Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence

On The Actual Freedom Mailing List

With Correspondent No. 111


March 28 2006

RESPONDENT: Hello, I’m new to this list. I need help remembering a PCE.

RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list ... one of the reasons why a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is not readily recalled is because, whilst it is occurring, both ‘me’ and ‘my’ affective memory-banks are in abeyance.

Another reason is, of course, that recalling same could mean the beginning of the end of ‘me’.

RESPONDENT: Richard wrote that he’s helped many people recall at least one PCE?

RICHARD: That was some years ago ... and only in face-to-face interactions.

RESPONDENT: How did he induce this recall?

RICHARD: Basically, by dogged persistence: with one person (a published spiritualist) it took three hours of intense discussion ... only to have it disremembered shortly after.

RESPONDENT: Upon taking on the AF method a couple of weeks ago I thought I had a PCE under my belt. The truth is I relied on my experience(s) on Salvia Divinorum. Now I’m afraid that Salvia gave me several ASC.

RICHARD: Having never heard of that substance before I spent an hour or so reading some accounts of it ... as it is generally described as having a ‘visionary’ effect that would seem to be par for the course.

RESPONDENT: Richard stated that ASC can be what gets in the way of remembering a proper PCE.

RICHARD: Yes, an altered state of consciousness (ASC) includes, of necessity, a role for both ‘me’ and ‘my’ affective faculty.

RESPONDENT: I’m afraid that my intent is not pure enough.

RICHARD: If one cannot immediately recall a PCE one starts from where one is at ... and sincerity is the key to unlocking naiveté (the nearest a ‘self’ can come to innocence).

RESPONDENT: All over the AF pages there is a strong emphasis on having a PCE as a guiding light. I certainly understand why this is so, I do.

RICHARD: That the peerless purity of this actual world – the world of the senses – could possibly exist as an everyday actuality is inconceivable/unimaginable and incomprehensible/ unbelievable to denizens of the real world (the world of the psyche).

RESPONDENT: The experiences on Salvia were very short. I don’t know if I’m lying to myself in that it seems like there was a couple of seconds where ‘I’ wasn’t there and everything was perfect but I can’t remember.

RICHARD: More than a few of the accounts I read mentioned some memory loss/inability to remember.

RESPONDENT: What I remember is what happened when ‘I’ came back and ... for lack of better words ... saw what happened while I was away ... and this experience did not hold that pristine perfection that a PCE is supposed to hold.

RICHARD: Okay ... it is your experience which counts and as it did not hold the pristine perfection of a PCE then that is the end of the matter.

RESPONDENT: If you [...] are interested I could describe the experiences on Salvia as they pertain to self-immolation and the instinctual emotions but I will await your reply before I waste the time going into these trips.

RICHARD: If that might shed some light upon the sense you make of what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site it could be relevant.

RESPONDENT: So far the HAIETMOBA has me obsessed and there have been some nice changes but it still feels self-serving.

RICHARD: Who do you reckon asking yourself, each moment again, how you are experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive) should serve, then?

Your well-being is just as important as any other person’s well-being/no other person’s well-being is more important than yours.

March 28 2006

RESPONDENT: Richard, please check out this link and tell me how this guy’s model relates to your actual experience. http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/Lehar.html

RICHARD: As Mr. Steven Lehar’s model does not relate to a flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto your request is a non sequitur.

April 04 2006

RESPONDENT: Richard, please check out this link and tell me how this guy’s model relates to your actual experience. http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/Lehar.html

RICHARD: As Mr. Steven Lehar’s model does not relate to a flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto your request is a non sequitur.

RESPONDENT: (...) if that guy I gave you his link is correct then couldn’t it be that you are being actual within a virtual reality?

RICHARD: Mr. Steven Lehar has the following to say (from Chapter One of his book ‘The World In Your Head: A Gestalt View of the Mechanism of Conscious Experience’):

• ‘I propose that out beyond the farthest things you can perceive in all directions, i.e. above the dome of the sky, and below the solid earth under your feet, or beyond the walls, floor, and ceiling of the room you see around you, is located the inner surface of your true physical skull. And beyond that skull is an unimaginably immense external world of which the world you see around you is merely a miniature internal replica. In other words, the head you have come to know as your own is not your true physical head, but only a miniature perceptual copy of your head in a perceptual copy of the world, all of which is contained within your real head in the external objective world’. [endquote].

As there is no way he is proposing that flesh and blood bodies (aka ‘true physical skull/ true physical head/ real head’) have any physical existence in that miniature internal replica/ perceptual copy (of ‘an unimaginably immense external world/ the external objective world’) your query is a non sequitur.

April 04 2006

RESPONDENT: And want to know why you do anything at all if you aren’t motivated by the pleasure/pain cycle.

RICHARD: Presuming you are referring to not being hedonically motivated ... have you ever considered what human life would be like if humankind was not run by the affections (emotionally/ passionally)?

RESPONDENT: How is this body motivated to do anything at all if there is no feeling?

RICHARD: In a word: anhedonically.

April 04 2006

RESPONDENT: Richard, have you read the article on the ‘Theory of Actualism’ in the philosophical review [from the Stanford Encyclopaedia]?

RICHARD: No.

April 04 2006

RESPONDENT: I need help remembering a PCE.

RICHARD: ... one of the reasons why a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is not readily recalled is because, whilst it is occurring, both ‘me’ and ‘my’ affective memory-banks are in abeyance. Another reason is, of course, that recalling same could mean the beginning of the end of ‘me’.

RESPONDENT: Richard wrote that he’s helped many people recall at least one PCE?

RICHARD: That was some years ago ... and only in face-to-face interactions.

RESPONDENT: How did he induce this recall?

RICHARD: Basically, by dogged persistence: with one person (a published spiritualist) it took three hours of intense discussion ... only to have it disremembered shortly after.

RESPONDENT: Couldn’t you explain a little how you were able to help others recall a PCE.

RICHARD: It truly was, essentially, a matter of diligent perseverance on my part ... of not giving up in the face of feigned ignorance/ blanket denial (as recalling same could mean the beginning of the end of ‘me’ then ‘I’ can have a vested interest in disremembering).

RESPONDENT: You said that this happened only in person but can’t you give some idea of how they were able to remember a PCE in your presence?

RICHARD: Fundamentally, and just the same as in telephonic or written conversations, by being given no option but to stay with the subject at hand the other sooner or later comes to realise, at a primary level, that this is somebody they cannot deflect into side-issues/ divert with red-herrings, engage in ego-battles/ soul agreements with, put off with admonishments/ buy off with blandishments, and so on and so forth.

RESPONDENT: I’m not suggesting that it was your presence per se that got them to remember. I’m wondering if there was a method to your inquiry.

RICHARD: No ... all my interactions, inclusive of telephonic or written conversations, are ad hoc.

April 06 2006

(...)

RESPONDENT: The last week I’ve been oddly ready to fall asleep as soon as I finish any necessary daily task. I just want to nod off whenever I can. It’s comical, really. My eyes just want to shut and shut and shut! I heard Richard’s words about the self doing what it can to escape scrutiny. As if my ‘self’ were putting my body to sleep so as to prevent apperception which I swear is just a millimetre away!

RICHARD: Just a brief note (and for what it is worth) regarding that section of your e-mail: there has been many an occasion over the years where, in face-to-face conversation, many a person has felt overwhelmingly sleepy – complete with compulsive yawning and irresistibly heavy eyelids – despite being vitally interested and (up until then) participating keenly in what is being discussed.

Upon enquiry replies have generally been to the effect that it all just gets too much to take in at one sitting/ all at once (hence the autonomic shutdown).

May 03 2006

RESPONDENT: Richard, have you ever lied to anyone on this mailing list?

RICHARD: No ... you may find the following to be of related interest:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard, I think it is possible for you to lie, is it not?
• [Richard]: ‘As you have titled this e-mail ‘Sincerity’ there could be more to this question than the pragmatic fact that, given the human condition is endemic, it is sometimes necessary on occasion to not provide a truthful answer to an adversarial person or persons in a position of power who, bent on dominance, will not listen to reason.
Even so, I cannot recall any instance over the last x-number of years that I have had to have recourse to lying ... having nothing to hide there has simply been no need to.
It is all so easy here in this actual world’.

In other words, if the situation and circumstances were such as to render it an eminently sensible course of action, I would have no hesitation whatsoever in cheerfully, and thus convincingly, lying through my back teeth (to use a colloquialism).

RESPONDENT: Do you have any prejudices?

RICHARD: If by that you more or less mean the following then ... no. Vis.:

• ‘prejudice: an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts; a preconceived preference or idea; the act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions; irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion’. (American Heritage® Dictionary).
• ‘prejudice: a preformed opinion, usually an unfavourable one, based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate stereotypes; an unfounded hatred, fear, or mistrust of a person or group, especially one of a particular religion, ethnicity, nationality, sexual preference, or social status’. (Encarta Dictionary).
• ‘prejudice: an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge; an unreasonable dislike for something or someone’. (Cambridge Dictionary).
• ‘prejudice: preconceived judgment or opinion; an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge; an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics’. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
• ‘a prior judgement; esp. a judgement formed hastily or before due consideration; preconceived opinion not based on actual experience; an unreasoning preference or objection’. (Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: Has anyone ever gone crazy from using the AF method?

RICHARD: Yes, I have been duly diagnosed by two accredited psychiatrists as suffering from a severe and chronic psychotic disorder ... the symptoms of which are as follows (with the official description parenthesised):

1. Depersonalisation (no sense of identity) ... as in no ‘self’ by whatever name.
2. Derealisation (lost touch with reality) ... as in reality has vanished completely.
3. Alexithymia (unable to feel the affections) ... as in no affective feelings whatsoever.
4. Anhedonia (inability to feel pleasure/pain) ... as in no affective pleasure/ pain facility.

Moreover, I have that most classic symptom of craziness ... that everyone else is crazy but me.

RESPONDENT: If a man touched your nipples or your lips or any other erogenous zone would you experience pleasure?

RICHARD: If any body – be it human, dog, monkey, and so on, and so forth, of either gender, or any age, shape, size, appearance, race, ethnicity, and social status – were to touch, stroke, caress, lick, suck, nuzzle, or in any other way set out to stimulate me in an erotic manner, then erogenous pleasure would (presumably) be experienced.

RESPONDENT: And if so what does that imply?

RICHARD: I am none too sure that it implies anything (other than the absence of prejudice already mentioned).

May 04 2006

(...)

RESPONDENT: If a man touched your nipples or your lips or any other erogenous zone would you experience pleasure?

RICHARD: If any body – be it human, dog, monkey, and so on, and so forth, of either gender, or any age, shape, size, appearance, race, ethnicity, and social status – were to touch, stroke, caress, lick, suck, nuzzle, or in any other way set out to stimulate me in an erotic manner, then erogenous pleasure would (presumably) be experienced.

RESPONDENT: And if so what does that imply?

RICHARD: I am none too sure that it implies anything (other than the absence of prejudice already mentioned).

RESPONDENT: Does the fact that animal or man can arouse you mean that you are not heterosexually oriented as you said in some post where you were discussing your sex life and companionship?

RICHARD: First of all, virtually any flesh and blood body would experience erogenous pleasure when stimulated in an erotic manner. Vis.:

• ‘erogenous: (of a part of the body) sensitive to sexual stimulation; capable of giving sexual pleasure when touched or stroked’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Second, I now comprehend just what implication it was you were fishing for ... and, as I understand it, there are various devices on the market which would (presumably) also bring about erogenous pleasure – and (probably) of a similar nature to that stimulated by the living creatures listed above – yet there is no way that would mean my sexual orientation was not heterosexual.

Or, put differently, were my sexual orientation to have been homosexual, and a female (of any age, shape, size, appearance, race, ethnicity, and social status) was to then stimulate me in an erotic manner, the erogenous pleasure experienced would in no way mean that my sexual orientation was not homosexual.

Last, but by no means least, there is a vast difference between hedonic pleasure, where arousal means desire, and anhedonic pleasure, where arousal remains sensate only ... in this actual world (the world of the senses) it is impossible to ever be hedonic (desirous) as the affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain – as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate – is null and void.

May 04 2006

RESPONDENT: Richard, why do you say you are free of malice ...

RICHARD: For no other reason than, being sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto, it is impossible for any emotional/ passional feelings whatsoever to occur.

RESPONDENT: ... [why do you say you are free of malice] when you make the decision to occasionally say something to someone on this list that would obviously insult/ upset/ piss off?

RICHARD: Just for starters, I do not make any such decision – either occasionally or otherwise – and the following is a classic example of it making no difference whatsoever anyway how I might couch my responses:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You are a malicious sod, a repulsive cyber guru that gets me nausea because my feelings are not extinct and listening your shit is too much for my ego. Was not clear that you are a pure fallacy, was not clear my meaning?
• [Richard]: ‘Am I to take it that, because you feel nausea (and, previously, repugnance) when reading my words, these feelings then prove that I am ‘a pure fallacy’? In other words, your feelings are to be taken as being the arbiter of what I am? Are you really telling me that I am to be guided by your feelings?
I did not spend eleven years, delving deep into the depths of ‘my’ psyche (which is the ‘human’ psyche) exposing, and thus eliminating through the exposure, anything whatsoever that was insalubrious ... only to be run by your feelings when I came onto the internet to share my discoveries with my fellow human being.
Look, it is this simple: for as long as you continue to be as you currently are then I am sure you will find, as a consequence, that other people’s responses will have the self-induced effect on you of you feeling nausea, repugnance or whatever other feeling that you may thus activate in that entire repertoire of feelings you nurse to your bosom’.

Put succinctly: it is what is being said, and not how it is being said, which gets up some people’s noses.

RESPONDENT: Just very recently you told No. 53 that he might not be able to understand grown-up words ... remember?

RICHARD: In all of my experience I cannot recall any teenager feeling insulted/ upset/ annoyed when it was suggested they may have to ask an adult what certain words/ concepts mean – or, for that matter, that they look them up in a dictionary/ encyclopaedia – as it is all part and parcel of the learning process.

If (note ‘if’) one was to have such a chip on their shoulder as to feel that way about learning something new then that contrariousness is their business, not mine, as I did not go public just to be run by another’s feelings about any advancement of or improvement to their knowledge, their rationality, their discussional skills, and so on, and so forth.

May 05 2006

(...)

RICHARD: ... as I understand it, there are various devices on the market which would (presumably) also bring about erogenous pleasure – and (probably) of a similar nature to that stimulated by the living creatures listed [in the previous e-mail] – yet there is no way that would mean my sexual orientation was not heterosexual. Or, put differently, were my sexual orientation to have been homosexual, and a female (of any age, shape, size, appearance, race, ethnicity, and social status) was to then stimulate me in an erotic manner, the erogenous pleasure experienced would in no way mean that my sexual orientation was not homosexual. Last, but by no means least, there is a vast difference between hedonic pleasure, where arousal means desire, and anhedonic pleasure, where arousal remains sensate only ... in this actual world (the world of the senses) it is impossible to ever be hedonic (desirous) as the affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain – as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate – is null and void.

RESPONDENT: How can you say you have any sexual orientation at all?

RICHARD: As I understand it, and this is a vaguely recalled generalisation, both gender and sexual orientation are set in place whilst a foetus – from memory around the tenth/ twelfth week for a male and the twelfth/fourteenth week for a female – due to either the presence or absence of testosterone, in conjunction with other hormones, as determined by the type of chromosomes endowed at conception.

Be that as it may ... the extirpation of the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto (and thus libido or sexual desire) does not eliminate sexual orientation.

RESPONDENT: Does the flesh and blood body called Richard have a preference companions that wear skirts and have smaller bone structure?

RICHARD: No, sexual orientation is not a preference.

RESPONDENT: Your input on this matter is important to me as I am facing issues around my sexual (homosexual) identity/reality since AF.

RICHARD: Neither heterosexuality or homosexuality (or bisexuality/ transsexuality for that matter) are a product of identity as other animals display variations in sexual orientation as well ... being born and raised on a farm I have personally witnessed, for just one example, cows in oestrous (aka on heat) sniffing, licking, nuzzling, rubbing and mounting each other (known colloquially as ‘bulling’).

Nor are various sexual practices either, by the way, as I have also seen, for instance, a doe goat quite obviously enjoying fellatio with a buck goat and ‘water sports’ (aka golden showers), for another example, are also very common as urine often contains, especially when on heat, sexually stimulating pheromones.

May 06 2006

(...)

RESPONDENT: Has anyone ever gone crazy from using the AF method?

RICHARD: Yes, I have been duly diagnosed by two accredited psychiatrists as suffering from a severe and chronic psychotic disorder ... the symptoms of which are as follows (with the official description parenthesised): 1. Depersonalisation (no sense of identity) ... as in no ‘self’ by whatever name. 2. Derealisation (lost touch with reality) ... as in reality has vanished completely. 3. Alexithymia (unable to feel the affections) ... as in no affective feelings whatsoever. 4. Anhedonia (inability to feel pleasure/pain) ... as in no affective pleasure/pain facility. Moreover, I have that most classic symptom of craziness ... that everyone else is crazy but me.

RESPONDENT: ... is there a link where you talk about your psychiatric experience?

RICHARD: No ... copy-paste the following, as-is, into the search-box at Google:

accredited psychiatrist site:www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/

Then left-click ‘search’ (or tap ‘enter’) ... you should get about 31 hits.

RESPONDENT: If not I am very curious to know how you ended up being professionally diagnosed as ‘crazy’.

RICHARD: The official term for insanity these days, due in no small part to the medicalisation of psychiatry, is mental illness/mental disorder ... and it was mainly because of such medicalisation that professional diagnosis came about.

As briefly as possible: at one stage during a thirty-month involuntary and incessant excitation of the brain cells (officially diagnosed as being ‘an excess of dopamine in the post-synaptic receptors’) after becoming actually free from the human condition I vaguely recalled, from my art-college days, that a person experiencing what was colloquially known as a ‘bad trip’ on lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) could be brought down with an injection of some medication or another so I popped into the nearest medical centre to where I was then residing and an elderly general practitioner (with very shaky hands) referred me to a specialist as a matter of course.

For more details about that neuronal agitation copy-paste the following, as-is, into the search-box at Google:

excitation of the brain cells site:www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/

You will get you about 17 hits.

May 07 2006

RESPONDENT: Richard, why do you say you are free of malice ...

RICHARD: For no other reason than, being sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto, it is impossible for any emotional/ passional feelings whatsoever to occur.

RESPONDENT: ... [why do you say you are free of malice] when you make the decision to occasionally say something to someone on this list that would obviously insult/ upset/ piss off?

RICHARD: Just for starters, I do not make any such decision – either occasionally or otherwise – and the following is a classic example of it making no difference whatsoever anyway how I might couch my responses: [snip quote]. Put succinctly: it is what is being said, and not how it is being said, which gets up some people’s noses.

RESPONDENT: Just very recently you told No. 53 that he might not be able to understand grown-up words ... remember?

RICHARD: In all of my experience I cannot recall any teenager feeling insulted/ upset/ annoyed when it was suggested they may have to ask an adult what certain words/ concepts mean – or, for that matter, that they look them up in a dictionary/ encyclopaedia – as it is all part and parcel of the learning process. If (note ‘if’) one was to have such a chip on their shoulder as to feel that way about learning something new then that contrariousness is their business, not mine, as I did not go public just to be run by another’s feelings about any advancement of or improvement to their knowledge, their rationality, their discussional skills, and so on, and so forth.

RESPONDENT: I didn’t know that No. 53 is a teenager. Is this a fact?

RICHARD: No adult – or, at least no adult in their right mind, that is – would type out and send to this mailing list what juveniles usually daub on the walls of public lavatories ... for just a few instances (cropped and edited for reasons of space):

• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘That deluded arrogant slut, Vineeto ...’. (Thursday, 22/04/2004 1:34 AM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Vineeto .... you pathetic, arrogant, deluded slut!’ (Thursday, 22/04/2004 12:34 AM AEST)
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘You are a nauseating, ignorant, deluded slut’. (Saturday, 24/04/2004 8:09 PM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘... arrogant, deluded, sick slut’. (Saturday, 24/04/2004 8:09 PM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Yeah Vineeto, you are just soooo different now aren’t you? You dumb slut ...’. (Friday, 21/01/2005 12:09 AM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Only an oxygen deprived slut would tout how much everyone likes her and brag how she gets on well with everyone/ people as they are ...’. (Thursday, 9/12/2004 4:37 AM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Dump that useless bag of endless drivel and dribble ---> Vineeto. How you put up with that annoying slut has got to be one of the wonders of this world (...) your sperm receptacle aka Vineeto’. (Wednesday, 8/12/2004 2:23 PM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘... the slut and her pimp, Mr. Codswallop’. (Friday, 15/10/2004 10:53 AM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘ ... that mega-self-conscious slut of spirituality and now actualism herself, Vinotatallneeto ...’. (Friday, 8/10/2004 12:18 PM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Personally, I like sluts, except annoying, self-absorbed ones like Vinotsoneeto’. (Monday, 4/10/2004 9:24 AM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Vineeto, the slut to end all sluts (no offence to pros and amateurs alike) and her boyfriend, the desperado pimp ...’. (Tuesday, 28/09/2004 11:59 AM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘... either dump that bitch who incessantly rambles on & on & on at the push of her actualist buttons; or slap her rambling on & on ass silly. How you can put up with that warty outgrowth of the human survival package has got me beat’. (Friday, 17/12/2004 9:34 PM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Vineeto you dumb slut ... when you give one blow job and one ball massage to one of your clients ...’ (Monday, 11/04/2005 5:44 AM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘You dum dumb slut ...’ (Sunday, 24/04/2005 1:46 AM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Yo, you lying bitch (...) Ok you lying kunt (...) The next time you feel a need to puke your nonsense from your oral organ all over these pages or to any other fellow human being that happens to be in your crossfire, just unzip Peters pants and put your kisser to work’. (Monday, 12/04/2004 1:00 AM AEST).

RESPONDENT: Wow! But still, didn’t you know that to say what you said when you said it would make him mad?

RICHARD: Here is a useful link: www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

May 09 2006

(...)

RICHARD: As I understand it, and this is a vaguely recalled generalisation, both gender and sexual orientation are set in place whilst a foetus – from memory around the tenth/ twelfth week for a male and the twelfth/ fourteenth week for a female – due to either the presence or absence of testosterone, in conjunction with other hormones, as determined by the type of chromosomes endowed at conception. Be that as it may ... the extirpation of the entire affective faculty/identity in toto (and thus libido or sexual desire) does not eliminate sexual orientation.

RESPONDENT: Does the flesh and blood body called Richard have a preference companions that wear skirts and have smaller bone structure?

RICHARD: No, sexual orientation is not a preference.

RESPONDENT: Your input on this matter is important to me as I am facing issues around my sexual (homosexual) identity/reality since AF.

RICHARD: Neither heterosexuality or homosexuality (or bisexuality/ transsexuality for that matter) are a product of identity as other animals display variations in sexual orientation as well ... being born and raised on a farm I have personally witnessed, for just one example, cows in oestrous (aka on heat) sniffing, licking, nuzzling, rubbing and mounting each other (known colloquially as ‘bulling’).

RESPONDENT: I don’t understand how you can say that because you have observed same sex animal behaviour that this makes the animals homosexually oriented.

RICHARD: That could be because I never said such a thing – as the cows in the example above also vigorously mate with the bull then the variation in sexual orientation they are displaying is bisexuality – and, anyway, the point I am making is that sexual orientation is not a product of identity (I only gave the ‘other animals’ example so that you would not have to take my word for it).

RESPONDENT: How can a flesh and blood body be programmed in utero to prefer what is basically a social construct.

RICHARD: I never said that a flesh and blood body is programmed in utero to [quote] ‘prefer’ [endquote] what is basically [quote] ‘a social construct’ [endquote] ... I specifically say (a) sexual orientation is *not* a preference ... and (b) both gender and *sexual orientation* are set in place whilst a foetus.

RESPONDENT: Don’t get me wrong, I know the difference between a man and a woman but we all know that construction workers will whistle at anything that has on lipstick and heels!

RICHARD: Both lipstick/heels and the skirts which you mentioned further above are but a particular society’s cultural aspects of the innate gender and sexual orientation ... in other societies those cultural aspects take on a different appearance (where the equivalent of those archetypal male construction workers you portray would vociferously express their sexual orientation in a corresponding culturally-conditioned way to anybody appearing publicly in that particular society’s female accoutrements).

RESPONDENT: This is important to me. I need you to clarify. I don’t understand how you can be sans identity (affective feelings) and say you are heterosexually oriented.

RICHARD: I say that my sexual orientation is heterosexual for no other reason than the reason already explained/exampled ... to wit: sexual orientation is not a product of identity (hence my ‘other animals’ example).

RESPONDENT: What constitutes an object of your heterosexual orientation?

RICHARD: A female human being (no matter her age, shape, size, appearance, race, ethnicity, or social status).

RESPONDENT: Perhaps you’ll tell me that the organism Richard has certain predilections based on his collective memory ...

RICHARD: No, and especially not when I have already said that sexual orientation is not a preference ... here it is again (from further above)

• [Respondent]: ‘Does the flesh and blood body called Richard have a preference companions that wear skirts and have smaller bone structure?
• [Richard]: ‘No, sexual orientation is not a preference’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: ... [Perhaps you’ll tell me that the organism Richard has certain predilections based on his collective memory] ... so then ... well ... I’ll see what you have to say about this so far.

RICHARD: As all I have done, essentially, is reiterate what I have already previously said then maybe you will see what I have to say this time around?

June 07 2006

RESPONDENT: Richard, if thinking is neural activity how does this activity transform into words?

RICHARD: As feelings are primal and primary then words, and thus thought, most likely developed ever-so-slowly out of intuitive cognitions as an extension of the growling, grunting, groaning, moaning, whimpering sounds which are so expressive of the feeling of what is happening ... most histrionic words have an affective etymological root. Thus the ‘first’ thoughts in proto-humans quite possibly would have been nascent expressions of the primal feelings patently evident in what is known as the higher order animals.

RESPONDENT: The ongoing process of thinking appears mostly as words and words and more words and just like the mental pictures that are also a part of thinking I wonder how is it that we get this ‘internal-hearing’ and ‘seeing’ from nerve conduction. It seems metaphysical.

RICHARD: What you are referring to – the mental pictures and sounds, and so on, which are part and parcel of thought in most peoples – have no existence in this actual world ... thought occurs as words-only here.

June 09 2006

RESPONDENT: I’m retracting my post about personality. I came to my own conclusion that personality is relative. Aristotle said that personality is nothing but the actions taken my a protagonist.

RICHARD: Whereas what personality, or character, really is has more to do with traits, quirks, idiosyncrasies, features, peculiarities, flavours, mannerisms, gestures, and so on, which develop over the years (on top of the nature/ disposition one is born with) than with what actions a protagonist may or may not take.

RESPONDENT: I am upside down the last couple of days. Socializing has become very different. I don’t know what to focus on as I’m marvelling at the sensations and associated feelings/ thoughts.

RICHARD: The thing to focus upon, each moment again and regardless of events, is one’s goal ... and the requisite pure intent to have that come about.

RESPONDENT: It’s like an ASC because if I’m talking to someone I can’t escape the ‘magical insanity’ of having my nerves innervate/ coordinate so much at once. Even when I’m by myself, which is easier but lonely, I’m in shock and awe. Reading a book I could stay on one word or letter and not be able to proceed without switching off the magical insanity that my brain understands the tiny, black print.

I’m desperate here.

RICHARD: In which case it is handy to remember that desperation is a feeling and, like all feelings of that ilk (such as anxiety/ panic attacks), as such it never goes anywhere ... provided, that is, one does not act upon it.

In other words, by keeping one’s hands in one’s pockets, such feelings amount to zilch ... they are much ado about nothing.

As for the ‘magical insanity’ itself: is it not amazing that not only is all this (life, the universe, and everything) happening but that one has the marvellous ability to (simultaneously) be aware of being aware of it all whilst it is occurring?

Moreover, is it not truly a cause for wonderment that one can thus share experience, compare notes as it were, with one’s fellow human being?

RESPONDENT: I usually refrain from posting my doubts and fears as up until now I have been able to come to a conclusion on my own. But I feel myself at a critical point. I feel like I’m living a character for the sake of my intimates.

RICHARD: By preceding it with that indefinite article/ determiner you are using the word character (aka personality) in a different sense there ... for example:

• ‘character: a person portrayed in a novel, a drama, etc; a part played by an actor’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Incidentally, the word identity can also be used to indicate the assemblage of qualities or characteristics which makes a person a distinctive individual/ the collective peculiarities or qualities distinctive of an individual – inasmuch it is used to indicate a set of collective characteristics by which a person can be known (as in the phrase ‘public identity’ for instance) and/or a set of behavioural characteristics by which a person can be definitely recognisable – and is not to be confused with the way it is used on The Actual Freedom Trust web site/ The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list to refer to the emotional/ passional entity/ being within (the ‘self’ and/or ‘Self’).

RESPONDENT: I mean, how does an actualist refrain from talking about actuality all of the time when it applies so importantly to every single situation?

RICHARD: For what it is worth I do recall going through a period where, when not even speaking and even when on my own, it was not possible to cease making a moment-to-moment commentary ... to the point that the very noticing of that ceaseless commentary occurring became yet more commentary (yet another commentary layered on top of the commentary itself).

Again, it is handy to remember that it, too, is much ado about nothing ... the term ‘drama queen’ readily springs to mind.

RESPONDENT: Richard, couldn’t we be hypnotizing ourselves to believe that we are only our senses?

RICHARD: An identity could ... yes; a flesh and blood body ... never.


RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST 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