Richard replies to Rick's "Burnt Toast" Posts

claudiu · 25 April 2024 12:37

Hello all,

Vineeto recently sent me an e-mail which contained a long and detailed response from Richard regarding @rick’s “Burnt Toast” (Part 1; Part 2) posts.

I have reproduced it below, adjusting the formatting to be appropriate for this forum, for all to avail themselves of. Brackets with “Ed:” are my own additions/edits.

Cheers,
Claudiu

claudiu · 25 April 2024 12:37

Part 1/3

2024 Apr 24

VINEETO: […] Talking about detractors - Richard has asked me to draw your attention to the following text (from the Facts vis-à-vis Groupthink index). Viz.:

• RICHARD: What I have found, more often than not, in any area of research I have ever looked into is that not only are facts rather few and far between but it is mainly the proposition which gets most of the attention … so much so that I have oft-times figuratively likened such theses to an inverted pyramid (one standing on its apex) where a judicious pulling-out of its intuited/ imagined capstone results in the teetering edifice painstakingly constructed thereupon ignominiously tumbling down.

It is all so glaringly obvious when one twigs to what to look for—the factual basis of the hypothesis or theory/the basic premise of the argument or proposition—and it saves wading through a lot of quite often well-written but fatally-flawed articles trying to make sense of something which can never make sense”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 110, 14 April 2006).
[Facts and Groupthink Index].

Richard wrote all what follows (below) and handed it over on a memory-stick for me to include in this response of mine.

RICHARD: The reason for drawing your attention to the above text is because the recent “Burnt Toast” thread, on the Discuss Actualism Online forum, is where Rick has painstakingly constructed a teetering edifice of such a flashy magnitude—an inverted pyramid teetering so gaudily on its illegitimate^[1] capstone as to register 7.4 on the Ricker Scale (and surpassed only by his infamous ‘affective feelings are actual’ thread [Ed: link] which registered 9.6 on that eponymous scale)—as to render it more than passing strange how none of the thread’s responders ever noticed it.

It is well worth copy-pasting it here (immediately below), in full, so as to more easily refer to its fatal flaw. Viz.:

• Burnt Toast: That’s that Sh I don’t like!*

Post № 01; Rick; 14 Apr 2024.

[Burnt Toast: That's that Sh* I don't like!].

In 1959, Broadway writers Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein composed “My Favourite Things” for their hit musical The Sound of Music, whose film adaptation starring Julie Andrews went on to win five Oscars, including Best Picture. “My Favourite Things” was Rodgers’ and Hammerstein’s ode to those things for which they heartily approved, namely: || Raindrops on roses | whiskers on kittens | Bright copper kettles | warm woollen mittens | Brown paper packages tied up with strings | Cream coloured ponies | crisp apple strudels | Doorbells | sleigh bells | schnitzel with noodles | Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings | Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes | Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eye lashes | Silver white winters that melt into springs ||

{Video Caption: The Sound of Music; My Favourite Thing; 1965 [Ed: link]}.

53 years later, in what was plainly a furtive nod to the Broadway composers, Chicago debutants Messrs. Chief Keef and Lil’ Reese, self-styled “musicians,” pillars of their community, and “good boys” according to their mommas, penned their chart-topping “[Things] I Don’t Like”, a definitive, antipodal version of the 1959 classic. “[Things] I Don’t Like” was Chief Keef’s and Lil’ Reese’s sonnet dedicated to those things for which they fervently disapproved, namely: || fuck niggas | snitch niggas | bitch niggas | sneak dissers | popped bitches | smoking Reggie | fake trues | fake shoes | flake niggas | stalking-ass bitches | playing both sides | thirsty-ass bitches ||

{Video Caption: Chief Keef: I Don’t Like f/ Lil Reese [Ed: link]}.

Enter Richard, a Perth native {!sic!; a Harewood native, actually}, whose accomplishments include Peace on Earth, setting the stage on fire with a unique twist to the like/ dislike dichotomy, which the arts had been forcing upon its patrons since time began. Artists worth their salt pay homage to their forebears before striking out on their own. Accordingly, in the fashion of Rodgers and Hammerstein, Richard utilised the medium of prose to first describe a thing he liked, namely:

• “hot, golden-brown toast covered with butter just beginning to melt and drip”.

Then, in style characteristic of Chief Keef and Lil’ Reese, he submitted a thing he did not like, namely:

• “cold, charred-black toast covered with butter long-ago melted and now congealed”.

How is one to feel about this? The audience has been straightaway driven from one extreme of the like/ dislike spectrum to the other. They are confused, dizzy, and, what’s worse, feeling rather neutral about it all. “Meh”, they seem to say, for that is how it feels when subjected to an equal share of repulsive “ones” and pleasing “tens”. But not to worry, for that was just the intro, a mere illustration of the essential defect in the jumbled, chaotic outlooks of those who’d gone before. Then, defying all convention, he rectifies the defective dichotomy by decimating the scales, hierarchies, and gradations altogether, to reveal a pre-existent, underlying, and “ultimate” aspect to everything—golden-brown and charred-black toast alike—that is nothing short of perfect and peerless. Here, and only here, is where all without exception is faultless and flawless.

Here is where ♫ crisp apple strudels and thirsty-ass bitches, raindrops on roses and the raping of villages ♫ can be liked, enjoyed, and appreciated, for how else would one experience a thing that was, in the final analysis, perfect?

RICHARD: “[I]f, upon ordering buttered toast at a café the waiter/ waitress brings hot, golden-brown toast covered with butter just beginning to melt and drip, in contrast to bringing cold, charred-black toast covered with butter long-ago melted and now congealed, I would rate the former as being 10, on a scale of 1-10 and the latter as being 1 on the same scale … howsoever that is a relative scale as the very stuff of both the former and the latter, being the very stuff of infinitude itself, is incomparable (peerless). Thus, in the ultimate sense, everything is perfect here in this actual world”. [emphasis added by Rick]. (Mailing List ‘AF’ Respondent No. 25): [Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 25].

To explain: by hyperopically^[2] eyeing what he considers the key word—and thus already mentally reacting to it (he even added emphasis to the word “everything” it will be noticed)—he adroitly overlooked the operative words “the very stuff” (which appear twice mind you) and which reactionary thought has him then engage in what is known in the trade as a strawman argument^[3]^[4] (wherein an argufier invents something their interlocutor did not say then criticises their own invention as if they are having a meaningful conversation about what the other had actually said).

What follows are some clearly spelled-out examples, from The Actual Freedom Trust website, which unambiguously detail just what Richard is referring to when he writes and/or says “the very stuff” and “the very stuff of infinitude itself” (as in the further above “Burnt Toast” instance). Viz.:

• Jul 10 2015:

RESPONDENT: “I’m a bit confused about Pure Intent here—since it is a life-force, does it exist only in living organisms?”

RICHARD: “No, not only as living organisms—as in, flora and fauna, that is—but as matter as well (which is what the constituent elements^[5]^[6]^[7] of all flora and fauna are, anyway) as per that ‘same-same stuff as the very stuff of the universe itself’ articulation⁽*⁾ in the email you are responding to”.
[Mailing List 'D' Respondent No. 32].

⁽*⁾ Jul 6 2015

RICHARD: “(…). In this context, then, as the term ‘pure intent’ refers to an intimate connection betwixt the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté and the pristine-purity of that actual innocence which is inherent to living life as a flesh-and-blood body only (i.e., sans identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty) then the benedictive/ liberative impetus, or agency as such, stems from and/or flows from that which is totally other than ‘me’ and/or completely outside of ‘me’ (this factor is very important as it is vital that such impetus, such agency, be not of ‘me’ or ‘my’ doings) and literally invisible to ‘me’—namely: that flesh-and-blood body only being thus apperceptively conscious (i.e., apperceptively sentient). Now, as a flesh-and-blood body is the same-same stuff as the very stuff of the universe itself—inasmuch each and every one of its constituent elements^[5:1]^[6:1]^[7:1], all of which are as old as the universe is as matter itself is neither created nor destroyed^[8]^[5:2]^[6:2]^[7:2], come out of the ground in the form of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is digested, in conjunction with the air inhaled and the water swallowed and the sunlight absorbed^[9]—then what one is, as an apperceptive flesh-and-blood body, is the universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being; as such this ‘perpetuus mobilis’ universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful”. [Mailing List 'D' Martin].

• June 17 2000

RICHARD: “What I am is the air breathed, the water drunk, the food eaten and the sunlight absorbed—thus I am nothing but ‘the stuff of which the universe is made’ (matter). The matter of the universe is both actual things (solid stuff) and active force (energetic stuff). The immeasurable amount of ‘stuff of the universe’ (either in its solid aspect or energetic phase) is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of myriad form all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the limitless extent of eternal time. This universe, being boundless and limitless (never beginning and never ending) is unborn and undying—as I remarked (further above): it is this universe which is immortal”.
[Mailing List 'B' Respondent No. 19].

• March 16 2000

RICHARD: “Yet a fact never changes (otherwise it is not a fact). It is a fact that there is only heart and lungs and liver and kidneys and so on ‘within’ this flesh and blood body”.

RESPONDENT: “Yes that qualify as material plane stuff. Why couldn’t there be non-material plane stuff? Why limit stuff? Isn’t that being a bit stuffy?”

RICHARD: “Yet ‘material stuff’ is not limited: this physical universe, being infinite and eternal, is boundless and limitless. The physical infinitude that this very material universe actually is, is comprised of an unlimited amount of ‘material stuff’ perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of form all over the unbounded reaches of infinite space throughout the immeasurable extent of eternal time. Thus the ‘material stuff’ that is this flesh and blood body is the very same-same ‘material stuff’ as the ‘material stuff’ of this infinite and eternal physical universe, in that I come out of the ground (‘material stuff’) as a variety of carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese and whatever (‘material stuff’), combined with the air (‘material stuff’) that I breath and the water (‘material stuff’) that I drink and the sunlight (‘material stuff’) that I absorb. As such there is no ‘limit’ whatsoever, and, as this flesh and blood body (‘material stuff’), I am this very ‘material stuff’ universe experiencing its own infinitude (‘material stuff’) as a sensate and reflective human being (‘material stuff’). This very physical universe (‘material stuff’) is also experiencing itself as cats and dogs (‘material stuff’) and all other sentient beings (‘material stuff’).

How on earth can all this magnificence be ‘a bit stuffy’ (i.e., ‘dull; lacking in freshness or interest’; Oxford English Dictionary)? Everything is in a constant state of flux: nothing stays the same, each moment again everything is novel, fresh, vital, dynamic. One can never, ever be bored”.
[https://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listccorrespondence/listc03.htm#16Mar00].

• October 20 2001

RICHARD: “Whereas, as I said further above, I am this flesh and blood body only—it is the stuff of this body which is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in infinitude—and, as this flesh and blood body only, I was born, live for x-number of years, and die, whereupon all the stuff of this body disperses into a multitude of other forms (as it also partially does moment-to-moment throughout its life). In short: I am mortal”.
[https://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listbcorrespondence/listb33g.htm#20Oct01].

• October 21 2001:

RICHARD: “In short: I am mortal”.

RESPONDENT: “In long: this mortal is also the infinitude of the universe, that is timeless, etc”.

RICHARD: “No … ‘in long’ it reads as above: I am this flesh and blood body only—it is the stuff of this body which is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in infinitude—and, as this flesh and blood body only, I was born, live for x-number of years, and die, whereupon all the stuff of this body disperses into a multitude of other forms (as it also partially does moment-to-moment throughout its life). I am not ‘timeless, etc.’”.

RESPONDENT: “I thought we agreed upon that point: you and I, as universe, are infinite and timeless etc., didn’t we?”

RICHARD: “No, I have been most specific that the physical universe is spatially infinite, temporally eternal and materially perpetual—in direct contrast to the non-physical Brahman being spaceless, timeless and formless. ’Tis the universe which is immortal—not some god (or ground of being by whatever name)”.

RESPONDENT: “[Richard]: ’Tis the universe which is immortal, not some god (or ground of being by whatever name). [A]. I am mortal. [B]. [endquotes]. Can mortality ever know that which is immortal? [A] and [B] are mutually contradictory statements, my friend. So, which one is it, [A] or [B]?”

RICHARD: “It is quite simple: the very stuff of this universe is immortal (perpetual) whereas the shape or form that this stuff takes, which is born, grows, ages, and dies, is what is mortal (transitory)—be it flesh and blood bodies, planets, stars or nebulae (or even houses and cars and so on). I have also referred to this all-pervading perpetuality in earlier posts to you in regards buildings, pixels on computer screens and other examples. Vis.:

• [Richard]: “…the universe is as much the building you are sitting in reading these words as it is ‘out there’ in the far reaches of galactic distance”.

• [Richard]: “…these pixels on this computer screen are as much the universe as anything else is—there is no thing that is not the universe”.

• [Richard]: “…all flora and fauna are as much the universe as all the stars are (which are born, grow, age and die)—all of the universe is in a constate state of flux”.

• [Richard]: “…there is nothing else other than this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe”.

• [Richard]: “…as the universe is all existence (all time, all space and all matter) what is called the ‘relative’ is actually the absolute”.

• [Richard]: “…the universe is constantly arranging and rearranging itself everywhere and everywhen as everything—that something is born and dies is but a local event (‘local’ as viewed by an observer)”.

• [Richard]: “…matter is arranging and rearranging itself perpetually (matter as either mass or energy)”.

• [Richard]: “…as this universe is eternal it is all time—it is already always this moment in eternal time whenever you go anywhere”.

• [Richard]: “…as this universe is infinite it is all space—it is already always this place in infinite space whenever you go anywhere”.

• [Richard]: “…the stuff of this flesh and blood body is the very stuff of the universe and the stuff of this flesh and blood body has been virtually everywhere and everything at everywhen”.

• [Richard]: “…it is the stuff of this body which is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in infinitude”.

Therefore a mortal or transitory shape or form, comprised of immortal or perpetual stuff, can indeed ‘know that which is immortal’, or, as I have said before, as this flesh and blood body only (which means sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being: as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.

And if you gaze deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars you will be standing naked before infinitude.

Then you will see it (the absolute) even when looking at your own hand … for example”.
[Mailing List 'B' Respondent No. 33].

• June 21 2000

RESPONDENT: “(…). Now my question is which entity ‘I’ or ‘me’ is perceiving this state which you are describing…”.

RICHARD: “The brain is entirely capable of perception without any ‘I’ or ‘me’ whatsoever—it does it a whole lot better, in fact. I am the sense organs: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me—and this thinking is me.

Whereas ‘I’/‘me’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose … and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world—the world as-it-is.

RESPONDENT: “…the state that I name ‘stasis’ if you allow me, as ‘perfect’?

RICHARD: “Sure … although most people I have used the word ‘stasis’ with, as being a word describing the motile equanimity which ensues in arriving at perfection, initially comprehend ‘stasis’ as being either a static equipollence or a stagnant immobility—rather the dynamic, scintillating vitality of the peerless perfection of infinitude wherein everything is the vivid, sparkling and lustrous purity that is coming from nowhere nor going anywhere. Consequently I rarely, if ever, use the word—too much explaining involved”.

RESPONDENT: “If I am not wrong due to physics the world is going toward an atrophy [an entropy]. Disorder. You perceive what is and call it perfect”.

RICHARD: “In physics, entropy applies only in a closed system, whereas this universe is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in myriads of countless form (nebulae, stars, planets and so on) all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the limitless extent of eternal time. This infinitude is perfection (infinitude has no opposite) and as infinitude cannot be entropic (infinitude is perpetuus mobilis) there is no disorder whatsoever”.
[Mailing List 'B' Respondent No. 49].

Continued…

illegitimate (adj.): 1. (a.) being against established or accepted rules and standards; [e.g.]: “An illegitimate means of winning a debate”; (b.) being against the law; illegal; [e.g.]: “As it was an illegitimate contract it was void at law”; (c.) not valid or defensible; [e.g.]: “Their reasons for missing school are illegitimate”; (d.) incorrectly deduced; illogical; [e.g.]: “It is an illegitimate conclusion drawn from a false premise”; (e.) (biology): 1. an illegitimate fertilisation; [e.g.]: “The fertilisation of pistils by stamens not of their own length, in heterogonously dimorphic and trimorphic flowers”. (Charles Darwin); 2. unacceptable as a scientific name because of not conforming to the international rules of nomenclature; [e.g.]: “By conventional nomenclature it was considered an illegitimate designator”; 2.(offensive): born to parents not married to each other; [e.g.]: “In 1985 the news of his illegitimate child came out”; (adv.): illegitimately; (n.): illegitimacy, illegitimateness. [from il-, prefix, var., by assimilation, of in-, ‘not’ (before l, in- is usually assimilated to il- and before r to ir- as well as before b, m, and p to im-), e.g.: illation, illogical, illegal + Middle English legitimat, ‘born in wedlock’, from Medieval Latin lēgitimātus, ‘law-worthy’, past participle of lēgitimāre, ‘to make lawful’, from Latin lēgitimus, ‘legitimate’, singular of lēx, lēg-, ‘law’]. [emphasis added]. ~ (American Heritage Dictionary). ↩︎
hyperopically (adv.): in a hyperopic way (viz.: farsighted; of, having, or pertaining to hyperopia). [etymology: from hyperopic +‎ -ally]. ~ (Wiktionary English Dictionary). ↩︎
a straw man (sometimes written as “strawman”) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”. The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and the subsequent refutation of that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the opponent’s proposition. Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects. Straw man tactics in the United Kingdom may also be known as an “Aunt Sally”, after a pub game of the same name, where patrons throw sticks or battens at a post to knock off a skittle balanced on top.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

• Person 1 asserts proposition X.

• Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position. For example:

• Quoting an opponent’s words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations which misrepresent the opponent’s intentions (see “fallacy of quoting out of context”).

• Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying this person’s arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of such a position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.

• Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

• Exaggerating (sometimes grossly exaggerating) an opponent’s argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.

[Continued on adjacent tooltip.] ↩︎
[Continued from adjacent tooltip.]

Examples: Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:

• A: “We should relax the laws on beer”.

• B: “No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification”.

The original proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has misconstrued and/or misrepresented this proposal by responding to it as if it had been “unrestricted access to intoxicants”. It is a logical fallacy because Person A never advocated allowing said unrestricted access to intoxicants (this is also a “slippery slope” argument). ~ (2012 Wikipedia Encyclopaedia). ↩︎
Constituent elements as in, chemical elements [see 2nd tooltip] and compounds [see 3rd tooltip] (‘atoms’ and ‘molecules’, being mathematical models and/or theoretical constructs, have no existence in actuality). ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
chemical element (n.): any of the more than a hundred known substances (of which ninety-two occur naturally) which cannot be separated into simpler substances and which singly or in combination as compounds⁰⁵⁾ constitute all matter; (synonyms): element; (related words): substance (the real physical matter of which a person or thing consists); metallic element (any of several chemical elements that are usually shiny solids that conduct heat or electricity and can be formed into sheets etc.; metal): non-metal (a chemical element lacking typical metallic properties); hydrogen (a non-metallic element which is normally a colourless and odourless highly flammable gas; the simplest and lightest and most abundant element in the universe); nitrogen (a common non-metallic element which is normally a colourless odourless tasteless inert gas; constitutes seventy-eight percent of the atmosphere by volume; a constituent of all living tissues); inert gas, also called, noble gas, rare gas or argonon (any of the unreactive gaseous elements helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon); calcium (a white metallic element which burns with a brilliant light; the fifth most abundant element in the earth’s crust; an important component of most plants and animals); copper (a ductile malleable reddish-brown corrosion-resistant diamagnetic metallic element; occurs in various minerals but is the only metal which occurs abundantly in large masses; used as an electrical and thermal conductor); aluminium (a silvery ductile metallic element found primarily in bauxite); chlorine, (a common non-metallic element belonging to the halogens; best known as a heavy yellow irritating toxic gas; used to purify water and as a bleaching agent and disinfectant; occurs naturally only as a salt, as in sea water). ~ (Princeton’s WordNet 3.0). ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
chemical compound (n.): a substance formed by chemical union of two or more chemical elements as ingredients in definite proportion by weight; (synonyms): compound; (related words): organic compound (any compound of elemental carbon and another element); elemental (in elements & compounds: of, relating to, or denoting a chemical element); allomorph (any of several different crystalline forms of the same chemical compound; [e.g.]: “calcium carbonate occurs in the allomorphs calcite and aragonite”); exotherm (a compound which gives off heat during its formation and absorbs heat during its decomposition); (related words): nitrochloroform (also known as chloropicrin; an oily colourless insoluble toxic lachrymatory liquid compound comprised of three parts carbon chloride and two parts nitrous oxygen (ᴄᴄʟ₃ɴᴏ₂) which causes skin, lung, and mucous membrane irritation; used in tear gas and in dyestuffs, disinfectants, insecticides, and soil fumigants); water (a binary compound comprised of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen (ʜ₂ᴏ), facetiously yet accurately known as dihydrogen monoxide, which occurs at room temperature as a clear colourless odourless tasteless liquid; freezes into ice below zero degrees centigrade and boils into gas above a hundred degrees centigrade; widely used as a solvent and a myriad other essential services); carbon dioxide (also known as carbonic acid gas; a heavy odourless colourless gas, comprised of two parts oxygen and one part carbon (ᴄᴏ₂), formed during respiration and by the decomposition of organic substances, which is absorbed, when dissolved in water, to form the calcareous material of molluscs, crustaceans, corals, etc., as well as being absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis to form lignum and xylem, the woody part of plants (in a tree trunk the innermost part of the wood is dead but structurally strong xylem, while the outer part consists of living xylem, and beyond it, layers of cambium and phloem); consisting of various elongated cells which function as tubes, xylem is a tissue in vascular plants which carries water and dissolved minerals up from the roots through the stem to the leaves and provides support for the softer tissues); blackdamp, chokedamp (the atmosphere in a mine following an explosion; high in carbon dioxide and incapable of supporting life). ~ (Princeton’s WordNet 3.0). ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Each and every constituent element [see adjacent tooltips] is thus sempiternal, aeonian; perdurable, perpetual (as in already has been and always will be constituting absolutely any and every material thing whichsoever taking place anywhere and everywhere wheresoever in the boundlessness of infinite space and dynamically occurring anywhen and everywhen whensoever in the limitlessness of eternal time and physically happening anyhow and everyway howsoever in which anything and everything whatsoever can eventuate whencesoever at anyplace and everyplace whithersoever). ↩︎
As a flesh-and-blood body only one is nothing other than this, literally. ↩︎

claudiu · 25 April 2024 12:37

Part 2/3

[RICHARD: What follows are some clearly spelled-out examples, from The Actual Freedom Trust website, which unambiguously detail just what Richard is referring to when he writes and/or says “the very stuff” and “the very stuff of infinitude itself” (as in the further above “Burnt Toast” instance). Viz.: [… continued …]]

• February 13 2002

RESPONDENT: “Is the universe being infinite in all directions a theory, not a fact?”

RICHARD: “First of all, it is physically impossible to empirically establish the extended attributes of space, time and matter—one cannot, ever, hop into some ultra high speed spacecraft and travel to some ‘where’ or ‘when’ or ‘that’ and show or demonstrate or exhibit infinitude. Needless is it to say, for those who propose a caused universe, that no one has journeyed to where they can witness such a creation of material ex nihilo? Needless is it to say, for those who propose a temporary universe, that no one has travelled to when that limited time began? Needless is it to say, for those who propose a finite universe, that no one has voyaged to the edge of that bounded universe?

Similarly, if (note ‘if’) one could roam forever throughout the physical infinitude of immeasurable matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of form all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the limitless extent of eternal time—one would never ‘prove’ anything.

Apart from the current passionate preoccupation by academia with Quantum Theory (which gets ever more frantic due to the mathematicians who, having taken over physics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, are bemiring themselves more and more in their futile efforts to prove their god to be a mathematician) modern astronomy is showing the universe to be immensely vast. For example, in 1986 a huge conglomeration of galaxies that is 1,000,000,000 light years long, 300,000,000 light years wide and 100,000,000 light years thick were found (which finding was confirmed in 1990). This ‘wall of galaxies’, as it became known, would have taken 100,000,000,000 years to form under the workings of the ‘Big Bang’ theory … which makes the mathematically estimated ‘age’ of the universe—12 to 14 billion years—simply look sillier than it already did.

Obviously then, the entire question revolves around being sensible, and I always plunk for a rational or reasonable approach—the judicious approach—from the word go.

It is up to those who propose an edge, a boundary, a beginning, a duration, an ending, a depletion to demonstrate the veracity of their claim. Until then, the universe will go on being what it is: a boundless, limitless, immeasurable infinitude.

Furthermore, they need to satisfactorily explain why they are unnecessarily complicating what is actually a simple issue: they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a finite space—and where it came from and out of what and how and why; they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a limited time—and when it came and from what and how and why; they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing depletable matter—and where it came from and out of what and how and why. They also need to satisfactorily explain just what constitutes their timeless and spaceless nothingness which this immense universe (supposedly) arose out of.

Apperception reveals that identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) creates a centre to consciousness—and thus a boundary (or circumference)—which is then projected onto this universe’s properties; the ending of identity is the ending of such boundaries.

In an apperceptive awareness it is patently obvious that one is the universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being—as such the universe is stunningly conscious of its own infinitude”.
[Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 30].

The following is the much further above “Burnt Toast” text in full (and thus in context) with explanatory curly bracketed inserts added. Viz.:

• RESPONDENT: “One more thing, do you have the discriminative ability still intact, the ability to see something as being of greater value then some other similar object/ person (a value scale of some sort)?”

RICHARD: “Perhaps if I were to put it this way: if, upon ordering buttered toast at a café the waiter/ waitress brings hot, golden-brown toast covered with butter just beginning to melt and drip, in contrast to bringing cold, charred-black toast covered with butter long-ago melted and now congealed, I would rate the former as being 10, on a scale of 1-10 and the latter as being 1 on the same scale … howsoever that is a relative scale as the very stuff {i.e., the elements^[1] & compounds ^[2]} of both the former and the latter, being the very stuff of infinitude itself {i.e., those self-same immortal elements^[1:1] & compounds ^[2:1]}, is incomparable (peerless). Thus, in the ultimate sense {i.e., in the ‘perpetuus mobilis’ sense of matter, either in its solid aspect or energetic phase, dynamically arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of myriad form all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the limitless extent of eternal time with the scintillating vitality of the matchless perfection of infinitude wherein everything is the vivid, sparkling, lustrous nonpareil purity which is coming from nowhere and nowhen nor going anywhere or anywhen}, everything is perfect here in this actual world”. [explanatory curly bracketed inserts added [Ed: italicized curlies & added tooltips]].
[Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 25].

As detailed in the “inverted pyramid” explanation (where a judicious pulling-out of an intuited/ imagined capstone-like basis of many an otherwise scholarly thesis results in the teetering edifice painstakingly constructed thereupon ignominiously tumbling down) it is all so glaringly obvious when one twigs to what to look for—the basic premiss of the argument or proposition—and it saves wading through a lot of quite often well-written but fatally-flawed articles trying to make sense of something which can never make sense.

Nonetheless, buoyed by the apparent success of his hyperopic strawman argument, a certain hubristic tone soon ensued in Rick’s follow-up messages in the ‘Burnt Toast Part Two’ thread. Viz.:

• Burnt Toast: Part 2.

Post № 01; Rick; 17 Apr 2024.

[Burnt Toast: Part 2].

Continuing the discussion from Burnt Toast: That’s that Sh* I don’t like! It would appear that there’s been a misunderstanding, and I’ve some time and inclination to sort it out. (…). Please note that my comments stem from what was said regarding perfection, which was attributed not just to being alive, but to every thing in existence. It’s patently clear that although “cold, charred-black toast” might be regarded, for many, as a dismal thing when measured on a relative scale, in an ultimate sense, it is perfect. Richard underscored that point adding that “everything”—as in, all things—is perfect. Given that there is nothing—not one thing—out there that is not perfect, then it follows that each and every so-called “abhorent” thing is not ultimately or truly abbhorent after all, only relatively so. In fact, every relatively abhorent thing, which includes items like rape, war, murder, taxes, famine, floods, hurricanes, taxes, earthquakes, disease, taxes, black toast, and so on, are ultimately and absolutely perfect as-they-are. Are they not? Now, as to be perfect is to be peerless, pristine, faultless, flawless, impeccable, immaculate, and so on, then “how else” besides enjoyment and appreciation, I asked in my little ♫ jingle ♫, would one experience those things? In fact, it would be unnatural and unreasonable to not like, enjoy, and appreciate something—anything—that was truly perfect, regardless of how cold, charred, and black it was.

(…).

[Claudiu]: “It’s just not possible, and also not sensible, to enjoy bad things happening. Why enjoy things that are bad? This amounts to ‘positive thinking’ and is essentially an insult to intelligence”.

After all the above, and bearing in mind the distinction between the relative and ultimate nature of every thing, do you still think so?

(…).

[Claudiu]: “I don’t see what there is to like or enjoy about war, murder, rape, etc”.

Do you see it now? (…).

That certain hubristic tone subtlely became a rather self-satisfied hubristic tone shortly thereafter. Viz.:

• Post № 03; Rick; 17 Apr 2024.

[Claudiu]: “Well it didn’t take long to find this, perhaps it will settle it for you:

(…).

Here’s one saying the opposite.

(…).

We could lob (seemingly) conflicting and contradictory quotes at each other all day, but what would that demonstrate?

(…).

There was nothing to settle on my end, by the way.

By the eleventh message that rather self-satisfied hubristic tone had segued into a blatantly self-satisfied hubristic tone. Viz.:

• Post № 11; Rick; 18 Apr 2024.

[Claudiu]: (…).

[Rick]: (…).

[Claudiu]: (…).

You sidestepped the question.

Which is fine, you’re free to do as you wish. As I already know the answer, it was more for your edification than anything else.

I’m losing the inclination to continue pointing out the obvious.

Have a good day.

All of which self-satisfied hubris (despite being based upon a strawman argument, remember) reached its high-and-mighty zenith by the fourteenth message. Viz.:

• Post № 14; Rick; 19 Apr 2024.

[Rick]: “As I already know the answer, it was more for your edification than anything else”.

[Miguel]: “Can you share that answer, Rick?”

Miguel, the purpose of this thread, which I indicated at the beginning, was to clear up a misunderstanding that had cropped up in a sibling thread. Initially, I had both the time and inclination to sort it out. Now I have less time and, moreover, no further inclination since observing that further explanation, no matter how meticulous, begets further misunderstanding; pointed queries beget equivocations; and dialogue shatters into a fractal of non sequiturs. Lastly, as I indicated in my last post, I’m done with pointing out the obvious. Which, amusingly, brings us to your request. (…). There lies, I take it, an unspoken motivation or purpose behind your petition. I do not guess as to what that purpose is, but I trust, coming from you, that it is neither illegitimate nor frivolous, and so will honour it. Therefore, in a few words, (…), yes, murder, child abuse, domestic violence, and suicide are actual.

(…).

I have no more to say on this matter.

’Tis all openly evident, as the above message expressly conveys how Miguel—unlike Claudiu and Nick and Paul (the other three responders thus far), along with their “further misunderstanding” , their “equivocations” , and their dialogue-shattering “fractal of non sequiturs” no less—is a specially-honoured responder to be “amusingly” trusted (and with a ‘blank-cheque’ type of trust, to boot, as Rick does not guess as to what “unspoken motivation or purpose” lies behind his “petition” ) to having been neither “illegitimate nor frivolous” with his request for Rick to not yet be “done with pointing out the obvious” .

Meanwhile, over on the Zulip forum, Rick had been engaged in pulling a similar stunt on Srid—trying repeatedly to browbeat him into answering a certain question in a certain way—via the strawman tactic of first articulating something Srid never said (as in “to genuinely like absolutely everything” immediately below in the first copy-pasted message) and thusly drawing a red-herring conclusion regarding what Richard finds likeable (as in “he finds all them—a whole slew of people, such as rapists, pederasts, traitors, murderers, and thieves—likeable somehow” much further below), which is not, of course, in any way, shape, or form even remotely what Rick’s “to genuinely like absolutely everything” words signify. Viz.:

• {1st copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-08 srid Being sick; April 10 2024.

[https://actual.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/431899-srid-ballina-2024].

[Srid said]: “So, both liking and being likeable”.

Rick [9:17 AM]: Think about it: If you like everything and everyone/ you find everything and everyone likeable (including yourself), then how can you not feel good, how can you not enjoy and appreciate being alive? But to genuinely like absolutely everything and everyone? Almost inconceivable. Like disease. Can I like an illness? Or an infection? (tying it back to your present ailments to make things non-hypothetical).

[Srid said]: “Actualism is still not a priority over sickness like this, wherein my attention is fully on to resolving it. But I’ll try to be aware of the fear passion, because it doesn’t help. Definitely a newbie in this regard”.

Rick [9:24 AM]: Ha, maybe by seeing that everything is related, everything has something in common. That is, we’re all cousins. What do we (everything in the universe) have in common? We all exist. A virus exists, a human exists, a tree, a dog, a cloud, a pebble, etc

[Srid said]: “(…)”.

Rick [9:26 AM]: (…).

• {2nd copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-08 RV meeting: awareness; go one step below; April 11 2024.

Rick [10:38 AM]: There is more to say/ explore on this liking/ likeable mode. It’s important. It would seem to be intimately connected to the ability to feel good/ enjoy and appreciate. Likewise, the converse—not liking/ unlikeable—connects very much to feeling bad/ not enjoying & appreciating

[Srid said]: “Yes. They are the same. It feels good (great in fact) to be liking/ likeable (no matter what). Whereas yearning (for example) feels bad. And every time I catch myself going off track, I become aware of it and pull myself back on track”.

Rick [11:29 AM]: Yes, it feels good to like something/ someone. But also, one cannot feel good unless one is liking/ likeable. The very moment that something unlikeable enters one’s consciousness/ awareness, is the very moment that one is no longer feeling good.

• {3rd copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-08 RV meeting: awareness; go one step below; April 11 2024.

Rick [2:39 PM]: To like everything and everyone unconditionally. This must relate back to those Two Perfections we’ve discussed before. Because on the one hand, there is so much to dislike about the world, so much that is wrong with it, so much to improve. On the other hand, everything is perfect just the way it is, nothing needs to be improved. You can’t improve upon perfection, after all. To fundamentally like absolutely everything, that’s so mind-blowing. Relates back to embracing, welcoming, endorsing, approving, and saying YES! to everything.

[Richard]: “I say to people to ‘embrace death’ (as in unreservedly saying !YES! to being alive as this flesh and blood body) as a full-blooded approval and endorsement. Those peoples who say that they ‘accept’ … um … a rapist, for just one example, never for one moment are approving and endorsing—let alone unreservedly saying !YES! to the rapist”.

Of course, if you like everything, then it’s only natural to embrace, welcome, approve, and endorse it all. It would only then be natural to feel good about it all. That said, Richard has remarked that one must be completely dissociated to embrace, endorse, or say !YES! to a rapist:

RICHARD: “The word ‘acceptance’ has a lot of currency these days and popular usage has given it somewhat the same meaning as ‘allow’ or ‘permit’ or ‘tolerate’. Those peoples who say that they ‘accept’ or ‘love’ … um … a brutal rapist, for just one example, never for one moment are approving and endorsing—let alone unreservedly saying !YES! to the rapist. So much for everyday ‘acceptance’ and/or ‘love’ as a viable modus operandi. One has to be totally dissociated (full-blown enlightenment) before one can unreservedly say !YES! to the rapist—because then it is but ‘Lila’ (‘God’s and/or Goddess’s Divine Play or Sport’)”.

Richard, on the one hand, doesn’t accept or tolerate—much less embrace or welcome or endorse or approve of or say YES! to—a whole slew of people, such as rapists, pederasts, traitors, murderers, and thieves. Yet he finds all them likeable somehow.

RICHARD:“It is a re-run of that hoary one of being tolerant—another New-age belief is: ‘Be accepting’. What balderdash! Does anyone accept a murderer? A rapist? A pederast? A traitor? A thief? Nobody does these things, they simply mouth regurgitated pap and fondly think themselves to be wise and righteous people”.

So, we shouldn’t unreservedly say !YES! to everything and everyone?

RICHARD: “It is not a matter of ‘dealing with it’—peace-on-earth only becomes apparent to the one who says !YES! to life on earth”.

Yet as rapists, pederasts, traitors, murderers, and thieves comprise this thing called “life on earth”, then should we not say !YES! to them and all they do as well??

[Richard]: “[O]ne does want to be alive (else one would have committed suicide long ago) and all that it takes is to fully acknowledge this and thus unequivocally say !YES! to being here now as this flesh and blood body—and this affirmation is an unconditional agreement/ approval of life itself as-it-is”.

Again, given that life “as-it-is” entails the existence and effects of pederasts, rapists, thieves, murderers, and traitors, not to mention disease, injury, and so on, then how can one possible “approve”?

Bear in mind that the approval—unreservedly saying !YES!—of such things is tantamount to disassociation:

RICHARD: “The word ‘acceptance’ has a lot of currency these days and popular usage has given it somewhat the same meaning as ‘allow’ or ‘permit’ or ‘tolerate’. Those peoples who say that they ‘accept’ or ‘love’ … um … a brutal rapist, for just one example, never for one moment are approving and endorsing—let alone unreservedly saying !YES! to the rapist. So much for everyday ‘acceptance’ and/or ‘love’ as a viable modus operandi. One has to be totally dissociated (full-blown enlightenment) before one can unreservedly say !YES! to [i.e., approve of] the rapist—because then it is but ‘Lila’ (‘God’s and/or Goddess’s Divine Play or Sport’)”. [square-bracketed ‘i.e. approve of’ inserted by Rick].

Continued…

chemical element (n.): any of the more than a hundred known substances (of which ninety-two occur naturally) which cannot be separated into simpler substances and which singly or in combination as compounds⁰⁵⁾ constitute all matter; (synonyms): element; (related words): substance (the real physical matter of which a person or thing consists); metallic element (any of several chemical elements that are usually shiny solids that conduct heat or electricity and can be formed into sheets etc.; metal): non-metal (a chemical element lacking typical metallic properties); hydrogen (a non-metallic element which is normally a colourless and odourless highly flammable gas; the simplest and lightest and most abundant element in the universe); nitrogen (a common non-metallic element which is normally a colourless odourless tasteless inert gas; constitutes seventy-eight percent of the atmosphere by volume; a constituent of all living tissues); inert gas, also called, noble gas, rare gas or argonon (any of the unreactive gaseous elements helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon); calcium (a white metallic element which burns with a brilliant light; the fifth most abundant element in the earth’s crust; an important component of most plants and animals); copper (a ductile malleable reddish-brown corrosion-resistant diamagnetic metallic element; occurs in various minerals but is the only metal which occurs abundantly in large masses; used as an electrical and thermal conductor); aluminium (a silvery ductile metallic element found primarily in bauxite); chlorine, (a common non-metallic element belonging to the halogens; best known as a heavy yellow irritating toxic gas; used to purify water and as a bleaching agent and disinfectant; occurs naturally only as a salt, as in sea water). ~ (Princeton’s WordNet 3.0). ↩︎ ↩︎
chemical compound (n.): a substance formed by chemical union of two or more chemical elements as ingredients in definite proportion by weight; (synonyms): compound; (related words): organic compound (any compound of elemental carbon and another element); elemental (in elements & compounds: of, relating to, or denoting a chemical element); allomorph (any of several different crystalline forms of the same chemical compound; [e.g.]: “calcium carbonate occurs in the allomorphs calcite and aragonite”); exotherm (a compound which gives off heat during its formation and absorbs heat during its decomposition); (related words): nitrochloroform (also known as chloropicrin; an oily colourless insoluble toxic lachrymatory liquid compound comprised of three parts carbon chloride and two parts nitrous oxygen (ᴄᴄʟ₃ɴᴏ₂) which causes skin, lung, and mucous membrane irritation; used in tear gas and in dyestuffs, disinfectants, insecticides, and soil fumigants); water (a binary compound comprised of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen (ʜ₂ᴏ), facetiously yet accurately known as dihydrogen monoxide, which occurs at room temperature as a clear colourless odourless tasteless liquid; freezes into ice below zero degrees centigrade and boils into gas above a hundred degrees centigrade; widely used as a solvent and a myriad other essential services); carbon dioxide (also known as carbonic acid gas; a heavy odourless colourless gas, comprised of two parts oxygen and one part carbon (ᴄᴏ₂), formed during respiration and by the decomposition of organic substances, which is absorbed, when dissolved in water, to form the calcareous material of molluscs, crustaceans, corals, etc., as well as being absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis to form lignum and xylem, the woody part of plants (in a tree trunk the innermost part of the wood is dead but structurally strong xylem, while the outer part consists of living xylem, and beyond it, layers of cambium and phloem); consisting of various elongated cells which function as tubes, xylem is a tissue in vascular plants which carries water and dissolved minerals up from the roots through the stem to the leaves and provides support for the softer tissues); blackdamp, chokedamp (the atmosphere in a mine following an explosion; high in carbon dioxide and incapable of supporting life). ~ (Princeton’s WordNet 3.0). ↩︎ ↩︎

claudiu · 25 April 2024 12:37

Part 3/3

[RICHARD:] As Rick has quoted five times from The Actual Freedom Trust website without indicating where he has elided some text and/or without any identification detail let alone any attributive references (i.e., URLs) the following is the full context for his first edited-without-indication quotation). Viz.:

• June 12 2000

RESPONDENT: Also how does one ‘accept the world as it is, with people as they are’, even though one sees them all as unacceptably nursing malice and sorrow, bringing forth wars etc., etc.

RICHARD: I do not advise anyone to ‘accept the world as it is, with people as they are’ … I always put the question this way: ‘How can I live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are?’ Which means: how is it possible to enjoy and appreciate being here, each moment again, as this flesh and blood body? Or: in what way can one live in complete fulfilment and total contentment for the remainder of one’s life? With the purity and perfection of a pure consciousness experience (PCE) firmly in mind as one’s guiding light one asks, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’

Incidentally, the word ‘acceptance’ has a lot of currency these days and popular usage has given it somewhat the same meaning as ‘allow’ or ‘permit’ or ‘tolerate’ … nineteen years ago ‘I’, the persona that I was, looked at the physical world and just knew that this enormous construct called the universe was not ‘set up’ for us humans to be forever forlorn in with only scant moments of reprieve. ‘I’ the persona realised there and then that it was not and could not ever be some ‘sick cosmic joke’ that humans all had to endure and ‘make the best of’. ‘I’ the persona felt foolish that ‘I’ had believed for thirty two years that the wisdom of the ‘real-world’ that ‘I’ had inherited – the world that ‘I’ was born into – was set in stone. I ceased accepting, allowing, permitting or tolerating or being resigned to suffering there and then. Which is why I say to people to embrace death (as in unreservedly saying !YES! to being alive as this flesh and blood body) as a full-blooded approval and endorsement. Those peoples who say that they ‘accept’ … um … a rapist, for just one example, never for one moment are approving and endorsing … let alone unreservedly saying !YES! to the rapist.

So much for ‘acceptance’ as a viable modus operandi.
[Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 10].

(Ed [i.e. Claudiu’s] note: I was particularly gobsmacked at how Rick’s initial snipped-without-indication version of this quote was presented as if Richard was indicating that one should be saying !YES! to the rapist, as in that “embracing, welcoming, endorsing, approving, and saying YES! to everything” is what Richard was saying to do, yet how the very first line of Richard’s response clearly and unambiguously indicates that this is exactly not what Richard was saying, viz.: “I do not advise anyone to ‘accept the world as it is, with people as they are’ […]” (emphasis added)).

It became clear here, and is further reinforced below, that the only apparent ambiguity or confusion here is on the part of Rick, which he is attempting to foist onto Srid here (and later onto this forum) via his mis-quotes and deficient understanding and reasoning.)

[RICHARD:] The elided “Which is why…” preface to Rick’s further above [quote] “[Richard]: I say to people to ‘embrace death’…” [unquote] truncated sentence—in conjunction with overlooking the preceeding “I ceased accepting, allowing, permitting or tolerating or being resigned to suffering there and then” proviso, and ignoring the “I do not advise anyone to ‘accept the world as it is, with people as they are’” qualifying context at the very beginning—is the means by which Rick convinces himself, mentally, and is thereby able to baldly proclaim, regarding feeling-being ‘Richard’ and ‘his’ modus vivendi, immediately after his snippet version [quote], “Of course, if you like everything, then it’s only natural to embrace, welcome, approve, and endorse it all”. [unquote].

Almost needless is it to add how nowhere on The Actual Freedom Trust website are the words [quote] “like everything” [unquote] to be found.

The full context for Rick’s second unreferenced quotation is as follows. Viz.:

• July 02 2000:

RESPONDENT: Okay, let me assume for a moment that there is such a thing as evil. Are you familiar with the saying ‘what you resist will persist’? It comes from the adage that ‘where you place your energy is what will grow’ which can be expressed using the terms of physics as ‘when you push something you transfer your energy to that which is pushed’ (the law of conservation of energy). When we place our energy on unconditional acceptance/ love of all that is, that is what will grow. When we place our energy on evil and attempting to push it away then that is what will grow.

RICHARD: The word ‘acceptance’ has a lot of currency these days and popular usage has given it somewhat the same meaning as ‘allow’ or ‘permit’ or ‘tolerate’. Those peoples who say that they ‘accept’ or ‘love’ … um … a brutal rapist, for just one example, never for one moment are approving and endorsing … let alone unreservedly saying !YES! to the rapist. So much for everyday ‘acceptance’ and/or ‘love’ as a viable modus operandi.

One has to be totally dissociated (full-blown enlightenment) before one can unreservedly say !YES! to the rapist … because then it is but ‘Lila’ (‘God’s and/or Goddess’s Divine Play or Sport’).
[Mailing List 'C' Respondent No. 9].

Unsurprisingly, the words [quote] “like everything” [unquote] are nowhere to be seen.

The full context for Rick’s third unreferenced quotation is as follows. Viz.:

• It Is Either Silly Or Sensible

R: About being judgemental: It is only a belief – a New-age belief resurrected from the old scriptural injunction: ‘Judge not that ye be judged thyself’. What is wrong with appraising a situation or person or an event? One can not live without evaluating, so the injunction merely makes one feel guilty. Nobody lives according to it anyway – it is an unliveable bit of nonsensical doctrine that frankly does not make sense.

Q(1): It’s funny about how I handle this judging business … what follows is that I can’t do it in any practical way.

R: It is a re-run of that hoary one of being tolerant … another New-age belief is: ‘Be accepting’. What balderdash! Does anyone accept a murderer? A rapist? A pederast? A traitor? A thief? Nobody does these things, they simply mouth regurgitated pap and fondly think themselves to be wise and righteous people. These commandments just have not worked – they have had thousands of years to demonstrate their efficacy at producing peace on earth and they have failed miserably. Most of the New-age stuff is a re-hash of the old ‘tried and true’, which is, actually, ‘the tried and failed’.

Q: When someone tells you not to be judgemental, they actually mean: ‘Your opinion doesn’t count’. Their own opinion is, of course, valid – but you are not to question it. It is a clever way of gagging you.

R: One woman accused me, years ago, of being judgemental. I said: ‘Of course I am, I do not hold that belief.’ I am neither a New-age aficionado nor a Christian so I can be as judgemental as all get-out … not that I use the word, personally. Try ‘appraisal’; that will get you away from the moralistic overtones. One does an appraisal of a person, a thing or an event: ‘That’s useful; that’s not. That is silly; that is sensible’. Of course one does this. How on earth can one conduct one’s affairs without appraising, without reviewing, in some way?

It is helpful to rid oneself of the concept of ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ and utilise ‘silly’ and ‘sensible’. You will be a lot better off. For example: It is silly to be unhappy, it is sensible to be happy.
[It Is Either Silly Or Sensible].

Again, the words [quote] “like everything” [unquote] are nowhere to be seen.

The full context for Rick’s fourth unreferenced quotation is as follows. Viz.:

• March 29 2000

RICHARD: It is sobering to realise that the intelligentsia of the West are eagerly following the East down the slippery slope of striving to attain to a self-seeking divine immortality … to the detriment of life on earth.

RESPONDENT: I agree. Life on earth is not highest on the agenda. It is too much to deal with. Who can deal with it?

RICHARD: It is not a matter of ‘dealing with it’ … peace-on-earth only becomes apparent to the one who says !YES! to life on earth.
[General Correspondence Number Eight].

Once more, the words [quote] “like everything” [unquote] are nowhere to be seen.

The full context for Rick’s fifth unreferenced quotation is as follows. Viz.:

• June 24 2003

GARY: Which brings me to a point: in my investigations of what it means to be a human being, I have been struck with how much of human socializing is based on commiseration – sharing a common plight and grievance, and additionally sharing feelings and emotions: whether it be returning to work on Monday, the state of the economy, the price of gasoline, how unfairly the work place is treating you, etc., etc. Human beings seems to revel in their complaints and gripes, and a sense of resentment is the cement that seems to bind people together in many social situations. Indeed, it is the raison d’être for political groups and political causes of various types.

RICHARD: Aye … this is something I come across almost on a daily basis and it is amazing how many people tell me that I am being ‘optimistic’, or ‘positive’, or ‘up-beat’, or that I am ‘forever trying to talk things up’. For example, I might comment upon what a great day it is and, as sure as eggs are eggs, the plighted person will find fault (even if only ‘it won’t last’) … or I may say how marvellous it is to be living in a technologically advanced society (take contemporary surgical procedures, for instance, or current dental practice) and a whole litany of doom and gloom comes forth.

Even sitting at a caff by myself, with snippets of nearby conversations drifting by from time-to-time, it is remarkable how much of the content of social chit-chat is, as you say, gripe, grievance, complaint, and resentment … and the last-named is the key to it all (the basic resentment of being alive in the first place).

Until one wakes up to implications and ramifications of the factuality of already being here on this planet earth anyway, whether one wants to be or not (‘I didn’t ask to be born’), one is fated to forever seek consolation and commiseration in the arms (both metaphorically and literally) of another similarly afflicted. Yet the simple fact is that, despite the ‘I didn’t ask to be born’ rhetoric, one does want to be alive (else one would have committed suicide long ago) and all that it takes is to fully acknowledge this and thus unequivocally say !YES! to being here now as this flesh and blood body … and this affirmation is an unconditional agreement/ approval of life itself as-it-is.

I did not ask to be born either (truisms can be so trite) … but I am ever-so-glad that I was.
[Mailing List 'AF' Respondent Gary].

As the words [quote] “like everything” [unquote] are nowhere to be seen in the above exchange, either, then the only reason for posting the four follow-up quotes to the initial truncated version is to convey an impression of feeling-being ‘Richard’ being able to [quote] “fundamentally like absolutely everything” [unquote] as ‘his’ modus vivendi.

Which, of course, is simply not true.

To continue: the fourth and fifth copy-pasted messages at the Zulip forum read as follows. Viz.:

• {4th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 RV meeting: pure contemplation; April 11 2024.

Srid [5:27 PM]: I had an interesting meeting today (…). Liking/ likeable (liking oneself): I started off getting confirmation that I’m on the right track. Vineeto wondered if I’m not connecting liking/ likeable to naivete. I do, as I see an element of near-innocense on liking the other (overriding instinctual passions). Vineeto confirmed my report of spontaneous social interactions as being on right track. Richard brought up the ‘naivete spot’ thing where how once you go past (override) the instinctual passions you come to area where you are both liking and likeable. People don’t like themselves as they (instinctually) are. Naivete is where they can like themselves. All of this made sense to me, indeed, especially in relation to the recent social identity exploration cum instinctual passion awareness and the eventual discovery of naivete. What a freedom is it indeed to discover the naive part of me that can be liking and likeable regardless of how the other feels towards me.

• {5th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking everything; April 12 2024.

[Srid said]: “Richard brough up the ‘naivete spot’ thing where how once you go past (override) the instinctual passions you come to area where you are both liking and likeable. People don’t like themselves as they (instinctually) are. Naivete is where they can like themselves”.

Rick [2:46 AM]: Yes, people dislike all kinds of things, including themselves. Is naivete a state where people can like everything, no exclusions?

And on and on Rick went, message after message after message (all twenty-five of them appended further below) despite Srid not buying into his “like everything” strawman-derived red-herring question from the get-go. For example:

• [Rick said]: “It’s not a philosophical question. I’m enquiring into the nature of your experience. Did you like everything?”

• Srid [7:51 AM]: Unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human creature/ one’s fellow human creatures. This is what “liking”, as I’ve been using, refers to. Do you unwaveringly like your wife (as a fellow human being, a female at that), no matter how much of an (affective) problem she may create? Instead you want to know whether you can like rape. {from the 7th copy-pasted message}.

• Rick [8:27 AM]: “[Srid said]: “I’m trying to nudge you towards actually being liking/ likeable”. I appreciate that. Now, are you trying to nudge me towards actually liking everything or just some things? (…). As I said before, my wife’s tantrums aren’t the only thing I dislike. If I do in fact manage to get to a point where I like my wife’s tantrums, what about everything else? Can one get to a state—specifically, naive state—where [one] likes everything, no exclusion? Or will one still dislike things?

• Srid [8:32 AM]: “liking everything or just some things”; “like my wife’s tantrums”.

Neither of what you wrote above is what is meant by ‘liking’. Here’s what the word means: unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human creature/ one’s fellow human creatures. Naivete is a state of being wherein you are unwaveringly liking your fellow humans. {from the 7th copy-pasted message}.

• [Rick said]: “As I said before, my wife’s tantrums aren’t the only thing I dislike. If I do in fact manage to get to a point where I like my wife’s tantrums, what about everything else?”

• Srid [9:18 AM]: No, by ‘resolve’ I mean enjoy and appreciate her company. Not ‘like [your] wife’s tantrums’. First principles, once again. See a pattern? These two things are not identical. Please fix your comprehension skills first: “unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human creature/ one’s fellow human creatures”. {from the 7th copy-pasted message}.

• Rick [9:57 AM]: “Srid said: (…)”. All this because you have erroneously “guessed” that I am trying to find a way out without over-riding the instinctual passions. “Srid said: (…)”. There’s nothing clear about guessing. It’s a stab in the dark. And you missed.

• Srid [10:01 AM]: It wasn’t just a guess; there were many indicators along the way. Look, this is not litigation. I’m just trying to help you out. But if you are not curious about what I discovered recently, and discussed with Richard/ Vineeto, about unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human beings—as distinct from liking one’s wife tantrums or liking “everything else”—so be it. I would be better off spending my time on something else. I can see why Richard/ Vineeto impresses upon enjoying & appreciating as the first thing to do. The identity is rather cunning that it’d rather distract itself with anything but that. I went through it myself; cf. the “bad habits”. {from the 7th copy-pasted message}.

So as to add some clarity to this “likeable/ liking” subject I have written the following brief description. Viz.:

• [Richard; 23/04/2024]: In early January, 1981, feeling-being ‘Richard’ had ‘his’ first memorable experience of being naiveté—the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’—and ‘he’ was particularly struck by the experiential fact of finally being likeable (albeit a likeable persona mind you), and, thusly, a liker^[1] of ‘his’ fellow human beings also as they too were (potentially) likeable as well.

Almost needless is it to point out how a persona who cannot unreservedly like themselves—even at the deepest core of their very ‘being’—cannot unconditionally like any other persona either (all of whom are, likewise, ‘rotten to the core’ as well)?

It was a particularly summery summer’s day and ‘he’ had been wet-mixing the clay ‘he’ had dug out of the ground, at select sites near-by, in a two-metre wide and one-metre deep pit which ‘he’ had lined with paling-fence type boards—situated just outside his pottery studio at the ex-farmhouse property where ‘he’ was living and working at the time—in a process somewhat similar to treading grapes in the traditional manner. The shovelful-sized clods of clay had been soaking in this pit, topped-up with water via a hose from the nearby windmill from time-to-time, for more than two weeks and was deemed ripe for stomping into a thoroughly mixed and buttery smooth consistency. And ‘he’ had been joined in this clay-pit by a young lad who, aspiring to be a potter himself, came to the studio for a few hours on an almost daily basis to practice his craft and “study under the master-potter”, so to speak, and make something worthy out of his previously dissolute life.

The ‘being naiveté’ experience occurred as feeling-being ‘Richard’ was climbing out of the clay-pit, onto the closely-cropped grass surround, so as to converse with ‘his’ then-wife and mother of their four children and the young apprentice’s wife (she was the lass who had introduced the term jamais-vu into ‘his’ vocabulary and compared notes pertaining to same from time-to-time), who, attracted by all the shouts of merriment as the clay was being stomped as per the time-honoured treading-the-grapes tradition, had wandered out from the pottery studio’s office-cum-gallery to partake of all the fun and frivolity.

And it was as ‘he’ was clambering out onto the grassy sward—both ‘he’ and the young lad were stark naked and covered in creamy wet clay—that ‘his’ heightened state of awareness (a state of amazement, marvelment, and delightment, due to the exuberant joy stemming from making a living as an adult playing with mud and the sheer joie de vivre of life itself) slipped into being a childlike state of wide-eyed wonderment best expressed by the word naiveté.

And as ‘he’ stood there, delightedly extolling the virtues of being naiveté itself, ‘he’ enthusiastically encouraged ‘his’ rapt audience to reach down inside of themselves intuitively (a.k.a. feeling it out) going past the rather superficial emotions and/or feelings (generally in the chest area) into the deeper, more profound passions and/or feelings (generally in the solar plexus area) until they came to a place (generally about four-finger widths below the navel) where they intuitively feel they elementarily have existence as a feeling being (as in ‘me’, at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself), and, having located ‘being’ itself, gently and tenderly sense out the area immediately below that (just above and/or just before and almost touching on the sex centre) where they would find themselves both likeable and liking (for here lies sincerity and/or naiveté) and here is where they can, finally, like themself (very important) no matter what, for here is the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’, and, moreover, here lies tenderness and/or sweetness and togetherness and/or closeness because here is where it is possible to be the key which unlocks the potency of naiveté.

And as ‘he’ continued standing there on the greensward, extolling the virtues of being naiveté itself, ‘he’ realised ‘he’ had just dedicated ‘his’ life to the priceless pursuit of innocence itself—of becoming the manifestation of this innocence here on earth, of being the personification of innocence in this lifetime—and, thence, to extolling the virtues of the giving of ‘himself’ to this worthy cause, in a way which ‘his’ previous dedication to art and artistry (‘he’ had lived it, breathed it, been consumed by it, twenty-four-seven) couldn’t even begin to compete, as nothing, but nothing, could ever be as worthy of devoting one’s life to as the pristine perfection and peerless purity presently unfolding all about.

For out of nowhere and everywhere—the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to the infinitude, which this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is, had by now been operating more and more freely—came a magically scintillating wonderland, dynamically enveloping all and sundry in its sparkling embrace, and ‘he’ vanished unto oblivion in the twinkling of an eye (i.e., ‘he’ went into abeyance for the duration, ‘he’ realised later, after the event).

And thusly did ‘he’ enable this flesh-and-body to be here today (April 2024), as pure intent personified, tapping out with two-fingers this rather quaint clay-pit tale^[2] of long-ago times.

Ain’t life grand!

VINEETO: Well now, that should put the whole burnt toast strawman-diversion to rest. […]

The twenty-five other messages that Richard copied for reference, follow below.

Cheers,
Claudiu

liker (n.): a person who likes; [e.g.]: “In reality though, extroversion was not related to being a liker or expecting to be liked”. (Scott Barry Kaufman; 2011). ~ (Collins English Dictionary). ↩︎
A rather quaint clay-pit tale which nonetheless depicts the range of naïveness from being sincere to becoming naïve and all the way through being naïveté itself⁽*⁾ to an actual innocence.

⁽*⁾To be naïveté itself (i.e., naïveté embodied as a childlike persona with adult sensibilities), which is to be the closest one can to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’ (innocence is where ‘self’ is not), one is both likeable and liking for herewith lies tenderness and/or sweetness and togetherness and/or closeness whereupon moment-to-moment experiencing is of traipsing through the world about in a state of wide-eyed wonder and amazement as if a child again (guileless, artless, ingenuous, innocuous)—yet with adult sensibilities whereby the distinction betwixt being naïve and being gullible is readily separable—simply marvelling at the sheer magnificence of this oh-so-material universe’s absoluteness and unabashedly delighting in its boundless beneficence, its limitless largesse, as being the experiencing is inherently cornucopian (due to the near-absence of agency which ensues when the controlling doer is abeyant and the naïve beer is ascendant), with a blitheness and a gaiety such that the likelihood of the magical fairy-tale-like nature of this paradisaical terraqueous globe, this bounteously verdant and azure planet, becoming ever-so-sweetly apparent, as an experiential actuality, is almost always imminent. ↩︎

claudiu · 25 April 2024 12:38

Remaining Quotes Part 1/2

(Ed: bolded the titles)

• {6th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking everything; April 12 2024.

[Rick said]: “Yes, people dislike all kinds of things, including themselves. Is naivete a state where people can like everything, no exclusions?”

Srid [7:37 AM]: I did not arrive at naiveté through liking everything I dislike. It was accidental, actually, but the conditions were in place. The sequence, as you remember, went like this: || I felt bad | I kept getting back to feeling good, but same triggers would happen again | I had identity crisis | Which lead me to take a good look at the social identity, all the way to instinctual passions | I made it my goal to be aware of instinctual passions, and decline going down the path | This is where, magically, I started noticing that I can (and do) like the very people who otherwise would make me feel bad (by way of instinctual passions) ||. In particular note that I arrived at this “liking” only after bypassing/ overriding the instinctual passions. And then I saw how this is near-innocence part (naivete) of me in action. So, if you “dislike [something]” you gotta first become aware of the instinctual passions (that evoke this dislike), and then by-pass/ over-ride (ie., go one step below) it, before you can come across the naive part of yourself where you can be liking and likeable.

Rick [7:41 AM]: Very good. So, what would you say to this: “Rick said: Is naivete a state where people can like everything, no exclusions?”

Srid: How about you find out?

Rick [7:41 AM]: :neutral smiley:

Srid: That’s the best approach I’d say. Have the conditions in place first. Feel good, enjoy & appreciate—which necessitates being aware of instinctual passions and over-riding them. Then you can find out (not before).

Rick [7:45 AM]: Did you find out?

Srid: That question didn’t even occur to me.

Rick7:46 AM: And now it appears before you.

• {7th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking everything; April 12 2024.

Srid [7:48 AM]: I understand you are interested in finding out. I’m saying I never was/ nor am I interested in finding that out. You do understand the list of things that I have as priority in Ballina, and how this question is not in that list, right? Furthermore, you comprehend that my trip in Ballina is about experientially making progress, not just entertain questions I’m not interested in the first place?

[Rick said]: “I’m asking about your experience of naivete. Given that you experienced it, I asked the following: Is naivete a state where people can like everything, no exclusions?”

Srid [7:48 AM]: Also, I came across naivete (experientially) only 4 days ago. And Richard did like what 20 years ago? He has written a lot on that subject, but I don’t think Richard was able to answer your question. I’m not sure if I can either, even if I try to ‘think’ my way through it like a philosopher.

[Rick said]: “It’s not a philosophical question. I’m enquiring into the nature of your experience. Did you like everything?”

Srid [7:51 AM]: Unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human creature/ one’s fellow human creatures. This is what “liking”, as I’ve been using, refers to. Do you unwavering like your wife (as a fellow human being, a female at that), no matter how much of an (affective) problem she may create? Instead you want to know whether you can like rape.

[Rick said]: “So, you did not like everything? What was it that you did not like?”

Srid [7:55 AM]: Everything indicated by the instinctual passions. Hence, over-ride it to come across the liking/ likeable aspect of you. For e.g., your wife pisses you off. Can you go one step below that instinctual passion and find her liking/ and thus have you become likeable?

[Rick said]: “So you did not like ‘Srid’ who is the instinctual passions (and the instinctual passions are ‘Srid’). ‘He’ you did not like. Now, with my wife. No, I don’t see how to do that (though I’m looking out for a way to do that). I only see the anger, which, like you, I dislike. Is that the only thing that you disliked—the instinctual passions?”

Srid [8:00 AM]: Richard put it better than that: “Srid said: I started off getting confirmation that I’m on the right track. Vineeto wondered if I’m not connecting liking/ likeable to naivete. I do, as I see an element of near-innocence on liking the other (overriding instinctual passions). Vineeto confirmed my report of spontaneous social interactions as being on right track. Richard brought up the ‘naivete spot’ thing where how once you go past (override) the instinctual passions you come to area where you are both liking and likeable. People don’t like themselves as they (instinctually) are. Naivete is where they can like themselves. All of this made sense to me indeed, especially in relation to the recent social identity exploration cum instinctual passion awareness and the eventual discovery of naivete. What a freedom is it indeed to discover the naive part of me that can be liking and likeable regardless of how the other feels towards me”.

Srid [8:01 AM]: So, yes, I don’t like myself as I instinctually am. Being naive is where I can like myself/ and like others.

[Rick said]: “I only see the anger, which, like you, I dislike”.

Srid [8:01 AM]: Become aware of the instinctual passion (aggression). Go one step below (with the intention of getting back to feeling good) … Profit!! (you may well come across liking): [???? PROFIT!!!! | Know Your Meme].

Rick [8:03 AM]: And my question was, when you came across this “liking”, did it apply to everything, without exclusion (instinctual passions aside)? Or, were there things you disliked?

Srid [8:04 AM]: Why would you want to put “instinctual passions aside”?

Rick [8:04 AM]: I put them aside because you already said that, when naive, you did not like them. So we know that there’s at least one thing you do not like when being naivete.

Srid [8:05 AM]: You can’t put them aside, it is totally relevant. When you remove instinctual passions out of the equation, there’s no point to talking about liking.

Rick [8:05 AM]: No point? Doesn’t liking epitomize the naive state?

Srid [8:08 AM]: Yes, for e.g., if instinctual passions played no part in your relation with your wife, there would not be anger, and you’d be feeling good (and then liking). Are you still commited to feeling good? If so, in what way does your question help towards that goal such that you can get back to feeling good from being angry (instinctual passion of aggression) with your wife? I feel like you are neglecting first principles. You are shooting these questions from the void, but they don’t arise from the first principle of feeling good.

Rick [8:10 AM]: My wife’s tantrums are just one of the many, many things I dislike. I also dislike bladder infections, and paying taxes, and not getting enough sleep, and torn rotator cuffs, and so on and so on. I also dislike thieves, and pederasts, and squatters, and all the other things Richard mentioned. I have a long list of things I dislike. Hence my interest in a state where one, from what I understood, liked everything.

Srid [8:14 AM]: How about you find out? Then, it goes back to the above. As well as: “Srid said: Feel good, enjoy & appreciate—which necessitates being aware of instinctual passions and over-riding them”. So, feel good—enjoy & appreciate—no matter what happens, including when: || your wife throwing tantrums | having bladder infections (unless pain becomes extreme) | paying taxes (this can be a delightful cognitive activity, actually) | not getting enough sleep (at least feel good) | torn rotator cuffs (unless pain becomes extreme) | dealing with thieves (Richard reported one incident of a purse-snatcher) | pederasts in news | dealing with squatters ||. Which, among that list, is your most frequent issue? That’d be a best place to start.

Rick [8:14 AM]: To start what? Going from disliking them to liking them?

Srid [8:16 AM]: To find out whether you can unwaveringly like your fellow human creature/ your fellow human creatures (wife, thieves, pederasts, squatters), which is what “liking” refers to. Just make feeling good your priority. This is where you’ve gone astray. Fix that shit. That’s where you start. Stop masturbating to intellectual concerns regarding “liking everything”. Start from where you are—disliking (instinctual disgust), and get back to feeling good. Go bottom up, not top down.

Rick [8:19 AM]: The question was I thought exceedingly basic and entirely the opposite of intellectual. I was just asking about your experience and whether you liked everything or maintained a dislike for some things. See?

[Rick said]: “Yes, people dislike all kinds of things, including themselves. Is naivete a state where people can like everything, no exclusions?”

Srid [8:21 AM]: The question is purely intellectual, because giving you a straight answer (either way) is not going to make a dent into actualism method, as you will continue to get pissed at your wife. Nothing’s gonna change fundamentally. See the problem?

Rick [8:23 AM]: You make a series of assumptions. I make no assumptions. I simply asked a straightforward question to which I am yet to receive a straightforward answer.

Why? I don’t know. If it’s hard to say/ answer, you could just say so.

Srid [8:25 AM]: Simple explanation is that I’m trying to nudge you towards actually being liking/likeable, rather than go astray for yet another time. You’ve been at it for what 15 years?

Rick [8:26 AM]: 20 years this September

Srid [8:27 AM]: You might also want to ask yourself: in what way is your investment into having this particular question answered going to resolve the below? (i.e.,“Now, with my wife. No, I don’t see how to do that (though I’m looking out for a way to do that). I only see the anger, which, like you, I dislike”).

Rick [8:27 AM]: “[Srid said]: “I’m trying to nudge you towards actually being liking/ likeable”. I appreciate that. Now, are you trying to nudge me towards actually liking everything or just some things? “Srid said: You might also want to ask yourself: in what way is your investment into having this particular question answered going to resolve the below? (i.e., “Now, with my wife. No, I don’t see how to do that (though I’m looking out for a way to do that”). I only see the anger, which, like you, I dislike)”.

As I said before, my wife’s tantrums aren’t the only thing I dislike. If I do in fact manage to get to a point where I like my wife’s tantrums, what about everything else? Can one get to a state—specifically, naive state—where [one] likes everything, no exclusion? Or will one still dislike things?

Srid [8:32 AM]: “liking everything or just some things”; “like my wife’s tantrums”.

Neither of what you wrote above is what is meant by ‘liking’. Here’s what the word means: unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human creature/ one’s fellow human creatures. Naivete is a state of being wherein you are unwaveringly liking your fellow humans.

Rick [8:34 AM]: I got that. Liking human beings: :check_mark: What about everything else?

Srid [9:04 AM]: Find out for yourself—that’s part of naiveté … wonderment, the not-knowing.

Srid [9:09 AM]: “Srid said: You might also want to ask yourself: in what way is your investment into having this particular question answered going to resolve the below? (i.e., “Now, with my wife. No, I don’t see how to do that (though I’m looking out for a way to do that). I only see the anger, which, like you, I dislike”).

I just noticed that you side-stepped this question entirely And your answer is a non-sequiter

[Rick said]: “As I said before, my wife’s tantrums aren’t the only thing I dislike. If I do in fact manage to get to a point where I like my wife’s tantrums, what about everything else?”

Srid [9:18 AM]: No, by ‘resolve’ I mean enjoy and appreciate her company. Not ‘like [your] wife’s tantrums’. First principles, once again. See a pattern? These two things are not identical. Please fix your comprehension skills first: “unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human creature/ one’s fellow human creatures”.

Rick [9:20 AM]: I like my wife sometimes, and sometimes I don’t, particularly when she’s angry or throwing a tantrum. “Rick said: What about everything else?” “Srid said: Find out for yourself—that’s part of naiveté … wonderment, the not-knowing”.

If I asked you how the weather was over there, you could tell me. I ask whether you like everything when being naive, and you cannot tell me. Why? If you unwaveringly liked humans when naive, that’s wonderful. My question was whether you (unwaveringly) liked everything or whether there were things you still didn’t like.

Srid [9:20 AM]: You are still evading that question. For clarify, I shall rephrase it: In what way is your investment into having this particular question answered going to make you enjoy and appreciate your wife’s company come what may (including the moments of throwing a tantrum)?

Rick [9:24 AM]: This is the one question I have not answered: “Srid said: You might also want to ask yourself: in what way is your investment into having this particular question answered going to resolve the below?”

My interest /investment in the question, at this point, is twofold: 1. What am I aiming for? My like or dislike of humans is not my main preoccupation. I dislike all manner of things, not just humans. To focus solely on just one of my dislikes, to the exclusion of all my other dislikes, seems misplaced. 2. There is now a delightful curiosity and bafflement at the evasive nature you are displaying, and I’m more interested/invested than ever.

Srid [9:25 AM]: So: “Rick said: Is naivete a state where people can like everything, no exclusions?” (“no exceptions” is the more common phrasing).

It is really very simple. “Srid said: In what way is your investment into having this particular question answered going to make you enjoy and appreciate your wife’s company come what may (including the moments of throwing a tantrum)?” “Rick: 1. What am I aiming for? My like or dislike of humans is not my main preoccupation. I dislike all manner of things, not just humans. To focus solely on just one of my dislikes, to the exclusion of all my other dislikes, seems misplaced”.

Could you explain where exactly in that complicated answer above you have indicated the connection to enjoying and appreciating your wife’s company come what may (including the moments of throwing a tantrum)? Because I only see word soup.

Rick [9:31 AM]: “Srid said: In what way is your investment into having this particular question answered going to make you enjoy and appreciate your wife’s company come what may (including the moments of throwing a tantrum)?”

I do not know [precisely] in what way this investment into having this particular question answered is going to make me enjoy and appreciate my wife’s company come what may. I’m collecting information about the state of naivete. Whether that data will benefit me in the future or not, who is to say? Now, can you supply the information I requested? If you are unable to because you do not know, then that is understandable.

If you do know, then why not share it?

Srid [9:37 AM]: “Rick said: Is naivete a state where people can like everything, no exclusions?” and “I do not know [precisely] in what way this investment into having this particular question question answered is going to make me enjoy and appreciate my wife’s company come what may”.

In that case, I suggest making feeling good come what may your No. 1 priority over anything else, including “collecting information about the state of naivete”. Unless you do, nothing I say in response will be actually helpful or productive, and you will continue to gloss over the distinctions I made above (such as this).

Rick [9:39 AM]: I am not glossing over the distinction. I am highlighting and emphasising the distinction, if anything. “Srid said: These two things are not identical. Please fix your comprehension skills first: unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human creature/ one’s fellow human creatures”.

I know. One thing is not the other. Does naivete mean that one can like both? Let’s go to a different question. Simple question—do you experientially know the answer to the following? “Rick said: Is naivete a state where people can like everything, no exclusions?” Note, I’m [no longer] asking you the question I asked at the beginning of this thread. I’m just asking whether you know or not.

Srid [9:49 AM]: Yet your original reply to me indicated that you do not see the distinction (nor are willing to see it): “Srid: In what way is your investment into having this particular question answered going to make you enjoy and appreciate your wife’s company come what may (including the moments of throwing a tantrum)?” “Rick: Now, with my wife. No, I don’t see how to [enjoy and appreciate her company come what including the moments of throwing a tantrum] (though I’m looking out for a way to do that). I only see the anger, which, like you, I dislike. As I said before, my wife’s tantrums aren’t the only thing I dislike. If I do in fact manage to get to a point where I like my wife’s tantrums, what about everything else?”

Instead of attempting to make use of my time here to get an understanding of that very distinction (with the goal of enjoying & appreciating the company of your wife, for example, come what may) you are demonstrating more interest in “collecting information about the state of naivete” by distracting yourself over “everything else”. This is why you are going at it for almost 20 years.

I’m guessing that both your “like my wife’s tantrums” and “like everything else” still falls under the instinctual way of being. That is to say, you are trying to find a way out without over-riding the instinctual passions (ie., going one step below).

Naiveté cannot be discovered that way. Hence, why I’m engaging with you here the way I do.

Rick [9:54 AM]: I have asked a singular question in a variety of ways: “Is naivete a state where people can like everything, no exclusions?” or “It’s not a philosophical question. I’m enquiring into the nature of your experience. Did you like everything?”

Such a simple question. Is it that you do not know whether there were things you didn’t like during your experience of naivete? I have by now directly addressed every single question you posed to me. The one question I have asked of you, all this while, since the very beginning, you have deliberately declined to answer. I won’t ask it anymore at this time. If you see your way around to answering it at some point, it would be most appreciated.

Srid [9:55 AM]: Yes, see: “Srid: I’m guessing that both your “like my wife’s tantrums” and “like everything else” still falls under the instinctual way of being. That is to say, you are trying to find a way out without over-riding the instinctual passions (ie., going one step below)” and “Srid: Naiveté cannot be discovered that way. Hence, why I’m engaging with you here the way I do”.

You really have to grasp this, and think outside the box. Also, I’m not a machine or AI that you can pose any questions to and get answers right away. I also care … care that others become free. It is as as clear as a day, as I explained above (ie., “I’m guessing …”) you are going off-track.

Rick [9:57 AM]: “Srid said: Yes, see: Srid: I’m guessing that both your “like my wife’s tantrums” and “like everything else” still falls under the instinctual way of being. That is to say, you are trying to find a way out without over-riding the instinctual passions (ie., going one step below)” and “Srid: Naiveté cannot be discovered that way. Hence, why I’m engaging with you here the way I do. You really have to grasp this, and think outside the box”.

All this because you have erroneously “guessed” that I am trying to find a way out without over-riding the instinctual passions. “Srid said: It is as as clear as a day, as I explained above (ie., “I’m guessing …”) you are going off-track”. There’s nothing clear about guessing. It’s a stab in the dark. And you missed.

Srid [10:01 AM]: It wasn’t just a guess; there were many indicators along the way. Look, this is not litigation. I’m just trying to help you out. But if you are not curious about what I discovered recently, and discussed with Richard/ Vineeto, about unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human beings—as distinct from liking one’s wife tantrums or liking “everything else”—so be it.

I would be better off spending my time on something else.

I can see why Richard/ Vineeto impresses upon enjoying & appreciating as the first thing to do. The identity is rather cunning that it’d rather distract itself with anything but that. I went through it myself; cf. the “bad habits”.

Rick [10:02 AM]: “Srid said: But if you are not curious about what I discovered recently”.

On the contrary! I am [exceedingly curious and am] endeavoring to learn about precisely what you discovered. And you, for some reason, will not divulge. “Rick said: I’m asking about your experience of naivete. Given that you experienced it, I asked the following: Is naivete a state where people can like everything, no exclusions?” and “Rick said: It’s not a philosophical question. I’m enquiring into the nature of your experience. Did you like everything?”

Srid [10:04 AM]: In a way, your question was answered. Understand the distinction. “Srid said: Yes, see: I’m guessing that both your “like my wife’s tantrums” and “like everything else” still falls under the instinctual way of being. That is to say, you are trying to find a way out without over-riding the instinctual passions (ie., going one step below)” and “Naiveté cannot be discovered that way. Hence, why I’m engaging with you here the way I do. You really have to grasp this, and think outside the box”. “Rick said: All this because you have erroneously “guessed” that I am “trying to find a way out without over-riding the instinctual passions”.

This is your response to my drawing the distinction. That doesn’t indicate you are “exceedingly curious”. I’ve copied pasted this 3 times now!

Rick [10:07 AM]: You are telling me how to discover naivete. I never asked how, I asked what. Specifically, what is it that you discovered? Did you discover that naivete means liking everything, or only liking some things? We can get to the how once we explore the what.

Srid [10:08 AM]: The distinction is about ‘what’ as well. Squint your way, focus on the bold text. First bold text.

Rick [10:08 AM]: I will copy back the bold text so that we see the same thing … “Srid said: I’m guessing that both your “like my wife’s tantrums” and “like everything else” still falls under the instinctual way of being. That is to say, you are trying to find a way out without over-riding the instinctual passions (ie., going one step below)” and “I’m guessing that both your “like my wife’s tantrums” and “like everything else” still falls under the instinctual way of being”. and “Naiveté cannot be discovered that way”.

I see you (erroneously) guessing something and then telling me how naivete is not to be discovered like that.

Oh hold on!

I may see something…

Srid [10:11 AM]: There’s no guessing required here, actually, it is easy to see from what you described as how you envision “liking” your wife’s “tantrums”. Not the same as what I discovered.

Rick [10:12 AM]: Bear with me … I think I see you may be correct about something. What its implications are, we shall see … “Srid said: I’m guessing that both your “like my wife’s tantrums” and “like everything else” still falls under the instinctual way of being”.

Can I say that you are guessing whether the dislike I have for my wife’s tantrums is instinctually similar to the dislike I have for other [unlikeable] things?

Srid [10:14 AM]: No, that’s unrelated. By “still falls under” I mean you are looking at these through the instinctive lens of instinctual passions, because you have not so far over-ridden then (go back one step) which first requries being aware of them with the intention of getting back to feeling good. Which explains why you think naiveté is about “liking your wife’s tantrums” (as opposed to liking her as a fellow human being) or “liking everything”. Naiveté is a state of being, from which it is possible to be liking/ likeable (as a state of being).

Rick [10:17 AM]: Good. So, naivete is not a state of being wherein everything is liked. There are some things, like “tantrums” that are still disliked in the naive state, correct?

Srid [10:17 AM]: Again, you are instinctively looking at it through instinctual lens.

Rick [10:18 AM]: Let’s establish one thing. Naivete = unreservedly liking humans, yes?

Srid [10:18 AM]: Richard and Vineeto described an aspect of naivete (during the Covid-19, climate change, etc. conversation) … there’s an element of openness, “I do not know”. This is what is markedly lacking here.

Rick [10:19 AM]; That’s perfectly fine. Am I to understand that you “do not know”?

Srid [10:20 AM]: “Rick said: There are some things, like “tantrums” that are still disliked in the naive state, correct?”

This indicates you wanting to “know” (ahead of over-riding the instinctual passions) something that is not even relevant to know (because by the time you discover naivete, it becomes a non-question).

Rick [10:21 AM]: And since you overrode the instinctual passions, do you know?

Srid [10:21 AM]: It is easy for me to directly answer your question (I know the answer), and then have you go your way for another 20 years of “collecting information about the state of naivete”.

Rick [10:22 AM]: Hallelujah! One question in the bag. Simple question from earlier: “Rick said: Let’s go to a different question. Simple question—do you experientially know the answer to the following? Is naivete a state where people can like everything, no exclusions? Note, I’m [no longer] asking you the question I asked at the beginning of this thread. I’m just asking whether you know or not”.

Srid [10:22 AM]: “Srid said: This indicates you wanting to “know” (ahead of over-riding the instinctual passions)”. “Rick said: And since you overrode the instinctual passions, do you know?”

Yes, and I’m going to continue having fun keeping you in suspense, until you comprehend the distinction above.

Rick [10:22 AM]: “Rick said: And since you overrode the instinctual passions, do you know?” “Srid said: Yes …”.

Thank you

“Srid said: I’m going to continue having fun keeping you in suspense, until you comprehend the distinction above”.

Okay, next up. Comprehension of some-such “distinction”. (And I’m pleased that you’re having fun, even if it is at my expense/suspense). Can you please clarify the distinction you are trying to make? (I too have been having fun, by the way … yes, even with, or perhaps because, of the suspense).

Srid [10:31 AM]: I tried a few times, like here[*].

[*][https://actual.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/431899-srid-ballina-2024/topic/04-11.20Rick.3A.20liking.20*everything*/near/432807363].

Rick [10:32 AM]: “Srid said: By “still falls under” I mean you are looking at these through the instinctive lens of instinctual passions, because you have not so far over-ridden then (go back one step) which first requries being aware of them with the intention of getting back to feeling good”. A distinction requires at least two things which are disparate/ distinct. What in the above is item 1, and what is item 2? Because I’m failing to see how the above in any way relates to the question I’ve been asking since the very beginning of this thread.

Srid [10:34 AM]: Difference between the two:

• You are angry. Try to “like” your wife as a fellow human being (anger still in-situ); try to “like” her tantrums; etc.

• You are angry. Be aware of it, go one step below (you are no longer angry). Serendipitously come across a state of being wherein you like her (and are likeable), no matter what she gets up to (including throwing tantrums).

Rick [10:37 AM]: You are providing instructions. “Try to ‘like’…”, and “Be aware…”, are instructions pertaining to achieving a state wherein I like a human being. While all well and good, I do appreciate the instruction/ advice for attaining a state wherein I like a human being, my question at the outset was about something else entirely.

Srid [10:38 AM]: They are descriptions of what happens, not instructions for you.

Rick [10:39 AM]: Thank you for clarifying that they are descriptions and not instructions. I still see that they are describing the attainment of a state wherein I like a human being, whereas my question at the outset was about something else entirely.

Srid [10:39 AM]: When you understand the distinction between the two, the next step is to comprehend how your question is within the frame of the first bullet point {i.e., •}, ergo irrelevant to naivete (second bullet point).

Rick [10:40 AM]: Thank you, that is helpful. I am to understand that liking/ disliking things—other than humans—is irrelevant to naivete?

Srid [10:41 AM]: Suppose the answer is:

• Yes. In what way, will this lead to you enjoying and appreciating the company of your wife or doing taxes?

Suppose the answer is:

• No. In what way, will this lead to you enjoying and appreciating the company of your wife or doing taxes?

Rick [10:42 AM]: There’s an element of openness, “I do not know”. Let’s see, eh? “Srid said: So, if you “dislike [something]” you gotta first become aware of the instinctual passions (that evoke this dislike), and then by-pass/ over-ride (ie., go one step below) it, before you can come across the naive part of yourself where you can be liking and likeable”. I note here (your first message in this thread), where you said that if I disliked “something” then it was possible to, eventually, come to where I can “be liking”. Please note that you specifically said “something”—and “something” could, of course, be anything—which means this transition from disliking to liking need not be limited to humans. Perhaps you meant to say: [example]: So, if you “dislike [a human]” you gotta first become aware of the instinctual passions (that evoke this dislike), and then by-pass/over-ride (ie., go one step below) it, before you can come across the naive part of yourself where you can be liking and likeable.

Srid [11:09 AM]: I said “dislike [something]”. But not “like something”; instead, I said, “be liking [and likeable]”.

IMO, it is best to find your way to naiveté through enjoying and appreciating, rather than thinking your way in.

• {8th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking everything; 12 April 2024.

Rick [11:24 AM]: “Srid said: I said “dislike [something]”. But not “like something”; instead, I said, “be liking [and likeable]”. Thank you, I’m aware. You advised: If I dislike something I gotta first become aware of the instinctual passions that evoke the dislike [of that thing], before I can come across the naive part of myself where I can be liking. Liking what? Not that something?

Srid [11:41 AM]: If you dislike doing taxes, become aware of your objections (maybe fear), decline going down that route, and enjoy and appreciate this moment of doing taxes. If you dislike your wife giving tantrums, become aware of your feelings all the way to instinctual passions, become aware and of it, decline going down that path, go one step below passions and meet the other as a fellow human being (while enjoying and appreciating). You may come across liking/ likeable here as I did.

claudiu · 25 April 2024 12:38

Remaining Quotes Part 2/2

(Ed: bolded the titles)

• {9th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking everything; 12 April 2024.

Srid [12:07 PM]: I’m in a library now. “Rick said: Liking what? Not that something?”

Correct, not necessarily that “something” (whatever that is). As to “Liking what”—it is a fellow human being, and not some “object” of one’s passions. Moreover, it feels good (great indeed) to be (unconditionally) liking as that. After all, does it not feel terrible giving the other person power to dictate your moods? Why let Ms. Impossible or Ms. Karen tell me/you how to go about experiencing life? Ms. Impossible/ Ms. Karen could benefit from the liking ambiance I generate; regardless, I’m now likeable (to myself) and sometimes to others as well. And I enjoy being liking/ likeable, thus it generates that spontaneous interactions I described on couple of occasions. This gives impetus to maintain this naive state of affairs perpetually, and by coming back to it whenever there’s deviation. This where even powerful instincts like libido can lose the game.

• {10th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking everything; 12 April 2024.

Srid [12:12 PM]: The other thing I noticed about naivete is this: I see the old Srid (the social identity, primarily) as I intuitively have been feeling myself retreat, the more naive I’m. This makes sense because social identity is largely resting on the instinctual passions. But it such a refresher to see this: because I don’t have to endlessly whittle away my social identities. Just get back to being naive. Whenver I get triggered into feeling bad, it is a sign of those old identities returning, but with lesser intensity each time; I become aware of it, and come back on track.

• {11th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking everything; 12 April 2024.

Rick [12:55 PM]: “Srid said: If you dislike doing taxes, become aware of your objections (maybe fear), decline going down that route, and enjoy and appreciate this moment of doing taxes”. If you are doing your taxes and disliking it, then you are not enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. Can you actively dislike something—anything—while enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive?

Srid [12:56 PM]: No.

Rick [12:56 PM]: Is enjoyment and appreciation a necessary aspect of naivete?

Srid [12:59 PM]: It goes along with it.

Rick • {12th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking everything; 12 April 2024.

[1:00 PM]: Right. In other words, if one is not enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive, one cannot say they are experiencing the nearest-to-innocence a human being can possibly experience. Yes?

Srid [1:01 PM]: Yes. Moreover, Vineeto said being naïveté is superior to feeling good.

• {13th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking everything; 12 April 2024.

Rick [1:07 PM]: Now look: “Rick said: Can you actively dislike something—anything—while enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive?” “Srid said: No”.

Therefore, if you actively dislike something—anything—then you cannot be in a state of naivete, since enjoyment and appreciation is a necessary aspect of naivete. And one cannot actively dislike something—anything—while enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. Dislike means no enjoyment and appreciation. No enjoyment and appreciation means no naivete. “Rick said: if one is not enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive, one cannot say they are experiencing the nearest-to-innocence a human being can possibly experience”.

Srid [1:10 PM]: To bring it all back to where the rubber meets the road (lest it be a detached intellectual exercise), if you are not feeling good about doing taxes—you are not enjoying and appreciating (nevermind naivete). It really is simple, start from here: feel good about doing taxes. Then enjoy doing it. Then appreciate it. You will come up with objections; deal with them (become aware; decline going down the path). You gotta do this “sweat work” before you think about naivete.

Rick [1:11 PM]: If you are actively disliking something, you are not feeling good, you are not enjoying it, and you are not appreciating it

Srid [1:11 PM]: I personally had to go through identity crisis. Something like that needs to happen, I’d say.

Rick [1:12 PM]: Do you disagree? If you are actively disliking something, you are not feeling good, you are not enjoying it, and you are not appreciating it.

Srid [1:13 PM]: Sure. Now feel good about doing your taxes.

Rick [1:13 PM]: I dislike doing my taxes. Should I like doing my taxes? For things that I dislike, should I like them?

Srid [1:15 PM]: You do the same as I did with ‘the most boring job’ here[*].

[*][PCE reports – Sridhar Ratnakumar].

Rick [1:15 PM]: Do I need to like them in order to feel good while doing them? “Srid said: I was able to work on the task most effectively, and while enjoying[] it thoroughly”. [][Felicity and Innocuity – Humanity Unorthodox].

The task. Before you didn’t like it, then things took a magical turn, and you liked it [thoroughly].

Srid [1:17 PM]: “Srid said: I started appreciating the various nooks and crannies of ‘the brain in operation’. At this meta level, the interest-level of the task did not matter—because the very fact that the brain is working on it in its intricate levels was so wonderful to observe”. Enjoy being alive and doing the very act of doing taxes. If you feel like this is an obligation (as indicated by your word “need”), why even bother doing any of this?

Rick [1:17 PM]: Or did you enjoy it without liking it? “Srid said: If you feel like this is an obligation (as indicated by your word “need”), why even bother doing any of this?” need = necessary, as in, requisite.

Srid [1:18 PM]: We can masturbate and dissect this all day and yet you will never succeed at enjoy doing the taxes.

Rick [1:20 PM]: I’m not masturbating, but I am dissecting. Because there is something here that doesn’t add up.

Srid [1:20 PM]: Stop doing that, and just feel good. You have already lost the plot (where you said need to like something before feeling good). You are basically putting conditions on feeling good.

Rick [1:21 PM]: “Srid said: You have already lost the post (where you said need to like something before feeling good)”. Oh good. So you can feel good without liking something.

Srid [1:22 PM]: Whatever the fuck man. What do you think “feeling good come what may” means? Just do it.

Rick [1:23 PM]: Yet I asked you: “Can you actively dislike something—anything—while enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive?” and you said: “No”. Now you say you can actively dislike something and still feel good. Do you see how this doesn’t make sense?

Srid [1:24 PM]: I did not say that, and it has become clear that you like masturbating to semantic games than feeling good. At this point, I’m seriously questioning your whole motives in involving in actualism.

Rick [1:24 PM]: https://actual.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/431899-srid-ballina-2024/topic/04-11.20Rick.3A.20liking.20*everything*/near/432820627

“Srid said: “Now you say you can actively dislike something and still feel good”. and “Srid said: You have already lost the plot (where you said need to like something before feeling good)”. You said I lost the plot where I said I need to like something before feeling good. Ergo I need not like something before feeling good. Ergo I can feel good without liking something

Srid [1:27 PM]: “Srid said: […] it has become clear that you like masturbating to semantic games than feeling good. At this point, I’m seriously questioning your whole motives in involving in actualism”. If you wish to continue interacting with me on this topic, you need to address this first.

Rick [1:27 PM]: What is there to address? You are wrong.

Srid [1:28 PM]: Okay, then, there’s nothing to discuss.

Rick [1:29 PM]: I addressed it. But yes, there’s no point in continuing if that is how things appear to you. Every additional attempt to be more clear and precise will be further evidence of what you have already concluded.

Srid [1:31 PM]: You gotta realize what you have been doing is not working. 20 years of nothing. You need to change gears. Do you seriously expect me to play tag (play along) with 20 more years of this? LOL

Rick [1:31 PM]: Do you not like this exchange?

Srid [1:32 PM]: Like I said, it is empty intellectual / semantic discussion. Not to mention it ignores the bulk of what we discussed in the houseboat last afternoon. I guess that’s part of my frustration—that I let myself get dragged into semantic wanking, when I could have spent time doing pure contemplation. I’m rethinking my investment here.

Rick [1:33 PM]: And to think. All this back and forth because you aroused my curiosity as to why you could not/ would not/ still will not answer this: “Rick said: Yes, people dislike all kinds of things, including themselves. Is naivete a state where people can like everything, no exclusions?” From the very first message in this thread

Srid [1:37 PM]: There’s no connection here.

• {14th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 srid/rick comm; April 12 2024.

Srid [1:37 PM]: Conclusion. A sensible course of action for me at this point is to not respond to each and every message of yours—and that’s what I’ll do from this point onwards.

If I see sincerity in action, I’ll try to respond. Otherwise (such as intellectual wanking), I’ll ignore it. I’ve run out of giving you benefit of doubt. It is up to you as to whether you want to come along or not, but I’m gonna focus head-fast on my journey ahead, make the usual reports here and make best use of my time in Ballina.

• {15th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 srid/rick comm; April 12 2024.

Rick [1:39 PM]: Do what you gotta do. Your conclusion is entirely unfounded, of course. “Srid said: It is easy for me to directly answer your question (I know the answer)”. And yet the question was never answered. Maybe one day. Maybe not.

Srid [1:43 PM]: It is for the best. I should have ignored that topic from the get-go much like I ignored this one.

Rick [1:44 PM]: Whatever makes you feel good.

Srid [1:45 PM]: What happened was I got sucked into Rick’s bad habits, and then got frustrated of having wasted that time (and then blamed Rick).

Rick [1:45 PM]: You wouldn’t have felt it a waste had you enjoyed it.

Srid [1:45 PM]: And I tried to “change” Rick (wasting further time), when I should have time/energy-boxed it and moved on.

Rick [1:45 PM]: Look. I’ll do you a solid favour. I’ll quit for tonight.

Srid [1:46 PM]: With hindsight, what I would have done is this: “Oh, here Rick goes again engaged in semantic wanking. Alright, let me do some pure contemplation now”.

Rick [1:46 PM]: It hasn’t been enjoyable for you.

Srid [1:47 PM]: “Srid said: And I tried to “change” Rick (wasting further time), when I should have time/energy-boxed it and moved on”. Which goes to show that I’m better off changing myself, rather than try to change others. Again, it’s on me (and I’m the one to change here).

Rick [1:47 PM]: Yes. Your motives were wrong.

Srid [1:47 PM]: “Srid said: A sensible course of action for me at this point is to not respond to each and every message of yours—and that’s what I’ll do from this point onwards”. Just to clarify, I’m not rage-quitting. I’ll have my conversation 90% as normal as ever, but don’t be surprised if I neglect the 10%.

Rick [1:48 PM]: Agreed. We’re mutually ending discussion on this. I don’t want to see you not enjoy yourself.

Srid [1:49 PM]: I’m someone that’s known to be “online too much”—part of which is why I kept getting distracted yesterday on the houseboat, which Vineeto pointed out (this segues into the “disciplined thought” part of pure contemplation; I was actually going to respond to your query but got derailed onto the semantic wanking topic).

Rick [1:49 PM]: I object to the semantic wanking characterisation, but I catch your drift

Rick [1:50 PM]: “Srid said: part of which is why I kept getting distracted yesterday on the houseboat”. You were online at the houseboat?

Srid [1:51 PM]: No; I was referring to the monkey brain habit that usually results from internet use. The lack of focus.

Rick [1:52 PM]: “Srid said: (this segues into the “disciplined thought” part of pure contemplation”. For what it’s worth, I was really trying to maintain disciplined thought process by keeping rigidly to the topical question presented at the beginning of the thread.

Srid [1:52 PM]: Of course you can apply disciplined thought to any endeavour.

Rick [1:45 PM]: “Srid said: No; I was referring to the monkey brain habit that usually results from internet use. The lack of focus”. Okay.

Rick [1:53 PM]: “Srid said: Of course you can apply disciplined thought to any endeavour”. Indeed you can. Going to get off so you can get on some pure contemplation. Or whatever else you might have lined up. Cheers.

Srid [1:55 PM]: Alright, let’s give this one more try. I’ll start a new topic.

• {16th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking everything V2; April 12 2024.

Srid [1:56 PM]: “Srid said: Richard brought up the ‘naivete spot’ thing where how once you go past (override) the instinctual passions you come to area where you are both liking and likeable. People don’t like themselves as they (instinctually) are. Naivete is where they can like themselves”. “Rick said:Yes, people dislike all kinds of things, including themselves. Is naivete a state where people can like everything, no exclusions?”

New approach.

• {17th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking everything V2; April 12 2024.

Srid [1:56 PM]: Make it concrete. Give a specific example of this “everything”, that exists here in Ballina that I can experience.

• {18th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 srid/rick comm; April 12 2024.

Srid [1:57 PM]: I’ll incessantly disrespect the wanking generalities.

Rick [1:58 PM]: As you please

• {19th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: liking everything V2; April 12 202

Rick [1:59 PM]: You tell me. Is there anything—anything at all—that you do not like right now?

Srid [2:00 PM]: I’m worried about my headache/ pressure from time to time (which worry need not happen, and I have been looking into that).

Rick [2:03 PM]: Well … let’s back up. You are not in a state of naivete right now. The question initially was to explore your past experience. Personally, in my default feeling-less-than-good state, there is much that I dislike. I dislike how messy this house looks, I dislike the fact that I have a lot to do tomorrow. And I dislike things that I can’t mention publicly here. But in naivete I was simply wondering whether those dislikes for things featured, or whether they were absent. Right now you don’t like your headache. Would you have liked it when you were being naive? I’m trying to get a sense of what the experience was like beyond how you felt towards humans. Much of my resentment is towards things, circumstances.

I remember Richard saying that the one time he felt bad during his OFC virtual freedom, was when it was cold, wet, and he’d run into car troubles. It wasn’t humans that brought him down, it was inanimate shit.

Srid [2:06 PM]: “Rick said: I’m trying to get a sense of what the experience was like beyond how you felt towards humans”. I actually wrote about this (I mentioned ‘loneliness’ in particular).

Rick [2:07 PM]: Oh. Absence of humans. Being surrounded by inanimate shit.

Srid [2:07 PM]: [https://actual.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/431899-srid-ballina-2024/topic/04-08.20RV.20meeting.3A.20awareness.3B.20go.20one.20step.20below/near/432394313].

Rick [2:08 PM]: Right. You would have been out of that naive state at the time.

Srid [2:09 PM]: Because instinctually I was craving for connection.

Rick [2:09 PM]: You were liking your fellow human being, that was clear. But not liking much else.

Srid [2:10 PM]: But not liking the act of coming back to the lodge to do some computer programming. Is that what you are saying?

Rick [2:12 PM]: I don’t know if you were liking that or not. But you weren’t liking your surroundings in some way, they being absent of humans/ human connection.

[Richard]: “There is an actual intimacy between me and everyone and everything … actual intimacy is a direct experiencing of the other as-they-are”.

I know Richard’s talking about an actual intimacy, but I was expecting the intimacy of naivete to be similar. The affective version of that, maybe. Intimate and liking everyone AND everything.

Srid [2:13 PM]: 1. Why do you think I wasn’t liking my surroundings in some way once I was back at the lodge? 2. What do you think I did to enjoy and appreciate it?

Rick [2:14 PM]: 1. You said you were lonely. 2. You became aware of your loneliness and got back to enjoying and appreciating, I presume.

Srid [2:16 PM]: More pertinently, nowhere in that step 2 was I thinking to myself “I must like everything” as my mind was occupied with a) becoming aware [of what is preventing enjoyment], and b) get back to enjoying and appreciating. Neither was I abusing the liking/ likeable terminology for solo activities.

Rick [2:17 PM]: I’m sure you weren’t. Can we be clear? At one point were you experiencing being naive? Or has it been on and off, in and out.

Srid [2:18 PM]:Yes, when I enjoy and appreciate doing these activities, I was being naive. It ebbs and flows of course (in relational context in particular) as I iron out the triggers.

Rick [2:19 PM]: I want to focus on the moments you were experiencing being naivete.

Not what led up to it, and not what happened afterwards. During those moments, did you have the capacity to dislike anything at all? Or was everything likeable? I know you unreservedly liked all humans. Did anything bother you, I guess I could ask.

Srid [2:22 PM]:Are you asking, whether during these moments whether I had the capacity for my enjoyment to diminish?

Rick [2:22 PM]:Or was everything good just the way it was. My experience is that things need to be improved, made better, things are lacking.

Srid [2:22 PM]: “Rick said: Or was everything good just the way it was”. No, I did not have a perfection experience (yet), but close.

Rick [2:23 PM]: Ah. Okay. I think I have been equating the naive state with a perfection experience and so was trying to draw out from you details regarding a perfection experience. Hence my query about finding everyone AND everything likable, worthy of endorsement, approval, and embrace.

Srid [2:25 PM]: What is your plan to become actually free exactly?

Rick [2:27 PM]: To feel good right now. My plan to become actually free is to feel good right now. So, my goal is to feel good right now.

• {20th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 12 2024.

Rick [2:35 PM]: I was contemplating a possible strategy for feeling good. I noticed that feeling bad for me has often been associated with things that I didn’t like. I have been contemplating the possibility of actually liking everything, without exception. Going from disliking something, to liking it. Is that even possible? I don’t know. Hence my curiosity regarding your experience of naivete. If you start from disliking someone, and then go on to liking them, could the same be done with absolutely everything else? That’s been my reflections.

Srid [2:42 PM]: I see. That seems like the identity being cunning at distracting itself from just feeling good (“If only I got this Grand Perspective, everything will fall in place…”).

Rick [2:42 PM]: Horseshit. Why would it/ I not want to feel good.

Srid [2:43 PM]: You tell me

Rick [2:43 PM]: Of course I want to feel good.

Srid [2:44 PM]: This explains why I found your question unproductive (in V1). I went through my own version of it remember? “Bad habits”.

Rick [2:45 PM]: Do you also find me asking about the weather there “unproductive”? It’s a question of curiosity. If you started avoiding the question about what the weather was like, for you to impertinently tell me, right off the bat: “Srid said: How about you find out?” I’m going to look askance. I begin wondering whether I’m not communicating clearly.

• {21st copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 RV meeting: pure contemplation; April 13 2024.

Srid [04-13]: Large part of today was spent regressing, thanks to the continuing head ache. Although this time I wasn’t worried about the future (anxiety), my worries today have been more subtle and about the present (concerns—“I just want this pain to to be over!”). This underlying current affected my enjoyment and put a dent on the mood. I sat down to read my prior reports, and this part[*] (in addition to the “background E&A” emphasis) of the 04-04 report caught my attention: “Then we talked about how it is about feeling good this moment. The aforementioned ‘bad habits’ of mine involve future moments, hence I’m not in this moment, never mind feel good about it. Otherwise it would feel forced”.

[*][https://actual.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/431899-srid-ballina-2024/topic/04-04.20RV.20meeting.3A.20Bad.20habits.2C.20feel.20good.2C.20vibes.2C.20awareness/near/431251565].

And I’m back to feeling good again.

The particular ‘bad habit’ went like this: “I should be feeling good, but I’m not; I want to feel good, which means feeling good is something that is necessarily going to happen next moment”. Once I saw it, poof.

(Of course, the head ache subsides always in the evening; so that too helped).

Now that I’m feeling good, I can easily tap into naivete (liking/ likeable) with the concomitant ‘forgetting’ of instinctual Srid …

I see how it works. Vineeto (and Richard) would now say, “Now you appreciate it”.

Srid: Note: naivete can be accessed through this mechanism (ie., by over-riding instinctual passions): “Srid said: Vineeto mentioned a connection to having apperception happen. I don’t remember what this was in response to. She said that, being aware of instinctual passions (as I noted above)—and thereby going one step below and dealing with the world directly (be it a person or object or event or whatever)—can lead to apperception since that is the mind’s awareness of itself”.

• {22nd copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13 2024.

Rick [8:48 AM]: [Burnt Toast: That's that Sh* I don't like!].

• {23rd copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13 2024.

Rick [9:23 AM]: ^Tongue in cheek essay on this liking/ disliking business.

Rick [10:19 AM]: “Srid said: That ‘background E&A’ … is … the affective mimicry of that perfection you refer to”. Since you see me referring to just that, then [what] makes you say I’m not interested?

Srid [11:52 AM]: What is your understanding of ‘background E&A’ and how are you going about it whilst doing, say, taxes?

• {24th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13 2024.

Rick [12:04 PM]: I understand “background E&A” to be enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive, but in the background, as opposed to the foreground. Which means one may not be enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive on the surface level, but below that, in the background it’s possible to enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive. I don’t know how to go about this while paying taxes. The instructions and advice that you provided and that I read on the AFT appear insensible and incomprehensible to me.

• {25th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13 2024.

Rick [12:19 PM]: “Srid said: What is your understanding of ‘background E&A’ and how are you going about it whilst doing, say, taxes?” I also see this ‘background E&A’ as relating to everything being perfect in the “ultimate sense”. In the relative or local sense, things can and do often suck. When things suck, you can’t enjoy them. In this ultimate sense, nothing sucks. Since nothing sucks in the ultimate sense, everything can be enjoyed (from that ultimate sense of things). If I can see a way to access this “ultimate” sense of things, I expect I’ll be in business.

• {26th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13 2024.

Srid [5:33 PM]: You enjoy & appreciate doing taxes in a way no different to my ‘Microsoft EE’. Don’t you enjoy and appreciate the various cognitive/ brainy activities involved in doing taxes?

• {27th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13 2024.

Rick [6:52 PM]: “Srid said: You enjoy & appreciate doing taxes in a way no different to my ‘Microsoft EE’. Don’t you enjoy and appreciate the various cognitive/ brainy activities involved in doing taxes?” No, the whole business I find to be distasteful. Some bits are naturally less bothersome than other bits. Anyways, taxes this season are done. Seeing the final amount I owed to the government at the end especially sucked. I neither enjoy nor appreciate knowing that I’m losing so much money for the enrichment of this government. I don’t like it. Need to see how, ultimately speaking, such a thing is perfect. I like perfect things.

• {28th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13 2024.

Rick [9:00 PM]: Related: RICHARD: “As simply as possible, then: it is impossible to be miserable (or in any other way infelicitous) where the pristine purity of the perfection of the infinitude/ absoluteness which this universe actually is abounds…”.

And thus where perfection doesn’t abound—i.e. where it is not seen or experienced—then one may be miserable. Happiness is inherent to that perfection.

RICHARD: “Happiness is not a product of good or bad … it is inherent to perfection”.

Happiness/ harmlessness is a direct effect of perfection.

CO-RESPONDENT: “(…) why is happiness inherent to perfection?”

RICHARD: “Simply because both the qualities … intrinsic to the properties … of that perfection … and the values … inherent to those properties and qualities [of that perfection] can only have a felicitous (and innocuous) effect”.

• {29th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13 2024.

Rick [6:55 AM]: Rick said: [Burnt Toast: That's that Sh* I don't like!]. ^ Tongue in cheek essay on this liking/ disliking business.

[Burnt Toast: Part 2].

^ Part 2 if interested. Warning: walls of text.

• {30th copy-pasted message}: srid-ballina-2024>04-11 Rick: strategy to feel good; April 13 2024.

Srid [6:21 PM]: When all is said and done, the proof is in the pudding: are you able to feel good (about simply being alive) whilst doing taxes? I’d say: drop everything (including reading AFT) and do just this: feel good 24x7 about simply being alive (regardless what you are doing—that doesn’t matter)

Rick [9:01 PM]: How?

Disregard—I’ll figure it out

claudiu · 25 April 2024 12:38

I wonder what @rick’s response will be, to being directly and unambiguously pointed out explicitly where he has gone wrong, by the very person whose words he used to arrive at his erroneous conclusions!

Cheers,
Claudiu

rick · 25 April 2024 14:06

Good. I appreciate Richard’s feedback, regardless of what he says. I’ll evaluate it all line by line.

rick · 25 April 2024 14:39

claudiu:

(Ed: I was particularly gobsmacked at how Rick’s initial snipped-without-indication version of this quote was presented as if Richard was indicating that one should be saying !YES! to the rapist, as in that “embracing, welcoming, endorsing, approving, and saying YES! to everything” is what Richard was saying to do, yet how the very first line of Richard’s response clearly and unambiguously indicates that this is exactly not what Richard was saying, viz.: “I do not advise anyone to ‘accept the world as it is, with people as they are’ […]” (emphasis added)).

It became clear here, and is further reinforced below, that the only apparent ambiguity or confusion here is on the part of Rick, which he is attempting to foist onto Srid here (and later onto this forum) via his mis-quotes and deficient understanding and reasoning.)

Just to be clear: it was Claudiu who authored this bit?

Kub933 · 26 April 2024 10:48

Ok so I didn’t read all of it, but my understanding is as below :

Although the stuff of the universe is never created nor destroyed (it merely reshuffles in infinite complexities), the forms this perdurable stuff takes are indeed finite. Therefore a flesh and blood body (although being made from perdurable stuff) is itself mortal. This is why Richard can say “I am the infinite and eternal universe experiencing itself as a flesh and blood body” AND at the same time that “I am mortal”, they are both correct and not mutually exclusive.

The perdurable stuff of the universe has arranged itself in the form of a mortal flesh and blood body.

From my understanding here is where @rick has gone wrong :

So as above, the very stuff of the universe (the components) is perfect and pure and yet it can be made to act in ways which are not, to take the ‘form of’ - the wars, murders, suicides, rape, child abuse etc.
Again both statements can be correct and are not mutually exclusive. Although the wars, murders, rape, child abuse etc are themselves not perfect, the very stuff which comprises the very flesh and blood bodies involved is itself perfect and pure.

So this perfect and pure stuff of the universe is being made to act (by the identity within) in a way which is NOT perfect and pure.

So all in all it is possible to have imperfect events in a perfect universe.

claudiu · 26 April 2024 12:02

Indeed! The way I would put it is that, there is the ultimate and the relative. The ultimate is the nature of all the perdurable & actually-existing matter as sold/as energy etc., which is perfect and undying. There is nothing to do but to enjoy and appreciate this ultimate nature of actuality, and of course, to be living as that, as a flesh and blood human being, is literally infinitely unmeasurably astounding and wonderful and renders it clear how all of ‘my’ doings and achievements are but meagre and paltry scraps.

But as soon as you start to talk about the particular configuration of this perfect matter, now you have necessarily moved to the relative, which is where the 1-to-10 scale applies. There’s no way around it. And here it makes sense to be enjoying those 10-of-10 things on that scale more than the 1-of-10 things, and obviously, to not be enjoying the negative-10-of-10 things like murder, war, rape, torture, etc.

The confusion comes from conflating the two and therefore believing that one must enjoy even those things like murder, war, rape, torture, etc., along with the perpetrating murderers/warmongers/rapists/torturers/etc.

I would also say that murder, war, rape, torture, suicide, and similar things, are particularly egregious because, unlike natural disasters which are unavoidable^[1], they are all completely unnecessary and occur only because of the rotten-to-the-core feeling-beings within. This is all clear for anybody with a connection to pure intent, increasingly clear as one goes from sincere to naive to apperceptive / feeling good to feeling great to feeling excellent to an excellence experience to a PCE.

The best anyone can do is, rather than trying to philosophize or intellectually understand all this, is to set about on the path of changing themselves to be ever-happier and ever-more-harmless, such as to become a felicitous person, minimizing both the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’, to get to the point where one can allow the purity of the perfection of actuality to become ever-more-apparent, and eventually to allow it to live one’s life and from there to self-immolate and end all this sadness, badness, and madness in one human being, forever, thus inspiring and encouraging and setting an example (just by existing) to other humans so they can do the same!

Besides which, it is trivial to understand anyway with the experiential benefit of actuality, of PCEs and EEs and IEs, even if one could not put it quite as precisely and directly to-the-point as Richard did (I was aware (and I think others were too) that there was no actual problem, contradiction or confusion, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on exactly why.)

Cheers,
Claudiu

And as for natural disasters, human ingenuity has been remarkable at mitigating the death tolls from them, a ~99% reduction in deaths despite a 400% increase in population since the past 100 years! https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1609568094447456259 ↩︎