Actual Freedom – General Correspondence

General Correspondence

Page Number 13


Respondent No. 1

August 30 2001:

RESPONDENT: Richard, it was wonderful reading the material in actualfreedom website; it surely helped me to see the third alternative: I was able to unload myself of all the stuff I gathered by reading Zen, J Krishnamurti, U G Krishnamurti, Ramana [ and in general eastern philosophies ]. Now I am able to read those, doubt, evaluate and understand where they are getting at, and whether it is true for me, or not! Earlier my approach had been: these things *have* to be true, and I was trying to find ways of understanding so that I can get the conviction; I was not doubting a word of theirs though I believed that I was doing everything in a scientific spirit. The confusion got me too: my language elements (thought, belief, knowledge, observation, me, self, ..) got corrupted by the definitions I read from all the books, and I was getting nowhere.

RICHARD: Thank you for your e-mail ... I read what you have to say with interest. I notice that you are engaged in correspondence on The Actual Freedom Mailing List and I see that your input is already a welcome contribution towards the clarification of all matters pertaining to the human condition.

Again ... thank you for the interest you express.

Continued on The Actual Freedom Mailing List: No. 30


Respondent No. 2

Continued on from The Actual Freedom Mailing List: No. 108

September 13 2006:

RESPONDENT: Richard, I get the sense that the below might be important to understand because it’s the only place on the site I’ve found where you not only emphasise dealing with the problem before it arises but also seem to be explaining how to do it. Whereas elsewhere you usually say something like ‘the diminishing felicity sets off alarms’, here you offer a step-by-step questioning process.

Unfortunately, I simply haven’t been able to understand it, I don’t understand how you’re breaking it down – www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf04b.htm#28Jul05

[Co-Respondent]: When a feeling changes within a person, something supplants the feeling/belief. Feelings and beliefs don’t just disappear. What is the thought, memory, or whatever that is able to permanently eliminate a feeling/belief?
[Richard]: Seeing the fact will set you free of the belief.
[Co-Respondent]: What is the fact?
[Richard]: What is the belief?
[Co-Respondent]: Let’s use the example ‘No one really likes me’.
[Richard]: Okay ... here is the way the actualism method works in practice: 1. Was that – your ‘no one really likes me’ example – the feeling which changed within you? 2. If so, what was it that triggered off that feeling (the feeling which changed within you)? 3. What did that feeling which changed within you change into? 4. What was it that triggered off that change? 5. Was it silly to have both event No. 2 and event No. 4 take away your enjoyment and appreciation of being alive at this particular moment (the only moment you are ever alive)? July 28 2005

I don’t understand the difference between #1 and #3, and between #2 and #4.

I thought maybe the difference is that 1 and 2 are about an instinctual feeling and an event that sets it off, and 3 and 4 are about an emotional ego-response to that feeling and what sets it off.. But the way you write above seems to indicate the ‘no one really likes me’ is the answer to #1 (‘1. Was that – your ‘no one really likes me’ example – the feeling which changed within you? 2. If so ...’), and that doesn’t make sense to me, because I can’t see how ‘no one really likes me’ is a feeling that changed within me which changes into something else (‘3. What did that feeling which changed within you change into?’).

Can you please explain this whole thing to me?

I regret not asking while the list was still functioning, but I thought I had time and maybe I would come to understand it on my own eventually. but its not getting any clearer and I don’t want to make any hypothetical intellectual understandings, I just want to get it down so I can start asking myself these questions sensibly (which I can’t right now because I don’t know what the questions mean).

Of course I understand if you won’t entertain a private correspondence, which you’ve said on the list that you rarely do, but I didn’t think there’d be anything to lose in trying and possibly a lot to gain.

RICHARD: Vineeto has forwarded your e-mail to me as per your request.

When the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust closed down the mailing list at ‘Topica’ I took the opportunity to delete that e-mail account of mine (to which address all posts to the list were automatically sent) as it had increasingly attracted spam, especially in the latter months, and deleting an e-mail account is a sure-fire way of bringing same to an abrupt end.

It is true that I rarely, if ever, conduct a private correspondence ... the whole point of a public mailing list is to generate discussion amongst peoples from many walks of life and persuasions (those in alignment to what is actual, those opposed to what is actual, and those anywhere in between).

The exchange you refer to (further below) is an example of just that ... the initial exchange is to be found at the following URL:

www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf79.htm#21Jun05

And here is that e-mail itself, which I was responding to (entitled ‘You Have Been Misunderstood’), sent on Thursday, 16/06/2005 at 3:27 PM AEST:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘When I feel fear, fear seems to reinforce itself and stays put. When I think of any belief about the fear trigger, the fear seems to reinforce the belief. Each fear is a self perpetuating. When a feeling changes within a person, something supplants the feeling/belief. Feelings and beliefs don’t just disappear. What is the thought, memory, or whatever that is able to permanently eliminate a feeling/belief?
I don’t understand the AF method instructions. I can’t remember a PCE either, and I don’t think a fear of having ‘me’ eliminated is valid because I have no idea what that would be like.
I’m not crazy. I’m pretty sure my mind works basically the same as everyone else’s. It just has software that’s unique, just as everyone else’s is unique. I should be able to get the method to work once I understand it.
The AF Method:
Before applying the actualism method – the ongoing enjoyment and appreciation of this moment of being alive – it is essential for success to grasp the fact that this very moment which is happening now is your only moment of being alive. The past, although it did happen, is not actual now. The future, though it will happen, is not actual now. Only now is actual. Yesterday’s happiness and harmlessness does not mean a thing if one is miserable and malicious now and a hoped-for happiness and harmlessness tomorrow is to but waste this moment of being alive in waiting. All one gets by waiting is more waiting. Thus any ‘change’ can only happen now. The jumping in point is always here; it is at this moment in time and this place in space. Thus, if one misses it this time around, hey presto, one has another chance immediately. Life is excellent at providing opportunities like this.
What ‘I’ did, all those years ago, was to devise a remarkably effective way to be able to enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive each moment again (I know that methods are to be actively discouraged, in some people’s eyes, but this one worked). It does take some doing to start off with but, as success after success starts to multiply exponentially, it becomes progressively easier to enjoy and appreciate being here each moment again. One begins by asking, each moment again, ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’?
Note: asking how one is experiencing this moment of being alive is not the actualism method; consistently enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive is what the actualism method is. And this is because the actualism method is all about consciously and knowingly imitating life in the actual world. Also, by virtue of proceeding in this manner the means to the end – an ongoing enjoyment and appreciation – are no different to the end itself.
This perpetual enjoyment and appreciation is facilitated by feeling as happy and as harmless as is humanly possible. And this (affective) felicity/ innocuity is potently enabled via minimisation of both the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ feelings. An affective awareness is the key to maximising felicity and innocuity over all those alternate feelings inasmuch the slightest diminishment of enjoyment and appreciation automatically activates attentiveness.
Attentiveness to the cause of diminished enjoyment and appreciation restores felicity and innocuity. The habituation of actualistic awareness and attentiveness requires a persistent initialisation; persistent initialisation segues into a wordless approach, a non-verbal attitude towards life. It delivers the goods just here, right now, and not off into some indeterminate future. Plus the successes are repeatable – virtually on demand – and thus satisfy the ‘scientific method’. So, ‘I’ asked myself, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’?
As one knows from the pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s), which are moments of perfection everybody has at some stage in their life, that it is possible to experience this moment in time and this place in space as perfection personified, ‘I’ set the minimum standard of experience for myself: feeling good. If ‘I’ am not feeling good then ‘I’ have something to look at to find out why. What has happened, between the last time ‘I’ felt good and now? When did ‘I’ feel good last? Five minutes ago? Five hours ago? What happened to end those felicitous feelings? Ahh ... yes: ‘He said that and I ...’. Or: ‘She didn’t do this and I ...’. Or: ‘What I wanted was ...’. Or: ‘I didn’t do ...’. And so on and so on ... one does not have to trace back into one’s childhood ... usually no more than yesterday afternoon at the most (‘feeling good’ is an unambiguous term – it is a general sense of well-being – and if anyone wants to argue about what feeling good means ... then do not even bother trying to do this at all).’ [endquote].

The first thing which was patently obvious was the fact that my co-respondent had snipped-off the last four paragraphs – the crux of the method – in that quoted passage of mine which I had sent to them in a prior e-mail ... to wit:

• ‘(...) one does not have to trace back into one’s childhood ... usually no more than yesterday afternoon at the most (‘feeling good’ is an unambiguous term – it is a general sense of well-being – and if anyone wants to argue about what feeling good means ... then do not even bother trying to do this at all).
Once the specific moment of ceasing to feel good is pin-pointed, and the silliness of having such an incident as that (no matter what it is) take away one’s enjoyment and appreciation of this only moment of being alive is seen for what it is – usually some habitual reactive response – one is once more feeling good ... but with a pin-pointed cue to watch out for next time so as to not have that trigger off yet another bout of the same-old same-old. This is called nipping it in the bud before it gets out of hand ... with application and diligence and patience and perseverance one soon gets the knack of this and more and more time is spent enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. And, of course, once one does get the knack of this, one up-levels ‘feeling good’, as a bottom line each moment again, to ‘feeling happy and harmless’ ... and after that to ‘feeling perfect’.
The more one enjoys and appreciates being just here right now – to the point of excellence being the norm – the greater the likelihood of a PCE happening ... a grim and/or glum person has no chance whatsoever of allowing the magical event, which indubitably shows where everyone has being going awry, to occur. Plus any analysing and/or psychologising and/or philosophising whilst one is in the grip of debilitating feelings usually does not achieve much (other than spiralling around and around in varying degrees of despair and despondency or whatever) anyway.
The wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and the slightest diminishment of such felicity/ innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently wandered off the way.
One is thus soon back on track ... and all because of everyday events.’ [endquote].

Also, as their entire post was about fear (‘When I feel fear, fear seems to reinforce itself and stays put. When I think of any belief about the fear trigger, the fear seems to reinforce the belief. Each fear is a self perpetuating. When a feeling changes within a person, something supplants the feeling/ belief. Feelings and beliefs don’t just disappear. What is the thought, memory, or whatever that is able to permanently eliminate a feeling/ belief?’) it is essential that their previous posts on that topic are taken into account ... specifically their posts about arachnophobia (an irrational fear of spiders). Vis.:

www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf79.htm#10Feb05

www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf79.htm#10Feb05a

www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf79.htm#11Feb05

This part of the first of those three exchanges is particularly telling:

[Respondent]: ‘What I don’t understand is how to commence another period of enjoying this moment when I am, say, feeling panicky in the presence of a spider.
• [Richard]: ‘I will draw your attention to the following excerpt:

• [Respondent]: ‘What shall I do when I am experiencing an irrational fear such as fearing a spider? (I definitely wouldn’t be classed as having arachnophobia). Should I try to squelch the feeling, or let it be there?
• [Richard]: ‘(...) If ‘I’ am not feeling good [at the very least] then ‘I’ have something to look at to find out why. What has happened, between the last time ‘I’ felt good and now? When did ‘I’ feel good last? Five minutes ago? Five hours ago? What happened to end those felicitous feelings? (...) Once the specific moment of ceasing to feel good is pin-pointed, and the silliness of having such an incident as that (no matter what it is) take away one’s enjoyment and appreciation of this only moment of being alive is seen for what it is – usually some habitual reactive response – one is once more feeling good ... but with a pin-pointed cue to watch out for next time so as to not have that trigger off yet another bout of the same-old same-old. This is called nipping it in the bud before it gets out of hand ... with application and diligence and patience and perseverance one soon gets the knack of this and more and more time is spent enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. (...)’.  

What part of that extract is it you do not understand?’ [endquote].

There was no response to my query regarding just what it was they did not understand in that excerpt (which excerption highlighted the crux of the method).

In the second of those three exchanges I was even more specific (citing a personal example). Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘From reading others’ descriptions on what to do I get the impression that I have to find out the core beliefs, the foundations, of whatever emotion I’m looking into, and then as soon as I’ve done that, poof, the emotion is magically gone and I can get back to feeling good.
• [Richard]: ‘Whereas what I am saying in the above excerpt [snipped for reasons of space] is that once the specific moment of ceasing to feel good is pin-pointed, and the silliness of having such an incident as that (no matter what it is) take away one’s enjoyment and appreciation of this only moment of being alive is seen for what it is – usually some habitual reactive response – one is once more feeling good.
• [Respondent]: ‘I don’t seem to be able to do this [what others describe] with my fear of spiders, or anything else that is difficult.
• [Richard]: ‘Then why not try what the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago did (what I describe further above)?
• [Respondent]: ‘You seem to be emphasising to me that all I have to do is recall what triggered off my emotion, e.g. the presence of a spider. Then realise that the fear is ruining the experience of this moment.
• [Richard]: ‘Whereas what I actually emphasise is the seeing of the silliness of having such an incident as that take away one’s enjoyment and appreciation of the only moment one is ever alive.
• [Respondent]: ‘However, the fear doesn’t go away as long as long as the spider is present ...
• [Richard]: ‘What the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago did was to unlearn the ‘fear of/aversion to’ snakes which ‘he’ had learnt from ‘his’ city-born and city-raised mother – whilst growing up on a farm being carved by hand out of virgin forest – simply by (finally) addressing the issue once and for all ... and, as ‘he’ knew he had been surreptitiously avoiding that potentially life-changing paying-of-attention-to-the-issue addressing, it had the added advantage of enabling ‘him’ to be much more confident about taking control of ‘his’ own life on a whole range of other issues.
To use a cliché ... nothing succeeds like success.
• [Respondent]: ‘... [the fear doesn’t go away as long as long as the spider is present] unless I force myself through a de-sensitisation process ...
• [Richard]: ‘There are those who report success through a phobia-desensitisation process ... of course, just like an alcoholic having to acknowledge their alcoholism (for example), they do have to acknowledge they have a phobic problem in the first place in order to achieve that favourable outcome’. [endquote].

As the third of those three exchanges was yet more procrastination then, by the time the initial e-mail in the sequence in question came into my mailbox, it was clear that my co-respondent had no intention of comprehending such a simple thing as what the actualism method is ... hence my re-posting of it, in that initial e-mail, being expressed in its most simplest way:

• [Richard]: ‘The actualism method is remarkably simple in practice (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): one felt good previously; one is not feeling good now; something happened to one to end that felicitous/innocuous feeling; one finds out what happened; one sees how silly that is (no matter what it was); one is once more feeling good’. [endquote].

The next exchange in the sequence can be found here:

Here is the part which pertains to your queries:

• [Respondent]: ‘(...) When a feeling changes within a person, something supplants the feeling/belief. Feelings and beliefs don’t just disappear. What is the thought, memory, or whatever that is able to permanently eliminate a feeling/belief?
• [Richard]: ‘Seeing the fact will set you free of the belief.
• [Respondent]: ‘Can someone please give me an example of this?
• [Richard]: ‘Here is the way the actualism method works in practice:
1. What was the feeling which changed within you?
2. What was it that triggered off that feeling (that feeling which changed)?
3. What did that feeling change into?
4. What was it that triggered off that change?
5. Was it silly to have both event No. 2 and event No. 4 take away your enjoyment and appreciation of being alive at this particular moment (the only moment you are ever alive)?
Or:
1. What was the feeling/ belief which was supplanted?
2. What was it that triggered off that feeling/ belief (that feeling/belief which was supplanted)?
3. What was that feeling/ belief supplanted by?
4. What was it that triggered off that supplantation?
5. Was it silly to have both event No. 2 and event No. 4 take away your enjoyment and appreciation of being alive at this particular moment (the only moment you are ever alive)?
Provided your answer to No. 5, in either instance, is in the affirmative you will now be back to enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive) and thus the prospect of seeing the fact which will set you free of the belief will be facilitated by being able to come upon it experientially ... and you will no longer be reduced to penning truisms (such as feelings not being able to tell you anything actual) instead’. [endquote].

This is the next exchange in the sequence (sent on July 26 2005):

• [Respondent]: ‘When a feeling changes within a person, something supplants the feeling/belief. Feelings and beliefs don’t just disappear. What is the thought, memory, or whatever that is able to permanently eliminate a feeling/ belief?
• [Richard]: ‘Seeing the fact will set you free of the belief.
• [Respondent]: ‘What is the fact?
• [Richard]: ‘What is the belief?’ [endquote].

What I was looking for, of course, was an experiential example ... hence the following (sent a few hours later):

• [Respondent]: ‘Let’s use the example ‘No one really likes me’.
• [Richard]: ‘Okay ... here is the way the actualism method works in practice:
1. Was that – your ‘no one really likes me’ example – the feeling which changed within you?
2. If so, what was it that triggered off that feeling (the feeling which changed within you)?
3. What did that feeling which changed within you change into?
4. What was it that triggered off that change?
5. Was it silly to have both event No. 2 and event No. 4 take away your enjoyment and appreciation of being alive at this particular moment (the only moment you are ever alive)?
Or:
1. Was that – your ‘no one really likes me’ example – the feeling/belief which supplanted another feeling/ belief?
2. If so, what was it that triggered off that feeling/belief (the feeling/belief which supplanted another feeling/ belief)?
3. What did that feeling/ belief supplant?
4. What was it that triggered off the feeling/ belief which was supplanted?
5. Was it silly to have both event No. 2 and event No. 4 take away your enjoyment and appreciation of being alive at this particular moment (the only moment you are ever alive)?
Provided your answer to No. 5, in either instance, is in the affirmative you will now be back to enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive) and thus the prospect of seeing the fact which will set you free of the belief will be facilitated by being able to come upon it experientially ... it is your active participation/presence which vitalises/ invigorates the investigation/exploration.
In short: armchair philosophising/psychologising will get you nowhere ... and fast’. [endquote].

It was then that the co-respondent whom you quoted (made anonymous as respondent number four) joined in ... which joining in has led to you raising some questions.

You specifically say that you cannot see how the feeling of being collectively disliked/ unlikeable (as in the ‘no one really likes me’ phraseology) is a feeling that changed, within my initial co-respondent, into something else and therefore ask me to please explain this whole thing to you.

My guess at the time was (and still is upon this re-read) that my co-respondent just made that example up ... please remember that their initial post was all about fear. Here it is again:

• [Respondent]: ‘When I feel fear, fear seems to reinforce itself and stays put. When I think of any belief about the fear trigger, the fear seems to reinforce the belief. Each fear is a self perpetuating. When a feeling changes within a person, something supplants the feeling/belief. Feelings and beliefs don’t just disappear. What is the thought, memory, or whatever that is able to permanently eliminate a feeling/ belief?’ [endquote].

Do you see how their fourth sentence changes from the personal to the general? Try this on for size and see how it fits:

• [example only]: ‘When I feel fear, fear seems to reinforce itself and stays put. When I think of any belief about the fear trigger, the fear seems to reinforce the belief. Each fear is a self perpetuating fear. When the feeling of fear changes within me, something supplants the feeling/belief. My feelings and beliefs don’t just disappear. What is the thought, memory, or whatever that is able to permanently eliminate my feeling/belief?’ [end example].

Now, it just does not make sense to say, on the one hand, that the fear reinforces itself and stays put whilst on the other hand that it changes (let alone that it gets supplanted by something unspecified), does it?

Hence my ‘armchair philosophising/psychologising’ observation.

Lastly, the difference between No’s 1 and 3 is that the former refers to the initial feeling and the latter pertains to what that feeling (purportedly) changed into; the difference between No’s 2 and 4 is that the former refers to just what event triggered off the initial feeling (No. 1) and the latter pertains to what event it was which triggered off what that feeling changed into (No. 3).

‘Tis all about causation and, thus, succession ... just as I explained to the co-respondent whom you quoted. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Why is it important to ask question 2, 3 & 4?
• [Richard]: ‘So as to ascertain causation – that feeling does not usually arise in vacuo – and the succession (often through nothing other than association).
• [Respondent]: ‘Okay, then why is it important to ascertain causation and the succession?
• [Richard]: ‘Because my co-respondent has a feeling of being collectively disliked/ unlikeable – a feeling which changes inasmuch something (as yet unspecified) supplants that feeling/belief – and, reporting that the feeling and belief does not just disappear, asks for a panacea ... ‘a remedy for all diseases; a thing for solving all difficulties or adopted in every case of difficulty’ (Oxford Dictionary).
As there is no such universal cure-all (short of an immediate ‘self’-immolation in toto) then in order to facilitate the prospect of seeing the fact which will set them free, of both the feeling and the something which supplants the feeling/ belief, it is necessary for them to ascertain causality – what it was which triggered off that feeling which changed (such as to bring feeling felicitous/innocuous to an end) – and the mechanics of the successivity which followed (what the feeling changed into and the process whereby that supplantation occurred).
As a feeling such as that, involving as it does at least some other human beings, does not usually arise in vacuo then some event (or even a thought about, or a memory of, some event) would have triggered both it and its succession off it behoves them to get off their backside and actually find out, experientially, for themselves just what it was which caused the loss of felicity/ innocuity.
Once the specific moment of ceasing to feel felicitous/ innocuous is pin-pointed, and the silliness of having such an incident as that (no matter what it is) take away their enjoyment and appreciation of this only moment of being alive is seen for what it is – usually some habitual reactive response – they can be once more feeling felicitous/innocuous ... but with a pin-pointed cue to watch out for next time so as to not have that trigger off yet another bout of the same-old same-old.
This is called nipping it in the bud before it gets out of hand – pre-empting an otherwise endless arousal of the feeling (and its succession) through ignorance of what triggers same, each occasion again, for the remainder of their life – and with application and diligence and patience and perseverance they can soon get the knack of this and more and more time is spent enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive.
• [Respondent]: ‘Does it help to see the silliness?
• [Richard]: ‘What is being pointed out, in the above exchange, is seeing the silliness of having such an event – whatever that event may be – take away one’s enjoyment and appreciation of being alive at this particular moment (the only moment one is ever alive) by having such incident as that trigger off the feeling.
The name of the game is to habituate an affective imitation of the actual each moment/each place again – to consistently feel as happy and harmless (free of both malice and sorrow and, thus, their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – so as to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth to be apparent sooner rather than later ... therefore whenever/wherever there is the slightest diminution of that felicity/innocuity it speaks for itself that some event, which has been constantly granted the power such as to customarily render that peace and harmony short-lived, has been permitted, via a lifetime of continuous/ routine ignoration, to wreak its havoc once again’.

August 19 2007

RESPONDENT: I have seen you say in several places that the psychic facility is an epiphenomenon of the affective faculty. but nowhere have I seen it said that the affective/ instinctual faculty is an epiphenomenon of the actual, flesh-and-blood body (but in no way actual itself). I had assumed this to be the case, but when I searched for clarification, I found nothing.

This now concerns me because after almost two years of practice – which now feels like its been a preparation for this, I’ve begun to peel the lid off and am experiencing what’s under the surface more directly, and am, more and more, coming across what you’ve described as this:

‘When I dug down into these passions and calentures (into the core of ‘my’ being then into ‘being’ itself) I stumbled across the instincts ... and found the origin of not only the affective faculty but the psyche itself. I found ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’ ... which is the instinctual rudimentary animal self common to all sentient beings (otherwise mistakenly known as the ‘original face’ and is what gives rise to the feeling of ‘oneness’ with all other sentient beings). It is a very, very ancient genetic memory ...

‘Being born of the biologically inherited instincts genetically encoded in the germ cells of the spermatozoa and the ova, ‘I’ am – genetically – umpteen tens of thousands of years old ... ‘my’ origins are lost in the mists of pre-history. ‘I’ am so anciently old that ‘I’ may well have always existed ... carried along on the reproductive cell-line, over countless millennia, from generation to generation. And ‘I’ am thus passed on into an inconceivably open-ended and hereditably transmissible future.’

It seems to me that there is some kind of actual existence if ‘i’ am – at root – genetic.

RICHARD: But I do not say that ‘I’ am – at root – genetic. On the contrary I clearly say, in the above selection, that ‘I’ am [quote] ‘born of’ [endquote] that which is, at root, genetic ... to wit: the biologically inherited instincts genetically encoded in the germ cells of the spermatozoa and the ova. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘*Being born of* the biologically inherited instincts genetically encoded in the germ cells of the spermatozoa and the ova ...’. [emphasis added].

Furthermore, I also preface that section you isolated with [quote] ‘I’ am the end-point of’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘I’ am the product of’ [endquote] those biologically inherited instincts (the basic instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire).

Here is the full paragraph (from the home page on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site) with those operative phrases high-lighted for easy reference:

• [Richard]: ‘When I dug down into these passions and calentures (into the core of ‘my’ being then into ‘being’ itself) I stumbled across the instincts ... and found the origin of not only the affective faculty but the psyche itself. I found ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’ ... which is the instinctual rudimentary animal self common to all sentient beings (otherwise mistakenly known as the ‘original face’ and is what gives rise to the feeling of ‘oneness’ with all other sentient beings). It is a very, very ancient genetic memory ... but hoariness does not make it automatically wise, however, despite desperate belief to the contrary.
Being a ‘self’ is because the only way into this world of people, things and events is via the human spermatozoa fertilising the human ova ... thus every human being is endowed, by blind nature, with the basic instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. Thus *’I’ am the end-point of* myriads of survivors passing on their genes. *’I’ am the product of* the ‘success story’ of blind nature’s fear and aggression and nurture and desire. *Being born of* the biologically inherited instincts genetically encoded in the germ cells of the spermatozoa and the ova, ‘I’ am – genetically – umpteen tens of thousands of years old ... ‘my’ origins are lost in the mists of pre-history. ‘I’ am so anciently old that ‘I’ may well have always existed ... carried along on the reproductive cell-line, over countless millennia, from generation to generation. And ‘I’ am thus passed on into an inconceivably open-ended and hereditably transmissible future’. 

RESPONDENT: Yet I’ve seen you write that there is no self in the actual world .. and the only experiences I’ve had of the actual world (via several PCE’s) have no self to be found either. how is it that this ancient ‘I’ am – at root – genetic then?

RICHARD: Apart from what I clearly say, in the fully quoted text above, I have explained elsewhere, on many an occasion, just what I mean by ‘born of ‘/ ‘the end-point of’/ ‘the product of’ in the above ... here is just one example:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) each and every human being is genetically endowed, at conception, with instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) for rough and ready survival reasons ... which passions automatically form themselves, in a process somewhat analogous to an eddy or a vortex forming itself as swirling water or air, into an amorphous feeling being, an inchoate intuitive presence, popularly known as a ‘self’ or a ‘soul’ (or ‘spirit’) in the human animal, within the flesh and blood body.
Thus from birth onwards, if not before (which means prior to thought developing), an affective ‘self’ forms as the baby feels itself and its world ... and even when cognition develops the circuitry is such that sense impressions go first to the affective faculty (which colours the cognitive faculty) and perpetuates/ reinforces that feeling of ‘being’, that intuitive ‘presence’. Therefore the feeling ‘self’ (‘me’ as soul/ spirit) exists prior to and underpins the thinking ‘self’ (‘I’ as ego) ... the thinker arises out of the feeler.
More than a few human beings, delusively taking themselves to truly be this eddying ‘being’, this vortical ‘presence’ – rather than the flesh and blood body they actually are – imaginatively/ intuitively manifest/ realise all manner of destinies for that affective phantasm (the eddy or vortex, as it were, which is the instinctual passions in motion) in all manner of metaphysical dimensions inhabited by all manner of affective deities ... a deeply-felt divine and/or sacred being/ presence of some description which/ who is the timeless and spaceless and formless source or origin of the universe and/or universes.
Now that intelligence, which is the ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered action for beneficial reasons, has developed in the human animal those blind survival passions are no longer necessary – in fact they have become a hindrance in today’s world – and it is only by virtue of this intelligence that blind nature’s default software package can be safely deleted (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation).
No other animal can do this’. 

RESPONDENT: Aren’t genes actual?

RICHARD: What is actual in those germ cells, in the spermatozoa and the ova, is deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), a nucleic acid in which the sugar component is deoxyribose, which (according to the Oxford Dictionary) is a self-replicating material present in nearly all living organisms (especially in chromosomes) as the carrier of genetic information and the determiner of protein synthesis (usually occurring as a molecular double helix in which a phosphate group alternates with a deoxyribose sugar linked to a base).

However, just because the genetic-carrier of the instinctual passions is actual (deoxyribonucleic acid is a chemical substance) it does not necessarily mean that feelings engendered by that genetic software programme are actual – any more than the feeler they automatically form themselves into by their very occurrence is actual – as a feeling is a movement, a motion, and not a thing.

Now, I could go on from this to say that there is no such happening as a stationary (static) feeling, and that it is this very movement or motion of the feeling in action when it occurs which automatically forms the feeler (such as in the whirlpool of water/ air analogy quoted above), but it would be far more fruitful if you were to intimately examine all this by feeling it out for yourself, rather than just reading what I have to report/ describe/ explain, and if you were to do so – literally feel it for yourself – you will surely find out, just as the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago did, that you are your feelings (as in ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings) and your feelings are you (as in ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’).

RESPONDENT: For the first time since I started practising actualism and my spiritual beliefs fell apart, I find this deeply distressing.

RICHARD: As what you find deeply distressing has nothing to do with what I actually have to report/ describe/ explain then it is what you have made it into which has induced that feeling.

RESPONDENT: I hope you will take the time to answer, with regards,

RICHARD: Nothing I have provided in this response is not already publicly available, free of charge, on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. Moreover, it has been drawn to my attention that No. 3 has set-up a public Mailing List to discuss the practise of actualism. Vis.: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/

Although it does attract impulsive flamers (such as the person writing under the name ‘No. 60’ for instance), from time-to-time, as well as compulsive arguers (such as the person writing under the name ‘No. 110’ for example) you may find it a useful venue for any further queries you might have.

I gave a decade of my life (from 1996 to 2006) to sharing my discovery with my fellow human being via a keyboard – spending something like eight-ten hours a day, six-seven days a week, responding with millions of words in meticulous detail to all manner of queries and objections in thousands of e-mails (all archived on the internet for ready access) – and currently have no intention of being drawn, either now or in the foreseeable future, into more of the same.

November 20 2007

RESPONDENT: I sent you an email about a month ago… did you receive it?

RICHARD: Yes.

I sent you an e-mail, a little over a month before that, in which I expressly indicated that I have no intention of being drawn, either currently or in the foreseeable future, into more of what I gave a decade of my life (from 1996 to 2006) to ... did you read it?

*

RESPONDENT: In the event that it got lost in transmission or the shuffle, here it is, reprinted below.

<…>

RICHARD: In the event that you did not read it, or its import has escaped you, here is the gist of what was expressly indicated, reprinted from below:

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘Nothing I have provided in this response is not already publicly available, free of charge, on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. (...) I gave a decade of my life (from 1996 to 2006) to sharing my discovery with my fellow human being via a keyboard – spending something like eight-ten hours a day, six-seven days a week, responding with millions of words in meticulous detail to all manner of queries and objections in thousands of e-mails (all archived on the internet for ready access) – and currently have no intention of being drawn, either now or in the foreseeable future, into more of the same’. [endquote].

As nothing has changed, in regards to my intention not to be drawn into more of the same, it is to no avail to either send or reprint further queries.


Respondent No. 3

Continued on from The Actual Freedom Mailing List: No. 118

August 19 2007

RICHARD: The following is what is wanted (from the text below):

• [Respondent to Vineeto]: ‘If you could in any way, ask Richard what happened during the 12 months following his breakthrough into an actual freedom, it would be highly appreciated’. [endquote].

Nothing of the ‘calamity’ nature he describes below (as per Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti’s experience) happened during the twelve months following my breakthrough into an actual freedom.

Incidentally, I took particular note of the following (also from the text below):

• [Respondent to Vineeto]: ‘One thing is for sure: I am not enlightened. In fact, the ‘me’ as a soul that Richard speaks of has no existence in this body at all’. [endquote].

Yet a short browse through the latest posts to the ‘Yahoo’ mailing list quickly elicited the following (from 19 days ago):

• [Respondent]: ‘(...) The last time I experienced fear was about half-hour ago due to a feeling of inferiority’. (Fri Aug 3, 2007; Subject: Re: The Actualism Method http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/166).

And this (from 4 days ago):

• [Respondent]: ‘I experienced a feeling of boredom today’. (Wed Aug 15, 2007; Subject: Re: Beliefs Behind Boredom? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/218).

Thus, despite his [quote] ‘in fact’ [endquote] assertion to you, the ‘me’ as a soul that Richard speaks of does indeed have existence in that body.

Continued on Mailing List ‘D’: No. 8


RETURN TO GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

The Third Alternative

(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)

Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.

Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-.  All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity