# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Humour RICHARD: … where the women go, there go men too ... eventually. (Richard, List D, No. 6, 13 November 2009). SRID: Hi Richard, Can you explain what you meant by that? What sort of connection exists in actuality that makes men (male flesh and blood body) follow women? Or, were you just referring to the reality? RICHARD: G’day Srid, ‘Tis good to be chatting with you. I was, of course, just referring to the reality (the real-world reality) as all is equitable in actuality. I also did not mean ‘follow’, as such, but more along the lines of what has been occasionally discussed/ mentioned on this very forum ... to wit: that men (as a generalisation) are reluctant to penetrate deeply and/or go very far into actualism because women (as a generalisation) are looking for love and compassion and an empathetic understanding or, at the very least, affection – from a potential spouse (companion/ partner/ lover/ whatever). Hence my undivided attention on the women in my life, and my preference that the second person to become actually free from the human condition be a woman, as it paves the way for more and more men to be confident of finding a woman who will not settle for second-best (affection, empathy, love and all the rest) but wants only the best ... both for herself and for her spouse. (Not to forget to mention my delight at it being a female, and not a male, who opened the way for a virtual freedom to have an entirely new aspect ... namely: a five-month PCE). I guess my ‘where the women go, there go men too’ way of phrasing it would be best exemplified by those men who buy women’s magazines to find out what the latest is they have to adopt so as to get into a modern woman’s panties. That whole SNAG (sensitive new age guy) phenomenon is an instance of this. Regards, Richard. P.S.: So as to pre-empt anyone who would not recognise facetiae even if it got into bed with them all night, and thus categorises that latter part of my post as a malicious outburst (for example), it is but another instance of my droll sense of humour. RESPONDENT (Sock-Puppet ‘MJ’): I sense that you and him [No. 4] have something personal going on that we are not aware of. RICHARD: As there is nothing personal whatsoever going on, on my part, then what you [quote] ‘sense’ [endquote] is deceiving you; also, were there to indeed be something personal going on, on the part of the other party, then it would be something personal in regards his phantom ‘Richard’ of passionate imagination and, as such, has nowt to do with this flesh-and-blood body tapping away at this keyboard. RESPONDENT (Sock-Puppet ‘MJ’): It sucks, big time. RICHARD: There is no point in addressing your plaint to me; whatever the source of what [quote] ‘sucks, big time’ [endquote] for you is, it has no existence in actuality (i.e.: here in this actual world; the sensate world; the world of the senses). RESPONDENT (Sock-Puppet ‘MJ’): Keep it cool, you two. RICHARD: As there is no hot [quote] ‘it’ [endquote] here to have to keep cool your admonishment is wasted upon me. RESPONDENT (Sock-Puppet ‘MJ’): wink wink RICHARD: Ha ... a spell in chequer strait a weigh marques fore revue miss steaks witch yew kin knot sea. Viz.: wank wank Their, Fick’s tit four ewe. Regards, Richard. RICHARD (to Respondent): (...) the only guaranteed-to-be-accurate suppository of authentic reports/ descriptions/ explanations of an actual freedom from the human condition. (Richard, List D, No. 4, #suppository). RICHARD: I haven’t had such a good laugh in quite a while. Viz.: suppository: a conical or cylindrical pellet designed to be inserted into the rectum or vagina to melt and release a medicament or serve as a lubricant’. (Oxford Dictionary). Thus the above section reads something like this (for example): • [example only]: ‘... the only guaranteed-to-be-accurate pellet designed to be inserted into the rectum or vagina to melt and release authentic reports/ descriptions/ explanations of an actual freedom from the human condition’ [end example]. So much for ... um ... choosing my words very carefully, eh? (Although it does lend a whole new connotation to the word ‘osmosis’ than normally found in dictionaries). What the word should have been, of course, is repository. Viz.: repository: a receptacle, building, or other place, in which things are or may be deposited or stored (...)’. ~ (Oxford Dictionary). Oh, well ... c’est la vie, I guess. Regards, Richard. RESPONDENT: Anyways, emotions are there in my body – unlike in yours who have no emotions. This is puzzling me a bit. How is it that the old fears and strong sensations do not arise in your body ... I thought that there is an emotional memory ... like, when you feel a scent of a woman’s perfume you might remember your first lover who used to wear it dating you. RICHARD: I have no emotional memory whatsoever ... there are no child-hood hurts or loves extant anywhere in this body. The affective memory disappeared when the ‘walk-in’ that inhabited this body for all those years vanished ... they were ‘his’ memories. Even so, when I tell stories out of my past it is somewhat akin to reading another person’s story from a book ... without the passion. I could not be nostalgic or indulge in reverie if my life depended upon it. RESPONDENT: Do you joke, laugh, flirt, act silly for the fun of it? (Please be prepared to receive a joke from me every now and then). Or have you become a serious man? Pleasure talking to you. RICHARD: I like to joke, yes and I laugh a lot ... there is so much that is irrepressibly funny about life itself. I have no ability to flirt, however, as my libido is nil and void ... yet I have an active sexual life. I do not ‘act silly for the fun of it’ as I have no repressions to seek relief from. Strangely enough I find that I enjoy black humour; whereas the ‘I’ that I was could not ... ‘he’ found it repulsive and sickening. Nevertheless, the humour I enjoy most is that which lampoons puffed-up power and its authority. For example: A journalist had done a story on gender roles in Kuwait several years before the Gulf War, and she noted then that women customarily walked about 10 feet behind their husbands. She returned to Kuwait recently and observed that the men now walked several yards behind their wives. She approached one of the women for an explanation. ‘This is marvellous,’ said the journalist. ‘What enabled women here to achieve this reversal of roles?’ Replied the Kuwaiti woman: ‘Land mines.’ RESPONDENT: Although it looks superficially to be a sexist joke it is not ... the reverse would hold true for a matriarchal society. Human frailty exposes the lie of power. RICHARD As for ‘serious’ ... the utter reliability of being always happy and harmless replaces the galling burden of being serious ... actuality’s blithe sincerity dispenses with the onerous responsibility that epitomises adulthood. What I do find funny – in a peculiar way – is that I often gain the impression when I speak to others, that I am spoiling their game-plan. It seems as if they wish to search forever ... some people consider arriving to be boring. How can unconditional peace and happiness, twenty-four-hours-a-day, possibly be boring? Is a carefree life all that difficult to comprehend? Why persist in a sick game ... and defend one’s right to do so? Why insist on suffering when blitheness is freely available here and now? Is a life of perennial gaiety something to be scorned? I have even had people say, accusingly, that I could not possibly be happy when there is so much suffering going on in the world. The logic of this defies credibility: Am I to wait until everybody else is happy before I am? If I was to wait, I would be waiting forever ... for under this twisted rationale, no one would dare to be the first to be happy. Their peculiar reasoning allows only for a mass happiness to occur globally; overnight success, as it were. Someone has to be intrepid enough to be first, to show what is possible to a benighted humanity ... one has to face the opprobrium of one’s ill-informed peers. Thus one needs to have a keen sense of humour ... all that ‘being serious’ stuff actively works against peace-on-earth. Be totally sincere ... most definitely utterly sincere, as genuineness is essential. But serious ... no way. An actual freedom is all about having fun; about enjoying being here; about delighting in being alive. One has to want to be here on this planet ... most people resent being here and wish to escape. This business of becoming free is not – contrary to popular opinion – a serious business at all. * RESPONDENT: To become one’s senses and bodily functions. It is the right way to live, you implied, and it sounds true to me. It sounds difficult to live it all the time but many times I have had at least partial experience of it. RICHARD: Good. Experience is essential if perfection is to be revealed to be actual. Otherwise one goes off into self-enhancing visionary states produced from utopian ideals that manifest themselves as hallucinatory chimeras. The mind, held hostage by ‘humanity’s ‘wisdom’, is a fertile breeding-ground for fanciful flights of imagination, giving rise to the fantasies and phantasms so loved and revered – and feared – by humankind. They never completely satisfy for they never last; they have no substance or intrinsic viability and doubt is never far away. In a valiant attempt to remove doubt, passion can be brought into the search. Passion can produce love. When ‘I’ experience love ‘I’ feel, that with the feelings that love induces like self-acceptance, self-worth, self-esteem and the feeling of being needed, that life has meaning after all . Yet all these feelings serve to prop up an ailing self and because love, however lofty, is fickle and manipulative ‘I’ must be ever vigilant. ‘I’ consist of a kaleidoscope of emotions and passions and therefore doubt is still not far away. This can hardly be called a satisfactory destination for the quest into finding the meaning of life. From the vantage point of freedom from ‘I’ – which can be accomplished by a peak experience – a miraculous shift is seen to have occurred. It is a mutation from the self-centred personality to a condition of self-less anonymity ... which is a blessed release from the onerous responsibility of being ‘someone’. The perfection and purity that is already here, where it has always been, is now available to be fully appreciated. That ‘I’, which was always perverting and spoiling every endeavour, is no longer present. ‘I’ was only an illusion, whereas as this flesh and blood body I am independent and free ... and actual. I am unable to be swayed by feelings; be they love or hate, hope or despair, despondency or enthusiasm and so on. Nor do I need to be needed by others, so compassion plays no part in my life. The dubious Authority and Power of the noble feelings of Love Agapé, Divine Compassion and rapturous bliss, euphoria and ecstasy are revealed to be pathetic boastings ... and a meagre surrogate for the tranquil intimacy, benevolence and blitheness of the beneficence that is the actual character of this human experience of this wondrous universe. RESPONDENT: I would like to know, how useful for the goal of living it permanently, from your perspective, are exercises where you relax different parts of your body and focus your attention on various physical sensations (without preference for what sensation you focus on, tune-in or ‘become’). RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have never done any disciplines, practices or exercises at all ... I have never done any meditation, any yoga, any chanting of mantras, any tai chi, any breathing exercises, any dietary regimes, any praying, any surrendering, any trusting, any fasting, any flagellations, any ... any of those ‘Tried and True’ inanities. Nor does one have to endlessly analyse one’s childhood for ever and a day. Nor does one have to do endless therapies wherein one expresses oneself again and again ... likewise relaxation exercises will never set you free. Coming to one’s senses does not mean merely relaxing one’s toes, for example. As I have previously written, in order to facilitate a peak experience of perfection, one needs to have a keen sense of humour ... all that ‘being serious’ stuff actively works against peace-on-earth. Be totally sincere – most definitely utterly sincere, as genuineness is essential – and come to your senses as efficaciously as possible. If you ‘focus your attention on various physical sensations’, then look to becoming the experience of these sensations happening ... rather than having them happen to you. And remember that an actual freedom is all about having fun; about enjoying being here; about delighting in being alive. One has to want to be here on this planet ... most people resent being here and wish to escape. And then the condition is ripe for a PCE to occur ... and although each pure consciousness experience brings a fresh beginning, an absolute newness, the condition of freedom from ‘I’ has indubitable character traits ... each time discovered anew with the same delight as if it were the first time. With each experience one finds oneself here in this ever-fresh, never contaminated moment. Here is an atmosphere free from ‘human’ feelings, from ‘humanity’s truisms, from religion’s morals and from civilisation’s mores ... all of which are humanistic and cultural coping-mechanisms and agreements. There is a delicious surprise to be found in actualism: it is so liveable. It is living, here on earth, as this actual body, simply brimming with sensory organs ... yet completely devoid of emotions and passions manifesting as hallucinatory thoughts and utopian idealism. It is indeed possible to live peacefully, at ease and undisturbed by these futile feelings and delusive thoughts. It is an entirely different ball-game with different rationale which, from the ‘human’ view-point, lies diametrically opposed to the orthodox rules and regulations based on those venerated thoughts and feelings ... the more ancient the better. Yet it is all so patently obvious. RESPONDENT No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: heh heh heh here we go again :D more popcorn anyone? research ‘playing one person against another’ [... snip ...]. RESPONDENT No. 37 (Sock-Puppet ‘I’)]: Richard tries to make sure that the person who is about to visit him [... snip ...]. RESPONDENT No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: coz there’s a lot at stake! he’s attempting to [... snip ...]. RICHARD: Hmm ... I can always tell some traction is being gained when the conjoined twins Heckle & Jeckle revert to their tacky tag-team tactics in their bizzarro-land attempts to prevent a few felicitous and innocuous peoples from having their happy and harmless way of being become a world-wide trend (and thereby usher in global peace and harmony in our lifetimes). Ha ... instead of a melodrama their cyber-space ‘Bash Richard/ Trash Actualism’ RPG is more reminiscent of The Ringling Bros Three-Ring Circus than anything else. ‘Roll up! Roll up! Roll up, folks! Roll up for the ... um ... for The Bragg Bros All-Bling Side Show! Starring none other than ... The Kiwi Klowns!’ ‘Yes, folks, appearing Exclusively Here, daily, for your On-line Entertainment is ... (drum-roll please maestro) ... ‘The Lads from The Land of the Long White Cloud’ (whose main trait held in common, apart from the same progenitor, is an entrenched resistance to the advent of peace-on-earth) who will Thrill You! Chill You! Drill You! with their Mind-Bending Boondoggle! with their Ludicrous Legerdemain! with their Prurient Pastiche! with their Salacious Slapstick! with their Shabby Shape-Shifting!’ The Kiwi Klowns! See them Bumbling! Stumbling! Tumbling! ... before Your Very Eyes! ... of the likes Never Seen Before! * RESPONDENT No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: oooh oooh maybe i will be back this evening, didnt catch this call hehehe RICHARD: Wow ... now that is indeed dedication to your self-promotional (don’t-listen-to-him!/ listen-to-me-instead!) piggy-backed-on-the-enterprise-of-another crusade ... especially given that only five minutes prior you had declared to all and sundry that [quote] ‘it is now wayyyy too glorious to spend one moment more behind winter walls. 10 days of relentless rain have finally ended and a lush green Sydney glistens invitingly under a bright blue sky. outta here’ [endquote]. In regards to your puffed-up-with-self-importance ‘didnt catch this call’ freudian slip: please be advised that it was *not* a call but parodic humour (quite evidentially designed for comic effect) and nothing else. (It is patently obvious that the ... um ... The Bragg Bros are lacking a sense of humour – such that enables one to laugh at oneself – but surely it would be of a utilitarian value for your many personae to pretend you do have one). Be that as it may; in view of your (needlessly) announced early return – being made specifically on account of this throwaway post – here is a more fleshed-out version, deliberately edited for comic effect of course, of that further above truncated depiction of Heckle & Jeckle for you to get some practice in (at pretending to find something self-parodic humorous) so as to plug that glaring leak which shows up in all your internet aliases. Viz.: Heckle and Jeckle: Heckle and Jeckle are postwar animated cartoon characters created by Paul Terry, originally produced at his own Terrytoons animation studio and released through 20th Century Fox ...’. Who’s who: Although identical in appearance, they are differentiated by their voices (...). However, the two magpies are far more alike in temperament than they are different ...’. Characteristics: While both are basically brash, cynical and antagonistic, Heckle may be more openly confrontational, and Jeckle slightly more devious. Both may deliberately annoy their mutual foils with insults, slapstick violence and rudeness, but Heckle is more likely to make his intentions clear from the outset. Conversely, Jeckle often treats enemies politely at first, in order to lull them into a false sense of security before unleashing magpie mayhem. They are alternately cast as a pair of conmen actively out to swindle an unsuspecting dupe – or just freeloading opportunists ...’. The high point of any Heckle and Jeckle cartoon was arguably the climactic chase sequence (...). Heckle and Jeckle often received their comeuppance before the fadeout, however, as they were usually the instigators of the conflict in the first place. Although they’ve wound up inside a jail cell on occasion ...’. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckle_and_Jeckle) RESPONDENT: You might consider having a photo taken and going to Rabbit Photo; they will give you the photo on CD – in digital format – so you can have your image on the internet by this evening. Or you can keep limiting your exposure to your conceptualisation which in the end is as valid as mine; or Osho’s’; or Veeresh’s; or Ramana Maharshi’s; or Leonard Cohen’s; or Isaac Shapiro’s ... RICHARD: This is an example of a vital opportunity being frittered away with empty rhetoric again (with some brand-names thrown in for good measure). RESPONDENT: Am I hearing that you consider each of these people – living or deceased – to have value ONLY as ‘brands’ – or alternatively, as fodder for the anti-branding brigade – rather than inherent value as an actual human person? In your way of seeing; do I have value as a person? Do you? RICHARD: May I suggest taking my words at face value? I am always straightforward and up-front; there is no subterfuge, no hidden meaning, no secret agenda, no ulterior motive – I mean what I say and I say what I mean – and I have oft-times said that I like my fellow human being irregardless of whatever mischief they get up to. And if someone wants to be valued as an actual human being then they ought to get off their backside and do something about being actual instead of presenting an image for public consumption (although when that happens the whole notion of being valued is meaningless). The term ‘brand-names’ has quite a common usage … take the automobile industry, for example: Rolls Royce is a brand-name; Cadillac is a brand-name; Porsche is a brand-name; Lamborghini is a brand-name and so on. Each name conveys a quality according to public opinion or personal predilection … consumers buy a car from a particular brand-name’s stable because of their track record; reliability, safety, after-sales service or whatever other criterion is considered valuable. There is a corollary in the spiritual bazaar (given the billions of dollars that changes hands it is undeniable that there is a product being marketed with the discerning consumer in mind) and seekers are often uncompromising (sometimes to the point of being rabid) when it comes to lineage, for instance. And you mentioned some recognisable ‘brand-names’, to demonstrate your point, that are readily comparable to the commercial world of motor vehicles inasmuch as it could be said there is a Rolls, a Stretch Limousine, a Bentley, a Hearse and a Datsun Bluebird on offer. But not necessarily in that order. * RESPONDENT: By the way; from various responses you give and have given and from discussions I have had back-channel there is a perception in me and certainly at least one other list member that you seem to lack the ability to discern irony when it is served up to you. Could that be part of your condition Richard? RICHARD: No, I easily detect ‘irony’ … along with sarcasm, derision, scorn, cynicism, disdain, mockery, insincerity and all other pathetic forms of wit. I simply do not dignify it into the status of being a valid comment by responding, by pandering to that thinly disguised malice that passes for humour in the real world. It is very obvious that sarcasm is a subtle form of abuse – verbal violence – and to be sarcastic is to obtain amusement at another’s expense ... it is a particularly cutting form of teasing, with vindictive undertones, and thus qualifies for the lowest rating on the humour scale. It is less obvious with irony yet, just as sarcasm is designed to make the recipient feel ridiculed, irony is designed to make the recipient feel rueful. They are thus both pathetic wit, even by definition, as the word ‘pathetic’ is derived from the root ‘pathos’, which indicates sorrow. Which all goes to show that the giver of either sarcasm or irony wishes the recipient to feel the incipient sorrow that is endemic among humans. Sorrow is a sickness that can lead, in extreme cases, to depression and suicide ... which I would not wish upon anyone. Thus sarcasm and irony are not what I, for one, consider fun. Whereas to be facetious or droll, for example, is waggish ... a non-serious jesting. GARY: Apparently, after self-immolation has taken place, having a good laugh is not ruled out, as Richard has written else-where about nearly rolling on the floor in laughter. Is this then ‘an affective experience’? RESPONDENT: Sounds like it to me, Gary. Perhaps Richard could elaborate on this apparent contradiction? RICHARD: It is only an ‘apparent contradiction’ if all laughter is first determined to be affective ... one can laugh with the sheer delight of being alive or in moments of great pleasure. I recall that when freedom first happened there was much laughter because it was as if I had been playing a great joke upon myself by searching everywhere and everywhen for something that was already always just here right now ... I am chuckling even now as I write about it (all suffering is self-caused and totally unnecessary). Also, one can laugh where something is ludicrous, farcical, absurd, ridiculous and so on ... speaking personally, I find the TV series ‘3rd Rock From The Sun’ humorous as it oft-times demonstrates many of the foibles of human nature (as in the first thirty four years of my life). Plus it is hilarious that for eleven years I lived-out the experience of being the latest saviour of humankind ... there is much about life which is irrepressibly funny. And I find it cute that an actual freedom from the human condition is deemed an incurable mental disorder. RESPONDENT: Perhaps one should not dwell on (or believe), in the authority of others? RICHARD: There is a distinct difference between the authority of experience (expertise) and the authority of law (rule). •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S. I typed the words ‘rolling’ and ‘the floor’ and ‘laughter’ into this computer’s search engine and sent it through all my written words ... this is what came up: • [Richard]: This discussion is not a competition about which one of us knows the most or is the cleverest at putting words together. We are talking about the possibility of your peace and your happiness and your harmony coming about here on earth, as this body, in this lifetime. For you to personally experience the ultimate each moment again, twenty four hours a day, three hundred and sixty five days of the year ... for the remainder of your life. • [Respondent]: Actually doesn’t sound that appealing – I don’t mind a bit of suffering – it’s good for the soul. • [Richard]: Peace and happiness and harmony does not ‘sound that appealing’? Are you for real? Do you mean to say that you condone wars, murders, tortures, rapes, domestic violence incidents and child abuse ... not to forget all the sadness, loneliness, grief, depression, despair and suicides? Do you really mean it when you say: ‘I don’t mind a bit of suffering’? If it was not so serious, I would be rolling about the floor laughing by now, at what you have just written ... for it is ludicrous. Read it again and see for yourself what nonsense it is. (Richard, List A, No. 5a, No. 14). And: • [Respondent]: ... [I agree that] it is funny that someone struts the world stage preaching humility and saying at the same time that they are God ... • [Richard]: Yes ... it is comical because it is absurd, preposterous, farcical, ridiculous, nonsensical and foolish. (...) Ever since I became capable of appreciating ‘black humour’ (thanks to the TV series ‘Black Adder’) I sometimes have a difficult job to not roll about the floor laughing. What makes it black humour is that such hypocritical duplicity perpetuates all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides forever and a day. (Richard, List B, No. 20e, 11 January 2001). RESPONDENT: Being in relationships does leave you at the brunt of a lot of jokes I’m afraid! RICHARD: Strange ... nobody around here makes jokes about my relationships ... you have the dubious honour of being the first. Which makes me wonder just what kind of world you have created for yourself. Being in a relationship is one of the most delicious, delightful, fascinating and rewarding things that one can ever do. In case you have not taken it in, given that half of the population being female and the other half being male, it an actuality that we fit together. It is a ‘given’, as they say in scientific circles, like gravity. It is the method by which we all came to be here – there is no other way of becoming a human being other than the union of the ova and the spermatozoa. And strange indeed it is that most religious/ spiritual/ mystical/ metaphysical paths, somewhere along the line, insist that one eschews anyone of the other gender. It amounts to nothing other than being in a state of denial. Apart from that, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. * RICHARD: Apart from that, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. RESPONDENT: You’ve obviously never watched ‘Beavis and Butt-head’ . RICHARD: No, I have never even heard of them. To be sarcastic is to obtain amusement at another’s expense ... it is a particularly cutting form of teasing, with malicious undertones, and thus qualifies for the lowest rating on the humour scale. * RESPONDENT: What I meant was, understanding the difference between things falling (an observation) and gravity (a theory) has implications. RICHARD: Okay. So would I be correct if I had said: ‘Things falling is a ‘given’, as they say in scientific circles?’ RESPONDENT: Yes, that would sound more correct to me. I’m sorry if you don’t appreciate my humour. RICHARD: To be sarcastic is to obtain amusement at another’s expense ... it is a particularly cutting form of teasing, with malicious undertones, and thus qualifies for the lowest rating on the humour scale. RESPONDENT: Oh, thank you so much for explaining that to me, Richard. I don’t know what poor ignorant me would do without your profound observations. By the way, where does irony fall on your wit-o-meter? RICHARD: As I do not have any feelings your attempt at a put-down is totally wasted. I do not have a wit-o-meter ... the ‘lowest form of wit’ phrase was simply an expression. Just as sarcasm is designed to make the recipient feel ridiculed, irony is designed to make the recipient feel rueful. They are thus both pathetic wit, by definition. As the word ‘pathetic’ is derived from the root ‘pathos’ – which indicates sorrow – then the giver of either sarcasm or irony wishes the recipient to feel the incipient sorrow that is endemic among humans. Sorrow is a sickness that can lead, in extreme cases, to depression and suicide ... which I would not wish upon anyone. Thus sarcasm and irony are not what I, for one, consider fun. It is a subtle form of verbal abuse. RICHARD: Speaking personally, you can name-call me to your heart’s content ... and I can dish out as good as what I get. RESPONDENT: So I’ve noticed and hereby acknowledge. RICHARD: Personally, I like to be rude in as polite a way as is possible with the English language ... it is much more fun that way. Being facetious beats sarcasm hands down, any day. Besides, sarcasm is a subtle form of abuse ... verbal violence. To be sarcastic is to obtain amusement at another’s expense ... it is a particularly cutting form of teasing, with malicious undertones, and thus qualifies for the lowest rating on the humour scale. So too with irony ... just as sarcasm is designed to make the recipient feel ridiculed, irony is designed to make the recipient feel rueful. They are thus both pathetic wit, by definition. As the word ‘pathetic’ is derived from the root ‘pathos’ – which indicates sorrow – then the giver of either sarcasm or irony wishes the recipient to feel the incipient sorrow that is endemic among humans. Sorrow is a sickness that can lead, in extreme cases, to depression and suicide ... which I would not wish upon anyone. Thus sarcasm and irony are not what I, for one, consider fun. Whereas facetiousness is waggish ... a non-serious jesting. RESPONDENT: Glad that Richard’s ego is extinct. RICHARD: If you were to actually read what I write with both eyes you will find that I lay particular emphasis on the extinction of the soul and not only the dissolution of the ego. Some human beings’ life does not always fit into the preconceptions that you may have of it. RESPONDENT: So he will not be offended by my attempt to sprinkle some humour in the mix. RICHARD: I am never offended … but could you make your humour funny? * RESPONDENT: I take it humour is one of the things you’ve cut all attachments to? RICHARD: You see … this comment demonstrates that what I am writing (above) is correct. We have corresponded before, you and I, and you show here once again that you have not taken the slightest notice of my report about how I experience being here: I have not ‘cut all attachments’ to anything … let alone humour. I do not and never have, practiced detachment. To practice detachment is to be twice-removed from actuality. RESPONDENT: If so, please do not be dissuaded by my fool-hearty posts. I am listening … RICHARD: Hmm … ‘listening’ to what? Maybe your ‘listening’ is somewhat akin the ‘looking’ of Mr. Narcissus? RESPONDENT: … even if the instrument which I am is not ‘quite-quite’. From one to another. RICHARD: Uh-huh … but please include me out of your self-description. * RESPONDENT: The gist of what I am asking is if you see humour as a waste of time? Do you laugh? What types of things do you laugh about? RICHARD: Humour is not a waste of time and I laugh a lot ... there is so much that is irrepressibly funny about life itself. Strangely enough I find that I enjoy black humour; whereas the ‘I’ that I was could not ... ‘he’ found it repulsive and sickening. Nevertheless, the humour I enjoy most is that which lampoons puffed-up power and its authority. For example: • A journalist had done a story on gender roles in Kuwait several years before the Gulf War, and she noted then that women customarily walked about 10 feet behind their husbands. She returned to Kuwait recently and observed that the men now walked several yards behind their wives. She approached one of the women for an explanation. ‘This is marvellous’, said the journalist. ‘What enabled women here to achieve this reversal of roles?’ Replied the Kuwaiti woman: ‘Land mines’. Although it looks superficially to be a sexist joke it is not ... the reverse would hold true for a matriarchal society. Human frailty exposes the lie of power. What I do find funny – in a peculiar way – is that I often gain the impression when I speak to others, that I am spoiling their game-plan. It seems as if they wish to search forever ... some people consider arriving to be boring. How can unconditional peace and happiness, twenty-four-hours-a-day, possibly be boring? Is a carefree life all that difficult to comprehend? Why persist in a sick game ... and defend one’s right to do so? Why insist on suffering when blitheness is freely available here and now? Is a life of perennial gaiety something to be scorned? I have even had people say, accusingly, that I could not possibly be happy when there is so much suffering going on in the world. The logic of this defies credibility: Am I to wait until everybody else is happy before I am? If I was to wait, I would be waiting forever ... for under this twisted rationale, no one would dare to be the first to be happy. Their peculiar reasoning allows only for a mass happiness to occur globally; overnight success, as it were. Someone has to be intrepid enough to be first, to show what is possible to a benighted humanity ... one has to face the opprobrium of one’s ill-informed peers. Thus one definitely needs to have a keen sense of humour ... all that ‘being serious’ stuff actively works against peace-on-earth. Be totally sincere ... most definitely utterly sincere, as genuineness is essential. But serious ... no way. An actual freedom is all about having fun; about enjoying being here; about delighting in being alive. One has to want to be here on this planet ... most people resent being here and wish to escape. This business of becoming free is not – contrary to popular opinion – a serious business at all. RESPONDENT: My comment about the t-shirts was intended to be humorous, but you were evidently offended by them. RICHARD: I never take offence … and perhaps you could point out the humour in a line that says ‘Is there a web-site or 1-800 number where I can purchase a ‘Richard the cry-baby-crusher’ or a ‘Konrad the building-block-piler’ t-shirt?’ RESPONDENT: I am sorry you found my words offensive, but I do not take you as seriously as you take yourself. RICHARD: All I said was a statement of fact: ‘It is obviously much easier to vilify from the peanut gallery, when presented with that which one does not understand (and without knowing that one does not understand or why), than thinking through the why’s and wherefore’s of the performance for oneself. Yet this is a Mailing List purportedly set-up to investigate and explore into the appalling mess that is the human condition’. * RESPONDENT: Well, for example, the pay per view t-shirt comment was frustration turned into humour, if I were you I would laugh and dismiss them. RICHARD: What if – just what if – one day the frustration could not be turned into humour (as is usual when push comes to shove)? Thus all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides go on forever and a day. RESPONDENT: I am not you, so you are free to dismiss them or not. RICHARD: Aye, it is because I am not you that I chose to respond to your ‘frustration turned into humour’ instead of dismissing them … and this dialogue is the result. RESPONDENT: And also because I place no conditions on you whatsoever. RICHARD: Why not? I do … I keep on saying that this Mailing List is purportedly set up to investigate the appalling mess that is the human condition. RESPONDENT: And because even if I did, it would not really constrain you at all. RICHARD: If you were to say something original … then I would sit up and take notice. RESPONDENT: Why does Richard go the way of eliminative reduction? I think it has something to do with his intellectual compulsion to eliminate all suggestion of ‘states’ from ‘Actualism’. Perhaps, this is a kind of reaction to his own personal history, which (apparently) kept him in the subtle thralldom of solipsistic qualitative states of what he calls ‘Enlightenment’ and the like. Perhaps derivative of this, when he, so to speak, gets a whiff of feeling he can’t stop coughing. And to stop coughing, he just stops breathing, or at least pretends to. Anyway, he does commit himself to a disembodiment of feelings, while still having them. I’m sure there are many examples, but here’s one: [Respondent]: ‘Sorry Richard, mind cannot see itself. [Richard]: ‘Indeed you may have cause to be sorry – although it is a wasted emotion – because the mind can see itself. Such seeing even has a name: apperception. (Oxford Dictionary: ‘apperception’: the mind’s perception of itself). Is it not rather humorous, in an ironic sort of way, that the dictionary writers would know that the mind can see itself, whilst you as god do not know this? What price god-hood, eh? Must be all that ‘being still’ business that keeps you so narcissistically self-engrossed that it prevents such clarity as even an Oxford Don can muster, I guess. [Respondent]: ‘Be at peace. [Richard]: ‘Your papal-like blessing comes too late to be tested for its efficacy. Just out of curiosity, how does it feel to be god going around dispensing peace with three little words? How long is it that you have been stemming misery and mayhem in such a simple way? Meanwhile, here where apperception is ... peace already always is’. [endquote]. (Richard, List B, No. 18, 1 June 1999). Language behaviour is not always unambiguous regarding underlying feelings or intentions. However, the words one chooses and the words one does not choose are often telling. In this case, I can find no way of reading Richard’s retort here that does not speak of some real underlying feeling, at least, and downright anger, at most. These are not the robotic words we would expect of one who has ‘extinguished’ the affective. I know I have personalized this now, but I feel it is unavoidable, because Richard’s mistake regarding feeling is not simply a cognitive error, it is a human hazard. And I think the self-delusion (what else would you call it) operating in the above illustration makes that hazard clear. RICHARD: If you consider that a person sans the affective feelings (emotions, passions and calentures) should write robotically (‘the robotic words we would expect of one who has ‘extinguished’ the affective’) then I guess that decides the matter for you inasmuch as you then have to read affective feelings (‘some real underlying feeling, at least, and downright anger, at most’) into a humorous exchange such as the example you have quoted just above. That particular exchange was the eighteenth e-mail with my co-respondent, who had previously enjoined me to know that they were god and that they can only be god, which I found comical at the time. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘One can not know God. One can only be God. • [Richard]: ‘Oh, no ... not you too? • [Respondent]: ‘Of course you can also be illusion ... you are the creator. • [Richard]: ‘Please, careful with the word < you > oh creator ... you are speaking for yourself and not me. I did not create anything. The universe was already here before I was born and will still be here after I die. Seeing that you know that you are the creator, could you create global peace-on-earth as soon as you read this please? All this waiting is killing people. (Richard, List B, No. 18, 3 August 1998). And: • [Respondent]: ‘Be still and know that I am God. • [Richard]: ‘And which god would that be? The last time I looked up the subject, there was upwards of twelve hundred different gods (and that did not include the Hindu Pantheon). (Richard, List B, No. 18, 7 August 1998a). When I read it through again I still find it comical – I always find it hilarious when a fellow human being tells me that they are god as I was one myself for eleven years in my enlightened phase – am I supposed to be humourless as well as robotic? * RESPONDENT: Richard (and list subscribers): 1. In Richard’s rebuttal to my quote of him as evidentiary of his having actual feelings, he has unwittingly provided us with further evidence of his powers of self-delusion. As in some other correspondence I recall seeing on the AF Trust website, he rationalises his language as ‘humour’. RICHARD: If I may point out? I do not ‘rationalise’ (justify with plausible but specious reasons) my language as humour ... as it is indeed humour. I am having so much fun here at the keyboard. RESPONDENT: This will be recognized by everyone as the old ‘I was only joking’ or ‘Can’t you take a joke?’ defence teenagers and some adults use when they’ve said something hurtful or embarrassing and have been discovered. RICHARD: Maybe you would be better served if you were to speak for yourself ... just because you have (erroneously) recognised it as a ‘defence’ does not mean that ‘everyone’ does. I was uncomplicated in my reply: I found it comical at the time that a god would tell me that ‘mind cannot see itself’, when it is a fact that it can (and I even provided the dictionary definition of apperception which expressed that very fact), and I still find it comical. It is comical because a god is (supposedly) omniscient. RESPONDENT: However, regardless of the words Richard uses to cover or explain his language, no reading-into is required to find real feeling in operation. RICHARD: If you are so convinced that you are not reading anything into my words then it seems that nothing I can say is going to alter that conviction ... I have already explained that it is nothing more than humour operating and you have already dismissed my explanation as a rationalisation. At this point I am reminded of what you said in an earlier post about how ‘fine and entertaining disputes’ usually develop in discussions of this nature ... has it ever occurred to you that it could very well be your modus operandi which is fuelling such disputes? I only ask because you seem so sure that you know me better than I do. RESPONDENT: Richard said that K’s statement that the observer is the observed unambiguously indicates being the very thing referred to. And I pointed out that K himself said that this does not mean that you are the tree, as that would be ridiculous. Richard frequently gives an overly literal meaning to what he reads from others. RICHARD: Ha ... this is actually quite humorous – given that it is written on a mailing list wherein there quite often is excoriation for interpreting what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words say – in that by me not deviating one hair’s breadth away from what the words ‘the outside is the inside’ and ‘the observer is the observed’ say, in the context they sit in, you are now reduced to making the point that I am being ‘overly literal’ (whatever that means) ... and that I am ‘frequently’ doing so into the bargain. Wonders will never cease, eh? RESPONDENT: In the above I detect the all too human feeling of resentment as to criticism. RICHARD: You have to be grasping at straws to find resentment in my response as it is indeed comical – given the background regarding the non-interpretation caution Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti impressed upon listeners/ readers – so much so that when the e-mail came into my mail-box another in the room asked me what the joke was which occasioned the chuckles (quite often I receive some of the jokes which do the rounds of the internet and I usually read the more amusing ones out loud). Perhaps if it were put this way: • [Version ‘A’]: ‘Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says ‘ABC’: what he means is ‘XYZ’. • [Response ‘A’]: ‘You are giving an interpretative meaning to what you read. • [Version ‘B’]: ‘Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says ‘ABC’: what he means is ‘ABC’. • [Response ‘B’]: ‘You are giving an overly literal meaning to what you read. Typically humour derives its comic impact from a sense of the ridiculous ... and the ability to laugh at such risibility can be very enriching. VINEETO: As for ‘chief-disciples’ – there will be a draw from the hat for the chief of all chief-disciples and other disciples on January 1, 1999. Applications can be placed on this mailing list, deadline: December 31, 11.59 PM. Necessary qualifications: none. The elected chief disciple will then be sitting in the front row of the discourses that never happen. RICHARD: What are simply marvellous idea! May I suggest? Could the draw be held at some particularly delightful restaurant ... like the ‘Pockets’, perhaps? First there could be a sumptuous feast on the balcony overlooking the tropical gardens ... followed by a post-prandial draw over coffee? Any suggestions? Secondly ... why a draw? Maybe it could be done by vote like the cardinals in the Sistine Chapel? You know, get a bit of ritual going ... smoke up the chimney and all that? And would it be an annual thing? Biannual? How often could we get to dine out on this pretext? Thirdly ... what badge of office should the chief disciple wear? Not a cloth badge like the Brownies or the Scouts ... maybe a hat? Or – now here’s a thought – why not a baton! The Field Marshals get a baton ... and a real fancy one at that. There may even be a baton lying around here some-place ... it was dropped in a hurry by the previous tenant and never passed on properly. I’ll have a look around and see what I can find, eh? And fourthly ... what are the duties of the chief disciple ... and what are the perks of office? Have you put much thought into all this? Perhaps a director’s meeting is called for? We have been rather slack about this matter, have we not? Better get our act together ... and PDQ. Re: Richard, to be fair.. ANDREW: [...]. I was surprised that [No. 37]’s trolling turned into all of this, but i can only assume that there is a point to your responses, and that point is implict in what you say; there isn’t anything to talk about, as nothing happened. this is fair enough. And that’s all I wanted to say. It is amazing how much time I spent on this whole thing tonight only to realize it was all about me... RICHARD: Given you mused about what point there is in my responses I will reiterate what I have already indicated, in that regard, but in a slightly different way for clarity. [...]. In case you have still missed it: that is it (i.e. conditional vs. suppositional); that is the point in my responses. ANDREW: G’day Richard (though it is well and truly night on both sides of Oz!), Thanks for continued presence and answers on this list. All the back and forth lately has been a reminder to me not to become complacent and use actualism as an add on, or adopted philosophy. And though I am not really that interested in the current topic (who wooed whom!) it has however made a few things clearer to me. i still must admit to not understanding your particular style of dealing with these things when they come up, but I also notice the nature of that ‘not understanding’ being related to issues of expectation and admonitory ‘voices’ in my own psyche that get nervous when considering what being actually free in this world actually is. this is not to say that I’m seeing this whole latest round as a mistake, but the thought has crossed my mind, and in crossing my mind I let it play out a bit briefly (rather than side with any-thing – just let things float around a bit) and it reminded me of the primary case of investigating my own present moment experience, and the value of even these otherwise accurately described ‘troll’ invasions. It seems to me that most of this angst originates in expectations of what a ‘perfect man’ should be. It also reminds me of how, as a father in the modern world, men in general are demonised and blamed for everything. a man doesn’t feel comfortable walking down the street with his own child without the thought occuring that others may have looked twice at him and, well, thought the worst. i read a while back a book about the otherwise complete reversal of the blame game in western society, how, since the 60’s, men have increasingly been the scapegoat for everything, monsters for even being male at all. I get the sense, (as only perhaps a feeling being can) that there is a fair amount of this going on in this list. I wonder what would have been the allegations if instead of being a man, the first actually free person had been a woman, or, ‘god forbid’, gay or lesbian! anyway, just wanted to add my thanks that you stick around, it boggles my mind that you can, but that also in itself is instructive as to what happy and harmless is. RICHARD: G’day Andrew, As the ‘point in my responses’ raised issues of expectation and admonitory ‘voices’ (i.e. ‘god man’ expectations) for you – which leaves you contemplating there being no-one to tell you what to do – it may be pertinent to be reminded of when it first struck home to the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body, all those years ago, that no one was in charge of the world (no Supreme Being/ Ultimate Authority of any description whatsoever). But first, given that your out-spoken thoughts (about ‘barking up the wrong tree on this whole idea of perfection’ for 13 years) set off an informative – and hilariously entertaining – exchange of ‘improv’ posts (including riff-like licks with a hook), a faint echo of the context will be sounded by re-presenting that email sequence. Viz.: #13948 • [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: ah i see, so youre happy to acept that actuality is pristine perfection but the flesh and blood body living as that ONLY doen’t have to be? what kind of a dream world are you living in man. what are you griping about, its not as though men are victims of another species theyve done it to themselves! grow up dude! • [Andrew]: I realise it’s a subtle point, but with a little thought (rather than reaction) you may agree that the idea of perfection commonly held (that a ‘god man’ is omniscient and unimpeachable) isn’t what is presented on the AFT. And if it is, then it is clearly mistaken. Which is a circluar axiom I know. I’m not sure how baby males are ‘doing it to themselves’, though like everyone we do indeed grow up. And in the end as Gerard Depardieu said the other day ‘we all end up horizontal – dead’ in 13 years has it occured to you that you may be barking up the wrong tree on this whole idea of perfection? (that indeed the universe is beyond intelligent and thus human intelligence, whether actually free or not, is finite and not a reflection of the universal ‘beyond intelligent’ idea?) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• #13952 • [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: and with this mentality you hope to find your way out of the human condition. your a joke. you wouldnt be able to live AS the pristine perfection of ACTUAL FACTS if they slapped you in the face. • [Andrew]: not sure how much slapping is going to be involved, but so far so good, the FACTS seem to pretty self evident far. BTW, it’s ‘you’re a joke’ not ‘your a joke’. My ‘A Joke’ is ‘companies have meetings because they cannot masturbate’ but it’s not that funny, mainly cause it’s true. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• #13960 • [Respondent No. 37 (Sock-Puppet ‘I’)]: Some sock puppets had popped out at that time which haven’t posted since, [00LE] and [00L] being the ones that I remember. • [Respondent [00L]]: I am no more a sock puppet than you are a useful contributor to this forum, ie not at all. I simply do not have the time to write anymore, whereas you have ample time to continue to troll. Do you understand the irony, that every troll message here is just a further impetus for the serious people to get on with their actualist journey? • [Andrew]: hi [00L] this time around, I can vouch for that. the more they whine and complain and troll the more I know beyond any doubt that freedom from such tendancies in myself is up to me, and up to me right now. it’s also encouraging personally to not be upset by it, that I can see real change in how i am in the world, and online. 13 years of trolling, I mean I’ve had a hobby or two, but that is an outstanding dedication to an art if ever i saw it. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• #13965 • [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: what is the beneficial motive, the 100% harmless, benevolent and benign motive, behind exposing peoples anonyms/ pseudonyms/ aliases etc on the internet? bearing in mind that this is open membership mailing list, and that the instinctual passions of the average human being is prone to mental delusions and that we are the most cunning and aggressive predator on the planet? • [Andrew]: Your logic is so twisted I’m surprised you can even string sentences together. if you, after 13 YEARS of attacking richard, can’t see that the last part of your question answers the first, then, well, I’ve wasted my time writing even this much. as you obviously think these questions are ironclad rhetorical slamdunks, it’s time you started READING WITH YOUR EYES OPEN!!! What are my motives for replying? that is a 100% great question, considering you embody the type of behavior online that you accuse richard of, i may as well be writing a post addressed to a serial killer about kindness. You are abusive. You are malicious. You are cunning. You are aggressive. You are deluded. Oh, and you have spent 13 YEARS butchering and regurgitating in your accusations the very words of the man you are attacking. You haven’t understood a single one of them to start with. What are my motives? I cannot honestly say, I probably like to hear myself think and like avoiding getting my evening work done. If it was to converse with you, then so far you have proven to be a complete waste of time. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• #13973 • [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: GOT IT! took a while but he’s baaaaaaack :) here you are folks, let me introduce you, give him a big hand now, this is the REAL ANDREW TROLL heh heh heh. no more Mr Pretentious Actualist now eh Andrew? knew you STILL had it in ya and FUMING wooph!!! here’s LOOLIN at YOU kid, hohoho :)))))))))))) • [Andrew]: Fuming? Not at all. And yes I am back, sort of, and all your shit don’t scare me off one bit. I got your number, it’s 1800 NOFKNKLU. troll away whoever you are, I’m sure to get bored soon, or just start enjoying it like you do, which ironically, is the whole point of actualism. Most of my hobbies last a year or so, 13 YEARS of this stuff don’t sound too exciting though. It’s quite a record you have there. Bet you’re proud as punch. Wow, 13 YEARS. Good for you, well done. Not every day someone achieves such lofty success. Really gives me hope that if every single other thing i try in life completely fails , i can always fall back to internet trolling to get my rocks off. You are an inspiration. I should get one of those posters that say ‘never give up’ and stick a picture of you on it. Of course, I’ll have to cut out pictures from ‘woman’s day’ and ‘ knitting ‘n yarn’ to build a composite of your face, but I don’t imagine it to be too hard. Just make sure it’s all green and i’m most of the way there. funny thing is you are probably some post-middle aged dude/ dudess who doesn’t say ‘boo’ to anyone in real life and gets all ‘it’s’ angst out on the net. Good ol’ internet. Between porn and trolls I don’t think it would have got past the military-geeks-spending-black-budget-tax-dollars stage. you are the perfect and timely reminder why any of this ‘quest to change’ needs doing at all. Thanks. Also, thanks for the laugh. Hope you are having fun. genuinely enjoyed this. Had a shit day earning a crap load of money. Why are my hands turning green...? haha (Got anymore? Oh, of course you do. You are the MASTER. 13 YEARS. wow. No really, wow, just WOW!) Oh, and my name is Andrew. What is yours? ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• #13976 • [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: more please. i ...ah.. i’m not quite understanding what youre saying. perhaps a couple more days of rephrasings should do it. nah a coupla weeks, then i’m bound to comprehend. gooooooood boy (3 thumbs up) • [Andrew]: Comprehend? you should be so lucky. I reckon if after, what was it again?, 13 YEARS, hasn’t done it, 3 days ain’t going to do shit on that front. It’s not for your sake by the way, I’m having fun. Isn’t that why you do this? To have fun? that is your motivation right? You were harping on the other day about enjoying all this. I really can’t remember how you put it, i skip most of what you say. It’s just not a particularly good to read at the best of times, and your best so far is somewhere between ‘God Awful’ and ‘Cro-Magnon’. (really couldn’t be bothered looking up it up either, it was dreary enough the first time). Three thumbs up from a 13 YEAR veteran troll! Not bad after a few attempts. I got a real future in this don’t you think? Any pointers? Am I malicious enough? Got enough tired old material? The 13 YEAR joke is a getting bit worn out, but jeez, 13 YEEAARRS!, it’s worth flogging it for at least 13 posts. It’s the least I can do. If I could do any less for you, I would. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• #13978 • [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: basically the question is: if you are an Actually Free human being (IOWs 100% harmless, benevolent and benign) what would be the motive for exposing peoples anonyms/ pseudonyms/ aliases etc on the internet where the most cunning and aggressive predator on the planet is lurking? • [Andrew]: Do you mean to say JAWS is loose in cyberspace now?!!!! Heck, thanks for the heads up. Better get me an alias. good ol’ aliases, keeping us safe since the year 2000. That’s 13 years ago you know!. that’s a LONG LONG time. I can barely remember 13 YEARS ago. Let’s see, what have I done?... OK, yeah. That’s right. I’ve learnt 3 instruments, made a career, had a family, built a house, ... and become an internet troll. I’m most proud of the last one. It just makes the others seem so, what the word?, pointless. i wish I had found it sooner actually. I feel like I’ve wasted 13 YEARS of my life on all that other shit. I could have posted so much crap. Oh, for another chance.. Sniff. If only I had a time machine or something, it would be so different, I would have hit the net hard back in ‘89, back when the screens a nice shade of green and the apples had rainbows on them, I would have been a contender, a really heavy hitter. but here I am only discovering the joys of trolling now. Thank god I’m still young and got all my fingers. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• #13981 • [Sock-Puppet ‘MJ’]: Andrew seems like Richard to me. His repetitious ‘13 YEARS of attacking richard’ is a give away. I am only suspcting, nothing is confirmed yet * • [Sock-Puppet ‘MJ’]: Hi Andrew here is a fresh opportunity for you or anyone who gets affected by messages that challenge Richard/ AF/ or carefully nurtured Actualist feelings or loyalty for AF....ask yourself – why are you so affected by it? ask yourself – if you are having fun, why do you say you ignore most of what is written by a so-called troll ( define troll, btw – being contrarian is not trolling; if the troll has a different personality than yours, then it is ‘you’ that needs investigation; the so-called troll is giving you an opportunity to find more about your reactions, responses); ask yourself – why are you on this forum; ask yourself – what is the discussion about; ask yourself – if you do not find this useful what else will you like to do; ask yourself – what is it that is troubling you. Richard gets extremely unsettled by the so-called troll because the so-called troll calls his bluff. Does that trouble you, that your beleif in Richard gets shaken up and because it gets shaken up it also gets strengthened. • [Andrew]: Hi Mr M. I’m just having fun MJ, just having me some fun. Feel free to have some too. It’s actually quite pleasant and re-warding. (I got THREE THUMBS UP – I’m chuffed to say the least) Now, down to business. Point for point, your post is, well, pretty bland. I forced myself to read it, and was un-surprised to be disappointed. Far Too Serious. And lacking any ‘zing’ or bite. Needed something flippant and frivolous. Perhaps an insult would do if you can’t manage wit. Do you think I’m affected? what gave you that impression? Was it something I said? Is my nervous-hand-sweat so obvious in the way the letters are formed? Did you have to wipe spittle from your eyes as you read it? Now to the chase; Am I really Richard? Piece it together [MJ]. 1) Australian 2) Says ‘Man Alive’ while avoids saying ‘G’day’ (too obvious) 3) Intelligent. No hiding that. There, it’s out now. In print. The evidence is clear. (it’s on the internet for christ’s sake! It has to be true) I’ll email you all the transcript of my friend’s sister’s dog’s recollections of this conversation and CC God to make it official and you can stuff it up, I mean in, your archive. Ain’t Life grand! Regards Richa...I mean Andrew. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• #13982 • [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: damn boy! when i gave you enough rope, i didnt expect you’d REALLY hang yourself, your death throes are downright pitiful! sound younger than [No. 11] with every post. and this folks is the mentality actualism attracts. good luck with that. • [Andrew]: Again, TOO SERIOUS. What has come over you? Did I miss yet another memo? I thought it was troll season. i think you are getting tired. Time for bed and dreams of large green things of the opposite sex. Were you teased in troll kindergarten? Here’s the thing. My mentality is indeed attracted to actualism. I thought so myself the other day. I thought why can’t I go back to all those nice fluffy christo-buddist warm lovelies I was into a few years back? sure was nice back then. Nothing changing, pure frustration all the time. And the boredom, GOD, it was like being killed with tweezers and a lice brush; very little point and extremely itchy. So yeah, MADAM/ SIR, I accept your luck, and your rope, and also the changes I have seen since last we trolled it up and I was ringing the QLD police to see if your allegations had made it to court. Should have been NSW police, but hey, close enough. Mentalities attracted to actualism hey? I’m guessing you haven’t looked in the mirror lately. But being a troll, I can relate to that. Scary Stuff. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• #13984 • [Respondent No. 00M]: not sure you wanna play their games Andrew: http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/catalogue/sarcasm.htm sarcasm is certainly a way to have fun but is it harmless? • [Andrew]: [00M], yeah maybe harmless factor is close to zero. But hey, we are talking about a verteran here. 13 YEARS of toughing out the BIGGEST PREDATOR ON THE INTERNET. Heck this woman/man is Sigourney Weaver of the Actualist World. Ain’t no lil ol’ Andrew getting under that thickened hide. No sir. It’s like at the cattle ranches when they brand cows, it doesn’t hurt them. Does it? surely not. there would be an inquest or something. Jamie Oliver would be called and it would all be shut down. Yeah, i probably will regret playing in the mud, and no i didn’t read the link like I probably should have. ([00M] they are watching you know, like right now, can we have this conversation in a squirrel-like manner elsewhere? It’s just a bit like when your mum calls to you come inside in front of your friends...you know, just when you had them convinced you lived on the street battling while dogs and hunting kangaroos just to survive, she calls ‘Dinner time Sweety!’ Not a good look for a new troll, I just got three thumbs up man, you spoiling my credz dude...) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• #13986 • [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: woa! youre a REAL nutter arent you Andrew? so what is it, bipolar? whatever its senselessly manic now. better take your meds mate, coz youve majorly lost it. • [Andrew]: That’s it? ‘nutter’, ‘meds’, ‘lost it’? I thought 13 YEARS would have had more refinement and originality. Must have been a case of 13 x 1 years experience then. Or a case of ‘you can’t beat the classics; ‘Your crazy!’ ‘No i’m not, your crazy’ haha. Where is my rubber hammer. KA-BONK! hilarious stuff. You’d want to hope I’m not a real bipolar nutter. Or by your own estimation you have been teasing the BIGGEST PREDATOR ON THE INTERNET and now just picked up a REAL BIPOLAR NUTTER WHO HAS MAJORLY LOST IT with you. Good Work Sir/ Madam, as the case may be. I would have thought the other PREDATOR would have taken you out by now, but then Arnie survived a couple of those and he came out OK. Ok, your boring me now. I thought you said you were fun to be around? ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• #13989 • [Respondent No. 00M]: yeah, we’re being watched and that´s actually the great thing about this mailing list troll or no troll, whoever/ whatever triggers ‘me’ is actually doing me a favor in that he presents me an opportunity to see wether I have something to defend in order to be willing to own up to ‘me’ being in defense mode though, my first priority has to be sincerity being sincere is to be willing to be wrong and to be willing to be wrong is to be unafraid of being wrong after all, I’m doing this for me... no point in fooling anyone oh and to get back to the topic (lol), being sincere/ naive is the prerequisite for being benevolent... and being benevolent (even the affective version) feels pretty sweet • [Andrew]: The irony of trolling this thread wasn’t lost on me. And [No. 5] is indeed a good test of where I am at, am I just playing? Mostly, there where a few moments tonight when it occurred to me ‘perhaps he/ she can’t take what they give, maybe 13 years is a sad lonely cry from a broken person and this crusade against actualism is the only thing keeping them going’. Then I thought ‘nah, they said that wasn’t true. Why would they lie?!’ Neither of us could be here tomorrow – we could join the 20,000 kids that starved to death today in whatever does or doesn’t come next. i don’t agree that sarcasm is always violence, and i don’t agree that violence is always something wrong. but that’s another whole kettle of trolls and dragon slayers. this is where the whole ‘tar brush’ comes unstuck. Carefully being an ‘actualist’ is not what this is about. It’s about enjoying ones life. [No. 5] came to play, (didn’t end up playing that well, but meh), I played. [No. 5] isn’t really much fun in the end, which makes me think they (he/ she/ it) are lying and this is their only sad outlet. such is life for some. The reactions were predictable and trite. What was interesting was how much fun it is to have a go at it. I’ve never straight up went for it without some internal ‘oh, no, don’t do that, it’s not <fill in the ism here>. so in a way i’m just taking [No. 5]’s advice and making sure i’m not just following the ‘rules’. If I was trolling Childfund or some parents of a dead kid, yeah, different story. [No. 5] can do what they like with that keyboard, cry over it, go donate money to a kids cancer fund, come back with some more inanity, switch it off, whatever. So can I, and will do soon as I’ve successfully procrastinated for a couple of hours now... ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• #13990 • [Sock-Puppet ‘MJ’]: don’t get so hot and bothered, mate no one is forcing you to stay in this forum, you are doing it to yourself. • [Andrew]: Oh yes, look at that! So I am. Gee, thanks for the pearl of wisdom there. For a minute I thought i was being forced to read your comebacks. Until I read your comeback, and wished I could unread it and realized not even Satan himself would force someone read that shit. No one should be reading that comeback. Period. It hurts sanity itself. (or insanity as the case may be, I am a biploar nutter you know). It is truly atrocious. ‘don’t get so hot and bother, mate’ what is this Home and Away? Ha ... you are quite a card when on a roll, Andrew. Here is an account of when it first struck home to the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body, all those years ago, that no one was in charge of the world. Viz.: • [Richard]: My adult questioning of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being all started in a war-torn country in 1966 at age nineteen where a religious man killed himself in a most gruesome way. There was I, a callow youth dressed in a jungle-green soldier’s uniform and with a loaded rifle in my hand, representing the secular way to peace. There was a fellow human being, dressed in a saffron-orange monk’s robes dowsed with petrol and with a cigarette lighter in hand, representing the mystical way to peace. I was aghast at what we were both doing ... and I sought to find a third alternative to being either secular or spiritual. This was to be the turning point of my life for, up until then, I was a typical western youth; raised to believe in a cultural ‘God, Queen and Country’ ethos. Humanity’s inhumanity to humankind – society’s treatment of its subject citizens – was driven home to me, there and then, in a way which left me appalled, horrified, terrified and repulsed to the core of my being with a sick revulsion. I saw how no one knew what was going on and – most importantly – how no one was ‘in charge’ of the world. There was nobody to ‘save’ the human race insofar as all gods and goddesses were but a figment of a feverish imagination. Out of a despairing desperation, which was collectively shared by my fellow humans, I saw and understood how I was as ‘guilty’ as anyone else. For in me – as is in everyone – was both ‘good’ and ‘bad’; it was that some people were better than others at controlling their ‘dark side’. However, in a war, there is no way anyone can consistently control any longer ... evil (aka malice) ran rampant. I saw how fear and aggression and nurture and desire ruled the world and, already knowing that these were the instinctual passions one was born with, thus started my search for freedom from the ‘Human Condition’. My attitude, all those years ago, was this: I was only interested in changing myself fundamentally, radically, completely and utterly. (Richard, Personal Web-page) Regards, Richard. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: You will probably find the following quite topical. Viz.: • [Co-Respondent]: Richard, have you encountered a situation where people want to test your ‘harmlessness’ by poking, trying to be mean etc. in real lives? • [Richard]: Aye, on many an occasion ... both in face-face situations and on this mailing list (where it happens more often due to lack of physical restraint). By the very nature of the human condition human beings, through no fault of their own, are self-centred and some are more so than others – some to the point of feeling, and thus thinking, that the world revolves around them – and it never occurs to those, who do just that, that they are simply wasting both their time and a vital opportunity by manifesting the same-same behaviour (and using the same-same techniques) as the many who have done so before them have done ... being so self-centred as to be fondly imagining that their own fundamental sphincter-muscle, which they are wearing around their neck, is a dainty little necklet they are unable to realise that they, and therefore their behaviour and techniques, are in no way unique. In short: trying to get me riled is as futile as shaking a fist at the firmament, and fulminating against the universe, is ... it has no effect whatsoever. Furthermore, those who do it frequently on this discussion list are, by mistaking freedom from moderation as a licence for anarchy, openly demonstrating to all and sundry (other than to themselves, though, or they would cease forthwith) why the very rules, regulations, protocols, etiquettes, and so on, they are rebelling against in general have been needed, are needed, and will remain needed. ‘Tis a weird way to try to convince those, in a position of governance, to cease governing as the only effect is to emphasise why the need is there in the first place, eh? Oh, well ... c’est la vie, I guess. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 66, 27 April 2005b). RESPONDENT: Which percepts tell you ‘that thing is different from what it ought/ what I want it to be’? RICHARD: The word ‘percept’ can refer to two things: ‘percept: (1) an object of perception; (2) the mental product or result of perceiving (as distinguished from the action)’ (Oxford Dictionary). If you are asking which object of perception occasions the noticing that something is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be that very object of perception which is indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be (such as, for example, an approaching vehicle being on the same side of the road as the vehicle being travelled in is on). If you are asking which mental product, or result of perceiving, is informative about something being different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be the mental product, or result of perceiving, which the object of perception that is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, readily evokes (by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness) by the very fact of it being indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be. RESPONDENT: To me, this has never been a ‘fact’. RICHARD: As it is not a fiction (that the object of perception is different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be) then what is it, according to you, if it be not a fact? Before you reach for the keyboard ... the example already provided can serve as a demonstration: 1. A vehicle is sighted. 2. That vehicle is visibly moving. 3. That moving vehicle is visually seen as approaching head-on. Hence: 1. It is a fact it is a vehicle; it is a fiction it is a tree (for instance). 2. It is a fact that the vehicle is moving; it is a fiction it is stationary (either parked or immobilised). 3. It is a fact that the moving vehicle is approaching head-on; it is a fiction it is approaching side-to-side (not on a collision course). Here are the parameters of the example: 1. All users of vehicles have tacitly agreed to a sensible convention (to only travel on an agreed-upon side of the road). 2. That sensibly agreed-upon convention has been codified as law (enforceable by appropriate penalties). Ergo: 1. It is a fact that the approaching vehicle is not where it is wanted to be (for reasons of safe passage) as per the agreement; it is a fiction that it is where it is wanted to be. 2. It is a fact that the vehicle is not where it ought to be (for reasons of being penalised) as per the law; it is a fiction that it is where it ought to be. Thus it is certainly by [quote] ‘the very fact’ [endquote] of the object of perception (the approaching vehicle) being indeed different from what it ought to be (it ought not be approaching head-on), or from what it is wanted to be (it is not wanted to be approaching head-on), which readily evokes the mental product, or result of perceiving, which is informative – by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness – about something (the approaching vehicle) being different (being not on the other side of the road) from what it ought to be (in accordance with the law), or from what it is wanted to be (in accordance with sensibility). Just in case that is not clear enough: what you are saying, in effect, is that the the object of perception (the vehicle approaching head-on) is not a vehicle/ is not approaching/ is not head-on until you cogitate it into being just that (a vehicle approaching head-on). Methinks thou hast quaffed copiously at the fountain of quantum. RESPONDENT: Facts are what I can see, hear, etc. RICHARD: As dictionaries are descriptive (and not prescriptive) you can, of course, have that word mean whatever it is you want it to mean ... for the sake of clarity in communication the following are some examples of its usage in the further above exchange: • ‘fact: something which is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information’. ~ (Cambridge Dictionary). • ‘fact: a thing done; the quality of being actual; something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality’. ~ (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary). • ‘fact [originally meaning ‘an act’, from Latin factum, from facere ‘do’]: a thing that is indisputably the case; (facts) information used as evidence or as part of a report’. ~ (Oxford Dictionary). • ‘fact [Latin factum, ‘deed’, from neuter past participle of facere, ‘to do’]: knowledge or information based on real occurrences; something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed; a real occurrence; an event; a thing that has been done’. ~ (American Heritage® Dictionary). • ‘fact: an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; a concept whose truth can be proved’. ~ (WordNet 2.0). • ‘fact: something known to be true; something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened; truth or reality of something; the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something’. ~ (Encarta Dictionary). Incidentally, it is a fact that the flesh and blood body typing these words is striking a match, right now, and yet according to you (as you cannot see this action happening, hear this activity occurring, and etcetera) it is not a fact at all ... which would also imply (unless you are so self-centric as to believe the world revolves around you) that, as this flesh and blood body cannot see you doing it, it is not a fact that you are reading these words. RESPONDENT: – I have never directly seen, heard etc., that something was indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it was wanted to be. It was always I who made it so different – or who knew that somebody else wanted the situation to be different, using the ratiocinative/ insightful and/or conceptive capacity, although that making or knowing (remembering) was, at times, so fast that it could seem that the difference was given (‘data’), not produced by my insightful capacity or memory. RICHARD: If I might point out? You specifically asked (a) how something is seen (understood, comprehended, known) to be needing to be done ... and (b) which percepts tell (inform, notify, convey) that something is different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be, in the context of this flesh and blood body, being sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto, having no imaginative/ intuitive facility whatsoever. All you have done, in this response, is to have maladroitly shifted your argument from being about cognitive perception (as per your usage of the words ‘see’ and ‘tell’ in your queries) to being about sensory perception only (via your idiosyncratic utilisation of the word ‘fact’) ... as you have made abundantly clear further on in your e-mail: • [Respondent]: ‘How do you recognize – perceptively – the difference between ‘is’ and ‘ought to be’? How do you ‘see’ an ‘ought to be’ or ‘should be done’? For I, personally, have never seen anything as it ‘ought to be’, only ‘as it is’. I have always conceived of the ‘ought to be’ using my ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty, but never using my senses directly’. [endquote]. And yet here is your original query (from the top of this page): • [Respondent]: ‘Practically speaking: How do you *see* that something needs to be done?’ [emphasis added]. Plus here is my response (also from the top of this page): • [Richard]: ‘The way something is *seen* to be needing to be done, sans the imaginative/ intuitive facility, is by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/ conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness.’ [emphasis added]. May I ask? Are you left-handed or right-handed (or even both maybe)? Just curious. RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX RICHARD’S HOME PAGE 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 and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity