# Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Flogged Misconceptions Frequently Flogged Misconceptions ## Actualists Don’t Care Re: AF website mirror RICHARD: (...) and to have someone professing an interest in what is on offer seek a monetary gain off the back of this philanthropic contribution to the advancement of human knowledge is a classic example of the human condition in action in all its crass opportunism. RESPONDENT: I have found that in general, Hanlon’s Razor is a good strategy when guessing at others’ intentions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor RICHARD: Yet there was no guessing required ... the words ‘seek a monetary gain’, to which you are responding, came solely from the words displayed for all to see on the web page referred to. Viz.: 1. ‘Make A Donation’ [on an activating button]. 2. ‘Show your appreciation by sending Srid a donation by PayPal’ 3. ‘PayPal Donate’ [on another activating button]. RESPONDENT: To assume malice (or crass opportunism, or profiteering) where none is present is a classic example of the human condition in action as well. RICHARD: Ha ... adopting No. 5’s debating technique just does not work with me. RESPONDENT: What’s up, Richard? RICHARD: What is up is, of course, the fact of having someone who, while professing an interest in what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, is seeking a monetary gain off the back of the very same philanthropic contribution to the advancement of human knowledge which that interest has been generated per favour of. My observation, that it is a classic example of the human condition in action in all its crass opportunism, has nowt to do with assuming any thing at all (let alone malice) as it is self-evident by that very action. RESPONDENT: Why didn’t you contact Srid individually before accusing him in public? RICHARD: If you try asking yourself the obvious question first (why were the directors not contacted before making a rip-off public) you may very well find queries like that no longer arise. This is not a kid’s game, No. 74, and the person you are defending is out there playing with the big boys and girls, now, where grown-up rules apply. For example, under section 1204 of the 1998 DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) penalties range up to a $500,000 fine, or up to five years imprisonment, for a first offence and up to a $1,000,000 fine, or up to 10 years imprisonment, for subsequent offences. * RESPONDENT: That is certainly his mistake. RICHARD: Aye ... it was the weekend, here, when Message No. 5084 was posted (on Saturday at 13:33 AEST actually) and I was online reading some current affairs articles when it occurred to me catch up with what was happening on this forum, as is my wont from time-to-time, and I was idly scrolling down the posts when the import of that one caught my attention. I scrolled back up so as to read it properly ... it was immediately obvious that this re-design business had gone too far and that, in hindsight, it should have been nipped in the bud last year. So I notified all the directors and a suggestion was made to get together for an extraordinary director’s meeting (ordinary meetings, supposedly monthly, are often months apart). At the meeting it was decided that, rather than have a repeat of the previous email exchange (where draft copies have to be circulated around for comments, changes, additions, deletions, and so forth, before sending), I would take the rather unusual step of subscribing to this list and attending to the matter personally. * RESPONDENT: Just curious. Is that an instance of actual caring? RICHARD: As what you are saying is, in effect, that contacting someone individually is an instance of actual caring, whereas contacting someone publicly is not, then I will just have to leave you to mull that one over in private. Ain’t life grand! RESPONDENT: I hold that accusing someone of ignoble intent in public, before verifying that intent first by private communication (when such communication is possible), is not sensible and caring. RICHARD: Somehow you still do not see that your whole focus is fixed on this issue of guessing at intent and/or intention which you have introduced into what is otherwise a very simple matter. Look, here is what you wrote the first time around: [Respondent]: I have found that in general, Hanlon’s Razor is a good strategy when guessing at others’ intentions. To assume malice (or crass opportunism, or profiteering) where none is present is a classic example of the human condition in action as well. What’s up, Richard? Why didn’t you contact Srid individually before accusing him in public? Just curious. Is that an instance of actual caring? I have already demonstrated, in the previous email, how there was no guessing required (inasmuch the words ‘seek a monetary gain’, to which you are still responding, came solely from the very words displayed on the web page referred to. RESPONDENT: Would you agree with me on the above (whether or not you agree with me on whether you accused Srid of ignoble intent in this affair)? RICHARD: As there was no guessing involved (nor any accusing for that matter) there is, quite evidently, no guess to verify. It really is that simple. * RESPONDENT: Richard, thanks for the clarification. It is always a pleasure to read your correspondence, even though it is perplexing to begin with at times. As all terms used have now been amply clarified, I (and presumably others on this list) have only one further question: Is asking for a donation (or even a fee) for a Srid-like stylistic contribution (with the caveats as I suggested to Srid) reprehensible? RICHARD: G’day No. 2, It has nothing to do with reprehensibility ... it is all about acting with full awareness. If (note ‘if’) anyone professing an interest in what is on offer for free were to proceed with some-such similar activity, whilst fully conscious of that incongruity (as already explained), then that is their business. What I am drawing attention to is the marked contrast between how an actually free person/ virtually free persons act, in this instance for an example, and how a person/ several dozen persons not actually/ not virtually free act. Please, I am not blaming anyone, in that section you are responding to, as a re-read will show that I am clearly pointing the finger at the human condition itself .... as in my ‘a classic example of the human condition in action’ phrasing. If anything it is the human condition which is reprehensible (so to speak). But (and this is a big ‘but’) we humans, with our amazing ability to be both conscious and (simultaneously) be aware of being conscious, can extricate ourselves from the human condition we are born into. Provided we act with full awareness, that is, else we remain forever as we are. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Incidentally, had the website been an ordinary website (set up for, say, stamp collecting) and, thus, this discussion list had been about stamps, there is no way that paragraph would have been written. Re: AF website mirror RESPONDENT: The most striking aspect of this for me is the incredible lack of perspective and lack of generosity that Richard shows in regard to Srid’s intentions. The idea that someone who earns plenty of money at Microsoft would be interested in parasitically profiting from the AF Trust’s work is verging on crazy. Everyone else seemed to understand that Srid was trying to do people a favour (albeit in a misguided way, for reasons Richard has explained). But that Richard write to (and of) Srid as if he were a parasite and a crass opportunist rather than a well-meaning person is just pretty ugly from where I stand. (And I’m not ‘feminine’). CO-RESPONDENT: Do you think it is possible that Richard was just speaking frankly which has been interpreted as harsh? RESPONDENT: No, it’s easy enough to speak frankly without being harsh. In any case, it’s not the overt ‘harshness’ that I had in mind. It’s what the harshness (apparently) proceeds from: a lack of perspective and generosity / magnanimity with respect to Srid’s intentions. Why all this controversy? It seems obvious to everyone else that Srid was trying to do people a simple favour, but his action is portrayed as crass opportunism and parasitism instead. I find that ungenerous and indecent. It would have been quite easy to request the mirror to be taken down, for all the valid reasons given, without going there. (Everyone agrees that the reasons are valid). People can bend over backwards to explain Richard’s ungracious attitude toward his fellow human being, as they always do; that’s their business; I just don’t see it as something to like or admire or aspire to ... more a case of needing to maintain interest in the PCE/AF condition despite how Richard manifests it in relation to others. RICHARD: G’day No. 4, It occurred to me to pop in and let you know how fascinating it is to read your ... um ... non-harsh words about the harshness which your ‘pictures-not-pixels’ perception imbues my words with. By which I mean your speaking-frankly-without-being-harsh words such as: just pretty ugly; incredible lack of perspective; indecent; lack of generosity; ungracious attitude; lack of perspective; ungenerous; lack of magnanimity; verging on crazy; and so on. I am somewhat curious as to just what words you would use if you ever were to begin speaking harshly about the harshness which your ‘pictures-not-pixels’ perception imbues my words with. After all, they would have to be uglier words than ugly is, for just one instance, in order to be harsh-not-frank words ... and that is quite a low bar, which you have set for yourself, to get under. Ah, well ... better you than me, eh? * RICHARD: No. 4, I have a proposition to put to you: how about we meet, personally, face-to-face for an easy chat at some mutually suitable and neutral location? You have mentioned, previously, how you live only a couple of hundred kilometres to the south of here, where I currently reside, so getting there incurs no travel problems for me (I have a lower back condition which prohibits extensive travel). If you are agreeable perhaps you might know of a café somewhere local – one with an outside terrace, preferably, due to the bizzaro-world regulations about tobacco usage – as I have neither the interest nor need to know your street address. Let me know publicly if you agree ... then the details of where and when and how can take place privately. If nothing else it is an opportunity for you to find out if I really am a prick. RESPONDENT: Thanks for your offer, Richard. I accept it with pleasure. (...) As regards being a prick, I think that one has already been laid to rest in my mind. It has been interesting to observe, in the recent thread about Srid’s mirror site, how No. 2 and No. 7 both had a similar first impression to mine, but did not allow the affective reaction to eclipse their reason; and as it turned out, the things that offended me (or caused me to take offence by proxy, as it were) amounted to nothing. I can willingly concede that there would have been numerous instances of that in the past, where the fault was mine, and I was too pig-headed to see it. (No doubt causing my mate [No. 19] much frustration) ;-) Having seen a good practical demonstration of how ‘the devil is not in the details’ can lead one astray, I hope to learn from it in future. Also, since the other night when I wrote to you about being ‘friendly’, I’ve done some serious re-thinking more about what it actually means to be friendly, and it’s clear that I’m the one who has an ‘incredible lack of perspective’ in that regard. I still think/ hope/ imagine that it’s possible to have both actual caring / genuine friendliness without it coming across as an absence of conventional friendliness. In fact, I can even see that you are like that ... but you sometimes make people work hard to see it that way (or, shall we say, harder than I’m accustomed to working). But when there’s a conflict between seeming nice, being conventionally friendly, not hurting feelings on the one hand, and being genuinely helpful to people on the other, there should be no contest. RICHARD: G’day No. 4, Thank you for your detailed response. Lismore in November will be just fine by me (I moved out of Byron Bay some years ago). I will send you an email, privately, sometime soon so that you will have my email address in case you want to make other arrangements as circumstances change. As for me, being retired and on a pension means pretty well any time is okay. As for your comments about ‘friendly’ and your re-thinking: what I have noticed is a misunderstanding of the way I use the word benevolence. For instance: • [Richard]: ‘I like my fellow humans and wish them no harm at all – I wish well upon everyone including myself – which well-wishing is the root meaning of the word ‘benevolence’. (Benevolent: Old French – ‘benivolent’ from: Latin – ‘benevolent’: present participle stem of ‘bene velle’: ‘wish well’)’. Richard, Selected Correspondence, Benevolence Even when I am being firm, unrelenting, and so forth, I never cease wishing well (because I simply cannot switch it off). In real world terms, then, it is simply not possible to be friendly/ kindly in all situations ... there are occasions where one needs to be firm. Sometimes even stern. RESPONDENT: Richard, if I were to knock-knock on your brain there will be no-one to answer, let alone your heart? RICHARD: My previous companion would oft-times say ‘there is no-one in there’ or ‘there is no-one home’ when feeling me out whilst looking at me quizzically ... she also would explain to others that, contrary to expectation, it was sometimes difficult to live with Richard (it could be said that living with some body that is not self-centred would always be easy) as it was impossible for her to have a relationship because there was no-one to make a connection with. She would also say that Richard does not support her, as an identity that is, at all ... which lack of (affective) caring was disconcerting for her, to say the least, and my current companion has also (correctly) reported this absence of consideration. Put simply: I am unable to support some-one who does not exist (I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world). RICHARD: Also, are you aware that they reappeared on the mailing list almost a year later and were caught red-handed upon having resorted to fraudulency and outright mendacity? RESPONDENT: That is besides the point under discussion right now ... RICHARD: The point under discussion is seeing [quote] ‘the big picture’ [endquote] is it not? Have you read every e-mail my co-respondent at that time wrote to this mailing list? Did you follow-up every URL they posted? Did you access every book reference they quoted? Did you look for and read what they wrote on other forums (where the focus is not the same as this mailing list)? Do you keep all their correspondence in an easily accessible folder so as to refresh your memory as to what they have said and thus, where they are coming from, what their agenda is, and where they are heading to? You see, the difference between you and me is that I actually care about my fellow human being and will leave no stone unturned, if that be what it takes, to understand them, to comprehend why they say what they do, so as to facilitate clarity in communication ... I like my fellow human being and prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later. Now, you can say your impression is that Richard is [quote] ‘a prick’ [endquote], and [quote] ‘not a caring human being’ [endquote], but have you ever considered that were it to actually be the case both The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List would not exist? I am retired and on a pension and am free to live virtually any lifestyle within my means yet I sit here at my computer hour after hour, day after day, year after year, being quite often the recipient of derision, disparagement, scorn, mockery, disdain, belittlement, vilification, denigration, contempt, castigation, disapprobation, denunciation, condemnation and discrimination (as evidenced by bad-mouthing, backbiting, slander, libel, defamation and a whole range of slurs, smears, censures, admonishments, reproaches, reprovals, and so on). I have had my credit card strung out the max, over the years, in order to establish and maintain all the words and writings pertaining to both an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice on-line so as they be accessible totally free of charge for anyone at all to access and it is only in the last year or so that the whole enterprise has come anywhere near to being self-supporting ... and thus freeing up any surplus cash so as to pay off a modest home to live-out my declining years in. And the same applies for Peter and Vineeto, by the way, but they are not currently the target of vilification. RESPONDENT: ... [the point under discussion right now]: that of your aggressive style of communication. RICHARD: Your prejudice is showing again. * RESPONDENT: I presume you want to say that I do not ‘actually care about my human being’ whereas you do. Do you have any evidence to back up your above claim about me? RICHARD: Unless you are now either actually free from the human condition or currently having a pure consciousness experience (PCE) there is no way you can be actually caring . RESPONDENT: Where have you perceived my uncaring attitude towards my fellow human beings? Just curious. RICHARD: I never said anything about you being (affectively) uncaring ... I distinctly said that the difference between you and me is that I *actually* care. * RICHARD: ... [I actually care about my fellow human being and will leave no stone unturned, if that be what it takes, to understand them, to comprehend why they say what they do, so as to facilitate clarity in communication] ... I like my fellow human being and prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later. RESPONDENT: I and others on this list understand the above more than you might give us credit for, but ... RICHARD: If I might interject (before you go on with your modifier)? Do you and those others on this list you refer to understand the above (that latter half of my sentence) now that I have re-inserted the first half you snipped off? RESPONDENT: ... [but] is it inconceivable that the *style* in which you do it puts people off? RICHARD: It is not inconceivable that the way sentences form themselves at this keyboard might be off-putting for some peoples ... many years of experience has shown, however, that such peoples were not ever on in the first place. RESPONDENT: Any serious (as in sincere) person who comes to AF is impressed, (as I still am) with the breadth of topics under discussion and the fresh approach to reducing and eliminating human misery, but more often than not, conversations with you follow the same pattern where the other person quickly tires/ gets-frustrated and leaves/ despairs of getting any clarity in the matter. RICHARD: Hmm ... by way of example, then, I will ask you again whether you have actually read all of the conversation in question – spanning at least 34 e-mails – from beginning to end? And whether you have familiarised yourself with the preceding discussions which took place prior to that particular exchange? Whether you are thus cognisant of where my co-respondent was coming from, what their stated agenda on that occasion was and, therefore, where they were heading to? Whether you have read every e-mail my co-respondent at that time wrote to this mailing list? Whether you followed-up every URL they posted? Whether you accessed every book reference they quoted? Whether you looked for and read what they wrote on other forums (where the focus is not the same as this mailing list)? Whether you keep all their correspondence in an easily accessible folder so as to refresh your memory as to what they have said and thus, where they are coming from, what their agenda is, and where they are heading to? And the reason why I ask is because if you have or had done so you would know for yourself why such people quickly tire, get frustrated, and leave, for they will not find what they are looking for here (the oft-repeated assertion, from my co-respondent at the time, that actualism was re-branded Zen Buddhism should be a dead giveaway as to why). RESPONDENT: In most conversations I have had with you, I have had to sometimes shake off my impression that the discussion we were having was becoming more and more pedantic and restart without any such bias, and I am pleased with the results. I have learnt much from you. RICHARD: I always find it cute when clarity in communication is taken to be pedantry. RESPONDENT: But maybe others are not that patient. RICHARD: Or maybe, just maybe, they have a vested interest in ambiguity in communication? RESPONDENT: Since people who visit this website and mailing list are within the human condition, is it too much to suggest that your conversational style is mostly counter-productive ... RICHARD: Yes, it is indeed too much to suggest ... and had you actually read all of the conversation in question – spanning at least 34 e-mails – from beginning to end; and had you familiarised yourself with the preceding discussions which took place prior to that particular exchange; and had you thus been cognisant of where my co-respondent was coming from, what their stated agenda on that occasion was and, therefore, where they were heading to; and had you read every e-mail my co-respondent at that time wrote to this mailing list; and had you followed-up every URL they posted; and had you accessed every book reference they quoted; and had you looked for and read what they wrote on other forums (where the focus is not the same as this mailing list); and had you kept all their correspondence in an easily accessible folder so as to refresh your memory as to what they have said and thus, where they are coming from, what their agenda is, and where they are heading to, you would never have suggested such a thing in the first place. For a person seeking to advise another in regards seeing [quote] ‘the big picture’ [endquote] it should be startlingly obvious by now that some extensive swotting is definitely in order. RICHARD: (...) the human species has been doing its thing for at least 50,000 years or so – no essential difference has been discerned between the Cro-Magnon human and Modern-Day human – and may very well continue to do its thing for, say, another 50,000 years or so ... it matters not, in what has been described as ‘the vast scheme of things’ or ‘the big picture’, and so on, whether none, one or many peoples become actually free from the human condition (this planet, indeed the entire solar system, is going to cease to exist in its current form about 4.5 billion years from now). All these words – yours, mine, and others (all the dictionaries, encyclopaedias, scholarly tomes and so on) – will perish and all the monuments, all the statues, all the tombstones, all the sacred sites, all the carefully conserved/carefully restored memorabilia, will vanish as if they had never existed ... nothing will remain of any human endeavour (including yours truly). Nothing at all ... nil, zero, zilch. Which means that nothing really matters in the long run and, as nothing really does matter (in this ultimate sense) it is simply not possible to take life seriously ... sincerely, yes, but seriously? No way ... life is much too much fun to be serious! (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25g, 22 December 2004). RESPONDENT: Richard wrote: ‘RICHARD: life is too much fun to take it seriously.’ [snip link to a news item about a recent seismic sea-wave] Yeah fun, fun, fun for every one. Let’s bury the dead .... such fun! Let’s dig out our dead ... fun, fun, fun! Perhaps we should hand them Richard’s method as they bury their loved ones. Perhaps in addition to food, clothing, building materials, etc, we should give them one copy of Richard’s Journal on how to have fun whilst losing your life and your loved ones’ lives. RICHARD: Death is a fact of life/of being born – over 54,000,000 people die each year – and yet, just because of a topical news item, all-of-a-sudden life is not fun? Further to the point, were your platitudinous ‘loved ones’ comments anywhere to be seen yesterday, when maybe 148,000 of those 54+ million people died, leaving x-number of peoples burying their dead ... let alone the day before, when another 148,000 or so people died (and the day before that, and the one before that one, and so on, and so on)? Nope, nowhere to be seen at all ... which indicates that this opportunistic e-mail of yours is, perhaps, nothing more than a cynical cashing-in on the (newsworthy) misfortune of others for the sake of your own promotion. RESPONDENT: If I may interject, before you go on with your pointless point ... RICHARD: There is nothing ‘pointless’ about drawing attention to the fact that each and every human being on this planet is but a missed heart-beat or two away from death each and every moment again – that death is an irrefutable fact to be faced else the purpose of being born be not fulfilled – nor is there anything ‘pointless’ about further drawing attention to the opportunistic nature of cynically cashing-in on the (newsworthy) misfortune of others for the sake of promoting your No. 53-knows-better-than-Richard grasp of the human condition ... as was evidenced where you wrote on this very same topic, less than three and a half hours after posting this, that you ‘could care less about the suffering of the billions that are out of my view and life’ and that you agree inasmuch that ‘we certainly should enjoy and have fun during our short times here’. RICHARD: (...) the human species has been doing its thing for at least 50,000 years or so – no essential difference has been discerned between the Cro-Magnon human and Modern-Day human – and may very well continue to do its thing for, say, another 50,000 years or so ... it matters not, in what has been described as ‘the vast scheme of things’ or ‘the big picture’, and so on, whether none, one or many peoples become actually free from the human condition (this planet, indeed the entire solar system, is going to cease to exist in its current form about 4.5 billion years from now). All these words – yours, mine, and others (all the dictionaries, encyclopaedias, scholarly tomes and so on) – will perish and all the monuments, all the statues, all the tombstones, all the sacred sites, all the carefully conserved/carefully restored memorabilia, will vanish as if they had never existed ... nothing will remain of any human endeavour (including yours truly). Nothing at all ... nil, zero, zilch. Which means that nothing really matters in the long run and, as nothing really does matter (in this ultimate sense) it is simply not possible to take life seriously ... sincerely, yes, but seriously? No way ... life is much too much fun to be serious! (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25g, 22 December 2004). RESPONDENT No. 53: [snip link to a news item about a recent seismic sea-wave] Yeah fun, fun, fun for every one. Let’s bury the dead .... such fun! Let’s dig out our dead ... fun, fun, fun! Perhaps we should hand them Richard’s method as they bury their loved ones. Perhaps in addition to food, clothing, building materials, etc, we should give them one copy of Richard’s Journal on how to have fun whilst losing your life and your loved ones lives. RICHARD: Death is a fact of life/of being born – over 54,000,000 people die each year – and yet, just because of a topical news item, all-of-a-sudden life is not fun? Further to the point, were your platitudinous ‘loved ones’ comments anywhere to be seen yesterday, when maybe 148,000 of those 54+ million people died, leaving x-number of peoples burying their dead ... let alone the day before, when another 148,000 or so people died (and the day before that, and the one before that one, and so on, and so on)? Nope, nowhere to be seen at all ... which indicates that this opportunistic e-mail of yours is, perhaps, nothing more than a cynical cashing-in on the (newsworthy) misfortune of others for the sake of your own promotion. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 53f, 30 December 2004). RESPONDENT: Your inability to discern the difference in impact between individuals dying daily of old age, accident, disease, or ignorance, and this on-going horror as millions of human beings try to deal with a mass tragedy on a scale never experienced in our lifetimes reveals you to be a callous and mentally dissociated sick human being. RICHARD: Hmm ... another opportunist exploiting the current-time suffering of others, eh? Before this bandwagon lurches any further along the bandwidth trail I will draw your attention to the following: • [Richard]: ‘I have been examined by two accredited psychiatrists and have been officially classified as suffering from a pronounced and severe mental disorder. My symptoms are: 1. Depersonalisation. 2. Derealisation. 3. Alexithymia. 4. Anhedonia. (...) Alexithymia is the term used to describe the condition of a total absence of feelings – usually exhibited most clearly in lobotomised patients – which has been my on-going condition for many, many years now. It has also come to mean being cut off from one’s feelings – as in dissociation – yet the psychiatrists ascertained that I was not dissociating. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 26a, 24 November 1998). As it seems as if amateur diagnoses, determined solely by e-mail, might just become the order of the day may I suggest that you leave the psychologising to the psychologists and the psychiatry to the psychiatrists? For your information: even though there is no ‘horror’ here in this actual world I am not oblivious to the impact such calamities can have upon the denizens of the real-world ... and I have written about this before. For just one example: • [Richard]: ‘... I do not suffer from disassociation. I am well aware of the incredible anguish and animosity that everybody experiences and acts out in their daily life ... I watch the news bulletins on television and interact with people on a daily basis. (Richard, List B, No. 31, 8 March 1998). And in regards to ‘on a scale never experienced in our lifetimes’ I only need to point to the events of 1939-45 where the estimates of the number of dead are of such an unknowable magnitude as to be couched in terms of ‘give-or-take’ 10,000,000 human beings either way of an estimated 55,000,000 ... with a further estimate of at least 11,000,000 people, at the war’s end, being classified as DP’s (displaced persons). Or, for a non-war instance: the number of citizens dead at the hands of autocratic governments in the last 100 years (via genocide, politicide, mass murder, extra-judicial executions, starvation/ privation, and so forth) is statistically estimated to be a probable 174,000,000 peoples ... as a mid-estimate formed from the possible low-range/ high range estimates. And the scale of that mid-range figure (174,000,000) is not only hard to digest it is difficult to properly comprehend just how many persons – men, women, and children – this is. For example, if all of those citizens killed by governments, in the twentieth century alone, were to have inhabited a country of their own then it would be the world’s sixth most populous nation (the world’s sixth most populous nation). Or, for another illustration, if one were to sit on a chair in a room and have that amount of people come in one door, go by at a walking pace without stopping, and exit through another door, for 24 hours a day 365 days a year, it would take about six years for all to pass by. Put graphically: assuming that the average height of these murdered citizens was little more than five feet, because of the many children killed, their corpses would encircle this planet about four times. Whereas the battle-field cadavers (38,000,000) for the same period would barely girdle the earth once. RESPONDENT: No. 53 is a seriously funny master manipulator! (...) Guys, don’t you realise that your twangers (and twangees) are being seriously pulled (or pushed)? RICHARD: As you have twice used the word ‘seriously’ this may be an apt moment to draw to your attention to the passage which triggered-off this latest outbreak of challenges to a fight from a couple of the many and various religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists who choose to subscribe to this list, and/or un-lurk, from time-to-time: • [Richard]: ‘(...) the human species has been doing its thing for at least 50,000 years or so – no essential difference has been discerned between the Cro-Magnon human and Modern-Day human – and may very well continue to do its thing for, say, another 50,000 years or so ... it matters not, in what has been described as ‘the vast scheme of things’ or ‘the big picture’, and so on, whether none, one or many peoples become actually free from the human condition (this planet, indeed the entire solar system, is going to cease to exist in its current form about 4.5 billion years from now). All these words – yours, mine, and others (all the dictionaries, encyclopaedias, scholarly tomes and so on) – will perish and all the monuments, all the statues, all the tombstones, all the sacred sites, all the carefully conserved/carefully restored memorabilia, will vanish as if they had never existed ... nothing will remain of any human endeavour (including yours truly). Nothing at all ... nil, zero, zilch. Which means that nothing really matters in the long run and, as nothing really does matter (in this ultimate sense) it is simply not possible to take life seriously ... sincerely, yes, but seriously? No way ... life is much too much fun to be serious! (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25g, 22 December 2004). RESPONDENT: Were you having fun when you heard about the tsunami? RICHARD: Life here in this actual world, the world of the senses, is much too much fun to be serious – sincere, yes, but in no way serious – irregardless of what occurs in the course of daily life because, in the long run, nothing really matters ... it is a fact of life/of being born that everybody alive today is going to die somewhere, somehow, sometime (nobody gets out of here alive). Statistically over 54,000,000 people die each year and that figure (54,000,000) includes deaths from *all* causes (including from seismic sea-waves) ... for example Mr./Ms. Smith, of High Street, Any-Town, died at the very moment any of the millions of words of mine on The Actual Freedom Trust web site were being written and yet life here in this actual world did not cease being fun for even a fraction of a second. Ain’t life grand! RESPONDENT: Did you lift a finger to help? RICHARD: I do more than merely ‘lift a finger’ to assist my fellow human being ... my fellow human being gets all of me (and all of the time, as well, and not just on occasion). RESPONDENT: (...) I find neglecting someone telling, that he has gone into a state of psychosis to the degree that he had to have himself be taken for psychiatric treatment, an apt sign that caring is not a word that is coined in the actualist dictionary. RICHARD: If you could point me to the e-mail, posted to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list by the person concerned, ‘telling’ that they have gone into a state of psychosis to the degree that they had to have themself be taken for psychiatric treatment it would be most appreciated. Please note: it is the e-mail posted *to this mailing list by the person concerned* that I am asking for a URL to. RESPONDENT: So … not only that the Actualist method is not working (save for some morons who blindly accept all the hogwash about instincts) ... RICHARD: If I may interject? Perhaps the reason why the actualism method is not working for you is because (a) you consider all the detailed reports/ descriptions/ explanations regarding the instinctual passions are hogwash ... and (b) you consider you would have to be a moron for it to work ... and (c) you consider you would have to blindly accept all the detailed reports/ descriptions/ explanations regarding the instinctual passions for it to work. RESPONDENT: ... it [the actualism method] is downright dangerous ... RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following: • [Richard]: ‘I am simply reporting my experience and it is entirely up to the other to do with it what they will ... and I stress that it is the pure consciousness experience (PCE) that is one’s guiding light – one’s authority or one’s teacher – and not me or my description of a PCE. The evidence of human history demonstrates that *there is a distinct possibility that things can go awry wherever the human psyche is being subjectively investigated*. Yet there are some notable people (or notorious people) in this field of endeavour who have rashly promised that they will take care of everything if only the person investigating will believe them and/or have faith in them and/or trust them and/or surrender to them and/or obey them ... and so on. And there are more than a few of these gullible persons currently occupying places in psychiatric wards as a direct result ... and the person who promised to ‘take care of everything’ is remarkably unforthcoming (it is counsellors and therapists and psychologists and psychiatrists who have to pick up the pieces). I cannot save anybody at all. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Gary, 10 August 2000). RESPONDENT: ... especially as Richard may be a severely affectively disabled/handicapped personality ... RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following: • [Richard]: ‘... I have not been reticent about having been closely examined, over a three-year period by both an accredited psychiatrist and psychologist, and *found to be having the following symptoms*: 1. Depersonalisation (no sense of identity) as in no ‘self’ by whatever name. 2. Derealisation (lost touch with reality) as in reality has vanished completely. 3. Alexithymia (inability to feel the affections) as in no affective feelings whatsoever. 4. Anhedonia (inability to feel pleasure/pain) as in no affective pleasure/pain facility. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 46, 9 August 2003). RESPONDENT: ... and perhaps there should be made a note of it on the page, which is the portal to the Topica discussion forum. In other words, the disclaimer at the bottom of the AF-page is not sufficient. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘(... ) I am taking 10 mg of Seroxat, is a medicine belonging in the SSRI family, like Prozac (...) They give more serotonin in the brain. So is actualism for me? • [Richard]: ‘... I have clearly stated, *in the left-click disclaimer* on The Actual Freedom Trust home page, that actualism is for a normal person, a sensible human being who understands what a word means, who has learned to function in society with all its the legal laws and the social protocols, and is a reasonably ‘well-adjusted’ personality seeking to find ultimate fulfilment and complete satisfaction. Actualism is of no use to one who is harbouring a neurotic or psychotic condition ... or who is an uneducated social misfit with a chip on their shoulder. Such a person is well-advised to see a counsellor, a therapist, a psychologist, a psychiatrist or an educator ... or attend classes on citizenship and cultural etiquette before even bothering to try to unravel the mess that is the human condition. I say this because when a normal person becomes neurotic or psychotic it is because they have found the pressures of life too much to handle and have chosen for neurosis or psychosis as their way out. As strange as it may sound, to normal people, they are comfortable with their modus operandi and have no interest in budging one iota from their position ... despite their pleas for help (a part of their strategy). It may initially sound like ‘hard nails’ on my account ... but counsellors and therapists and psychologists and psychiatrists are the best people for the job of managing their condition. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44, 3 June 2003). RESPONDENT: If you read an allegation into that you are right, the charges are malpractice in the field of psychotherapy ... RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following: • ‘Psychotherapy is a set of techniques believed to cure or to help solve behavioural and other psychological problems in humans. The common part of these techniques is direct personal contact between therapist and patient, mainly in the form of talking. (...) In the 20th century a bewildering range of psychotherapies sprang up in western societies. The following is only a partial list: Analytical psychology; Autogenic psychotherapy; Behaviour therapy; Biodynamic psychotherapy; Bioenergetic analysis; Bioenergetics; Biosynthesis; Brief therapy; Classical Adlerian Psychotherapy; Co-Counselling; Cognitive analytic psychotherapy; Cognitive behavioural psychotherapy; Concentrative movement therapy; Core process psychotherapy; Daseins analytic psychotherapy; Depth Psychology; Dialectical behaviour therapy; Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT); Encounter groups; Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR); Existential analysis; Family systems therapy; Focusing; Freudian psychotherapy; Gestalt therapy; Gestalt Theoretical Psychotherapy; Group therapy; Hakomi; Holotropic Breathwork; Humanistic psychology; Hypnotherapy; Human givens psychotherapy; Integrative Psychotherapy; Jungian psychotherapy; Logotherapy; Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP); Person centred psychotherapy; Personal construct psychology (PCP); Positive psychotherapy; Postural integration; Primal integration; Process Oriented Psychology; Primal therapy; Provocative therapy; Psychedelic psychotherapy; Psychoanalysis; Psychodrama; Psychodynamic psychotherapy; Psycho-Organic analysis; Psychosynthesis; Pulsing (bodywork); Rational emotive behaviour psychotherapy; Reichian psychotherapy; Rogersian (or Rogerian) psychotherapy; Rolfing; Solution focused brief therapy; Sophia analysis; Self Relationship (or Sponsorship); Systemic therapy; T Groups; Transactional analysis (TA); Transpersonal psychotherapy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotherapy). Not a single one of the above is remotely like, let alone even coming close to, what is presented on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. RESPONDENT: ... [the charges are malpractice in the field of psychotherapy], because no matter how you’ll twist and turn it, that’s what you (and your actualist henchmen) have been doing ... RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following: • [Richard]: ‘There are, of course, 101 psychological management techniques available these days to the lay public (...) howsoever, as psychology/ psychiatry has not brought, is not bringing, and will not bring, peace-on-earth, *nothing that a psychological/ psychiatric approach has to offer has, is, or will, be of use/be of service* to a person setting foot on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 68b, 30 November 2004). RESPONDENT: ... [that’s what you (and your actualist henchmen) have been doing,] teaching a quack method ... RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘I guess I must separate the teaching from the teacher ... • [Richard]: ‘*I do not either have a ‘teaching’ nor am I a ‘teacher’* ... what I do is offer a do-it-yourself method with a proven track-record, plus an unambiguous report of my experience, clear descriptions of life here in this actual world, lucid explanations of how and why, and clarifications of misunderstandings. For an example: I always make it clear that I am a fellow human being (albeit sans identity/ affections in toto) providing a report of what I have discovered and not some latter-day ‘teacher’ (aka sage or seer, god-man or guru, master or messiah, saviour or saint, and so on) with yet another bodiless ‘teaching’. What another does with the method, my report, my descriptions, my explanations, and my clarifications is their business, of course, yet it goes almost without saying, surely, that if what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is indeed read as being yet another unliveable ‘teaching’ from yet another bodiless ‘teacher’ then that person will be but pissing into the wind each and every time they write to me. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 53a, 28 October 2003). RESPONDENT: ... [teaching a quack method], stepping way beyond their expertise in psychotherapy ... RICHARD: I have no expertise in psychotherapy at all – not a skerrick – let alone enough to be ‘stepping way beyond’ it and, moreover, I have not the slightest interest whatsoever in gaining any as psychotherapy has not brought, is not bringing, and will not bring, peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body RESPONDENT: ... [stepping way beyond their expertise in psychotherapy], let alone attempting to override expert psychiatrists’ opinions as to Richards condition ... RICHARD: As the psychiatric profession is not informed about, and hence has no expertise in, pure consciousness experiencing (and thus must classify it according to pre-existing categorisations based upon symptoms and signs presented), one would have to have rocks in the head not to ... what I find cute about all this is that total and irrevocable happiness and harmlessness is considered, by the norms of the real-world, to be a severe and incurable psychotic disorder. RESPONDENT: ...[ let alone attempting to override expert psychiatrists’ opinions as to Richards condition], considering it to be a healthy state ... RICHARD: That would be because Richard’s condition, as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), is a most salubrious and irreprehensible condition ... and please note that it is the PCE which informs of this and not belief (one could believe until one was blue in the face and it still would not make it actual). RESPONDENT (to Peter): (...) as an aside on ‘caring’ or not, please note what Respondent No. 18 has to say on the subject, regarding a former sincere practitioner of your boss’s method and his subsequent condition and the concern & responsibility for him expressed by avoidance & disclaimer of the subject by the three amigos. http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=911385670 (...) ps .... please note Respondent No. 18’s comments on this, your latest brain puke. http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=911385670 RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following: • [Respondent No. 18]: ‘... I find neglecting someone telling, that he has gone into a state of psychosis to the degree that he had to have himself be taken for psychiatric treatment, an apt sign that caring is not a word that is coined in the actualist dictionary. • [Richard]: ‘If you could point me to the e-mail, posted to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list by the person concerned, ‘telling’ that they have gone into a state of psychosis to the degree that they had to have themself be taken for psychiatric treatment it would be most appreciated. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 18f, 15 January 2005). • [Respondent No. 18]: ‘As *there is no such mail* I cannot point you to that URL you request to be pointed to. [emphasis added]. (‘Re: Seriously vs Not-Seriously’; Saturday 15/01/2005 AEDST). * RESPONDENT No. 53: Lets take a look at the actual track record of your method: (...) And last but certainly not least, you had one very sincere and devoted practitioner who is now under the care of one of No. 66’s colleagues at an undisclosed location. Any acts demonstrating the care you go on and on about for your fellow human being has been sorely lacking in this case, not to mention any care from those 2 chimps who were known to converse with him at length dispensing their expert wisdom until his departure which was precipitated by what you like to call a PCE. RESPONDENT No. 18: Yep ... so far for actual caring. RESPONDENT: Why be surprised? These people are actively trying to abort their souls. They’re deadly sincere. Did you think they were joking? Actualism is all about cutting themselves off from their own and other people’s suffering. RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following: • [Respondent No. 18]: ‘... I find neglecting someone telling, that he has gone into a state of psychosis to the degree that he had to have himself be taken for psychiatric treatment, an apt sign that caring is not a word that is coined in the actualist dictionary. • [Richard]: ‘If you could point me to the e-mail, posted to The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List by the person concerned, ‘telling’ that they have gone into a state of psychosis to the degree that they had to have themself be taken for psychiatric treatment it would be most appreciated. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 18f, 15 January 2005). • [Respondent No.18]: ‘As *there is no such mail* I cannot point you to that URL you request to be pointed to. [emphasis added]. (‘Re: Seriously vs Not-Seriously’; Saturday 15/01/2005 AEDST). * RESPONDENT No. 25: I thought to be a ‘given’ that everyone takes responsibility and cares for himself, instead I get the distinct impression that actualism and this list should become some kind of nursery. RESPONDENT: But that isn’t the point. There are people here who claim that their ‘actual caring’ is superior to affective caring. But what does this superior brand of post-human ‘actual caring’ amount to? In practice it amounts to nothing at all. RICHARD: Again I draw your attention to the following: • [Respondent No. 18]: ‘... I find neglecting someone telling, that he has gone into a state of psychosis to the degree that he had to have himself be taken for psychiatric treatment, an apt sign that caring is not a word that is coined in the actualist dictionary. • [Richard]: ‘If you could point me to the e-mail, posted to The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List by the person concerned, ‘telling’ that they have gone into a state of psychosis to the degree that they had to have themself be taken for psychiatric treatment it would be most appreciated. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 18f, 15 January 2005). • [Respondent No. 18]: ‘As *there is no such mail* I cannot point you to that URL you request to be pointed to. [emphasis added]. (‘Re: Seriously vs Not-Seriously’; Saturday 15/01/2005 AEDST). Actual Freedom Homepage This Topic Continued
Commonly Raised Objections – Index | Frequently Flogged Misconceptions – Index | Frequently Asked Questions – Index
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless Design, Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity