|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 115
RESPONDENT: Why does the PCE happen? RICHARD: A pure consciousness experience (PCE) happens because the identity, being an illusion/ delusion, cannot always sustain its dominance over actuality. RESPONDENT: Is it a glitch in the matrix? RICHARD: Presuming you are referring to an in utero defect – ‘matrix: the uterus, the womb; a place or medium in which something is bred ...’ (Oxford Dictionary) – it is handy to bear in mind that virtually everybody, no matter what age, gender or race, has experienced such moments of perfection at some stage in their life ... usually most often in childhood.
RESPONDENT: I feel that I am a highly sophisticated and analytical intellectual. Any ideas regarding how I can get in touch with what has been termed as 'naiveté’? RICHARD: In a word: sincerity. Copy-paste the following, as-is, into the search-engine box at a search engine of your choice: the key to unlocking naiveté site:www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/ Then left-click ‘search’ (or tap ‘enter’) ... you should get about 16 hits. RESPONDENT: Is it a feeling state of mind? Or is it an attitude and a way of looking at the world? RICHARD: It is a state of wide-eyed wonder ... for instance:
CO-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: How do you discover/ know what your sexual orientation is (other than by performing a scientific study of genes and the body using various experiments)? RICHARD: By virtue of which gender one experiences oneself as (regardless of genitalia) in conjunction with which gender one is sexually receptive to ... from earliest memory right up to the present day my experience has been that of a heterosexual male.
RESPONDENT: I feel that I am a highly sophisticated and analytical intellectual. Any ideas regarding how I can get in touch with what has been termed as ‘naiveté’? RICHARD: In a word: sincerity. Copy-paste the following, as-is, into the search-engine box at a search engine of your choice: [the key to unlocking naiveté site:www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/]. Then left-click ‘search’ (or tap ‘enter’) ... you should get about 16 hits. RESPONDENT: I did; thanks. RICHARD: If you were to reach down deep within yourself, way past the more superficial emotions and even further than the deeper passions where you intuitively feel yourself to be as your essence (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being or ‘being’ itself), you may possibly come upon naiveté quite readily ... it is where you are intimately likeable. Physically, it is locatable just below that feeling of ‘being’ (typically four-fingers width below the navel) and just above your sexuality (at the top of the pubic area). RESPONDENT: I have some follow up questions. You say: [quote] ‘... only
naďveté entertains the notion that not only is peace-on-earth possible, in this life-time as this flesh and blood body, but that
it is already always existing (meaning it is already just here, right now, as it always has been and always will be)’. [actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-naivete.htm RICHARD: It is another way of saying it exists eternally (never beginning/never ending). RESPONDENT: What does peace on earth mean? RICHARD: It means a physical, or corporeal, peace (as distinct from a metaphysical, or incorporeal, peace). RESPONDENT: What kind of peace? RICHARD: It is not only both a personal peace (as in calmness, tranquillity, serenity, and so on) and an interpersonal peace (as in harmony, amity, cordiality, and so forth) but the ultimate peace of having attained to one’s destiny (as in fulfilment, satisfaction, contentment, and so on) whereupon the meaning of life lies open all about ... complete with an utter security or an absolute safety the likes of which is inconceivable/incomprehensible and unimaginable/unbelievable to any identity whatsoever. There is a vast stillness here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: How is it equivalent to saying ‘it is already just here, right now, as it always has been and always will be’? RICHARD: Have you not ever noticed that it is never not this moment? * RESPONDENT: Is it a feeling state of mind? Or is it an attitude and a way of looking at the world? RICHARD: It is a state of wide-eyed wonder ... for instance:
RESPONDENT: I get it to some extent; but as naiveté is a state of the identity, is it an affective state? RICHARD: Yes ... a happy and harmless state. RESPONDENT: A felicitous feeling? RICHARD: It is a felicitous/ innocuous feeling-state. * RESPONDENT: Also, can you help me in remembering any PCE that I had? RICHARD: As a generalisation, pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) are more prevalent in childhood and the memory is tucked away in an area of the brain not normally accessed. Because a PCE has no emotional/ passional qualities whatsoever – there is no affective being present to record the memory in its affective memory banks – it cannot be remembered in the normal way (reverie, reminiscence, nostalgia, and so on). Also, ‘I’ can have a vested interest in disremembering a PCE as it could very well be the beginning of the end of ‘me’. Mostly PCE’s happen for no demonstrable reason at all – as in being a serendipitous event – and quite often occur in everyday surroundings doing everyday things such as washing the dishes (for instance) and can be quite brief ... I can recall being on a farmhouse veranda at age eight, looking into the glistening white of a full glass of milk in the early morning sunshine, when it happened for the entity within. Often in my early childhood there would be a ‘slippage’ of the brain, somewhat analogous to an automatic transmission changing into a higher gear too soon, and the magical world where time had no workaday meaning would emerge in all its sparkling wonder ... where I could wander for hours at a time in gay abandon with whatever was happening. They were the pre-school years: soon such experiences would occur of a weekend ... so much so that I would later on call them ‘Saturday Morning’ experiences where, contrary to having to be dragged out of bed during the week, I would be up and about at first light, traipsing through the fields and the forests with the early morning rays of sunshine dancing their magic on the glistening dew-drops suspended from the greenery everywhere; where kookaburras are echoing their laughing-like calls to one another and magpies are warbling their liquid sounds; where an abundance of aromas and scents are drifting fragrantly all about; where every pore of the skin is being caressed by the friendly ambience of the balmy air; where benevolence and benignity streams endlessly bathing all in its impeccable integrity. This magical world is what occasions me to write like this:
RESPONDENT: Can you give me some good pointers and questions and help/assist me with your expertise on human condition to uncover any such pure experience I had? RICHARD: Have you ever thought that there must be more to life than currently experienced (the everyday norm in which maybe 6.0 billion peoples live)? RESPONDENT: I shall read more about this and co-operate with you sincerely if you have the time/ inclination to do so. RICHARD: It can only be to your benefit to interact sincerely ... I simply take people as they come and respond accordingly.
CO-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: How do you discover/ know what your sexual orientation is (other than by performing a scientific study of genes and the body using various experiments)? RICHARD: By virtue of which gender one experiences oneself as (regardless of genitalia) ... RESPONDENT: It is interesting that you say ‘regardless of genitalia’. RICHARD: I am, of course, referring to well-documented reports by transsexuals (who experience themselves as being the other gender to what their genitals signify). RESPONDENT: What constitutes such an experience if not an affective feeling of ‘maleness’ or a ‘male identity’ or a ‘manliness’? RICHARD: It is an innate sensory experiencing of the gender set in place, as I understand it, whilst a foetus (due to either the presence or absence of testosterone, in conjunction with other hormones, as determined by the type of chromosomes endowed at conception). RESPONDENT: Can you provide some further explanation/ details on the nature of this experience? RICHARD: It is not all that dissimilar to, say, experiencing oneself as being of a certain height. * RICHARD: ... in conjunction with which gender one is sexually receptive to ... RESPONDENT: Again the same question. What is the nature of this receptivity if neither an instinctual urge/desire/affective feeling of tenderness etc. nor a preference? RICHARD: Again the same answer: it is an innate sensory experiencing of the sexual orientation set in place, as I understand it, whilst a foetus (due to either the presence or absence of testosterone, in conjunction with other hormones, as determined by the type of chromosomes endowed at conception). * RICHARD: ... from earliest memory right up to the present day my experience has been that of a heterosexual male. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that if your sexual orientation was otherwise it would have shown up as something even during all those days you were experiencing life as an identity (under the influence of instincts and cultural programming)? RICHARD: In effect ... yes. Viz.:
And:
RESPONDENT: Do you see any relationship between the orientation of raw instinctual desire (if it can ever be seen without the overlaying cultural program) and the sexual orientation? RICHARD: Yes, the one follows the other ... the former impulsively/ compulsively energises the latter. RESPONDENT: As an identity did you affectively experience any repulsion for the idea of physical closeness/sexual act with men? RICHARD: Not that I can recall (at least not of any significance) but by being born and raised in the ‘forties and the ‘fifties there was, of course, a culturally-induced disdain ... a deprecation which did not become apparent, curiously enough, until married and whilst serving in the military. RESPONDENT: Certainly not a desire, right? (from what you say). RICHARD: No, not at all ... the identity in residence never had any doubts/ any confusion about either gender or sexual orientation (even at pubescence when there was some minor same-sex experimentation).
RESPONDENT: What causes the death (of the ego; of the soul)? RICHARD: In a word: altruism. RESPONDENT: Is it a physical event? Part of the cause & effect universe? RICHARD: The following (from the homepage of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site) should be self-explanatory:
RESPONDENT: What was your last thought/ feeling before the events? RICHARD: I was musing idly upon the irony that the change in human needs regarding physical survival had wrought such radical transformation in the attitudes toward the environment during the forty five years I had been upon this planet. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Does anybody else describe ‘Enlightenment’ as a turning over in the brain stem? RICHARD: I have not read of anybody else using that description. RESPONDENT: Can one feel other’s feelings? RICHARD: Only if one is a feeling being. RESPONDENT: Thoughts? RICHARD: Only if one is a feeling being with developed psychic abilities. RESPONDENT: From a distance? RICHARD: In the first instance ... yes, from a near-distance; in the latter instance ... yes, from a far-distance. RESPONDENT: What do you mean by saying ‘all beings are connected’? RICHARD: I mean what I say ... for example:
And:
And:
And:
And:
RESPONDENT: Does anybody else describe ‘Enlightenment’ as a turning over in the brain stem? RICHARD: I have not read of anybody else using that description. RESPONDENT: If that is the case, is it possible that your experience of it and other’s experience can be of different quality, though described with similar words? RICHARD: The experience of something turning over in the base of the brain/ in the top of the brain-stem in 1981 was for me a feature of becoming actually free from the human condition, not of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment per se, and had the identity in residence back then known what is known nowadays ‘he’ would not have let the process stop halfway through its happening ... by my reckoning it would have all been over in a matter of maybe 6-10 seconds (rather than 6 seconds plus eleven years). * RESPONDENT: Can one feel other’s feelings? RICHARD: Only if one is a feeling being. RESPONDENT: Thoughts? RICHARD: Only if one is a feeling being with developed psychic abilities. RESPONDENT: From a distance? RICHARD: In the first instance ... yes, from a near-distance; in the latter instance ... yes, from a far-distance. RESPONDENT: In that case is it not that the ‘connection’ is actual? RICHARD: As the connection is between feeling beings – affective entities within bodies – it is not actual (in the sense that bodies, trees and rocks, are actual) but is quite real (in the sense that the affections, the affective entity and the psychic abilities formed thereof, are real) nevertheless. RESPONDENT: If somebody can feel the thoughts and feelings of the other from a far distance, does it not mean that there is some kind of ‘actual’ transmission or connection going on? RICHARD: There is an affective/ psychic transmission/ connection going on ... but only between the feeling beings within bodies (there is no such thing going on between bodies). RESPONDENT: With advancement in sciences a machine could do the same in the future? RICHARD: As a machine that could not only affectively feel a feeling being’s feelings/ psychically intuit a feeling being’s thoughts but could also affectively/ psychically radiate/ transmit its own feelings/ thoughts to feeling/ psychic beings would be a machine like no other machine either currently existing or even on the drawing boards then such a question more properly pertains to the sci-fi genre than advancement in science.
RESPONDENT No. 74: I went back to the original message: [... snip ...] Vineeto, if you cannot sincerely own up to this mistake, your virtual freedom is not worth anything. You might think you are more evolved than others, but I finally now agree with No. 60 and others that you are a egoistic foolish follower just like the millions of other followers be they political, religious, cultists or others. I am a fool, but you are no better. You can still admit it and apologize. The opportunity is still there. The only reason why you are not doing it is plain arrogance, nothing else. CO-RESPONDENT: No. 74, this is well said imo. Thank you for the courage to stand up to this hypocrisy. I have spoken up before but was beat down and gave up. RICHARD: No. 23, the difference between you and Vineeto is that when she speaks up she does not give
up, when others seek to beat her down, as only definitive proof (aka ‘pixels’) and not just rhetoric (aka ‘pictures’) will
do the trick. She has already written (to No. 27
Incidentally, did you notice the sweeping generalisation in the midst of the last paragraph of this e-mail you responded to (the sentence with the colon in it)? If so, then why are you not jumping upon that author, from some great height, just as you did Vineeto (back when you last had moral support)? And even further to the subject of hypocrisy ... why is nobody jumping upon your sweeping generalisation (as in ‘only an ego needs to defend its words’), eh? P.S.: So as to pre-empt the obvious rejoinder: nowhere has it ever been said that a virtual freedom (or an actual freedom) obviates one from making sweeping generalisations. RESPONDENT: It is a pity that you don’t follow No. 60’s line of argument, be it trivial, not central to the argument or whatever... RICHARD: I already have ... here:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=913275360 RESPONDENT: ... and No. 74’s mail: http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=913288566&sort=a&start=14603 RICHARD: I have already addressed the crux of that [quote] ‘line of argument’ [endquote] in this
e-mail you are responding to ... to wit: Vineeto has already written (to No. 27 In other words, only definitive proof (aka ‘pixels’) and not just rhetoric (aka ‘pictures’) will do the trick.
RESPONDENT: It is a pity that you don’t follow No. 60’s line of argument, be it trivial, not central to the argument or whatever... RICHARD: I already have ... here:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=913275360 RESPONDENT: Here is the snippet where she is denying it: (defending the indefensible? RICHARD: The only way you can say that – ‘defending the indefensible’ – is by focussing exclusively on the second paragraph of the text in question, as in pretending that the first paragraph simply does not exist, and applying a logical analysis to those (thus-isolated) words written by (a) a person who was born a female and thus raised/ educated as such ... and (b) a person for whom English is a second language. In other words, if one wishes to join in on the pillorying of Vineeto then all one has to do is (a) abandon commonsense ... and (b) be strictly logical about an abstracted paragraph. Howsoever, if one wishes to understand what Vineeto is saying then all one has to do is (a) retain commonsense ... and (b) read the second paragraph with the clearly-expressed intent of the first paragraph held firmly in mind. Needless is it to add that I, for one, fall into the latter category (as is evidenced at the URL I provided further above)? ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S. Regarding where you wrote [quote] ‘No. 60’s line of argument’ [endquote] further above: I assumed you were referring to his initial line of argument, which is resolved with the ‘and/or’ correction, but the e-mail of yours which follows this one (the one which has the words ‘the tangled webs they weave’ at the end) indicates that you were probably referring to the abstract-logic line of argument of his which came later. If that is the case then I can assure you, for whatever that is worth, that I do indeed ‘get it’ (for whatever that is worth). •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX 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 |
