Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

December 01 2004

RESPONDENT: [quote] ‘The arising of instinctually-sourced feelings produces a hormonal chemical response in the body, which can lead to the false assumption that they are actual’. (actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/feelings.htm).

Richard, if you experience no affective feelings, does it necessarily mean there are no hormonal substances (of the type scientists associate with feelings) in your body?

RICHARD: It is handy to bear in mind, on occasions such as this, that a scientist is an identity inhabiting a flesh and blood body ... for instance a couple of months ago another subscriber to this mailing list posted a link to a transcript of an interview with Mr. Joseph LeDoux – he has training/expertise in both neuropsychology and neurobiology – who has the following to say (towards the end):

• ‘I want to understand several aspects of emotion that we have very poor understanding of now. The first part we’re beginning to understand pretty well, which is how the initial aspect of an emotional reaction is elicited. In other words, how you jump back from a bus as it’s approaching, and only afterwards consciously realize that you’ve jumped back, and only then feel afraid. We understand that reactive system in pretty good detail. But what we don’t understand is the system for emotional action’. (www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ledoux/ledoux_p5.html).

Yet towards the beginning of the interview he is classifying the autonomic reflexes, such as the startle response referred to above as the ‘reactive system, as ‘emotion systems’ (such as the ‘fear system’) – as distinct from ‘feelings’ (such as ‘fear feelings’) – and ties feelings with consciousness and language development ... then says that feelings are probably the wrong thing to focus on when emotions are studied! Viz.:

• ‘... emotion systems, like the fear system, didn’t come about to create feelings (like the feeling of being afraid when in danger). I think feelings came much later in evolution. All animals have to be able to detect and respond to danger, regardless of the kind of cognitive architecture they have. This is as true of bees and worms and snails, as it is of fish, frogs, birds, rats, and people. Fear conditioning, by the way, occurs in all animals. And in all those that have an amygdala, the amygdala appears to be the key. The list at this point includes reptiles, birds, and a host of mammals, including humans. I think it’s safe to say fear behaviour preceded fear feelings in evolution. If so, feelings are probably the wrong thing to focus on when we study emotions. In this sense, animals were unconscious, unfeeling, and non-linguistic before they were conscious, feeling, and linguistic’. (www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ledoux/ledoux_p2.html).

This pretty well sums it all up:

• ‘... where do conscious feelings come into emotions? How do we get a deeper understanding of emotional feelings? We all want to know where feelings come from and how they work. So much of the work in the past started with feelings and tried to back into the problem and didn’t get anywhere, which is why I start at the bottom and work up to feelings’. (www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ledoux/ledoux_p5.html).

To be quite frank he is confused about what he is talking of: the autonomic reflexes – which he describes as the ‘reactive system’ in the first quote and as ‘emotion systems’ (such as to be found in ‘fear behaviour’) in the second – operate perfectly well in this flesh and blood body even though all the affections – be they feelings, emotions, passions, calentures, by whatever categorisation – are nowhere to be found ... the entire affective faculty is extinct.

And the reason for all this confusion in scientific circles? I refer you to the following:

• [Respondent]: ‘And from what stuff are we made of (our identities) anyhow that it cannot be determined by any magnetic scanning?
• [Richard]: ‘Primarily the identity within is the affections (the affective feelings) – ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ – as the instinctual passions form themselves into a ‘presence’, a ‘spirit’, a ‘being’ ... ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself. MRI scans, and all the rest, cannot detect a phantom being, the ghost in the machine. (...) Put expressively the affective feelings swirl around forming a whirlpool or an eddy (which vortex is the ‘presence’, the ‘spirit’, the ‘being’): mostly peoples experience ‘self’ as being a centre, around which the affective feelings form a barrier, which centre could be graphically likened to a dot in a circle (the circle being the affective feelings) which is what gives rise to the admonitions to break down the walls, the barriers, with which the centre protects itself.
Those people who are self-realised have realised that there is no ‘dot’ in the centre of the circle ... hence the word ‘void’.

I put it in that expressive way because it is not possible to separate out the feeler from the very feelings he/she is – just as it is impossible to separate the whirlpool or the eddy (the vortex) from the swirling stuff which is the cause of it as, for example, a whirlpool or an eddy (a vortex) of water or air is the very swirling water or air (the one is not distinct from the other) – hence ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’.

If you have followed all the above thus far you will find the following informative:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘So the feelings are innative to the human being, that means they are actual. Instead the feeler is a real entity, but not actual.
• [Richard]: ‘... just because the genetic-inheritance of the instinctual passions is actual – deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), being a nucleic acid in which the sugar component is deoxyribose, is a chemical substance – does not necessarily mean that a feeling engendered by that genetic software programme, such as the feeling of fear for example, is actual – any more than the fearer it automatically forms itself into by its very occurrence is actual – especially as you go on to say that the feeler is a real entity but not actual (which implies that the fearer is not the fear – as in ‘I’ am *not* ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are *not* ‘me’ – which, at the very least, smacks of denial if not detachment/disassociation or even full-blown disidentification from one’s roots).
Now, I could go on from this to say that the feeling is a movement, a motion, and not a thing, as there is no such happening as a stationary (static) feeling and that it is this very movement or motion of the feeling in action when it occurs which automatically forms the feeler (such as in the whirlpool of water/air analogy above) but, again, it would be far more fruitful if you were to intimately examine all this, by feeling it out for yourself rather than just thinking about it, and if you were to actually do so – literally feel it for yourself – you will surely find out, just as ‘I’ did all those years ago, that you are your feelings (as in ‘I’ *am* ‘my’ feelings) and your feelings are you (as in ‘my’ feelings *are* ‘me’).
The actualism method is an experiential method ... not an intellectual method (an analytical method, a psychological method, a philosophical method) or any other self-preserving method of inaction.

All the confusion, in the scientific circles, stems from a very simple thing: a phantom being, the ghost in the machine, is trying to (scientifically) study phantasms, the ghostly affections in the machine, neither of which have any existence in actuality.

December 09 2004

RESPONDENT: [quote] ‘The arising of instinctually-sourced feelings produces a hormonal chemical response in the body, which can lead to the false assumption that they are actual’. (actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/feelings.htm).

From the above phrase I understand that feelings (out-sourced by the instinctual program) produce hormonal substances, not the other way around. From the TV documentaries I’ve watched, it is because of the physical hormonal substances in the body that certain good/bad feelings arise. Scientists have managed to identify and link certain hormonal substances to particular feelings, giving the impression that a feeling cannot arise without an associated body-produced ‘chemical’. Richard, if you experience no affective feelings, does it necessarily mean there are no hormonal substances (of the type scientists associate with feelings) in your body?

RICHARD: It is handy to bear in mind, on occasions such as this, that a scientist is an identity inhabiting a flesh and blood body ... for instance a couple of months ago another subscriber to this mailing list posted a link to a transcript of an interview with Mr. Joseph LeDoux – he has training/expertise in both neuropsychology and neurobiology – who has the following to say towards the end: [snip quote]. Yet towards the beginning of the interview he is classifying the autonomic reflexes, such as the startle response referred to above [now snipped] as the ‘reactive system, as ‘emotion systems’ (such as the ‘fear system’) – as distinct from ‘feelings’ (such as ‘fear feelings’) – and ties feelings with consciousness and language development ... then says that feelings are probably the wrong thing to focus on when emotions are studied! Viz.: [snip quote]. This pretty well sums it all up: [snip quote]. To be quite frank he is confused about what he is talking of: the autonomic reflexes – which he describes as the ‘reactive system’ in the first quote and as ‘emotion systems’ (such as to be found in ‘fear behaviour’) in the second – operate perfectly well in this flesh and blood body [snip footnote] even though all the affections – be they feelings, emotions, passions, calentures, by whatever categorisation – are nowhere to be found ... the entire affective faculty is extinct. And the reason for all this confusion in scientific circles? I refer you to the following: [snip quote]. I put it in that expressive way because it is not possible to separate out the feeler from the very feelings he/she is – just as it is impossible to separate the whirlpool or the eddy (the vortex) from the swirling stuff which is the cause of it as, for example, a whirlpool or an eddy (a vortex) of water or air is the very swirling water or air (the one is not distinct from the other) – hence ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. If you have followed all the above thus far you will find the following informative: [snip quote]. All the confusion, in the scientific circles, stems from a very simple thing: a phantom being, the ghost in the machine, is trying to (scientifically) study phantasms, the ghostly affections in the machine, neither of which have any existence in actuality.

RESPONDENT: What I have to comment in regard to the above is that I distinguish two innate unintelligent reactive systems, one based on the instinctual passions (affective in nature, giving rise to emotions that translate in the ‘fight, freeze, flight’ response of the body) and one based solely on bodily reactions (the ‘startle’ response when touching a hot plate). The difference is that one is the ‘quick and dirty’ way and the other is the ‘quick and clean’ way, but the aim is survival nevertheless. So, what you’re saying is that the body can very well react, defend and survive to danger by generating a quick reaction without the ‘psychic’ survival program. Okay, but in doing so does it use the same hormones/chemicals as the ‘quick and dirty’ way?

RICHARD: I refer you to the following:

• [Richard]: ‘A classic example of this [the automatic response known as the reflex action or the startle response] occurred whilst strolling along a country lane one fine morning with the sunlight dancing its magic on the glistening dew-drops suspended from the greenery everywhere; these eyes are delighting in the profusion of colour and texture and form as the panorama unfolds; these ears are revelling in the cadence of tones as their resonance and timbre fills the air; these nostrils are rejoicing in the abundance of aromas and scents drifting fragrantly all about; this skin is savouring the touch, the caress, of the early springtime ambience; this mind, other than the sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being alive as this flesh and blood body, is ambling along in neutral – there is no thought at all and conscious alertness is null and void – when all-of-a-sudden the easy gait has ceased happening.
These eyes instantly shift from admiring the dun-coloured cows in a field nearby and are looking downward to the front and see the green and black snake, coiling up on the road in readiness to act, which had not only occasioned the abrupt halt but, it is discovered, had initiated a rapid step backwards ... *an instinctive response which, had the instinctual passions that are the identity been in situ, could very well have triggered off freeze-fight-flee chemicals*.
There is no perturbation whatsoever (no wide-eyed staring, no increase in heart-beat, no rapid breathing, no adrenaline-tensed muscle tone, no sweaty palms, no blood draining from the face, no dry mouth, no cortisol-induced heightened awareness, and so on) as with the complete absence of the rudimentary animal ‘self’ in the primordial brain the limbic system in general, and the amygdala in particular, have been free to do their job – the oh-so-vital startle response – both efficaciously and cleanly (...)’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: I ask this as I can see the difference between an actual danger (a snake, a hot plate, a thief) and an imagined danger (when fear is the culprit, i.e. after watching a horror movie alone) ...

RICHARD: It makes no difference, whilst there is an identity in situ, whether a danger be current, being remembered, being watched/read about via media, being informed about face-to-face, or being fantasised about.

RESPONDENT: ... but I also wonder what happened to all those actual (physical) hormones linked to the psychic program in your body. Did they vanished (the body stopped producing them) or are they still present but inactive (disconnected from the brain circuitry)?

RICHARD: As, normally, such chemicals are produced on demand, as it were, it is neither of the above – there has to be a catalytic activation process in order for them to come into existence – but rather the catalyst is null and void.

RESPONDENT: These hormones clearly allow for spectacular feats of the body when the situation demands, physical actions that are impossible in normal circumstances.

RICHARD: You may find the following informative, then:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I’d be interested in hearing whether Richard (...) still experience rushes of adrenaline.
• [Richard]: ‘I do not experience rushes of adrenaline.
(...)
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘[You have said you] could still defend yourself quite easily if attacked on the street. Where does that ‘force’ or ‘power’ required come from since it’s not ‘aggression’?
• [Richard]: ‘The straightforward necessity of acting appropriate to the situation and the circumstance ... if someone attacks somebody they are knowingly initiating a course of action contrary to the legal laws and the social protocol and can rightfully expect whatever consequences which may ensue as a result of their actions.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I guess I’m searching for some distinction between the feeling of aggression and forcefulness. Also between passionate excitement and enthusiasm and actual being fully engaged.
• [Richard]: ‘Perhaps a personal anecdote will throw some light upon the subject of being fully engaged: some years ago whilst in a supermarket my wife and I had a pack stolen from the shopping trolley we were using when our backs were turned; I saw a young man disappearing along the aisle with our pack and on out through the turnstile; I went off after him at a brisk pace, negotiated the turnstile easily, and moved out through the self-opening doors; there was an ornamental garden between me and the car-park wherein off in the distance the young man could be seen heading away; I cleared the garden in one leap – seeing each and every plant and flower in detail as I sailed over it – and soon caught up to him as, glancing over his shoulder and seeing me coming, he headed for a crowded mall to the left ... and eventually regained the pack without a fight or even any display of intimidation. Upon returning to the supermarket I passed by the garden, through the pathway provided, and noticed by its width that I would not ordinarily be able to leap over it ... necessity provides all the calorific energy required.
He was a big, muscular young man such that I would not wish to enter into a ring with as I would be bound to come off second-best in any such organised sport. He knew that he had crossed the line in regards to the legal laws and social protocol and fully expected to pay the price for his actions ... his bluff and bluster collapsed like a leaky balloon when confronted in the mall with the straightforward request for the return of property not belonging to him.
Interestingly enough I was not even breathing heavily.

As I remarked previously (towards the top of this page) it is handy to bear in mind, on occasions such as this, that a scientist is an identity inhabiting a flesh and blood body.

RESPONDENT: There is a qualitative difference in my experience between ‘pure’ fear, when one is instinctual fear and the everyday feelings produced by the instinctual passion of ‘fear’ (like anxiety). The latter seem to be false and imaginary after an experience of real fear, so there is an important difference in intensity (even time seems to flow at a different speed to the point of standing still) between the centre of the vortex/tornado and the outer floating debris (everyday feelings).

RICHARD: The following will be of interest:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘There are examples from people that are attacked by tigers or lions and they survived and they said that after the attack they didn’t feel anything no fear no pain they were like in another dimension.
• [Richard]: ‘Aye ... and instances of this gave the ‘me’ who was inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago encouragement to proceed along ‘his’ path to freeing this flesh and blood body of the instinctual passions which ‘he’ was.
To explain at some length for clarity of communication: I had read an account, many years before, by a farmer’s son who was awarded a Victoria Cross for extreme bravery in the face of the enemy (the highest award, under the British awards system, for a conspicuous courage of a nature such that only 1,348 have been awarded since 1856). As I recall his platoon was pinned down by machine-gun fire from a concrete bunker and there was no way forward to keep up with the advancing line on either flank until it was knocked out. According to the citation he showed courage above and beyond the call of duty by charging single-handedly across open ground under withering fire and lobbing a hand grenade into the pill-box. His own report of the incident, many years later, gave me pause to think and consider. He said that he was no hero and that bravery did not come into it. He said that something changed in him, as he lay pinned down with his mates behind whatever cover they could find, experiencing intense fear. He said that all of a sudden he moved past fear into a super-real world of heightened awareness and absolute calm. He found himself running toward the offending enemy position with bullets whistling about his ears ... and he felt no fear at all: ‘fear did not exist here in this other world’ he said (or words to that effect). He said he did not deserve such high recognition for valour because ‘it was not me who charged the pill-box’ (or some-such words).
It is relevant at this point to mention that more than a few Victoria Crosses are awarded posthumously.
I also watched an account on television, by a U.S. naval pilot flying off carriers during the battle of Midway, and other battles that followed, where he spoke of himself and other pilots experiencing fear prior to take-off. He said that, instead of trying to overcome fear like his buddies, he would ‘go into the fear itself’ (direct quote). He would encourage it to grow and increase in intensity until, sitting strapped into the pilot’s seat as the plane catapulted down the flight-deck, the very intensity of terror would propel him into ‘another world of utter calm’ (or words to that effect) wherein all his senses were heightened and he was spontaneously super-alert ... without any effort. He was able to conduct his designated sortie with outstanding assurance, born out of the enhanced clarity of his unafraid state of being ... until he came back to the ship and – having landed safely – would slip back into the normal world and start compulsively shaking with delayed-action fear at the enormity of what he had just done. I watched intently as this now-old man described his war-time exploits that earned him his country’s foremost military decoration for ‘conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life, above and beyond the call of duty’ (the Congressional Medal of Honour, instituted in 1861, and marked ‘Valour’).
I took it all in with rapidly growing fascination and the thrilling realisation that I already knew of this unafraid state of being from my personal history where, being in a war-zone as a youth, my life became a living nightmare ... literally. I was trapped in an horrific world of revulsion and repugnance, dread and foreboding, and in order to escape from the savage barbarity of the situation *my mind somehow created a new ‘reality’ built out of the extremities of animalistic fear, which hallucination I would nowadays call ‘unreality’*. Thus, back then in a ‘kill or be killed’ country, I withdrew into a place where all is (apparently) placid and peaceful that was not unlike being in the centre of a cyclone – all about rages fear and hatred, anger and aggression – but in ‘there’ all was (seemingly) calm and quiet.
Thus I knew from experience that it is possible to generate an unreality (dissociate) in order to evade the grim and glum ‘real-world’ reality. 26 years later I came to realise that the ‘Greater Reality’ was nothing but another evasion – the mystical realm is a culturally revered dissociative hallucination – and that completion was already actually just here right now ... and had always been actually just here all along.
There are three world’s altogether ... the natural ‘reality’ that 6.0 billion people live in and the super-natural ‘Reality’ that .000001 of the population live in ... and this actual world. I call it actual because it is the world of this body and these sense organs only ... and nary a god or goddess or a devil or a demon to be found. Both the grim and glum ‘real world’ and the glamorous and glorious ‘Greater Reality’ vanished when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul became extinct.
I would not – and could not – live a lie. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: Just curious, what reactions have/would you experience on a roller-coaster ride?

RICHARD: Ha ... many, many years ago, when I first went down to sea on ships as a callow youth, I was so nauseous whilst crossing the Coral Sea in a force-five gale I swore I would never ride on a roller-coaster ever again and, to this very day, I never have.

Just as a matter of interest: rides such as that are designed to produce a (cortisol/adrenalin-based) thrill – just as, for a couple of instances, newspaper headlines and thriller movies are – and, needless to say, as this flesh and blood body is incapable of producing those chemicals, such artificially-induced thrills hold no attraction whatsoever.

Also, and as a matter of even more interest, a body suffused with cortisol and adrenalin for extended periods – such as in a stressed-out existence in the fast-paced modern-day world of commerce – is a body with a (ever-increasingly) deteriorated immune system such as to lead to it being readily susceptible to infectious diseases ... of specific note, for instance, the various types of heart diseases, cancers, and so forth, which are so prevalent today in industrial-technological societies.

In short: a generalised anxiety, and other forms of self-inflicted ‘stress’ which the identity induces, leaves the body quite vulnerable.

December 12 2004

RESPONDENT: (...) what you’re saying is that the body [sans the instinctual passions which are the identity] can very well react, defend and survive to danger by generating a quick reaction without the ‘psychic’ survival program. Okay, but in doing so does it use the same hormones/chemicals as the ‘quick and dirty’ way?

RICHARD: I refer you to the following: [snip a description of no hormones/chemicals being generated in such a situation].

RESPONDENT: I ask this as I can see the difference between an actual danger (a snake, a hot plate, a thief) and an imagined danger (when fear is the culprit, i.e. after watching a horror movie alone) ...

RICHARD: It makes no difference, whilst there is an identity in situ, whether a danger be current, being remembered, being watched/read about via media, being informed about face-to-face, or being fantasised about.

RESPONDENT: ... but I also wonder what happened to all those actual (physical) hormones linked to the psychic program in your body. Did they vanished (the body stopped producing them) or are they still present but inactive (disconnected from the brain circuitry)?

RICHARD: As, normally, such chemicals are produced on demand, as it were, it is neither of the above – there has to be a catalytic activation process in order for them to come into existence – but rather the catalyst is null and void.

RESPONDENT: What do you mean by a ‘catalyst’?

RICHARD: This:

• [Respondent]: ‘... the psychic program in your body’.

I was answering your query as asked.

RESPONDENT: An outside situation like the one described at the supermarket?

RICHARD: No ... and neither the coiled snake situation described on a country lane either (neither event generated hormones/chemicals such as cortisol and adrenalin).

RESPONDENT: I understand from that description that your body produced an extra quantity of caloric energy and no hormonal substances. Does your body produce any hormones at all and if yes, what type of?

RICHARD: This is what I do know via self-observation: as there is no identity (no psyche) whatsoever in this flesh and blood body there are no instinctual passions (no fear, no aggression, no nurture, no desire) either – ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ – thus no such hormones as cortisol and adrenalin are being produced.

As I show no symptoms, for just one example, of diabetes insipidus (a pathological endocrine condition characterised by extreme thirst and excessive production of very dilute urine) – which indicates I am not lacking the arginine vasopressin hormone – then various other hormones are indeed being produced.

Here is your original question:

• [Respondent]: ‘Richard, if you experience no affective feelings, does it necessarily mean there are no hormonal substances (*of the type scientists associate with feelings*) in your body? [emphasis added].

And here is a (by no means exhaustive) list of hormones in the human animal:

• Hormones of the pituitary gland: somatotropin (STH); prolactin; adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH); thyrotropin (TSH); follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH); luteinizing hormone (LH) or interstitial-cell-stimulating hormone (ICSH); melanocyte-stimulating hormone (MSH); arginine vasopressin or antidiuretic hormone (ADH); arginine vasotocin; oxytocin; isotocin; glumitocin; mesotocin.
• Hormones of the thyroid gland: thyroxine (T4); triiodothyronine (T3); calcitonin; parathormone (PTH).
• Hormones of the pancreas: insulin; glucagon.
• Hormones of the adrenal glands: epinephrine (adrenaline); norepinephrine (noradrenaline); cortisol; corticosterone; aldosterone.
• Hormones of the reproductive system: oestrogen (estradiol, estrone, estriol); progestin (levonorgestrel, progesterone); testosterone; dihydrotestosterone; androsterone; androstenedione.
• Hormones of the digestive system: gastrin; secretin; cholecystokinin/pancreozymin (CCK-PZ).

As I have never heard of/read about the arginine vasopressin hormone, for just one example, being a hormonal substance [quote] ‘of the type scientists associate with feelings’ [endquote] it would appear you are straying somewhat from the topic you introduced, eh?

*

RESPONDENT: Just curious, what reactions have/would you experience on a roller-coaster ride?

RICHARD: Ha ... many, many years ago, when I first went down to the sea on ships as a callow youth, I was so nauseous whilst crossing the Coral Sea in a force-five gale I swore I would never ride on a roller-coaster ever again and, to this very day, I never have. Just as a matter of interest: rides such as that are designed to produce a (cortisol/adrenalin-based) thrill – just as, for a couple of instances, newspaper headlines and thriller movies are – and, needless to say, as this flesh and blood body is incapable of producing those chemicals, such artificially-induced thrills hold no attraction whatsoever.

RESPONDENT: Okay … no attraction, but aren’t you curious to see the reaction?

RICHARD: No ... nausea is something I can easily do without.

RESPONDENT: I doubt the expertise of an accredited psychologist who thinks that you’re the next Buddha.

RICHARD: It was a psychiatrist, actually, and they prefaced their comment with the observation that my condition was ‘beyond psychiatry’, and lay ‘in the realm of altered states’ (direct quotes), anyway ... thus it is their expertise in metaphysics, if anything, which is questionable and not psychiatry.

RESPONDENT: I suggest to take Vineeto and Peter with you.

RICHARD: As I am quite capable of gauging my own reactions – and as I am not going to go gallivanting about the countryside at another’s behest anyway – I will not be taking anybody anywhere.

*

RICHARD: Also, and as a matter of even more interest, a body suffused with cortisol and adrenalin for extended periods – such as in a stressed-out existence in the fast-paced modern-day world of commerce – is a body with a (ever-increasingly) deteriorated immune system such as to lead to it being readily susceptible to infectious diseases ... of specific note, for instance, the various types of heart diseases, cancers, and so forth, which are so prevalent today in industrial-technological societies.

RESPONDENT: What is your alternative to the industrial-technological societies and the fast-paced world of commerce?

RICHARD: Either a virtual or an actual freedom from the human condition ... preferably the latter.

*

RICHARD: In short: a generalised anxiety, and other forms of self-inflicted ‘stress’ which the identity induces, leaves the body quite vulnerable.

RESPONDENT: I agree on that … stress is silly, although it is induced in/used by many people as a short-term strategy for increasing (economic) performance.

RICHARD: Then, by your own classification if nothing else, it is a silly strategy they are engaging in.

RESPONDENT: A request for an estimated guess not related to the above ... when was the human animal first capable to experience a PCE?

RICHARD: The current human animal is known as homo sapiens (tool-making fire-using symbol-writing hominids) dating back to perhaps 100 thousand BCE; prior to that was homo erectus (tool-making fire-using hominids) dating back to perhaps 1.6 million BCE; prior to that was homo-habilis (tool-making hominids) dating back to perhaps 2.0 million BCE; prior to that was the genus australopithecus (small-brained hominids) dating back to perhaps 5.0 million BCE: prior to that were the hominoids strepsherinni/ haplorini (from which hominids arose) dating back to perhaps 70 million BCE.

Thus my estimated guess would be to place it at maybe 70,002,004 years ago ... give or take a year or two.

December 17 2004

RESPONDENT: Richard, have you given any thought that your past state (enlightenment) and present state might have been caused by what is known as Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE) or any other affection of the Temporal Lobe? (snip).

RICHARD: No 25, have you given any thought to doing a site-search, not only before asking a question, but also before copy-pasting such random, by no means exhaustive or precise, collections of available information pointing to a possibility that it accords with the descriptions of my experience (now snipped)?

It is this easy: type, or copy-paste, the following into the box provided at a search engine of your choice: jamais vu site:www.actualfreedom.com.au

Or even this:  TLE site:www.actualfreedom.com.au

Here is an example of what that very useful function of the search engine finds (in 0.06 seconds):

• [Richard]: ‘... that [jamais vu] is how I first described what I would now call pure consciousness experiences back in 1980-1981. (...) while jamais vu (‘never seen’) is not so common as déjà vu (‘already seen’), it can be just as compelling. Jamais vu is the opposite of déjà vu: instead of being extra familiar, as in déjà vu, a familiar situation seems totally unfamiliar. The world of people, things and events are experienced as for the first time ... there is little or no connection between long-term memory and perceptions from this moment. When a person is in this state nothing they experience seems to have anything to do with the past; everything suddenly becomes novel, totally new.
The sense of knowing people or things or events – and knowing how to relate to them – simply vanishes. Details one has seen a thousand times suddenly become engaging; the background is as equally important as the figure that occupies centre-stage. Or, as someone wrote on a now-defunct mailing list some time ago: ‘jamais vu is a feeling that you have never seen anything around you; it seems like everything around you is new and you’ve never been there before – as opposed to déjà vu when everything seems like you’ve lived it before – and you feel that you’ve never done this particular thing before, even when you know you have’. [endquote].
This odd, uncanny, surreal experience can happen to people who temporarily lose their memory or, more commonly, in an epileptic seizure (psychiatrically known as ‘temporal lobe epilepsy’ or TLE). For example, one such epilepsy sufferer wrote:

• [quote]: ‘I wonder, along with the doctors, if these mighty episodes which are so intimate yet so strange and autonomous for us epileptics, are after all just the random detour of chemicals and brain voltage caused by circuitry problems. Quite a few of us who have already-seen’ would dare to see even more; would actually follow that dangerous, disappearing, inbound road consciously and witness for the first time what is usually jamais-vu and hidden, and I mean the steady dark frolic of neurons and the ghost that is called ego’. (http://neuro-www.mgh.harvard.edu/neurowebforum/GeneralFeedbackArticles/YellowBrickRoad.html)

Incidentally, there are four types of déjà vu that clearly delineate between associated, but different, neurological experiences. These are déjà vecu (already experienced), déjà senti (already felt) and déjà visité (already visited) and déjà entendu (already heard). Déjà vecu is the most common déjà vu experience and involves the sensation of having done something or having been in an identical situation before and knowing what will happen next. These sensations are not only experienced as the outstanding sensations – seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching – but can also include the proprioceptive sensations.
So ‘jamais vu’ was my original nomenclature ... and yet another way of describing the pure consciousness experience is with the psychiatric terms ‘depersonalisation’, ‘derealisation’, alexithymia’ and ‘anhedonia’ ... which descriptions I have scattered throughout my correspondence. The article ‘Attentiveness And Sensuousness And Apperceptiveness’ may be well worth a visit in this regard. The characteristics already detailed (‘depersonalisation’, ‘alexithymia’, ‘derealisation’, ‘anhedonia’) are the result of expressing actual freedom in the psychiatric models of the human condition – which reflects the ‘human’ struggle to understand this fundamentally simple process called consciousness – and are inherently arbitrary in that they do not exist as separate items. The extinction of identity in its totality with its ensuing loss of reality coupled with the inability to affectively feel pleasure along with the ending of the feeling faculty all takes place in the space of a few glorious moments. Peace-on-earth is the certain result ... because it is already always just here right now.
Then one is this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being.

December 21 2004

RESPONDENT: Richard, have you given any thought that your past state (enlightenment) and present state might have been caused by what is known as Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE) or any other affection of the Temporal Lobe? (snip).

RICHARD: No. 25, have you given any thought to doing a site-search, not only before asking a question, but also before copy-pasting such random, by no means exhaustive or precise, collections of available information pointing to a possibility that it accords with the descriptions of my experience (now snipped)?

RESPONDENT: Yes ... of course. Jamais vu is identical to a PCE.

RICHARD: Surely you are not suggesting that everybody – absolutely everybody – who has had, or is having, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) has had/is having a temporal lobe epileptic (TLE) episode?

RESPONDENT: The passage you posted is in no way showing that you are not suffering from TLE or any other Temporal Lobe disorder. (snip).

RICHARD: And the copy-pasted short collection of symptoms and/or the random, by no means exhaustive or precise, collection of available information you posted, both this time around and the previous, is in no way showing that I am suffering from TLE or any other temporal lobe disorder.

Whereas the passage I quoted shows that I am, and have been for many a year, well aware of TLE ... do you really think I would not have considered such a thing before this exchange?

RESPONDENT: (...) Perhaps you should arrange a meeting with a psychiatrist because if your condition is indeed linked to (Right) Temporal Lobe damage, the + 4 million words on the website might prove to be more harmful than harmless.

RICHARD: Ha ... nice try, No. 25, nice try indeed.

December 22 2004

RESPONDENT: A request for an estimated guess not related to the above ... when was the human animal first capable to experience a PCE?

RICHARD: The current human animal is known as homo sapiens (tool-making fire-using symbol-writing hominids) dating back to perhaps 100 thousand BCE; prior to that was homo erectus (tool-making fire-using hominids) dating back to perhaps 1.6 million BCE; prior to that was homo-habilis (tool-making hominids) dating back to perhaps 2.0 million BCE; prior to that was the genus australopithecus (small-brained hominids) dating back to perhaps 5.0 million BCE: prior to that were the hominoids strepsherinni/ haplorini (from which hominids arose) dating back to perhaps 70 million BCE. Thus my estimated guess would be to place it at maybe 70,002,004 years ago ... give or take a year or two.

RESPONDENT: It is not necessary when you write of millions to say BCE as you’ll give or take a few thousand years at max.

RICHARD: I was not giving or taking ‘a few thousand years at max’ ... my ‘give or take a year or two’ was only in deference to the (proposed) birth date of a saviour of humanity, from whence the arbitrary number 2004 CE (Common Era) is derived, being at least as early as 4 BCE (Before Common Era) – and thus corresponding to the (historical) death date of a contemporary ruler – plus an allowance for the fact there is no designated year zero in that particular calendar ... even though planet earth continued to orbit its radiant star all the while.

And the point of such precision about such imprecise dating? Simply this: whatever date it is that archaeologists/ palaeontologists/ scholars may come up with, as being the earliest emergence of hominids/hominoids, then that is the date I would estimate the human animal being first capable of having a pure consciousness experience (PCE).

RESPONDENT: I was thinking that such an event (PCE) is possible precisely because of the intelligence developing in the human animal.

RICHARD: No, it is an actual freedom from the human condition which is possible because of the development of intelligence ... only an animal with that cognitive faculty of understanding and comprehending (as in intellect and sagacity) – which means the cerebral ability to sensibly and thus judiciously think, reflect, appraise, plan, and implement considered activity for beneficial reasons (and to be able to rationally convey reasoned information to others of its species so that coherent knowledge can accumulate around the world and to the next generations) – can afford to dispense with the instinctual survival passions.

RESPONDENT: As a PCE makes the instinctual self redundant, there should be no wonder as to why it has not happened to other animals ... including the different ‘less human than animal’ sub-species that lived < 70 million years ago.

RICHARD: It is an actual freedom from the human condition which renders the instinctual ‘self’ redundant ... in a PCE the ‘self’ is merely in abeyance (which means ‘a state of suspension or temporary disuse; a dormant condition liable to revival’ according to the Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: Given the fact that >100.000.000.000 homo sapiens lived on this earth, it is a real mystery as to why none of these tool making, condom using, symbol writing hominids (who presumably all had a temporary PCE and usually more – the best thing since sliced bear) haven’t managed (accidentally or purposely) to live a freedom from the ‘homo sapiens condition’, both tribal and instinctual. Don’t you find this a bit strange?

RICHARD: Not nowadays ... no; some years ago ... yes (and exceedingly odd at that).

RESPONDENT: I mean ... 1 in 100 billion, close to the number of stars in the milky way. Now, taking the enlightenment ratio, which is close to 1 in a million, and using some mathematical symbols, the afore-mentioned conditioned condition delivers somewhere close to 100.000 enlightened sapiens and only one big delightus ... you’re the man, eh?

RICHARD: For as far as I have been able to ascertain ... yes.

As a point of related interest: the human species has been doing its thing for at least 50,000 years or so – no essential difference has been discerned between the Cro-Magnon human and Modern-Day human – and may very well continue to do its thing for, say, another 50,000 years or so ... it matters not, in what has been described as ‘the vast scheme of things’ or ‘the big picture’, and so on, whether none, one or many peoples become actually free from the human condition (this planet, indeed the entire solar system, is going to cease to exist in its current form about 4.5 billion years from now).

All these words – yours, mine, and others (all the dictionaries, encyclopaedias, scholarly tomes and so on) – will perish and all the monuments, all the statues, all the tombstones, all the sacred sites, all the carefully conserved/carefully restored memorabilia, will vanish as if they had never existed ... nothing will remain of any human endeavour (including yours truly).

Nothing at all ... nil, zero, zilch.

Which means that nothing really matters in the long run and, as nothing really does matter (in this ultimate sense) it is simply not possible to take life seriously ... sincerely, yes, but seriously?

No way ... life is much too much fun to be serious!

December 23 2004

RICHARD: Surely you are not suggesting that everybody – absolutely everybody – who has had, or is having, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) has had/is having a temporal lobe epileptic (TLE) episode?

RESPONDENT: What I’m suggesting is that altered and pure states are triggered by this part of the brain (which is involved in processing emotion and sensation) ...

RICHARD: As the temporal lobes are situated on each side of the brain, at about the level of the ears, you may find the following to be of interest (from the quote you provided in the previous e-mail):

• [Richard]: ‘The night before [the 6th of September 1981] I could hardly maintain myself as a thinking, functioning human being as a blistering hot and cold burning sensation crept *up the back of my spine and entered into the base of my neck just under the brain itself*. (...) something turned over *in the base of my brain – in the top of the brain-stem*. I likened it to turning over a long-playing record in order to play the other side ... with the vital exception that it would never, ever turn back again’. [emphasises added].

There are many, many more descriptions all throughout my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site describing the very same thing ... for instance:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘When you ended the second self (or when it ended), was there any physical brain sensation?
• [Richard]: ‘Yes ... an intense pressure-pain in the base of the brain/nape of the neck which continued, with varying intensities, for 30+ months’.

Here is another:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘And an actual freedom from the human condition results in a reduced amygdala activity or even ends it?
• [Richard]: ‘If I may ask? Why the focus upon the amygdalae (two almond-shaped organs in from and just to the back of and below the ears) when I specifically report that the pressure-pain happened in the base of the brain/nape of the neck?

And another:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You said that you felt a brain change.
• [Richard]: ‘More specifically: I said that there was a physical sensation in the brain-stem (at the base of the brain/nape of the neck).
• [Co-Respondent]: Did you ever thought that you might altered your brain?
• [Richard]: ‘No ... all the activity occurred in the brain-stem.

And again:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You admitted that something happened in your brain ...
• [Richard]: ‘No, I acknowledged that something happened in the brain-stem. Viz.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You said that you felt a brain change’.
• [Richard]: ‘More specifically: I said that there was a physical sensation in the brain-stem (at the base of the brain/nape of the neck)’.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Did you ever thought that you might altered your brain?
• [Richard]: ‘No ... all the activity occurred in the brain-stem.

I was saying what I meant and meaning what I said.

And yet again (this one is a classic):

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘So after the change took place in your brain, you are experiencing another world. Or if you like the world in a different way. Not necessarily everybody else is experiencing it this way. So the difference between before the change and now, is due to your brain. If was possible to reverse the process then you should be like before. That means that your brain is creating your world.
• [Richard]: ‘This is the information I have suppled to you:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You said that you felt a brain change’.
• [Richard]: ‘More specifically: I said that there was a physical sensation in the brain-stem (at the base of the brain/nape of the neck)’.

 And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Did you ever thought that you might altered your brain?
• [Richard]: ‘No ... all the activity occurred in the brain-stem’.

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You admitted that something happened in your brain ...
• [Richard]: ‘No, I acknowledged that something happened in the brain-stem’.

Yet what is your response to these three clear and unambiguous replies? Viz.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘So after the change took place in your brain ...’.

You even asked if I could explain what happened scientifically so I referred you to two areas of the brain-stem I had gleaned some information about from an ad hoc reading of scientific texts:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... but could you explain scientifically what?
• [Richard]: ‘As far as I have been able to ascertain from an ad hoc reading of scientific texts it was most probably in the Reticular Activating System (RAS), in general, and quite possibly in the Substantia Nigra, in particular (arguably the seat of consciousness) that the identity in toto expired’.

Why you choose to ignore what I have to report I cannot know, of course, yet it may very well be that the reason why lies at the end of your paragraph (above) where, after three assumptions, a preliminary judgement, and a speculation, your final conclusion is to be found:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... your brain is creating your world’.

As this is the theme you have been running all through these e-mail exchanges it may help to put it this way: when the identity expired, in toto, ‘his’ world (the reality ‘he’ pasted as a veneer over this actual world) also ceased to exist ... there is no ‘your world’ in actuality. There is only this actual world (...)’.

There are more ... but maybe that will do for now.

RESPONDENT: ... why is it that an accidental PCE (everyone has experienced and remembers at least one, making for an estimated .... umm ... 100 billion ‘za best’ experiences) cannot become permanent the same way as enlightenment or an ASC?

RICHARD: For the same reason an intentional PCE cannot become permanent ... the persistence of identity (who is only in abeyance in a PCE).

*

RESPONDENT: The passage you posted is in no way showing that you are not suffering from TLE or any other Temporal Lobe disorder. (snip).

RICHARD: And the copy-pasted short collection of symptoms and/or the random, by no means exhaustive or precise, collection of available information you posted, both this time around and the previous, is in no way showing that I am suffering from TLE or any other temporal lobe disorder.

RESPONDENT: Is it all just a big coincidence then?

RICHARD: There is no ‘coincidence’ – be it either big or small – outside of your imagination. For example:

• [Respondent]: ‘Extensive day-dreaming as a child is a good indication of TLE (you were known as a ‘dreamer’ at school, teachers brutally had to wake you up).

You would have to be referring to the following (re-posted only five days before your first e-mail in this thread):

• [Richard]: ‘The various people I have discussed these matters [remembering a PCE] with have invariably recalled similar ‘Technicolor Land’ experiences in childhood ... sometimes referred to as a ‘nature experience’, a ‘peak experience’, a ‘jamais vu experience’, or even an ‘aesthetic experience’. And not only have I witnessed children having such an experience, and spoken with them about while it is happening, but recall having the same myself on many an occasion: often in 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 (at school I became known as ‘the dreamer’ and had many a rude awakening to everyday reality by various teachers) ... 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. (...)’.

What you say is ‘extensive day-dreaming as a child’ is actually ‘many an occasion’ of experiencing ‘the magical world where time had no workaday meaning’ (aka PCE’s) ... just because various school-teachers classified me as being a dreamer, upon rudely awakening me to everyday reality, does not mean that those PCE’s were day-dreams.

Here is the very next example you proffer as ‘a good indication of TLE’ (immediately after the first example above):

• [Respondent]: ‘Experiencing unprovoked panic attacks to the point that one feels he is going to die (your experience back in 1981, the pillows and all the dread, feeling that you were going to die the next morning)’. [endquote].

I was neither experiencing ‘panic attacks’ nor was the intense fear/stark terror I did experience ‘unprovoked’ ... see for yourself (from the quote you provided):

• [Richard]: ‘I lay back on my pillows to watch the rising sun (my bedroom faced east) through the large bedroom windows. All of a sudden I was gripped with the realisation that this was the moment! I was going to die! An intense fear raced throughout my body, rising in crescendo until I could scarcely take any more. As it reached a peak of stark terror, I realised that I had nothing to worry about and that I was to go with the ‘process’. In an instant all fear left me and I travelled deep into the depths of my very being’.

Incidentally, what you say is ‘the feeling’ I was going to die ‘tomorrow’ was actually a revelation six weeks prior ... see for yourself (from the quote you provided):

• [Richard]: ‘About six weeks prior to 6th September 1981 I had a revelation that I was going to really die this time, not become catatonic again, and that I was to prepare myself for it’.

And here is the third example you provide as ‘a good indication of TLE’ (immediately after the second example above):

• [Respondent]: ‘The hippocampus involves both intense positive and negative experiences (some patients with hippocampus disorders report laughing without any reason)’.

I was not ‘laughing without any reason’ ... see for yourself (from the quote you provided):

• [Richard]: ‘All of a sudden I was sitting bolt upright, laughing, as I realised that this that was IT! was such a simple thing ... all I had to do was die ... and that was the easiest thing in the world to do’.

*

RICHARD: [The ... information you posted ... is in no way showing that I am suffering from TLE or any other temporal lobe disorder] whereas the passage I quoted shows that I am, and have been for many a year, well aware of TLE ... do you really think I would not have considered such a thing before this exchange?

RESPONDENT: So did your psychiatrist at the time?

RICHARD: There were no psychiatrists (or a psychologist for that matter) ‘at the time’ ... the following is from the passage being discussed (above):

• [Richard]: ‘... that [jamais vu] is how I first described what I would now call pure consciousness experiences back in 1980-1981’.

The psychiatric assessment (and the psychological monitoring) occurred 13-14 years later. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘No one has been able to observe any trace of a feeling – an emotion or a passion or calenture – in me since 1992. I have been examined by two accredited psychiatrists (and by one of them every three months for more than three years) and found to have alexithymia – amongst other detailed psychiatric findings – which means no affective faculties whatsoever. Also, a psychologist has been following my condition at three-weekly intervals since March 1994 ...’.

Although, in light of the following, why you would ask such a question anyway has got me beat:

• [Respondent]: ‘... TLE is not included on the DSM IV psychiatric manual (it’s a neurological condition), so the psychiatrist consulting you at the time didn’t have all the necessary ‘tools’ to conduct a correct investigation and thus come with an informed diagnosis’. (‘Jamais vu’; Friday 17/12/2004 1217AM AEDST).

And:

• [Respondent]: ‘I repeat that such disorder is difficult to diagnose and is NOT included in DSM IV, the manual currently used by all psychiatrists around the world’. (‘Re: Jamais vu’; Fri 17/12/2004 10:42 PM AEDST).

The following one, coming as it does from the very-same post as your ‘I repeat ...’ admonition, is a real doozie:

• [Respondent]: ‘Perhaps you should arrange a meeting with a psychiatrist because if your condition is indeed linked to (Right) Temporal Lobe damage, the + 4 million words on the website might prove to be more harmful’. (‘Re: Jamais vu’; Fri 17/12/2004 10:42 PM AEDST).

*

RESPONDENT: (...) Perhaps you should arrange a meeting with a psychiatrist because if your condition is indeed linked to (Right) Temporal Lobe damage, the + 4 million words on the website might prove to be more harmful than harmless.

RICHARD: Ha ... nice try, No. 25, nice try indeed.

RESPONDENT: I wish it to be just that, a nice try.

RICHARD: Well, your wish is granted as that is all it is ... no amount of words, no matter how eloquent or erudite they may be, could possibly bring about a *neurological* condition (aka an *organic* disorder) in anybody. Here is an example of what does cause TLE:

(Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) Causes:
• Approximately two thirds of patients with TLE treated surgically have hippocampal sclerosis as the pathologic substrate.
• The etiologies of TLE include the following:

• Past infections, eg, herpes encephalitis or bacterial meningitis.
• Trauma producing contusion or haemorrhage that results in encephalomalacia or cortical scarring.
• Hamartomas [a focal malformation that resembles a neoplasm, grossly and even microscopically, but results from faulty development in an organ].
• Gliomas [any neoplasm derived from one of the various types of cells that form the interstitial tissue of the brain, spinal cord, pineal gland, posterior pituitary gland, and retina].
• Vascular malformations (ie, arteriovenous malformation, cavernous angioma).
• Cryptogenic: A cause is presumed but has not been identified.
• Idiopathic (genetic): This is rare. Familial TLE was described by Berkovic and colleagues, and partial epilepsy with auditory features was described by Scheffer and colleagues.

• Hippocampal sclerosis produces a clinical syndrome called mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE). MTLE begins in late childhood, then remits, but reappears in adolescence or early adulthood in a refractory form.
• Febrile seizures: The association of simple febrile seizure with TLE has been controversial. However, a subset of children with complex febrile convulsions appear to be at risk of developing TLE in later life. Complex febrile seizures are febrile seizures that last longer than 15 minutes, have focal features, or recur within 24 hours. (www.emedicine.com/neuro/topic365.htm).

RESPONDENT: For now the evidence points in the opposite direction ...

RICHARD: There is no ‘the evidence’ – be it either for now or earlier – outside of your imagination.