Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence

On The Actual Freedom Mailing List

With Correspondent No. 18


March 25 2004

RICHARD: ... what Mr. Paul Marmet has to say about the GPS and the (supposed) constant velocity of light for all observers, which constancy is central to Einstein relativity, throws more light (no pun intended) upon ...

RESPONDENT: If I may, if no pun was intended then why not have used the hmm ... backspace key and used a different metaphor then [throws more light]?

RICHARD: Because that way of conveying ‘helps explain’ is particularly expressive.

RESPONDENT: If I may say, piece of cake to a freed human intelligence?

RICHARD: It is a breeze for any human intelligence to use a different figure of speech.

*

RESPONDENT: On the other hand I can see, that diversion at times can become distortion of hmm clear rational reasoning which well might/could result in irritation/ annoyance/whatever.

RICHARD: May I ask? Did you find what Mr. Paul Marmet has to say about the GPS and the (supposed) constant velocity of light for all observers, which constancy is central to Einstein relativity, helped to explain his claim that Newtonian physics can also account for all the evidence which is purported to demonstrate the facticity of Einstein relativity (as well as keeping the more commonsense notions about time and space and gravity and so forth)?

For example, did his question [quote] ‘with respect to what, does light travel’ [endquote] make you sit up and take notice (before you read his answer)?

*

RESPONDENT: I like it that supposed is being bracketed indicating that this velocity being ‘constant’ is not even a posing in other words, merely an assumption which is currently embraced by science so far as to be workable with as an attribute of that what appears as the phenomenon light in this universe.

RICHARD: It is an assumption sometimes known as a postulate – the second postulate of the special theory of relativity in fact – and, although I have already posted an example of what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say about those two postulates, a re-read might have more import this time around. Vis.:

• ‘As history buffs may know, the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) [2] appeared a year before Einstein’s 1905 publication of SR [Einsteinian relativity]. Of course, LET incorporated both the relativity principle (taken from Poincare, but it was first formulated about a generation earlier) and the Lorentz transformations that bear his name. The essential new element introduced by Einstein the following year was the equivalence of all inertial frames, thereby eliminating the need for the luminiferous ether. This first postulate of SR makes the Lorentz transformations reciprocal; i.e., they work equally well from any inertial frame to any other, then back again; so it has no meaning to ask which of two identical clocks in different frames is ticking slower in any absolute sense. The second postulate of SR makes the speed of light independent of not only the speed of the source (which is also true generally for waves in any medium, including luminiferous ether), but also independent of the speed of the observer (which is a feature unique to SR).
Today, many physicists and students of physics have acquired the impression that these two postulates have been confirmed by observations. However, that is not the case. In fact, none of the eleven independent experiments verifying some aspect of SR [1] is able to verify either postulate. It is now widely believed that no experiment is capable of verifying these postulates even in principle [3], because they become automatically true *by convention* if one adopts the Einstein clock-synchronization method, and they become just as automatically false if one adopts a different synchronization convention such as the ‘universal time’ postulate of Lorentz. Of interest here is the point that the GPS uses the latter synchronization convention for pragmatic reasons ...’. [emphasis added]. (www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep6/ep6-vanfl.htm).
[1] T. Van Flandern, ‘What the Global Positioning System tells us about relativity’, in Open Questions in Relativistic Physics, F. Selleri, ed., Apeiron, Montreal, 81-90 (1998).
[2] H.A. Lorentz, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Vol. III, ‘The principle of relativity for uniform translations’, Macmillan & Co., London, 208-211 (1931). Contains summary of and citation to original 1904 paper.
[3] H. Erlichson, ‘The rod contraction-clock retardation ether theory and the special theory of relativity’, AJP 41, 1068-1077 (1973).

There is more on this ‘by convention’ observation further below.

*

RICHARD: I did make the comment, in an earlier e-mail, that we could post URL’s to each other until the cows came home and the matter would still not be settled ...

RESPONDENT: Indeed and I find it yet another puny cue as you are using cow(s) in plural, such as I presume to give a hint to the unlikeliness of eventuation of a certain condition.

RICHARD: It is an equivalent English expression to the Dutch expression ‘until sint-juttemis day’.

RESPONDENT: Particularly as there is no indication as to the quantity of cows that would need to come home. May I ask how many cows did you have in mind?

RICHARD: Not all that surprisingly it is as many as the number of days until sint-juttemis day ... a jillion googol of them, to be precise.

*

RICHARD: ... the point I am making by providing this particular link (just as I did with the Mr. Tom Van Flandern link) is that, being but a lay-person in all these matters, what I see is theoretical physicists, mathematicians, logicians, and so on, discussing amongst themselves the validity/invalidity of this theory and that theory and any other theory.

RESPONDENT: And of course the crucial question is that how is [discussing amongst themselves the validity/invalidity of this theory and that theory and any other theory] going to make a contribution to world piece \?/peace on earth?

RICHARD: No, the crucial question is why a person, seeking to disallow the direct experience of infinitude – as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – by telling me that the universe is not infinite, eternal, and perpetual (such as in the 1997 e-mail exchange I quoted from in a previous post) because of this theory or that theory or any other theory, would even try flying that kite when it is patently obvious that mathematics do not describe the universe and that a mathematical equation has no existence outside of the ratiocinative process. For just one example:

• ‘Poincaré put forward important ideas on mathematical models of the real world. If one set of axioms is preferred over another to model a physical situation then, Poincaré claimed, this was nothing more than a convention. Conditions such as simplicity, easy of use, and usefulness in future research, help to determine which will be the convention, while it is meaningless to ask which is correct. The question of whether physical space is Euclidean is not a meaningful one to ask. The distinction, he argues, between mathematical theories and physical situations is that mathematics is a construction of the human mind, whereas nature is independent of the human mind. Here lies that problem; fitting a mathematical model to reality is to forcing a construct of the human mind onto nature which is ultimately independent of mind’. (www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/World.html#s54).

*

RICHARD: In other words those who seek to disallow the direct experience of infinitude – as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – by telling me that the universe is not infinite, eternal, and perpetual (such as in the 1997 e-mail exchange I quoted from in my last post) because of this theory or that theory or any other theory might as well take up kite-flying in their spare time.

RESPONDENT: I agree there is no sensible thing to say to people who believe in non-infinity of the universe.

RICHARD: Au contraire ... there is indeed a sensible thing to say to those who consider that a mathematical theory disproves the direct experience of actuality:

• [Richard]: ‘I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (...).

*

RICHARD: For something like twenty five years I was an agnostic ... and it is an apparently satisfying position to be in as it makes one feel both intellectually comfortable and intellectually superior at the same time (whilst appearing humble) until one day I realised just what I was doing to myself ... and to others. I was cleverly shuffling all the ‘hard questions’ about consciousness under the rug and going around deftly cutting other people down to size (which is all so easy to do simply by saying ‘well that is your belief/ truth/ idea/ philosophy/ whatever’). But I had nothing to offer in its place – other than the smug ‘nobody knows’ agnosticism – and I puzzled as to why this was so. Finally, I ceased procrastinating and equivocating. I wanted to know. I wanted to find out – for myself – about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. I now know. In short: there is a third alternative to either agnosticism or fideism.

RESPONDENT: So ... what is it (the purpose/ meaning/ complexity to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are?

RICHARD: As this flesh and blood body only one is this material universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.

And this is truly wonderful.

RESPONDENT: To me this person or that person is as much as I am a phenomenon that appears to be as a fragment of the multitude of appearances.

RICHARD: As this flesh and blood body only one is not ‘a fragment’ ... one *is* this material universe experiencing itself *as* an apperceptive human being.

RESPONDENT: This brain does not differ much from other brains as it is clearly perceived that whatever cunning/ clever/ smart/ complex projection that brain overlays on that what is being perceived, in actuality it has no existence other then this being a projection.

RICHARD: The human brain per se neither overlays nor projects ... it is the identity within who does such things (as in feeling itself to be ‘a fragment’ for instance).

RESPONDENT: In other words, that grey matter inside of the skull my skull your skull everybody’s skull is not merely passive.

RICHARD: In other words the identity within intuits that its activity is the activity of the brain itself.

RESPONDENT: Not just brains, but the stuff the universe is made of.

RICHARD: Not just the identity’s activity, of course, but the activity of the instinctual passions it is made of.

RESPONDENT: So ... what is it (the purpose/ meaning/ complexity to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are?

RICHARD: If you were to hold a hand up before the eyes, palm towards the face, and rotate it slowly through space (all the while considering that the very stuff the hand is comprised of is as old as the universe) whilst looking from the front of the eyes, as it were (and not through the eyes), it may very well become apparent that, as this flesh and blood body only, one is perfection personified ... the perfection of the purity, welling in perpetuum mobilis, that the infinitude this material universe actually is.

In short: this ambrosial paradise I refer to as ‘this actual world’ has been no further away, all the while, than coming to your senses.

*

RICHARD: This moment has no duration here in this actual world ... but I doubt that those who seek to disallow the direct experience of eternity are conscious of that when they write to me. My guess is they are just uncritically regurgitating what they were taught at school.

RESPONDENT: The brain has difficulties (it seems) to conceptualise eternity, yet as it has done so, it is fairly well capable of making the inference in hindsight that as the universe is eternal and as experience is a phenomenon of that, how could/would this experience possible have had a beginning or could have an end?

RICHARD: As this flesh and blood body was born on a particular date, lives for x-number of years, and then dies – and death is the end, finish, of its experience – then the direct experience of eternity does indeed have a beginning and an end ... and, furthermore, such experiencing ceases each night whilst asleep, when under anaesthesia, during a faint, upon being knocked unconscious, while in a cataleptic trance-state, or when in any other way being comatose.

So much for hindsight inferences drawn from conceptualisations, eh?

RESPONDENT: In other words in experience infinity is embedded as experience. Time then becomes merely measured in terms of how many nickels need to be put into a parking meter in order to acquire institutionalised legislated permission to have a car parked, on a particular location for say i.e. 1 hour such as that one has time to go to do some shopping.

RICHARD: There is a distinct difference between the measure of time (as in past/present/future) and time itself: this moment is the arena, so to speak, in which events occur and, just as everything is existing in infinite space, everything is happening in eternal time.

There is a vast stillness here ... if you were to listen intently to the jingle of the nickels it may become apparent.

RESPONDENT: Interesting then would be the question: suppose one would return (after one hour) and one would find out, that the car has been damaged beyond repair (a clear case of total-loss) and one also finds out that this is not a case that will be covered by insurance (for whatever reason) then have these nickels (spent as parking money) been spent in a sensible way?

RICHARD: If you were just here right now all the while then ... yes.

*

RICHARD: Put specifically: that the universe is expanding is inextricably part and parcel of Mr. Albert Einstein’s equations ... the big-bang theory came later and arose out of the implications of that mathematical artefact. Vis.: [snip quote].

RESPONDENT: I find some charm in the metaphor of the Big Bang, however as I already have stated I found one big bang a bit stingy and with the introduction of a ‘cosmological constant’ it is easy to conceive of an infinite number of Big bangs, as the value of the constant could infinitely be variable or even at time reoccur to have the same value. Thus each time the constant would change i.e. leap from 9 to 8 there would be a new big bang.

RICHARD: May I ask? Are you of that school of thought which holds that imagination is more important than knowledge?

RESPONDENT: The fact that that stuff (the grey matter in the skull) is not merely passive does not mean that it well can use some challenge to become a bit more active.

RICHARD: The direct experience that matter is not merely passive – such as in a PCE – relegates all such imaginings as you propose to the waste-bin of history where they belong.

RESPONDENT: Complacency seems to be the greatest danger that is a hindrance on the path of discovery of/exploration into self(es) and other things.

RICHARD: Hmm ... and your cure for that is to develop a hyperactive imagination?

RESPONDENT: The adagio for the matrix is It ain’t necessarily so (this way or that way).

RICHARD: As the ‘matrix’ (a place or medium in which something is bred, produced, or developed) you are referring to is an imaginative realm I will pass without making any further comment.

*

RICHARD: In short: the universe is neither expanding nor contracting.

RESPONDENT: Nevertheless the concepts of expanding and contracting I would not dismiss too lightly.

RICHARD: So I have noticed.

*

RICHARD: An expanding universe is neither spatially infinite nor temporally eternal.

RESPONDENT: I’d say too easy.

In order to define matter, space is required in order to define space matter is required yet as the universe is only material (in actualism) there can neither be contraction nor expansion of the universe

In hmm actuality.

RICHARD: Yes ... a universe (all time and all space and all form) which expands/contracts can only do so if there be that which is other than time and space and form (a non-material otherness which is timeless and spaceless and formless).

Such a non-physical otherness is sometimes referred to as a matrix.

RESPONDENT: Interestingly however there is movement of matter into an unknown and/or unknowable direction.

RICHARD: Only in imagination – nothing is coming from, or going to, anywhere or anywhen in actuality – as everything is already just here right now.

As it always has been and always will be.

March 26 2004

RESPONDENT: Richard, it just got to me that in my experience the Twin Towers have collapsed in the Real world yet in the Actual World they have disappeared as well as that they are still standing. And in my experience you are really the invisible man (partly imaginary and partly actual) but above all, a real man ;-) Just sharing some notes. How is that for YOU?

RICHARD: The towers you refer to are not still standing and, as I am this flesh and blood body, I am only actual (not partly anything) and thus most certainly not, above all, real.

RESPONDENT: P.S.: Isn’t it sheer amazing the dreams and schemes that the identity within can come up with?

RICHARD: Not as amazing as actuality is ... it is beyond the most imaginative/intuitive dreams and schemes.

April 06 2004

RICHARD: ... [example only]: I did say ‘presumably’ ... when there is another actually free from the human condition, that presumption is no longer valid, of course. [end example]. The operative word is ‘when’ ... I was responding to a hypothetical question with a hypothetical answer.

RESPONDENT: As you make it clear that you responded [to a hypothetical question with a hypothetical answer] why not make a hypothetic extrapolation as to this when this ‘when’ could/might be become an actuality could it for instance be happening at Sint Juttemis day? or possibly ‘when’ Hell freezes over? In other words, has ever the thought occurred to you that you indeed you could be the first ‘and’ the last as well? ^note ‘and’ is the operative word^.

RICHARD: No ... that furphy, borrowed and promulgated on this mailing list by another, has never occurred to me.

RESPONDENT: If so how would your brain process that as a hypothetic factuality?

RICHARD: Now that you have bought into that false and absurd notion, and have presented it to me for me to think about and report on what ensues in regards how it is processed, I can inform you that its very risibility occasioned much (figurative) rolling about on the floor ... as it would to anybody who can actively recall a pure consciousness experience (PCE) wherein it is patently obvious that any person suitably motivated by the pure intent engendered by such pure consciousness experiencing can be actually free from the human condition.

In short: I do not say I am ‘a sport of nature’, as Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti does, such as to provide justification to a laissez-faire attitude.

RESPONDENT: I do not intent to be puny I also have wondered how you can imagine i.e. X-radiation using only the logic memory faculty that is quite something different then i.e. drawing an egg.

RICHARD: I do not ‘imagine’ anything – the entire intuitive/imaginative facility is non-extant – nor have I ever said that it is ‘logic’ memory which operates ... that is what you make of it me saying ‘intellectual memory’.

I can remember/ recall what x-rays are in the same way I know what visible light waves, for instance, are in the dark with closed eyelids ... in a word: objectively.

RESPONDENT: And also do you feel/ experience/ sense when you close your eyes, space as an interrupted hmm agency?

RICHARD: No ... time and space and form are seamless.

RESPONDENT: In other words, does outer space penetrates through your flesh and blood body?

RICHARD: No, and the term ‘outer space’ only refers to the space beyond the near-space of the solar system this planet is currently revolving in ... which space the solar system itself, and thus each and every body, is travelling in.

We are all already in space – the distance between the eyes readings these words and the words themselves is as much ‘outer space’ as the space the furthest nebulae are currently travelling in – and the very stuff of any flesh and blood body is the same-same stuff as the stuff of the furthest nebulae.

If you were to hold a hand up before the eyes, palm towards the face, and rotate it slowly through space (all the while considering that the very stuff the hand is comprised of is as old as the universe) whilst looking from the front of the eyes, as it were (and not through the eyes), what I mean by ‘time and space and form are seamless’ may very well become apparent as an experiential understanding.

One experience is worth a thousand words.

April 20 2004

RICHARD: ... I am not altruistic – altruism is an instinctual inheritance which expires as the identity – and any and all (seemingly altruistic) actions are motivated solely by the fellowship regard engendered by an actual intimacy with every body and every thing and every event.
It is all so simple here in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: As to [an actual intimacy with every body and every thing and every event] I wonder if you could give any description as to this hmm experience of ‘intimacy with every body and every thing and every event’.

RICHARD: Perhaps the words my current companion used, when experiencing an actual intimacy upon serendipitously meeting me in the street one day in 1996 (which experience prompted her to move in with me and my then companion), would convey it in a way you may be able to relate to ... she described it as a closeness which was more intimate than she had ever experienced with her own self.

Or, for another description, my previous companion likened it to being closer than her own heartbeat was to her.

RESPONDENT: I.e. when watching the president of the US on TV. is there an actual intimacy with him?

RICHARD: Given that you are now talking of a moving photographic image: there is no separation whatsoever from the representation.

RESPONDENT: If so, what does that reveal to you?

RICHARD: A fellow human being (apparently) encumbered by a parasitical identity – I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world – just like maybe all the other 6.0 billion or so peoples currently alive on this planet.

I have written about this before:

• [Richard]: ‘Everyone I meet, every printed word I read, states that ‘you can’t change human nature’ and set about fiddling with the levers and controls in an ultimately useless attempt to ameliorate the human situation within the ‘Human Condition’ ... with less than perfect results.
Any action within ‘humanity’ as it is, is doomed to failure. Unless this fact can be grasped with both hands and taken on board to such an extent that it hits home deeply, nothing will change, radically. There will be changes around the edges; variations upon a familiar theme, but nothing structurally new, nothing even approaching the mutation-like change that is essential for the human race to fully appreciate the fullness and prosperity of being alive on this earth, in this era. To remain ‘human’ is to remain a failure.
It is common-place to blame the politicians, the teachers, the clergy, the parents and so on, for the troubles that beset the community and the citizen alike. It is to no avail to blame the politician, for example, for the antics they get up to, because underneath the politician – under the role and the image – lies a ‘human’ heart. The politician is making the best job of it that he or she can do, considering the burden that they carry ... which is the burden of being ‘human’. They have, like any other ‘human’, an ego and a soul nestled uncomfortably within them. They have an identity, a psychological or psychic entity that exists inside of their bodies ...’. Richard’s Journal, Article 22, ‘It Is Amazing What Has Been Achieved Despite The Human Folly’

May 01 2004

RESPONDENT No 27: Is this also be the reason why you sniff out solipsism wherever it rears it’s ugly head, because of the relationship between solipsism and spiritual realization?

RICHARD: Yes, phrases such as ‘we are all one’ (as in an oceanic feeling of oneness) are meant to be taken literally (as in ‘there is no other’) ...

RESPONDENT: Yet seven actualists in Jacuzzi/bubble bath would suffice to evoke that feeling of oneness and not other(s) aye.

RICHARD: Nay.

*

RICHARD: ... as is ‘I Am That’ (not the ego-‘I’ though) or ‘Thou Art That’ meant to be taken literally.

RESPONDENT: How about trying on for size ‘I am not That’ or ‘Thou Art not That’ meant to be taken literally.

RICHARD: What benefit is to be obtained by lying?

May 01 2004

RICHARD: Here is the critical part of my response/ explanation mentioned further above:

‘... because of ‘being’ itself an atheistic materialist cannot help but be, to some degree at least, metaphysical in outlook ...’.

And again just recently:

‘Even though metaphysics has been spiritual from the very beginning, and in the long run it really does not matter which term is used to describe the instinctive/ intuitive outlook of ‘me’ as soul (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself), the usage of the word ‘spiritual’ as Peter means it – ‘of, pertaining to, or affecting the spirit or soul’ (Oxford Dictionary) – is more direct and to the point.

RESPONDENT: It seems to me Richard as if you care not to make a clear discrimination between spiritual and metaphysical. And that seems to me to be the crux of the matter.

RICHARD: Here are the definitions I provided in the first instance:

• [Richard]: ‘Just as a matter of related interest: has all this thrown some more light upon the topic of atheistic and/or materialistic physicists and/or mathematicians and their cosmogonical and/or cosmological theories?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Yes, very much so. Mainly – by clarifying that ‘spiritual’ is sometimes used synonymously with ‘metaphysical’.
• [Richard]: ‘As the word ‘metaphysical’ can mean, for example, *‘of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses’* (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) it is not all that remarkable it is sometimes used synonymously with the word ‘spiritual’. [emphasis added].
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Mostly, though it clarifies much of what Peter has written about what it is to be ‘spiritual’ – that I thought [at the time] would be better called ‘metaphysical’.
• [Richard]: ‘The word ‘metaphysical’ (*of, belonging to, or of the nature of metaphysics*) comes from the Greek phrase ‘ta meta ta phusika’ – literally ‘the (works) after the physical (works)’ – which is derived from the title of Mr. Aristotle’s treatise on the subject (from its position in his collected works) and refers to *the fundamental nature of reality and being*. [emphasis added].
*
• [Richard]: ‘I specifically said that metaphysics – *‘a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology’ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) – has been spiritual from the very beginning (per favour Mr. Parmenides, of the Eleatic School in the Greek colony of Elea in southern Italy in the fifth century BCE, who held that the only true reality is Eon ... pure, eternal, immutable, and indestructible Being, without any other qualification). [emphasis added].
(...)
• [Richard]: ‘Indeed the word ‘metaphysical’ also refers to that which is *‘based on abstract general reasoning or a priori principles’* (Oxford Dictionary) as well as the more common meaning of *that which transcends matter or the physical (as in immaterial, incorporeal, supersensible, supernatural and so on)*. [emphasises added].

Here is the definition I provided in the second instance:

• [Richard]: ‘... the usage of the word ‘spiritual’ as Peter means it – *‘of, pertaining to, or affecting the spirit or soul’* (Oxford Dictionary) – is more direct and to the point. [emphasis added].

I am none too sure how I can make a more ‘clear discrimination’ between the two words than that but I will give it a go: in the English language the suffix ‘-ual’ (and ‘-al’) is used to form adjectives from nouns with the sense ‘of the kind of, pertaining to’ ... hence the adjective (a word designating an attribute and added to a noun to describe it more fully) ‘spiritual’, when used in conjunction with the noun (a word used as the name or designation of a person, place, or thing) ‘outlook’ indicates a point of view which is of the kind of, or pertaining to, ‘me’ as spirit/‘me’ as soul – which is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (aka ‘being’ itself) – and the adjective ‘metaphysical’, when used in conjunction with the noun ‘outlook’, indicates a point of view which is of the kind of, or pertaining to, a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being (which includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology).

Put simplistically (overly simplified): the former is personal (first-hand) and the latter is impersonal (ivory-tower).

*

RESPONDENT: Incidentally do you consider the term archetype to be an equally spiritual as metaphysical one?

RICHARD: Presuming you are meaning the word in its ‘an inherited idea or mode of thought’, in the psychology of Mr. Carl Jung, which he held to be ‘derived from the experience of the race and to be present in the unconscious of the individual’ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) – ‘an inherited pattern of thought or symbolic imagery derived from the past collective experience and present in the individual unconscious’ (American Heritage Dictionary ) – it could just as well be religious, spiritual, mystical and/or metaphysical as it covers many aspects of the bizarre and haunting and fantastic world of myths and legends and suchlike which is contained within the human psyche.

From the little I read of him, and even that was many years ago, I would tend to say ‘mystical’.

May 07 2004

RESPONDENT: For some reason (known to me though) I am reminded of the conversation that Richard had with a spiritual master.

RICHARD: I presume you are referring to the article entitled ‘A Conversation with a Spiritual Teacher’ on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site?

RESPONDENT: I’m pretty sure that Richard uses ‘master’ in a sense that indeed this label is appropriate.

RICHARD: I used ‘teacher’ in the sense that this is the label that person used to describe themselves.

RESPONDENT: So ... I did a search on ‘conversation’. Score:

Vineeto 8 hits
Richard 4 hits
Peter 6 hits
Respondent 6 hits
Gary 1 hit
Respondent No 35 1 hit
Respondent No 28 2 hits
Respondent No 25 2 hits
Total 30 hits.

RICHARD: Whilst I am none too sure what point you are making it is all-too-easy to copy-paste <conversation> into the search-engine on this computer and send it through The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... only to return 2,090 hits (691 of them on my portion of the web site).

I clicked on the first ten (10) and found six (6) of them to be my usage of the word ... so I went no further.

Nor am I going any further with this e-mail.

July 08 2004

RESPONDENT: Is there any difference between a realisation and an actualisation?

RICHARD: Generally speaking a realisation is an understanding of something previously not cognised and an actualisation is the putting of that comprehension into action ... as in acting upon that cognisance so that it is experiential and not only intellectual.

For instance:

• [Richard]: ‘It is the most stimulating adventure of a lifetime to embark upon a voyage into one’s own psyche. Discovering the source of the Nile or climbing Mount Everest – or whatever physical venture – pales into insignificance when compared to the thrill of finding out about life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being. I am having so much fun ... those middle-aged or elderly people who bemoan their ‘lost youth’ leave me astonished. Back then I was – basically – lost, lonely, frightened and confused. Accordingly, I set out on what was to become the most marvellous escapade possible. As soon as I understood that there was nobody stopping me but myself, I had the autonomy to inquire, to seek, to investigate and to explore. As soon as I realised nobody was standing in the way but myself, that realisation became an actualisation and I was free to encounter, to uncover, to discover and to find the ‘secret to life’ or the ‘meaning of life’ or the ‘riddle of existence’, or the ‘purpose of the universe’ or whatever one’s quest may be called. To dare to be me – to be what-I-am as an actuality – rather than the who ‘I’ was or the who ‘I’ am or the who ‘I’ will be, calls for an audacity unparalleled in the annals of history ... or one’s personal history, at least.
To seek and to find; to explore and uncover; to investigate and discover ... these actions are the very stuff of life!

Here is another:

• [Richard]: ‘Love is usually considered sacrosanct ... yet just as sorrow is essential for its antidotal compassion to flourish love is the antitoxin for malice: without malice, love has no raison d’être. I started to empirically encounter this, whilst sailing my yacht around tropical islands off the north-east coast of Australia with a choice companion, towards the end of 1987 and by about mid 1988 the unfolding of experience came to its inevitable realisation. Strangely enough it was the disclosure of the intrinsically manipulative nature of love – and ‘unconditional love’ at that – in 1987 which triggered the expansion of comprehension and experiential understanding of the composition of the affective faculty ... with the concomitant growth of awareness.
It was with Love Agapé being such a ‘sacred cow’ that there had initially been considerable uneasiness about a direct investigation – my initial enquiry had begun in India in 1984, whilst single and celibate, upon becoming suss about the Buddhist ‘karuna’ (pity-compassion) and ‘metta’ (loving-kindness) – hence there was a three year-long gestation period before the fact could be addressed squarely. Eventually what happened was that at anchor one velvety night with an ebbing tide chuckling its way past the hull what I then called ‘The Absolute’ presented itself as being feminine – a Radiant Being initially seen to be Pure Love – which femininity I would nowadays consider to be a product of me being of masculine gender. Due to an intensity of purpose there was the capacity to penetrate into the nature of this ‘Radiant Being’ and I was able to see ‘Her’ other face:
It was Pure Evil – the Diabolical underpins the Divine – and upon such exposure ‘She’ (aka Love Agapé) disappeared forever ... nevertheless it was not until 1992 that it all came to fruition.
There is a vast difference between ‘realisation’ and ‘actualisation’.

And another:

• [Richard]: ‘... many years ago, during my five years of an itinerant lifestyle, I would jot down various things in pencil in a notebook: some time later (maybe six weeks or six months) when looking back through the jottings I would quite often be taken by some of them and would wonder why I was not living them ... why they were not an actuality in my life.
In short: sometimes (or even quite often) it takes a while before a realisation becomes an actualisation.

November 07 2004

Dear No 18,

I am writing in regards your communications of Sunday 31/10/2004 3:35 PM AEST and Thursday 04/11/2004 1:29 PM AEST.

I am expecting that this finds you in Blooming Health and Good Cheer as it does Yours Truly.

You enquire as to why I never say Hello (or even Hi) as an introduction when I reply to a co-respondent, not to mention never addressing them by their name, and that you are asking this question most respectfully yet so far (within the four days) have not had any response ... and further enquire as to whether it is a simple question or not.

First of all, No 18, it is indeed a simple question and, like most simple questions, can be answered simply.

A discussion list is just that – a discussion list – and not a letter-writing facility.

With my best wishes to you and yours,

I remain, etc.,

Most cordially,

Richard.

December 24 2004

RESPONDENT: (...) Is *I* as the soul is indeed genetically encoded in the DNA (as a set of survival instructions which generate the being referred to in a previous post *survival program* (General direction poc maandag 6 December 2004 6:28)?

RICHARD: As I could not find the post you refer to, either on or around that Monday, I will point out instead that the instinctual survival programme generally referred to on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list is the instinctual passions – such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – genetically endowed by blind nature at conception.

RESPONDENT: If – that is so it will not be possible to alter this particular set (while being a subset of the main set of genetic instructions) in any other way then on a molecular level, hence by genetic engineering. That seems to be a rather logical approach.

So ... my conclusion at this stage is: Richard You still do have a soul and merely the illusion that you had about having one, has been altered into the illusion that you don’t have it anymore; BTW not something to spit on.

RICHARD: I see ... and is it also your (rather logical) conclusion, at this stage, that the instinctual passions – such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – are still in situ in this flesh and blood body and that it too is an illusion (albeit not an illusion to spit on) they are no longer extant?

If so, I will draw the following to your attention for your consideration:

• [Richard]: ‘... I have had people assert that my report/ description/ explanation about how the entire affective faculty – all the feelings, emotions, passions, calentures – vanished completely, in 1992, cannot possibly be true for the self-same reason [it is not to be found in biochemical/neurobiological text-books]. Furthermore, I have had people say that my report/description/explanation about how identity in toto – both ‘I’ as ego *and* ‘me’ as soul – simultaneously vanished, in 1992, also cannot possibly be true for a similar reason (it is not to be found in spiritual/mystical text-books).
To use a popular expression ... some peoples have difficulty in thinking outside of the box.

Curiously enough I posted that e-mail only the day before you posted this one I am responding to now.

December 28 2004

RESPONDENT: (...) Is *I* as the soul is indeed genetically encoded in the DNA (as a set of survival instructions which generate the being referred to in a previous post *survival program* (General direction poc maandag 6 December 2004 6:28)?

RICHARD: As I could not find the post you refer to, either on or around that Monday, I will point out instead that the instinctual survival programme generally referred to on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list is the instinctual passions – such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – genetically endowed by blind nature at conception.

RESPONDENT: For your convenience I have pasted below the post that you could not find I made reference to.

RICHARD: I had, of course, already located that post ... the post I could not find was the one of the same title posted on the same day which contained reference to a set of survival instructions, genetically encoded in the DNA, which generate the being (purportedly) referred to in the post you have needlessly copy-pasted (all what that post did refer to was the social identity, and the notion ‘what can eat me and what I can eat’/‘what I can hunt for and what can hunt me’ being initiated by fear, with no mention at all of a ‘being’ who is generated by such a survival program).

A social identity is, as the name suggests, an identity formed by socialisation (aka acculturation) as a societal conscience to keep the ‘being’, which the (genetically encoded) affections automatically form themselves into at or prior to birth, somewhat under control by the person concerned themselves ... else the gaols be filled to over-flowing.

*

RESPONDENT: If – that is so it will not be possible to alter this particular set (while being a subset of the main set of genetic instructions) in any other way then on a molecular level, hence by genetic engineering. That seems to be a rather logical approach. So ... my conclusion at this stage is: Richard You still do have a soul and merely the illusion that you had about having one, has been altered into the illusion that you don’t have it anymore; BTW not something to spit on.

RICHARD: I see ... and is it also your (rather logical) conclusion, at this stage, that the instinctual passions – such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – are still in situ in this flesh and blood body and that it too is an illusion (albeit not an illusion to spit on) they are no longer extant?

RESPONDENT: Succinctly putting it no, it is not my conclusion.

RICHARD: In which case your (rather logical) conclusion, at this stage, that ‘me’ as soul – ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) – is still in situ in this flesh and blood body, and that it is an illusion (albeit not an illusion to spit on) that it is not, has no sensible basis whatsoever.

Put simply: the extirpation of identity in toto is the elimination of the instinctual passions – ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ – as, being one and the same thing, the extinction of the one is the extinction of the other.

RESPONDENT: Even more so this [‘the instinctual passions ... extant?’] being my conclusion is an assumption of yours.

RICHARD: If I may point out? It is a question, not an assumption and, I might add, a question which follows sensibly from your (rather logical) conclusion, at this stage, that a soul is still in situ in this flesh and blood body, and that it is an illusion, albeit not an illusion to spit on, that it is not.

RESPONDENT: (...) though the instinctual passions are not active however the instruction code still is extant. Thus in an extreme situation they may become active again.

RICHARD: And just how is that any different, substantially, from (rather logically) concluding that the instinctual passions – such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – are still in situ in this flesh and blood body and that it too is an illusion (albeit not an illusion to spit on) they are no longer extant?

Did you not read what came after the section I re-posted from the e-mail I posted only a day before you posted your initial e-mail which started this thread? I will re-post it here for your perusal:

• [Richard]: ‘... just what is your agreement, that these arousals would not be experienced by a person actually free from the human condition, worth?
That is somewhat akin to those peoples already mentioned who tell me that, even though I may not experience feelings (emotions, passions, calentures), such feelings are still being produced ... just like some peoples also tell me that, even though I might not experience an ego/soul, an identity is still in situ anyway.
It could be called, perhaps, a Clayton’s Agreement (the agreement you have when you are not having an agreement), eh?

The only difference between that situation and the scenario you sketch out is a one of a degree and not a difference in kind ... essentially what you are proposing is that the instinctual passions are in abeyance, as it were, or latent, dormant, and so forth, and may just as readily as not become active again in an extreme situation.

RESPONDENT: ^Note that is it says *may become* not that they will become^.

RICHARD: So? Is this not all an elaborate justification, anyway, for maintaining your (rather logical) conclusion, at this stage, that ‘me’ as soul – ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) – is still in situ in this flesh and blood body, and that it is an illusion (albeit not an illusion to spit on) that it is not?

O what mental contortions they do go through when first they practice to remain in situ.


CORRESPONDENT No 18 (Part Seven)

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