RESPONDENT: ... [correcting peoples spelling mistakes] when you make them yourself (...) is just tawdry and impolite.

RICHARD: Here is the occasion you are (presumably) referring to:

• [Respondent]: ‘I was just reading Richards reasons for thinking that eating meat is harmless.
• [Richard]: ‘Or, more accurately, you were just selectively reading one part of an explanation of mine as to why vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians are essentially no different to pacifists ... to be superficially altering behavioural patterns is to be merely rearranging the deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’.
(...)
• [Respondent]: ‘Oh yeah I almost forgot. You were so nice to correct our nutty Italian friends spelling in so gracious a manner I thought I might return the favour. It is ‘Behavioral’, not ‘Behavioural’. You would think someone with so much insight into human behaviour would know how to spell it. Eat up mate’. (Friday 2/09/2005 2:11 PM AEST).

I will draw your attention to the following:

• ‘behavioural (also -ior-): of, pertaining to, or forming part of behaviour; behaviouralism: behavioural science [the science of animal (and human) behaviour] esp. as applied to politics; behaviouralist: a practitioner of behaviouralism, (adv) of or pertaining to behaviouralism or behaviouralists; behaviourally: as regards behaviour’. (Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: So that is what you decided to respond to above and beyond all the other questions raised in my mail?

RICHARD: No, that is what I responded to before answering the other questions you raised in your e-mail ... and here is an example as to why (from the same e-mail):

• [Respondent]: ‘I was just reading Richards reasons for thinking that eating meat is harmless.
• [Richard]: ‘Or, more accurately, you were just selectively reading one part of an explanation of mine as to why vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians are essentially no different to pacifists ... to be superficially altering behavioural patterns is to be merely rearranging the deck-chairs on the ‘Titanic’.
• [Respondent]: ‘Bottom line for him I suppose is that it is not done out of malice.
• [Richard]: ‘Put simply: it is not violence per se (as in physical force/ restraint) or the potential for violence which is the problem: ...
• [Respondent]: ‘Notice in the above exchange I use the word malice which is then turned into the world violence by you’. [endquote].

Whereas, of course, this is what I actually wrote:

• [Richard]: ‘Put simply: it is not violence per se (as in physical force/restraint) or the potential for violence which is the problem: it is ‘me’, as the emotions and passions, fuelling the violence, or fuelling the potential for violence, who begets all the misery and mayhem’.

I was responding to your comment [quote] ‘bottom line for him I suppose is that it is not done out of malice’ [endquote] with an explanation as to why it is not – that there is no identity here to fuel the act – because the first paragraph of that an explanation of mine as to why vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians are essentially no different to pacifists had, apparently, passed right over your head when you read it. Viz.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Neither is eating a hamburger [harmless]. Just ask the cattle.
• [Richard]: ‘Actually, I was talking about having eliminated malice – what is commonly called evil – from oneself in its entirety. That is, the ‘dark side’ of human nature which requires the maintenance of a ‘good side’ to eternally combat it. By doing the ‘impossible’ – everybody tells me that you can’t change human nature – then one is automatically harmless ... which does not mean abstaining from killing. It means that no act is malicious, spiteful, hateful, revengeful and so on. It is a most estimable condition to be in’. (Richard, List A, No. 16, No. 02).

In short: as there was no reason for you to [quote] ‘suppose’ [endquote] that my actions are not done out of malice – it was already clearly spelt-out for you – I simply wanted to see if you could comprehend something quite ordinary ... to wit: I am not in the business of [quote] ‘correcting peoples spelling mistakes’ [endquote] and neither did I spell the word ‘behavioural’ incorrectly.

And the reason why I wanted to see if you could comprehend something quite ordinary is because of this (from the same e-mail):

• [Respondent]: ‘At one point you equated eating meat with drinking water filled with micro-organisms. That made me angry because I was asking an honest fair question and that was evasion of the question. Why angry? Because Actualism sounds *reasonable*. Then I start talking to you and watch you respond to others and it really just knocked the piss out of the whole thing’. [emphasis added].

Is it [quote] ‘reasonable’ [endquote] to conclude that I am correcting peoples spelling mistakes when I make them myself even though I never did correct another’s spelling nor ever spelt the word ‘behavioural’ incorrectly?

If your answer is in the negative then is it [quote] ‘reasonable’ [endquote] to choose to be angry just because I pointed out that killing other living organisms (be they either flora or fauna whether big or small) is a fact of life?

September 09 2005

RESPONDENT: And by the way correcting peoples spelling mistakes ...

RICHARD: Here is the incident you are (presumably) referring to:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘He [Richard] 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’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No.96, 9 August 2005).

As can be readily seen I was not, repeat not, correcting a spelling mistake ... I was providing a reason for assuming that my co-respondent was referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word.

RESPONDENT: No I was not referring to I was referring to the word psychiatrist. I do not know how to search this site.

RICHARD: Just copy-paste the following, as-is, into the search-engine box at a search engine of your choice:

• psychiatrist site:www.actualfreedom.com.au

Then left-click ‘search’ (or tap ‘enter’) ... in the meanwhile you may find the following to be of related interest:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You spelled succor wrong in one of your recent messages, by the way. You spelled it ‘succour’.
• [Richard]: ‘Oh, I do not wish to get into that ‘American English’ versus ‘Australian English’ debate ... I will let the academics argue that one out. Suffice is it to say that the ‘Oxford Dictionary’ spells it <succour> ... as does the spell-checker on my computer. (Richard, List B, No. 21, 26 October 1998).