Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence

On The Actual Freedom Mailing List

with Correspondent No. 60


May 26 2005

RESPONDENT: My experience, observation and reasoning tells me that unless it’s accompanied by an actual pathological process that causes damage to the brain (maybe even be random damage at that), the actualism process is naught but wishful thinking and (at best) a powerful placebo effect. It causes changes, sure ... but those can (best, IMO) be attributed to: (a) finding a meaningful purpose to pursue; (b) being fully committed to a single goal; (c) doing it with a like-minded individual; (d) practising a happy/harmless morality (because that’s all it is unless/until ‘self’-immolation occurs).

(...)

RESPONDENT: The possibility that a rare neurological condition was the driving force behind the remarkable events of your post-1980 life, and that your ‘followers’ were having themselves on, occurred to me right from the start.

RICHARD: Presuming that by ‘a rare neurological condition’ you are meaning something similar to what terms such as ‘a freak of nature’/’a sport of nature’ refer to – and that, therefore, nobody else need even begin trying to emulate – when did it occur to you that ‘a rare neurological condition’ = ‘an actual pathological process’ (involving, caused by, or of the nature of disease or illness)?

RESPONDENT: It occurred to me from the beginning. I say ‘it’ rather than ‘they’ because for me they both are different ways of expressing the same underlying concern.

RICHARD: As the underlying concern that a rare congenital/acquired disease/illness of this flesh and blood body’s nervous system – meaning that, therefore, nobody else need even begin trying to make happen the damage to this flesh and blood body’s brain (maybe even being random damage at that) which you allege the identity in residence all those years ago caused – occurred to you when you first came across The Actual Freedom Trust web site would it be reasonable to say that your subsequent dismissal of any practicing actualists’ success in living a virtual freedom, through the sincere application of the way that particular identity went about achieving same for six months or so in 1981, is predicated upon that very idea?

For the most recent example of this dismissal:

• [Respondent]: ‘I don’t intend any personal offence to anyone here, but the fact is I do not want to be like Peter, or Vineeto, or Gary, or ... whoever’. (‘Virtual Kindergarten’; Wednesday 25/05/2005 12:40 PM AEST).

And why? None other than this:

• [Respondent]: ‘... [because] the practice of actualism is nowt but a minimalistic moral code and an investigative technique’. [endquote].

In other words, unless any practicing actualist also has the same rare congenital/acquired disease/illness of the nervous system that it occurred to you right from the beginning this particular flesh and blood body has they are but straining at a gnat (being unduly fussy or scrupulous about something small and insignificant)?

*

RESPONDENT: As far back as December 2003 I was asking questions in an online neurology-related forum trying to find out what kind of conditions could result in the complete loss of imagination and affect.

RICHARD: It did not occur to you to ask (for instance) what kind of conditions could result in a totally peaceful and harmonious life ... as in a veritable peace on earth, in this lifetime, as a flesh and blood body?

RESPONDENT: This mailing list seemed a better forum for such questions.

RICHARD: As to ask questions in an online neurology-related forum, about what rare congenital/acquired disease/illness of a nervous system could result in a complete loss of the entire affective faculty (which includes its intuitive/imaginative facility), without ever mentioning that such an eradication resulted in a totally peaceful and harmonious life – as in a veritable peace on earth for a living flesh and blood body only – then such questions must surely produce a certain type of answers.

In short: the very nature of the questions you asked is why none of the answers you received were fully consistent with what this flesh and blood body reports.

*

RESPONDENT: (None of the information I received was fully consistent with what you report though).

RICHARD: Could that be, perchance, because the very nature of the questions you asked is what produced the answers you received?

RESPONDENT: Of course. I was familiar with your own interpretation of your condition ...

RICHARD: If I might interject? How did my [quote] ‘report’ [endquote] of my condition all-of-a-sudden become my [quote] ‘interpretation’ [endquote]?

RESPONDENT: ... and I wanted a different kind of opinion.

RICHARD: Oh, I get it now ... a report cannot be an opinion unless it is first reclassified as an interpretation, right?

RESPONDENT: As I was seeking a medical opinion, I asked my questions in medical/psychiatric terms.

RICHARD: I was examined by two accredited psychiatrists (one of which was over a three-year period), face-to-face in their rooms – as well as by an accredited psychologist, for the same three-year period, person-to-person in my own home – and professionally diagnosed by those two experts in the field, with my full personal report under consideration, as having a chronic psychotic disorder, with the symptoms of depersonalisation, derealisation, alexithymia, and anhedonia, as a direct effect of my war-time experiences ... yet you sought a medical neurological opinion, based solely upon a scant, second-hand portrayal, via e-mail in an on-line forum.

RESPONDENT: I wanted to know whether, and under what circumstances, anyone had encountered depersonalisation, derealisation, alexithymia, anhedonia, loss of the affective faculty in its entirety, and complete loss of imagination all in one person.

RICHARD: Yet you forgo informing of the full facts of the case ... that the aforementioned complete loss of the entire affective faculty (which includes its intuitive/imaginative facility) was deliberatively, and with knowledge aforethought, sought for as a direct result of war-time experiences upon having recently had a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) which demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever that the solution to all the wars (and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on) was already always just here right now?

RESPONDENT: I wanted to know whether there were any known neurological conditions/syndromes/disorders/diseases that could produce all of these symptoms together.

RICHARD: As in spontaneously produce ... irregardless of deliberatively, and with knowledge aforethought (from the PCE), being sought for?

RESPONDENT: (Would you not do something similar if you were in my position?)

RICHARD: No, of course not ... whenever I seek an opinion I make sure it be an informed one (preferably fully-informed).

*

RESPONDENT: Moreover, I would be surprised if anybody had not considered the possibility that your enlightenment and ‘self’-immolation had a pathological cause. And if they have considered that possibility, all the rest (i.e. the idea that actualism is a ‘religion’ based on ‘faith’ ... though it tries hard not to be) follows naturally from this.

RICHARD: Speaking of all the rest ... did the idea that any changes the actualism process causes can best be attributed to finding a meaningful purpose to pursue also occur to you, for example, as far back as December 2003 (and thus predating your older brother’s awareness of Richard’s existence)?

RESPONDENT: The happiness and satisfaction to be derived from committing oneself wholeheartedly to a meaningful course of action occurred to me long, long before December 2003 -- long before I ever heard of you, or Peter, or Vineeto. There is nothing specific to actualism in that observation.

RICHARD: Indeed not ... Mr. Saloth Sar (for just one instance) would have derived satisfaction and, presumably, a satisfaction-based happiness, from committing himself wholeheartedly to a meaningful course of action thirty-odd years ago.

To explain: impervious to the fact indigenous peoples had amply demonstrated that cultural/lifestyle change would not make any substantive dent in the human condition a school of psychology/philosophy arose last century, in the period between the two world wars, which proposed changing the culture/lifestyle so as to bring about a new human being – one of the leading proponents was Mr. Burrhus Skinner with his planned utopian society – and the genesis of such an attempt at social engineering could be seen in the then USSR where personal ownership of land had been abolished in favour of communal ownership (collectivisation versus privatisation) and control of the means of production had been transferred from the individual to the community (complete with a command-driven economy as opposed to a market-based one).

Undaunted by the fact that the soviet experiment had failed to bring about a new human being Mr. Saloth Sar went much further and launched a massive cultural/lifestyle change in Cambodia in late 1975 ... not only was private property abolished but money was eradicated as well and the cities were emptied. Furthermore the borders were closed; the media was closed; the schools were closed; the hospitals were closed; the offices were closed; the shops were closed; the markets were closed; the monasteries were closed and everyone wore the same simple clothing and everyone lived directly off the land ... ‘going back to nature’ was the order of the day.

Just as were blind nature’s survival passions.

RESPONDENT: By the same token, there is no reason to exclude actualism from it.

RICHARD: As you specifically referred to those changes the actualism process causes, being best attributed to finding a meaningful purpose to pursue, it would aid clarity in communication to delineate just what those changes are ... to wit: being as happy and harmless (as free of malice and sorrow) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’.

Yet your version of such change is a satisfaction-based happiness, not a virtually sorrow-free (and therefore relatively unconditional) happiness, and with no mention whatsoever of an inextricably-linked relatively unconditional harmlessness (virtually malice-free).

*

RICHARD: Furthermore, did the idea that any changes the actualism process causes can best be attributed to being fully committed to a single goal also occur to you, for example, as far back as December 2003 (and thus predating your older brother’s awareness of Richard’s existence)?

RESPONDENT: As above.

RICHARD: As a satisfaction-based happiness is not what the actualism process results in, each moment again, you may be inclined to reconsider your response.

*

RICHARD: Moreover, did the idea that any changes the actualism process causes can best be attributed to practising a happy/harmless morality also occur to you, for example, as far back as December 2003 (and thus predating your older brother’s awareness of Richard’s existence)?

RESPONDENT: I’m not sure exactly when the happy/ harmless morality thing occurred to me in relation to actualism, but I know I was (experientially) aware of the profound difference between *being* effortlessly/ automatically happy/ harmless and *striving to become* happy/harmless long, long before I encountered actualism. 20 years before, at least.

RICHARD: As what has nowadays become known as a virtual freedom – what the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body experienced for six months or so in 1981 – is to be virtually happy and harmless in non-sudorific/well-habituated manner perhaps you may be inclined to also reconsider that response of yours as well.

RESPONDENT: The fact that [Respondent’s brother] and I have both observed this doesn’t mean that I got it from him, or he from me; the difference, in general, between being and trying-to-become stands out like the proverbials.

RICHARD: A virtually free actualist is not trying-to-become virtually happy and harmless ... through the sincere application of the actualism method they are being virtually free of malice and sorrow (and thus effortlessly/automatically being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’).

RESPONDENT: I would be surprised if you did not agree with this.

RICHARD: Prepare to be surprised, then ... ‘tis not for nothing I say actualism is 180 degrees opposite the ‘tried and true’.

*

RICHARD: ... I do find it cute that both you and your elder sibling are saying, in effect, that peace-on-earth is a disease, an illness, with an unidentified cause.

RESPONDENT: No way in the world am I saying that.

RICHARD: Oh? What is this, then (from the top of this page)?

• [Respondent]: ‘My experience, observation and reasoning tells me that unless it’s accompanied by an actual pathological process that causes *damage* to the brain (maybe even be random *damage* at that), the actualism process is naught but wishful thinking ...’. [emphasises added].

Here is what a dictionary has to say about that word:

• ‘damage: harm done to a thing or (less usually, chiefly joc.) person; esp. physical injury impairing value or usefulness’. (Oxford Dictionary).

What you are saying, in effect, is that peace-on-earth is something only a brain-damaged individual can experience.

RESPONDENT: What you’re experiencing today is actual, but it doesn’t mean that this felicitous condition was *not* brought about by a disease/abnormality that altered your brain(stem) ...

RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say about that word:

• ‘alter: make otherwise or different in some respect; change in characteristics, position, etc.; modify; become otherwise; undergo some change’. (Oxford Dictionary).

It is quite remarkable how having to re-think what one has said whilst emotional (as in throwing a tantrum) aids clarity, eh?

RESPONDENT: ... such that you can now experience permanently what the rest of us experience for only a few hours/days in a lifetime. (For example, there have been reports of people who ‘suffered’ neurological side-effects of syphilis, and found such ‘suffering’ highly felicitous).

RICHARD: As I am not cognisant of any syphilitic person being actually free from the human condition then if you were to provide the relevant book titles, magazine articles, newspaper reports, URL’s, or whatever, which detail same it would be most appreciated.

Otherwise your example is but a waste of both your time in typing it out and your bandwidth in sending it.

RESPONDENT: [Addendum]: This is not intended to imply that your condition is caused by syphilis; my point is that the normal, healthy human brain in its default state is not necessarily optimised for felicity.

RICHARD: Aye ... it requires sincere application of the actualism method to optimise felicity/ innocuity (and thus nourish the concomitant naive sensuosity) before that normal, healthy default state can even begin to have a chance of deleting itself.

This may be an apt moment to point out that an estimated 160,000,000 normal, healthy default-state human beings were killed in wars alone, in the last century, by their normal, healthy default-state fellow creatures.

*

RESPONDENT: As for my ‘near certainty’ that your condition is pathological, I am of course talking through my hat.

RICHARD: I see ... and were you also talking ‘foolishly, wildly, or ignorantly; bluffly, exaggeratedly’ (Oxford Dictionary) when you wrote the following? Vis.:

•  [Respondent]: ‘I think there is every possibility (for me it is almost a certainty now) that Richard’s ‘pure intent’ was itself pathological, a part of the same pathology that eventually did ‘him’ in. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: I was talking through my hat when I said ‘for me it is almost a certainty now’.

RICHARD: And, it would seem from what you explain immediately below, when saying that Richard’s ‘pure intent’ was itself pathological.

*

RICHARD: The reason I ask is that, otherwise, not only is peace-on-earth a disease, an illness, with an unidentified cause but even the very intent itself to actually be peaceful and harmonious is just as much a sickness.

RESPONDENT: Not in itself a sickness ...

RICHARD: So when you wrote [quote] ‘Richard’s ‘pure intent’ *was itself* pathological’ [emphasis added] you did not mean that it was [quote] ‘in itself’ [endquote] pathological after all?

RESPONDENT: ... but possibly the outcome of an innate or acquired neurological abnormality, yes.

RICHARD: I see ... the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago either had an innate neurological abnormality, or acquired one, and it was not the outcome of that rare pathological process – the pure intent (apparently only opined by ‘him’ to be) born of the pure consciousness experience (PCE) which set the entire process in action – which was a sickness but the very condition which produced it was.

Thus what you previously said now looks something like this:

• [example only]: ‘I think there is every possibility that Richard’s pure intent was not itself a sickness but was an outcome of the same pathology that eventually did ‘him’ in. [endquote].

In other words, unless any practicing actualist also has the same rare congenital/ acquired disease/illness of the nervous system, such as to produce the pure intent the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago had as an outcome, they are but straining at a gnat (being unduly fussy or scrupulous about something small and insignificant)?

RESPONDENT: Why not?

RICHARD: What is the point of asking me ... apparently my reports, by virtue of reclassification into being interpretations, are nothing but opinions.

*

RESPONDENT: Instead of saying I am ‘nearly certain’ that your condition is/was pathological, I should say that I simply have not ruled it out ...

RICHARD: I see ... so you have not ruled out that neither the intent itself, to actually be peaceful and harmonious, nor the outcome of that intention involves, is caused by, or is of the nature of disease or illness, then?

RESPONDENT: ‘Caused by’, not ‘is of the nature of’. That’s correct ... I have not ruled out either one.

RICHARD: Just so there is no misunderstanding: you have not ruled out that neither the intent itself, to actually be peaceful and harmonious, nor the outcome of that intention was caused by a disease or illness .... which means that, for there to be global peace-on-earth, 6.0+ billion peoples need to somehow acquire a rare disease and/or illness of the nervous system?

May I ask? What is the likelihood of that (conceptual) neurological disease and/or illness being an infectious one ... and if so by what agent (a mosquito perhaps)?

*

RESPONDENT: ... and its degree of likelihood mysteriously increases when I am throwing a tantrum.

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off this latest tantrum?

RESPONDENT: Yet another instance of this: [‘Problems With The Method’; Monday 16/05/2005 4:40 AM AEST].

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off yet another instance of your problems with the actualism method?

May 26 2005

RESPONDENT: ... and its degree of likelihood [that I have not ruled it out that your condition is/was pathological] mysteriously increases when I am throwing a tantrum.

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off this latest tantrum?

RESPONDENT: Yet another instance of this: [‘Problems With The Method’; Monday 16/05/2005 4:40 AM AEST].

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off yet another instance of your problems with the actualism method?

RESPONDENT: Nothing happens to set off an instance of my problem with the method.

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST  and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off your latest tantrum?

May 27 2005

RESPONDENT: ... and its degree of likelihood [that I have not ruled it out that your condition is/was pathological] mysteriously increases when I am throwing a tantrum.

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off this latest tantrum?

RESPONDENT: Yet another instance of this: [‘Problems With The Method’; Monday 16/05/2005 4:40 AM AEST].

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off yet another instance of your problems with the actualism method?

RESPONDENT: Nothing happens to set off an instance of my problem with the method.

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off your latest tantrum?

RESPONDENT: May I ask first, what is the purpose of this line of inquiry?

RICHARD: Sure ... the way the actualism method works is to ask oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) until it becomes a non-verbal attitude towards life, a wordless approach to being alive, so that the slightest deviation from the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition – a way epitomised by a felicitous and innocuous naïve sensuousness – is not only automatically noticed almost immediately but the instance whereby the deviation occurred is readily ascertained such as to enable the resumption of one’s habituated blithesome and benign way again ... sooner rather than later.

By your own words you commenced paying full attention to this moment at 10:38 AM on Saturday the 5/03/2005 AEST and somewhere between then and at 12:47 PM on Friday 13/05/2005 AEST something happened such as to bring about what you described in your own words as throwing a tantrum ... and, unless one is a sicko, throwing a tantrum can hardly fall under the auspices of being [quote] ‘fun’ [endquote].

Obviously it cannot be a problem with the method itself as, by my calculations, 69 days elapsed between your commencement of paying full attention to this moment (on the fifth of March), each moment again, and the onset of your latest tantrum (on the thirteenth of April).

So ... what happened, then, between 10:38 AM Saturday 5/03/2005 AEST and 12:47 PM Friday 13/05/2005 AEST such as to set-off your latest tantrum?

May 27 2005

RESPONDENT: ... and its degree of likelihood [that I have not ruled it out that your condition is/was pathological] mysteriously increases when I am throwing a tantrum.

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off this latest tantrum?

RESPONDENT: Yet another instance of this: [‘Problems With The Method’; Monday 16/05/2005 4:40 AM AEST].

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off yet another instance of your problems with the actualism method?

RESPONDENT: Nothing happens to set off an instance of my problem with the method.

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off your latest tantrum?

RESPONDENT: May I ask first, what is the purpose of this line of inquiry?

RICHARD: Sure ... the way the actualism method works is to ask oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) until it becomes a non-verbal attitude towards life, a wordless approach to being alive, so that the slightest deviation from the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition – a way epitomised by a felicitous and innocuous naïve sensuousness – is not only automatically noticed almost immediately but the instance whereby the deviation occurred is readily ascertained such as to enable the resumption of one’s habituated blithesome and benign way again ... sooner rather than later.

By your own words you commenced paying full attention to this moment at 10:38 AM on Saturday the 5/03/2005 AEST and somewhere between then and at 12:47 PM on Friday 13/05/2005 AEST something happened such as to bring about what you described in your own words as throwing a tantrum ... and, unless one is a sicko, throwing a tantrum can hardly fall under the auspices of being [quote] ‘fun’ [endquote].

Obviously it cannot be a problem with the method itself as, by my calculations, 69 days elapsed between your commencement of paying full attention to this moment (on the fifth of March), each moment again, and the onset of your latest tantrum (on the thirteenth of April).

So ... what happened, then, between 10:38 AM Saturday 5/03/2005 AEST and 12:47 PM Friday 13/05/2005 AEST such as to set-off your latest tantrum?

RESPONDENT: In light of your comments to [No. 68] in this exchange: [No. 68]: ‘(...) I’d like to hear some reasonable explanation of why from a experienced actualist. [Richard]: ‘You have to be kidding, surely ... was the following [now snipped] not a clear enough warning for you to *not even begin thinking about providing some reasonable explanation*? [emphasis added]. May I ask whether you have taken your own advice to ‘not even begin thinking about providing some reasonable explanation’?

RICHARD: I really do wonder, now and then, why person after person would consider they can try out smart-aleckry on me, and get away with it, when the evidence of so many e-mails in the archives demonstrates that any such attempt has invariably resulted in them coming off a pathetic second-best (if that).

Nevertheless I will continue to play the silliness game accordingly until such peoples wake up to the fact they are frittering away an opportunity ... to wit: where has it even been remotely implied, let alone specifically stated, by me that there has ever been any thought at all about providing some reasonable explanation as to why you have what you characterise, both in the e-mail your co-respondent replied to you in (in the elided section of that quote you provide above) and elsewhere, as being a feedback loop problem with the actualism method?

Indeed, in the very e-mail you are responding to I am clearly saying, in regards to what you described in your own words as throwing a tantrum, that [quote] ‘obviously it cannot be a problem with the method itself’ [endquote] as more than two months elapsed between your commencement of paying full attention to this moment, each moment again, and the onset of your latest tantrum.

So ... what happened, then, between 10:38 AM Saturday 5/03/2005 AEST and 12:47 PM Friday 13/05/2005 AEST such as to set-off your latest tantrum?

May 27 2005

RESPONDENT: ... and its degree of likelihood [that I have not ruled it out that your condition is/was pathological] mysteriously increases when I am throwing a tantrum.

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off this latest tantrum?

RESPONDENT: Yet another instance of this: [‘Problems With The Method’; Monday 16/05/2005 4:40 AM AEST].

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off yet another instance of your problems with the actualism method?

RESPONDENT: Nothing happens to set off an instance of my problem with the method.

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off your latest tantrum?

RESPONDENT: May I ask first, what is the purpose of this line of inquiry?

RICHARD: Sure ... the way the actualism method works is to ask oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) until it becomes a non-verbal attitude towards life, a wordless approach to being alive, so that the slightest deviation from the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition – a way epitomised by a felicitous and innocuous naïve sensuousness – is not only automatically noticed almost immediately but the instance whereby the deviation occurred is readily ascertained such as to enable the resumption of one’s habituated blithesome and benign way again ... sooner rather than later. By your own words you commenced paying full attention to this moment at 10:38 AM on Saturday the 5/03/2005 AEST and somewhere between then and at 12:47 PM on Friday 13/05/2005 AEST something happened such as to bring about what you described in your own words as throwing a tantrum ... and, unless one is a sicko, throwing a tantrum can hardly fall under the auspices of being [quote] ‘fun’ [endquote]. Obviously it cannot be a problem with the method itself as, by my calculations, 69 days elapsed between your commencement of paying full attention to this moment (on the fifth of March), each moment again, and the onset of your latest tantrum (on the thirteenth of April). So ... what happened, then, between 10:38 AM Saturday 5/03/2005 AEST and 12:47 PM Friday 13/05/2005 AEST such as to set-off your latest tantrum?

RESPONDENT: In light of your comments to [No. 68] in this exchange: [No. 68]: ‘(...) I’d like to hear some reasonable explanation of why from a experienced actualist. [Richard]: ‘You have to be kidding, surely ... was the following [now snipped] not a clear enough warning for you to *not even begin thinking about providing some reasonable explanation*? [emphasis added]. May I ask whether you have taken your own advice to ‘not even begin thinking about providing some reasonable explanation’?

RICHARD: I really do wonder, now and then, why person after person would consider they can try out smart-aleckry on me, and get away with it, when the evidence of so many e-mails in the archives demonstrates that any such attempt has invariably resulted in them coming off a pathetic second-best (if that).

RESPONDENT: It is a matter of wanting to know what your intentions are in asking me these questions, so that I can make a sensible decision about whether to participate in it or not.

RICHARD: There is only the one question – about what happened, between 10:38 AM Saturday 5/03/2005 AEST and 12:47 PM Friday 13/05/2005 AEST, such as to set-off your latest tantrum – and whether you answer it or not is entirely up to you as it is your life you are living, when all is said and done, and only you get to reap the rewards, or pay the consequences, for any action or inaction you may or may not have eventuate.

RESPONDENT: If you have no interest whatsoever in making a fair-dinkum suggestion regarding the problems I’ve described, what exactly is your intention?

RICHARD: My intention is to keep on asking you what happened between 10:38 AM Saturday 5/03/2005 AEST and 12:47 PM Friday 13/05/2005 AEST, such as to set-off your latest tantrum, until you either answer, drop the topic completely, or even go away to (seemingly) greener pastures.

*

RICHARD: Nevertheless I will continue to play the silliness game accordingly until such peoples wake up to the fact they are frittering away an opportunity ... to wit: where has it even been remotely implied, let alone specifically stated, by me that there has ever been any thought at all about providing some reasonable explanation as to why you have what you characterise, both in the e-mail your co-respondent replied to you in (in the elided section of that quote you provide above) and elsewhere, as being a feedback loop problem with the actualism method?

RESPONDENT: The question makes little sense to me. Where have I implied that you have ‘remotely implied’ or ‘explicitly stated’ that you had given any thought to providing a reasonable explanation (for the feedback loop I’ve described)?

RICHARD: Ha ... where have I implied that you implied that I even remotely implied, let alone specifically stated, that I have given any thought to providing a reasonable explanation (for what you have characterised as being a feedback loop problem with the actualism method)?

RESPONDENT: What I have done is ask what your intentions are ...

RICHARD: If I may point out? You specifically asked me what the purpose of this line of enquiry is (asking what happened, between 10:38 AM Saturday 5/03/2005 AEST and 12:47 PM Friday 13/05/2005 AEST, such as to set-off your latest tantrum) so I explained the way the actualism method actually works ... and then asked the obvious question (again).

And your response (to the fourth occasion of asking that same simple question)? None other than to instead ask me whether I have taken my own advice to another about not even beginning to think about providing some reasonable explanation for what you have characterised as being a feedback loop problem with the actualism method.

RESPONDENT: ... and you appear to be telling me, if I understand you correctly, that – whatever your intentions are – they are NOT to provide a reasonable explanation for the peculiar effect I’ve described.

RICHARD: I neither told you that nor even appeared to be telling you that: I explained the way the actualism method actually works ... and then asked the same simple and obvious question yet again.

RESPONDENT: So I ask again: if your intention is not to provide reasonable explanations, what is it?

RICHARD: I have no intention whatsoever of even beginning to think about providing some reasonable explanation, as to why you have what you characterise as being a feedback loop problem with the actualism method, let alone doing so.

I may be a lot of things ... but silly I am not.

RESPONDENT: A straight answer doesn’t strike me as too much to ask.

RICHARD: Okay then ... what happened between 10:38 AM Saturday 5/03/2005 AEST and 12:47 PM Friday 13/05/2005 AEST such as to set-off your latest tantrum?

May 28 2005

RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): (...) you come across as a pretty sincere and benevolent person to me, and I appreciate the good will you’ve shown. At this point I am more concerned about you being steamrolled by Mr Benevolence as he tries to steamroll me, so stay at a safe distance man. ;-)

RICHARD: As a wink is as good as a nod here is the story so far:

1. You write numerous e-mails to this list detailing what you characterise as a feedback loop problem with the actualism method and ask for responses.
2. You make it abundantly clear that the only acceptable responses will be of a kind in accord with your contention there is something amiss with the method itself.
3. Being able to recognise a set-up when I see one I provide the quotes which particularly make this clear upon your co-respondent asking for some reasonable explanation, regarding said feedback loop, from an actualist that has been around the block more than a few times.
4. You then adroitly switch from being critical of your co-respondent’s responses, as per the set-up, to being laudatory about their character ... and use that as a springboard in futile attempt to score a cheap shot whilst expressing a crocodilian solicitousness.

The only question remaining is how much longer this farce will continue before it too goes the way all those gone before have done.

May 28 2005

RESPONDENT: ... and its degree of likelihood [that I have not ruled it out that your condition is/was pathological] mysteriously increases when I am throwing a tantrum.

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off this latest tantrum?

RESPONDENT: Yet another instance of this: [‘Problems With The Method’; Monday 16/05/2005 4:40 AM AEST].

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off yet another instance of your problems with the actualism method?

RESPONDENT: Nothing happens to set off an instance of my problem with the method.

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off your latest tantrum?

RESPONDENT: May I ask first, what is the purpose of this line of inquiry?

RICHARD: Sure ... (snip).

(...)

RESPONDENT: What I have done is ask what your intentions are ...

RICHARD: If I may point out? You specifically asked me what the purpose of this line of enquiry is (asking what happened, between 10:38 AM Saturday 5/03/2005 AEST and 12:47 PM Friday 13/05/2005 AEST, such as to set-off your latest tantrum) so I explained the way the actualism method actually works ... and then asked the obvious question (again). And your response (to the fourth occasion of asking that same simple question)? None other than to instead ask me whether I have taken my own advice to another about not even beginning to think about providing some reasonable explanation for what you have characterised as being a feedback loop problem with the actualism method.

RESPONDENT: ... and you appear to be telling me, if I understand you correctly, that – whatever your intentions are – they are NOT to provide a reasonable explanation for the peculiar effect I’ve described.

RICHARD: I neither told you that nor even appeared to be telling you that: I explained the way the actualism method actually works ... and then asked the same simple and obvious question yet again.

RESPONDENT: So I ask again: if your intention is not to provide reasonable explanations, what is it?

RICHARD: I have no intention whatsoever of even beginning to think about providing some reasonable explanation, as to why you have what you characterise as being a feedback loop problem with the actualism method, let alone doing so.

RESPONDENT: In that case we’re wasting our time.

RICHARD: As none of my responses have been a waste of my time you are way, way out there on your own with that observation ... just as you are with endeavouring to divert the course of this particular exchange of e-mails into being yet more grist for your consumptive mill.

On six occasions now I have asked you to put the aforementioned method into practice the way it is actually practiced by those reporting success with it ... maybe the seventh time around might do the trick: what happened, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST, such as to set-off this latest tantrum?

It is your call.

May 28 2005

RESPONDENT: My experience, observation and reasoning tells me that unless it’s accompanied by an actual pathological process that causes damage to the brain (maybe even be random damage at that), the actualism process is naught but wishful thinking and (at best) a powerful placebo effect. It causes changes, sure ... but those can (best, IMO) be attributed to: (a) finding a meaningful purpose to pursue; (b) being fully committed to a single goal; (c) doing it with a like-minded individual; (d) practising a happy/harmless morality (because that’s all it is unless/until ‘self’-immolation occurs).

(...)

RICHARD: ... when did it occur to you that ‘a rare neurological condition’ = ‘an actual pathological process’ (involving, caused by, or of the nature of disease or illness)?

RESPONDENT: It occurred to me from the beginning. I say ‘it’ rather than ‘they’ because for me they both are different ways of expressing the same underlying concern.

RICHARD: As the underlying concern that a rare congenital/acquired disease/illness of this flesh and blood body’s nervous system – meaning that, therefore, nobody else need even begin trying to make happen the damage to this flesh and blood body’s brain (maybe even being random damage at that) which you allege the identity in residence all those years ago caused – occurred to you when you first came across The Actual Freedom Trust web site would it be reasonable to say that your subsequent dismissal of any practicing actualists’ success in living a virtual freedom, through the sincere application of the way that particular identity went about achieving same for six months or so in 1981, is predicated upon that very idea?

RESPONDENT: Partly. There is a possibility that your unique-in-human-history condition is caused by (or dependent upon) a unique-or-rare-in-human-history neurological anomaly.

RICHARD: Just so there is no misunderstanding: you are saying there is a possibility that what the identity in residence in this flesh and blood body in 1981 experienced for six months or so was a unique-in-human-history virtual freedom caused by (or dependent upon) a unique-or-rare-in-human-history neurological anomaly.

For that is the very crux of the question you are responding to.

RESPONDENT: IF that is the case, it is strongly suggestive that the people who describe themselves as virtually free from the human condition either (a) share that neurological anomaly (which is pretty unlikely, given your unique status in human history and the very low probability of encountering not only one but two similarly endowed people right there in Byron Bay) ...

RICHARD: So unlikely as to be an improbability bordering upon being an impossibility, eh?

RESPONDENT: ... or (b) have made themselves happy and harmless by other means ...

RICHARD: Aye ... the very means by which the identity in residence in this flesh and blood body in 1981 both devised and applied.

RESPONDENT: ... (eg. being wholly committed to a meaningful course of action ...

RICHARD: Being so wholly committed, in fact, as to be dedicated, devoted, to one particular meaningful course of action (and not to just any meaningful course of action) ... to wit: to being as happy and harmless (virtually free of malice and sorrow) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’.

RESPONDENT: ... coupled with a minimalistic happy/ harmless morality ...

RICHARD: No, morality (and/or ethicality) no matter how minimal plays no part whatsoever in being virtually free of the human condition ... in fact morality (and/or ethicality) prevents such a virtually on-going excellence experience being at all possible.

In short: such peoples who describe themselves as being virtually free have done so by virtue of choosing to escape their fate and meet their destiny.

RESPONDENT: ... and a pleasant lifestyle) ...

RICHARD: That is so trite I will pass without any further comment.

RESPONDENT: ... without having the same neurological condition as you and therefore without being able to undergo the final psychic dissolution that brought about your AF. These possibilities exist; they are not of my making.

RICHARD: Sure ... the possibility that this flesh and blood body was unknowingly abducted by aliens whilst in deep sleep, and subjected to anal probes such as to occasion pure intent for the identity within, with a resultant six month or so virtual freedom, and a final psychic dissolution, also exists.

And that possibility is not of my making (someone seriously suggested it to me, face-to-face, many years ago).

*

RICHARD: For the most recent example of this dismissal: [Respondent]: ‘I don’t intend any personal offence to anyone here, but the fact is I do not want to be like Peter, or Vineeto, or Gary, or ... whoever’. [endquote]. And why? None other than this: [Respondent]: ‘... [because] the practice of actualism is nowt but a minimalistic moral code and an investigative technique’. [endquote]. In other words, unless any practicing actualist also has the same rare congenital/acquired disease/illness of the nervous system that it occurred to you right from the beginning this particular flesh and blood body has they are but straining at a gnat (being unduly fussy or scrupulous about something small and insignificant)?

RESPONDENT: If it isn’t possible to go all the way ...

RICHARD: Why be so coy all-of-a-sudden? Your premise is that it is not possible to either even begin (no rare congenital/acquired disease/illness of the nervous system means no true pure intent) or to proceed (no rare congenital/acquired disease/illness of the nervous system means no true virtual freedom) ... let alone go all the way.

RESPONDENT: ... (which is still an open question) ...

RICHARD: Let me see if I follow your line of thought:

1. Until another becomes actually free from the human condition the pure intent they have is not the true pure intent and the virtual freedom they experience is not the true virtual freedom.
2. The moment they become actually free from the human condition the pure intent they had was the true pure intent after all and the virtual freedom they experienced was also the true virtual freedom.

Am I comprehending correctly?

RESPONDENT: ... I would not want the simulation thereof.

RICHARD: There something strange, almost to the point of being weird, about an attitude which has it that until somebody else has achieved what a pioneer achieved one will not even set out to achieve that because such achievability has not yet been demonstrated to be achievable by another.

Put simply: how on earth can something be done if nobody will do it because it has not yet been demonstrated to be doable?

RESPONDENT: Each to his/her own.

RICHARD: And thus having downgraded an affective happiness and harmlessness, of such an excellence as to be way beyond normal human expectations, into being a (dismissive) simulation of a non-affective happiness and harmlessness, of such a purity and perfection as to be inconceivable/unbelievable and incomprehensible/unimaginable, your cavalier put-down of any fellow human being having the intestinal fortitude to get off their backside and actually do something about all the animosity and anguish, all the misery and mayhem, just sits there ... echoing throughout cyber-space.

Your entire proposition is so bizarre I will skip to the very end of this e-mail (where such wackiness is magnified to the point that even Blind Freddie could see it).

*

(...)

*

RICHARD: May I ask? What is the likelihood of that (conceptual) neurological disease and/or illness being an infectious one ... and if so by what agent (a mosquito perhaps)?

RESPONDENT: Hmmm ... We can rule out sexual transmission. Rule out psychic transmission too. There’s some evidence of it spreading by word of mouth, but that only seems to result in mild and curable cases. Under the circumstances, yes, it couldn’t hurt to give mosquitos a try.

RICHARD: Okay ... as you have previously indicated you live but a few hundred kilometres to the south of where I am currently residing, and as the mosquitoes carrying tropical diseases are spreading further and faster southwards from the torrid north each and every day, then it is but a matter of time and opportunity before a mosquito having sucked blood from me transmits that (conceptual) neurological disease and/or illness to you.

The day of reckoning is drawing nigh ... run, run for your very life!

May 30 2005

RESPONDENT: My experience, observation and reasoning tells me that unless it’s accompanied by an actual pathological process that causes damage to the brain (maybe even be random damage at that), the actualism process is naught but wishful thinking and (at best) a powerful placebo effect. It causes changes, sure ... but those can (best, IMO) be attributed to: (a) finding a meaningful purpose to pursue; (b) being fully committed to a single goal; (c) doing it with a like-minded individual; (d) practising a happy/harmless morality (because that’s all it is unless/until ‘self’-immolation occurs).

(...)

RICHARD: As the underlying concern that a rare congenital/acquired disease/illness of this flesh and blood body’s nervous system – meaning that, therefore, nobody else need even begin trying to make happen the damage to this flesh and blood body’s brain (maybe even being random damage at that) which you allege the identity in residence all those years ago caused – occurred to you when you first came across The Actual Freedom Trust web site would it be reasonable to say that your subsequent dismissal of any practicing actualists’ success in living a virtual freedom, through the sincere application of the way that particular identity went about achieving same for six months or so in 1981, is predicated upon that very idea?

RESPONDENT: Partly. There is a possibility that your unique-in-human-history condition is caused by (or dependent upon) a unique-or-rare-in-human-history neurological anomaly.

RICHARD: Just so there is no misunderstanding: you are saying there is a possibility that what the identity in residence in this flesh and blood body in 1981 experienced for six months or so was a unique-in-human-history virtual freedom caused by (or dependent upon) a unique-or-rare-in-human-history neurological anomaly. For that is the very crux of the question you are responding to.

RESPONDENT: IF that is the case, it is strongly suggestive that the people who describe themselves as virtually free from the human condition either (a) share that neurological anomaly (which is pretty unlikely, given your unique status in human history and the very low probability of encountering not only one but two similarly endowed people right there in Byron Bay) ...

RICHARD: So unlikely as to be an improbability bordering upon being an impossibility, eh?

RESPONDENT: ... or (b) have made themselves happy and harmless by other means ...

RICHARD: Aye ... the very means by which the identity in residence in this flesh and blood body in 1981 both devised and applied.

RESPONDENT: ... (eg. being wholly committed to a meaningful course of action ...

RICHARD: Being so wholly committed, in fact, as to be dedicated, devoted, to one particular meaningful course of action (and not to just any meaningful course of action) ... to wit: to being as happy and harmless (virtually free of malice and sorrow) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’.

RESPONDENT: ... coupled with a minimalistic happy/ harmless morality ...

RICHARD: No, morality (and/or ethicality) no matter how minimal plays no part whatsoever in being virtually free of the human condition ... in fact morality (and/or ethicality) prevents such a virtually on-going excellence experience being at all possible. In short: such peoples who describe themselves as being virtually free have done so by virtue of choosing to escape their fate and meet their destiny.

RESPONDENT: ... and a pleasant lifestyle) ...

RICHARD: That is so trite I will pass without any further comment.

RESPONDENT: ... without having the same neurological condition as you and therefore without being able to undergo the final psychic dissolution that brought about your AF. These possibilities exist; they are not of my making.

RICHARD: Sure ... the possibility that this flesh and blood body was unknowingly abducted by aliens whilst in deep sleep, and subjected to anal probes such as to occasion pure intent for the identity within, with a resultant six month or so virtual freedom, and a final psychic dissolution, also exists. And that possibility is not of my making (someone seriously suggested it to me, face-to-face, many years ago).

RESPONDENT: Okay ... you ‘die’ twice, each time resulting in a radical, fundamental and irreversible transformation of your fundamental state of ‘being’.

RICHARD: No, only the 1981 event (characterised as ego-death) was a transformation of ‘being’ ... the 1992 event was the end of ‘being’ itself (as in extinct).

RESPONDENT: Each time it is accompanied by intense physical symptoms suggestive of intense electrochemical activity in your brain(stem)/ nervous system.

RICHARD: Primarily in the brain-stem ... yes.

RESPONDENT: You’ve had people practising your method with intense dedication for 8 years(?) more(?), trying their very best to replicate your condition, yet none of them have undergone any of these decisive, permanent, irreversible transformations.

RICHARD: As the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago practiced the method ‘he’ devised in 1981 with the utmost dedication for more than eleven years before ‘being’ itself became extinct just what is the point you are wanting to make?

Besides which, as I remarked further below in this e-mail you are responding to, there something strange, almost to the point of being weird, about an attitude which has it that until somebody else has achieved what a pioneer achieved one will not even set out to achieve that because such achievability has not yet been demonstrated to be achievable by another.

Put simply: how on earth can something be done if nobody will do it because it has not yet been demonstrated to be doable?

RESPONDENT: Now, the possibility that these extraordinary ‘deaths’ were caused by (or dependent upon) a peculiar pathology is very real ...

RICHARD: In your mind ... yes; in reality ... no, not at all.

RESPONDENT: ... yet you now dismiss with a most weaselly distraction about it also being possible that you were abducted by space aliens and had a probe inserted into your arse.

RICHARD: It is neither weaselly nor a distraction: I acknowledged that your (conceptual) possibility exists and provided one example out of the many and varied (conceptual) possibilities that many and various peoples have put to me over the years.

RESPONDENT: Your credentials as the particular madman who really does have the answers to all the ills of humankind are not served very well by such weaselly evasions.

RICHARD: As it was neither weaselly nor an evasion your conclusion is a non-sequitur.

RESPONDENT: By the way, didn’t you say that one of your psychiatrists wanted to send you to a neurologist?

RICHARD: No ... neither of the two accredited psychiatrists (who, unlike psychologists, are fully qualified medical doctors) ever wanted to send me to a neurologist.

RESPONDENT: And you declined?

RICHARD: Before advocating specialist tests of any description a psychiatrist (being a duly qualified medical doctor) has to first make their diagnosis from the symptoms and signs being presented in order to warrant such a course of action ... and to recommend a neurological examination to test for an organic basis – the neurological cause – of a psychotic disorder there does need to be evidence symptomatic of such afflictions so as to reasonably make such a diagnosis.

Perhaps if I were to spell it out in no uncertain terms you may finally desist with this beat-up: I have never had, nor am I currently having, any neurological disease/illness of any description ... and neither am I about to go scampering off to a neurologist on the basis of someone’s – anyone’s – amateurish diagnoses, conducted solely via e-mail, when I have been closely examined, face-to-face in their rooms, by accredited professionals in the field who are well aware that more than a few neurotic/psychotic disorders have an organic basis.

Look, if you want a valid justification for dismissing actualism as a crock all you have to do is seize upon what you have already mentioned further above ... to wit: Richard is a particular madman (as in a war-crazed veteran).

In other words there is no need to concoct fanciful reasons for such a dismissal.

May 30 2005

RICHARD: ... did the idea that any changes the actualism process causes can best be attributed to finding a meaningful purpose to pursue also occur to you, for example, as far back as December 2003 (and thus predating your older brother’s awareness of Richard’s existence)?

RESPONDENT: The happiness and satisfaction to be derived from committing oneself wholeheartedly to a meaningful course of action occurred to me long, long before December 2003 – long before I ever heard of you, or Peter, or Vineeto. There is nothing specific to actualism in that observation.

RICHARD: Indeed not ... Mr. Saloth Sar (for just one instance) would have derived satisfaction and, presumably, a satisfaction-based happiness, from committing himself wholeheartedly to a meaningful course of action thirty-odd years ago. To explain: impervious to the fact indigenous peoples had amply demonstrated that cultural/ lifestyle change would not make any substantive dent in the human condition a school of psychology/ philosophy arose last century, in the period between the two world wars, which proposed changing the culture/lifestyle so as to bring about a new human being – one of the leading proponents was Mr. Burrhus Skinner with his planned utopian society – and the genesis of such an attempt at social engineering could be seen in the then USSR where personal ownership of land had been abolished in favour of communal ownership (collectivisation versus privatisation) and control of the means of production had been transferred from the individual to the community (complete with a command-driven economy as opposed to a market-based one). Undaunted by the fact that the soviet experiment had failed to bring about a new human being Mr. Saloth Sar went much further and launched a massive cultural/ lifestyle change in Cambodia in late 1975 ... not only was private property abolished but money was eradicated as well and the cities were emptied. Furthermore the borders were closed; the media was closed; the schools were closed; the hospitals were closed; the offices were closed; the shops were closed; the markets were closed; the monasteries were closed and everyone wore the same simple clothing and everyone lived directly off the land ... ‘going back to nature’ was the order of the day. Just as were blind nature’s survival passions.

RESPONDENT: By the same token, there is no reason to exclude actualism from it.

RICHARD: As you specifically referred to those changes the actualism process causes, being best attributed to finding a meaningful purpose to pursue, it would aid clarity in communication to delineate just what those changes are ... to wit: being as happy and harmless (as free of malice and sorrow) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’. Yet your version of such change is a satisfaction-based happiness, not a virtually sorrow-free (and therefore relatively unconditional) happiness, and with no mention whatsoever of an inextricably-linked relatively unconditional harmlessness (virtually malice-free).

(...) As a satisfaction-based happiness is not what the actualism process results in, each moment again, you may be inclined to reconsider your response.

RESPONDENT: How do you know?

RICHARD: Intimately ... the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body lived what has nowadays become known as a virtual freedom for six months or so in 1981 and it was most definitely *not* a satisfaction-based happiness-only experiencing.

RESPONDENT: How do you really know?

RICHARD: By virtue of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago having *really* experienced a virtually sorrow-free (and therefore relatively unconditional) happiness with its inextricably-linked relatively unconditional harmlessness (virtually malice-free) for six months or so in 1981.

RESPONDENT: I don’t; I only have a few impressions, opinions, suspicions, whatever.

RICHARD: Okay ... they are your impressions, opinions, suspicions, whatever, when all is said and done, just as it is your choice to be guided by them.

RESPONDENT: Somebody like Irene, who has been ‘virtually free’ and presumably is no longer, would be best placed to give an answer to that one.

RICHARD: A possible clue as to why my previous companion’s virtual freedom was so readily set aside by Love Agapé may be found in the following passages:

• [Irene to Vineeto]: ‘When Richard used to come out with a statement that would go totally against my own sense of right, true, correct, I would always do a scientific experiment: I would ask myself to go and find out who of us was ultimately right. To be unbiased (which is the true meaning of scientific) I would allow, for a while, the possibility that I had been wrong so that I could be indeed open to Richard’s statement being right. Often I was convinced by his common sense and logical approach and decided to change my old mind, or I discovered, by giving him the benefit of the doubt, that his opinion was a result of repressed feelings. For a long while I favoured his outlook over my own, but more and more I had to admit that it was not me who was wrong but Richard’.
• [Richard]: ‘I would question that it is scientifically unbiased to allow something only ‘for a while’ ... as this sounds to me as a conditional – if not grudging – preparedness to examine one’s own borrowed truths. Also, I am surprised to find you being ‘convinced’ only by my approach ... what about seeing a fact for yourself? Then you do not have to ‘decide to change your mind’ because seeing a fact sets you free ... you then stand on your own two feet. Then you are autonomous ... whereas a changed mind can always be changed back again at will. All that you describe above is a far cry from investigating and uncovering ... exploring and discovering ... seeking and finding out for oneself. Actuality is that which is self-evident, obvious, factual ... opinion does not come into an actual freedom and never has done. Indeed, as you say that you would ‘favour his outlook over my own’, then it becomes obvious that you never saw the fact for yourself. Giving some one the benefit of the doubt is but a ploy to keep one’s pre-set feeling subtly in place underneath it all. It is a prime example of the domination that intuition has over actuality.
And just what ‘repressed feelings’ would they be that you refer to, anyway?

RESPONDENT: Is virtual freedom anything at all, once the desire to be actually free and/or the belief in the possibility of becoming actually free, ceases?

RICHARD: First of all a virtual freedom will not come about if there is a belief that it is possible to become actually free from the human condition ... such a possibility is what is seen for oneself in a pure consciousness experience (PCE).

As for the desire to become actually free from the human condition: if that dedicated pure intent ever wanes to the point of being non-existent then what one is left with is whatever one has seen through/ realised/ discovered for oneself ... my previous companion, for instance, does report that she is much better off because her involvement with actualism than she was before she ever met me.

RESPONDENT: Personally I doubt it.

RICHARD: Okay ... it is your doubt, when all is said and done, just as it is your choice to be guided by it.

RESPONDENT: My gut feeling is that virtual freedom must be constantly policed ...

RICHARD: As a ‘gut-feeling’ is another way of saying ‘intuition’ that is not at all surprising.

RESPONDENT: [My gut feeling is that virtual freedom must be constantly policed], maintained affectively and cognitively by a constant barrage of actualist ideation, and for long-term success it requires people who are expert believers.

RICHARD: Whereas in reality a virtual freedom needs none of what your gut-feeling tells you it requires.

RESPONDENT: That is what seems most likely to me at this stage.

RICHARD: Okay ... it is your most-likeliness, when all is said and done, just as it is your choice to be guided by it.

RESPONDENT: [Addendum]: May I ask? Did the once-‘virtually-free’ Irene succeed, in your estimation, in activating the ‘neurological process’ referred to in this message: [Co-Respondent]: ‘So, where do equity and parity come into the picture? [Richard]: ‘Only unilateral action will do the trick. [Co-Respondent]: ‘Action as in not of thought? Care to expound? [Richard]: ‘By ‘unilateral’ I mean that living with equity and parity is something one does entirely on one’s own ... it does not depend upon the cooperation of others. What they do is their business (as long as they comply with the legal laws and observe the social protocol, they are left alone to live their lives as wisely or as foolishly as they choose). One does not have to concern oneself about any other person’s modus operandi at all ... they can carry on being grotty if that is what turns them on. Therefore, one’s basic starting point is this: how can one live with equity and parity in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are? The purity of intent born out of the intensity of this once-in-a-lifetime ‘starting-point’ question precipitates unilateral action which is not of ‘my’ doing once set in motion ... because, at root, it is ‘me’ who is the problem. Thus thought may or may not play a part in it depending upon the circumstances, each moment again, in one’s daily life. This ‘action’ is a neurological process occurring in the skull (specifically at the top of the brain-stem) that gathers a momentum of its own accord ... ‘me’ thinking and feeling may aid or hinder this process from time-to-time but essentially, once one sets the action in motion, the neurological process does the trick itself. It is the pure intent to live in peace and harmony (equity and parity) irregardless of other’s intentions that fuels the process’. (../richard/listbcorrespondence/listb37a.htm#20Mar00).

RICHARD: No, as anyone who personally knew my previous companion at the time would attest, she had some difficulty living with equity and parity in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are.

*

(...)

*

RESPONDENT: (None of the information I received [in an online neurology-related forum] was fully consistent with what you report though).

RICHARD: Could that be, perchance, because the very nature of the questions you asked is what produced the answers you received?

RESPONDENT: Of course. I was familiar with your own interpretation of your condition ...

RICHARD: If I might interject? How did my [quote] ‘report’ [endquote] of my condition all-of-a-sudden become my [quote] ‘interpretation’ [endquote]?

RESPONDENT: If I may begin to answer a question with a question: is it your opinion that every person on this planet is best able to explain his/her own condition, i.e. that they are best placed to provide an accurate ‘report’ of what is happening / has happened to them?

RICHARD: As I have not, obviously, read every person on this planet’s report of what is happening for/has happened to them I would need to be pretty silly to have such an opinion.

RESPONDENT: Would it including the guy who thinks he’s the King of the Space Lizards, put on earth to locate and seduce the Queen of the Earth Worms in order to breed the Butterfly who ... ?

RICHARD: Just so as to inject a little commonsense into this exchange might I remind you that the condition under discussion is so strikingly similar to what is experienced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) it is virtually indistinguishable?

And, as every person I have personally spoken to at length has had at least one such moment of perfection in their life (usually more often in childhood), it is quite reasonable to assume that neurological diseases/illnesses play no essential part, if any, in actuality becoming apparent.

RESPONDENT: If not ... why not?

RICHARD: Because, whilst I may be a lot of things, silly I am not.

Speaking of silliness ... does it not strike you as being the heights of absurdity to propose that the pristine purity and peerless perfection of this actual world – as evidenced in PCE – can only become apparent 24/7 via a neurological disease/ illness?

Just curious.


CORRESPONDENT No. 60 (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