|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 68
RESPONDENT: Richard, as you have used LeDoux, perhaps this [General Sensate Focusing Technique] can be of service. (snip link). RICHARD: First of all, the only use I have ever made of Mr. Joseph LeDoux is his laboratory evidence that a sensate signal goes first to the affective circuitry (albeit a split-second first) and then to the cognitive circuitry ... for example:
And, furthermore, his laboratory work played no part whatsoever in becoming actually free from the human condition:
As for the link you provided to Mr. Ilan Shalif’s web site ... if you could provide an example of how his ‘General Sensate Focusing Technique’ has been, or is being, ‘of service’ to you in regards to the actualism method there will then be something of substance to discuss. You may find the following exchange to be of interest:
Not all that surprisingly there was no further response.
RESPONDENT No. 78: You say that trust is antithetical to the AF method. Yet you say in ‘The Highly Esteemed Compassion Perpetuates Sorrow’ that: [quote] ‘I have the greatest admiration for ‘Richard the identity’: He was willing to self-immolate so that I could be here. He never knew me, but was ***utterly confident*** that the universe knew what it was doing.’ [emphasis added]. So you needed confidence? I have posted the definition of trust below for evidence that you have stated that you had to trust in the universe ... [quote] ‘trust \Trust\, v. i. 1. To have trust; to be credulous; to be won to confidence; to confide. 2. To be confident, as of something future; to hope. 3. To sell or deliver anything in reliance upon a promise of payment; to give credit. To trust in, To trust on, to place confidence in,; to rely on; to depend. ‘Trust in the Lord, and do good.’ –Ps. xxxvii. 3. ‘A priest ... on whom we trust.’ –Chaucer. To trust to or unto, to depend on; to have confidence in; to rely on. (Source: Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.). [Addendum: Never mind – ignore the above question, Richard, I have already understood the answer there. :)]RESPONDENT: No 78, would you mind sharing what ‘I have already understood the answer there’? Richard, I am still interested in your response. RICHARD: Why? I clearly use the word ‘confident’ yet your co-respondent sees fit to look-up the word ‘trust’ in a dictionary – and then posts that definition as being [quote] ‘the evidence’ [endquote] I have stated I had to trust in the universe – as if I had, in fact, said the identity who was inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago was *utterly trustful* that the universe knew what it was doing. Not having access to Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary I can only provide what the Merriam-Webster has to say about the word I actually used:
Just by-the-by I see that a couple of other dictionaries also say the ‘trustful’ meaning is obsolete:
Be that as it may ... this is the essence of what to be ‘characterised by assurance’ means to the Merriam-Webster’s compilers:
Here is what certainty (aka ‘an easy freedom from uncertainty’ just above) means to them:
Anyway, dictionary definitions
I do not see how I can be more clear than that.
RESPONDENT: Richard, as you have used LeDoux, perhaps this [General Sensate Focusing Technique] can be of service. (snip link). RICHARD: First of all, the only use I have ever made of Mr. Joseph LeDoux is his laboratory evidence that a sensate signal goes first to the affective circuitry (albeit a split-second first) and then to the cognitive circuitry ... for example [snip examples].: RESPONDENT: Ok. RICHARD: This is the ‘only use’ being referred to (in the first example provided of what I have written on other occasions on this topic):
In other words, I have never, ever, personally ‘used LeDoux’ ... as made crystal clear with this sentence:
Thus all that is left of your (further above) sentence is this:
And just whom might it be ‘of service’ to? None other than this person (from further below):
As Mr. Joseph LeDoux’s laboratory evidence is qualitatively different to Mr. Ilan Shalif’s psychological management technique here is my question: why would his, or any, psychological management technique be of use/be of service to a person setting foot on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition? Viz.:
In short (more on this below): actualism is not a management technique, a coping mechanism, or any other kind of psychological system. * RICHARD: As for the link you provided to Mr. Ilan Shalif’s web site ... if you could provide an example of how his ‘General Sensate Focusing Technique’ has been, or is being, ‘of service’ to you in regards to the actualism method there will then be something of substance to discuss. RESPONDENT: 1) The GSFT was a pointer that peace could be found out side of spirituality – thus a precursor to be being open to AF. RICHARD: I copy-pasted the word <peace> into a search engine and sent it through Mr. Ilan Shalif’s entire web site ... only to have it return nil hits. Howsoever the word ‘serenity’ features several times ... for instance:
The ‘Fear-Serenity continuum’ referred to there is otherwise known as Mr. Charles Darwin’s second principle in his theory of emotion. Viz.:
And:
And:
Thus if ‘serenity’ is indeed the ‘peace’ you are referring to then it is to be found somewhere towards one pole of the ‘fear-serenity continuum’ in what Mr. Ilan Shalif classifies as ‘the Basic [bipolar] Emotion of ‘fear’’ ... which means that, for there to be serenity in his management plan, the instinctual passion of fear must persist. RESPONDENT: 2) I have broke some habits with it: a) obsessive TV watching. b) smoking. c) overeating. c) and others of a more personal nature. RICHARD: As most things humans do are habitual then for no other reason than because you say ‘obsessive’ in regards television viewing, and as ‘overeating’ is another way of saying ‘excessive’, I will presume you are referring to habits which fall into the obsessive-compulsive-excessive category – else it makes no sense to single out a few amongst the many for attention – such as obsessive and/or compulsive and/or excessive hand-washing, for an obvious instance, or obsessive and/or compulsive and/or excessive sex, for another (there are a multitude of such usual, regular, routine, consistent, normal, customary, ordinary, everyday activities which can become a concern for such obsessive-compulsive-excessive reasons). As Mr. Ilan Shalif makes no secret of the fact that his technique is designed to dispense with having to have recourse to counsellors, therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and any other professionals of that ilk, it is not all that surprising you have had success in those areas. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: 3) I have improved my emotional climate: a) I have reduced the intensity and frequency of ‘being angry’. b) I have reduced the intensity and frequency of anxiety. RICHARD: There are, of course, 101 psychological management techniques available these days to the lay public and, as you have made it known previously you work in the mental health field, it is understandable that you would have an interest in that area ... howsoever, as psychology/psychiatry has not brought, is not bringing, and will not bring, peace-on-earth, nothing that a psychological/psychiatric approach has to offer has, is, or will, be of use/be of service to a person setting foot on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: All w/o god, spirituality, meditation, therapy, money, ideology, ‘positive’ thinking. 10 months of off and on again use. I do wish I would have done it intensively before AF, so I could have a better contrast. I thought the scientific study of the emotions with a corresponding non-spiritual method might be of interest to you. RICHARD: I came across Mr. Ilan Shalif’s web site about two-three years ago ... psychological/ psychiatric management techniques/ coping mechanisms hold no interest to me. Moreover, on his other web site, where he promotes and promulgates [quote] ‘anarchism and other communist libertarian’ [endquote] societies, he has the following quotes and comments:
The carte blanche nature of that last quote – ‘by any means necessary’ – leaves me totally uninterested in anything at all he has to say. RESPONDENT: Perhaps his detailed instruction of how to sensately focus could be of use for a beginning actualist. RICHARD: Given that Mr. Ilan Shalif’s management plan depends upon the instinctual passions remaining firmly in situ forever in just what way could his detailed instruction on how to ‘sensately focus’ be of use for a beginning actualist? RESPONDENT: Of course GSFT is not AF. RICHARD: Of course not ... and, as the elimination of fear (for just one instance) would mean, for a General Sensate Focusing Technique practitioner, the ending of their serenity, it never will be. Just as no other psychological/ psychiatric management technique ever will either.
RESPONDENT: Richard, as you have used LeDoux, perhaps this [General Sensate Focusing Technique] can be of service. (snip link). RICHARD: First of all, the only use I have ever made of Mr. Joseph LeDoux is his laboratory evidence that a sensate signal goes first to the affective circuitry (albeit a split-second first) and then to the cognitive circuitry ... for example [snip examples].: RESPONDENT: Ok. RICHARD: This is the ‘only use’ being referred to (in the first example provided of what I have written on other occasions on this topic):
In other words, I have never, ever, personally ‘used LeDoux’ ... as made crystal clear with this sentence:
RESPONDENT: Clear. RICHARD: Although you may say it is ‘clear’ – and earlier ‘ok’ – your elaboration on just what it is that is clear (further below) shows that it is far from being that ... which is why I repeated myself, plus added an illustrated explanation, the second time around. * RICHARD: Thus all that is left of your (further above) sentence is this:
And just whom might it be ‘of service’ to? None other than this person (from further below):
As Mr. Joseph LeDoux’s laboratory evidence is qualitatively different to Mr. Ilan Shalif’s psychological management technique here is my question: why would his, or any, psychological management technique be of use/be of service to a person setting foot on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: It ain’t AF, but he does a precise job instructing how to focus on sensations and feelings. It would be up to any individual to discover if that could be of any use to them. It is of no use to you, clear enough. RICHARD: As nothing is of use to me personally – including the actualism method – then obviously I am not making myself clear: Mr. Ilan Shalif’s psychological management technique, which is qualitatively different to Mr. Joseph LeDoux’s laboratory evidence, is of no use whatsoever to a person setting foot upon the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition ... whereas Mr. Joseph LeDoux’s laboratory evidence can be of use inasmuch such a person need not take my word for it that the feelings arise before thought in the reactionary process (albeit a split-second first). If this is now clear – that you unwarrantedly linked the two persons, thus falsely ascribing an associative value to the second person, in your intro to the link you provided – then we can look at your (revised) reason as to why you are promoting/endorsing Mr. Ilan Shalif’s psychological management technique on a mailing list set-up to discuss peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body ... to wit: that he (purportedly) does a precise job instructing how to focus on sensations and feelings and that it would be up to any individual (presumably a beginning actualist) to discover if that could be of any use to them (presumably in conjunction with the actualism method). Okay? * RICHARD: In short (more on this below): actualism is not a management technique, a coping mechanism, or any other kind of psychological system. RESPONDENT: I know. RICHARD: Then why would you promote/ endorse such a system on a mailing list set-up to discuss peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body? * RICHARD: As for the link you provided to Mr. Ilan Shalif’s web site ... if you could provide an example of how his ‘General Sensate Focusing Technique’ has been, or is being, ‘of service’ to you in regards to the actualism method there will then be something of substance to discuss. RESPONDENT: 1) The GSFT was a pointer that peace could be found out side of spirituality – thus a precursor to be being open to AF. RICHARD: I copy-pasted the word <peace> into a search engine and sent it through Mr. Ilan Shalif’s entire web site ... only to have it return nil hits. Howsoever the word ‘serenity’ features several times ... for instance: [Mr. Ilan Shalif]: ‘... those [ongoing appraisals] of the structure in charge of assessing the amount of present and future dangers, are made along the ‘Fear-Serenity’ continuum which is better known as the Basic Emotion of ‘fear’. [endquote]. The ‘Fear-Serenity continuum’ referred to there is otherwise known as Mr. Charles Darwin’s second principle in his theory of emotion. Viz.: [Mr. Ilan Shalif]: ‘In the second principle of his [Mr. Charles Darwin’s] theory, he claimed that each of the basic emotions consists of a pair of bipolar antitheses – like the two opposing poles of fear and serenity’. [endquote]. And: [Mr. Ilan Shalif]: ‘A study was carried out (...) Results support Darwin’s claim that each of the basic emotions is a bipolar entity. [endquote]. And: [Mr. Ilan Shalif]: ‘... our study gives substantial support to Darwin’s (1872) second principle of emotion which claims that the inborn emotions are bipolar. The bipolar findings are also congruent with findings of modern neurological studies of the Amigdala of the Limbic system of the brain. Clearly demonstrating this are findings about the bipolarity function of the Amigdala in the creation of the emotional experience of the basic emotions – as showed by Fonberg (1986) and Panksep (1986). [endquote]. Thus if ‘serenity’ is indeed the ‘peace’ you are referring to then it is to be found somewhere towards one pole of the ‘fear-serenity continuum’ in what Mr. Ilan Shalif classifies as ‘the Basic [bipolar] Emotion of ‘fear’’ ... which means that, for there to be serenity in his management plan, the instinctual passion of fear must persist. RESPONDENT: Is the bipolar theory incorrect in your experience? RICHARD: It is your ‘the GSFT was a pointer that peace could be found out side of spirituality’ theory which is incorrect. RESPONDENT: So his research is flawed then? RICHARD: It is your research which is flawed ... I invite you to copy-paste the word <peace> into a search engine and send it through his entire web site and thus see for yourself. * RESPONDENT: 2) I have broke some habits with it: a) obsessive TV watching. b) smoking. c) overeating. c) and others of a more personal nature. RICHARD: As most things humans do are habitual then for no other reason than because you say ‘obsessive’ in regards television viewing, and as ‘overeating’ is another way of saying ‘excessive’, I will presume you are referring to habits which fall into the obsessive-compulsive-excessive category – else it makes no sense to single out a few amongst the many for attention – such as obsessive and/or compulsive and/or excessive hand-washing, for an obvious instance, or obsessive and/or compulsive and/or excessive sex, for another (there are a multitude of such usual, regular, routine, consistent, normal, customary, ordinary, everyday activities which can become a concern for such obsessive-compulsive-excessive reasons). RESPONDENT: Excessive is better, yes. RICHARD: Okay ... then as most things humans do are habitual for no other reason than because you say ‘obsessive’ in regards television viewing, and as you say ‘excessive’ is better than saying ‘overeating’, I will presume you are referring to habits which fall into the obsessive-compulsive-excessive category – else it makes no sense to single out a few amongst the many for attention – such as obsessive and/or compulsive and/or excessive hand-washing, for an obvious instance, or obsessive and/or compulsive and/or excessive sex, for another (there are a multitude of such usual, regular, routine, consistent, normal, customary, ordinary, everyday activities which can become a concern for such obsessive-compulsive-excessive reasons). * RICHARD: As Mr. Ilan Shalif makes no secret of the fact that his technique is designed to dispense with having to have recourse to counsellors, therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and any other professionals of that ilk, it is not all that surprising you have had success in those areas. Viz.: RESPONDENT: Sure – there is something to it – and its free. RICHARD: If I may point out? There is probably ‘something to’ all of the 101 psychological management techniques available these days to the lay public ... quite possibly any one of them could have enabled you to have had success in those obsessive-compulsive-excessive areas. * RICHARD: [Mr. Ilan Shalif]: ‘The popularity of dealing with psychology in the past decades, has resulted in an increased awareness of the different processes which occur within the individual. (...) There are also more people who are no longer content – and thus *do not consent to leave their feelings and ‘emotional problems’ to the professionals who specialize in this field*. This trend is similar to the spreading tendency to take part in sports and other physical activities for health and body maintenance outside of any formal framework or organization. This tendency expresses – among other things – the wish to eliminate the monopoly of orthopedics and other specialists on the maintenance of the well-being of the skeleton and muscles. Similar tendencies can be found in the wide stream of movements for *the liberation of the individual from the reign of ‘Professionals and authorities in their field’*. This stream expresses the growing tendency of people to take responsibility for their own functioning and place in the world. (‘Eliminating School’ and ‘Medicine’s revenge’ of Ivan Ilitch are among the outstanding books aimed at achieving this end through ‘destructive’ means. They try to do it through their contribution of ‘Exposing the conspiracy of the experts of the establishment’.) There are also ‘constructive’ means to meet this end. Many people take the trouble to make organized knowledge – based on applied sciences – available (accessible) to the layman. They take the pain to ‘translate’ scientific findings and professional publications into texts written in everyday language, and invent new techniques of the ‘do it yourself’ type. And so, the previously mysterious knowledge of the chosen few becomes intelligible to the ordinary person, who with this help *can becomes (sic) independent of professional assistance*. The knowledge accumulated by me and my trainees and brought to this book – and especially that which is brought to the chapter ‘Do it yourself’ is of the ‘constructionist’ kind. It contributes our share to the growing body of knowledge that *enables the liberation of the individual from total dependency on professionals*. This growing body of knowledge contributes more than any other modern factor to the growing feeling of the freedom of people in modern times. *One is no longer forced to choose, again and again, between self-neglect or fearfully submitting to the experts* ...’ [emphasises added]. (http://shalif.com/psychology/content1.htm#FOR WHOM). RESPONDENT: Why not solve one’s own problems? RICHARD: If one can solve one’s own obsessive-compulsive-excessive problems without having to have recourse to counsellors, therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and any other professionals of that ilk, then why not indeed. * RESPONDENT: 3) I have improved my emotional climate: a) I have reduced the intensity and frequency of ‘being angry’. b) I have reduced the intensity and frequency of anxiety. RICHARD: There are, of course, 101 psychological management techniques available these days to the lay public ... RESPONDENT: Indeed. RICHARD: So as to pre-empt the necessity of wading through each and every one of them, in order to demonstrate why they are of no use/no service whatsoever to a person setting foot on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition, perhaps you might resist the temptation to post links to them the next time around? Whilst I appreciate that, as you work in the mental health field, it is understandable you would have an interest in that area, it does remain a fact that, as psychology/ psychiatry has not brought, is not bringing, and will not bring, peace-on-earth, nothing that a psychological/ psychiatric approach has to offer has, is, or will, be of use/ be of service to a person setting foot on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition. * RICHARD: ... [There are, of course, 101 psychological management techniques available these days to the lay public] and, as you have made it known previously you work in the mental health field, it is understandable that you would have an interest in that area ... RESPONDENT: It is a privilege to work in a field that interests oneself. RICHARD: Be that as it may ... as psychology/ psychiatry has not brought, is not bringing, and will not bring, peace-on-earth, then nothing that a psychological/ psychiatric approach has to offer has, is, or will, be of use/be of service to a person setting foot on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition. * RICHARD: ... [There are, of course, 101 psychological management techniques available these days to the lay public and, as you have made it known previously you work in the mental health field, it is understandable that you would have an interest in that area] ... howsoever, as psychology/psychiatry has not brought, is not bringing, and will not bring, peace-on-earth, nothing that a psychological/psychiatric approach has to offer has, is, or will, be of use/be of service to a person setting foot on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: I have not ever found anything even promising a freedom from the human condition ... RICHARD: And, just to drive the point home, neither have you found a pointer that peace could be found outside of spirituality in Mr. Ilan Shalif’s General Sensate Focusing Technique’ either ... unless, of course, his ‘serenity’ (which is to be found somewhere towards one pole of the ‘fear-serenity continuum’ in what he classifies as ‘the Basic [bipolar] Emotion of ‘fear’’) is indeed the peace you are referring to. In which case, as that means for there to be serenity in his management plan the instinctual passion of fear must persist, you are promoting/endorsing a peace which is not really worth the bandwidth it uses to spread itself in public. RESPONDENT: [I have not ever found anything even promising a freedom from the human condition] – AF is unique. RICHARD: Whereas psychological management techniques, available these days to the lay public, are a dime a dozen. RESPONDENT: Though, I would think that over the next 100 years, actualists will continue to find ways to make the method more efficient. RICHARD: As you have yet to find a way that does make the actualism method more efficient I do look askance at your usage of the word ‘continue’. RESPONDENT: Who knows were insight might come? RICHARD: One thing is for sure ... it will not be coming from Mr. Ilan Shalif’s web site. * RESPONDENT: All w/o god, spirituality, meditation, therapy, money, ideology, ‘positive’ thinking. 10 months of off and on again use. I do wish I would have done it intensively before AF, so I could have a better contrast. I thought the scientific study of the emotions with a corresponding non-spiritual method might be of interest to you. RICHARD: I came across Mr. Ilan Shalif’s web site about two-three years ago ... psychological/psychiatric management techniques/coping mechanisms hold no interest to me. RESPONDENT: Ok. RICHARD: As it is oh-so-easy to just tap out those two little letters would it be too much to ask for a brief exegesis of why psychological/ psychiatric management techniques/ coping mechanisms hold no interest to me? That way I will know whether you understand just what it is you are saying ‘ok’ to. * RICHARD: Moreover, on his other web site, where he promotes and promulgates [quote] ‘anarchism and other communist libertarian’ [endquote] societies, he has the following quotes and comments:
The carte blanche nature of that last quote – ‘by any means necessary’ – leaves me totally uninterested in anything at all he has to say. RESPONDENT: So an error in one subject (anarchism) invalidates his research on the emotions and his GST tech? RICHARD: Hmm ... I write [quote] ‘the carte blanche nature of that last quote – ‘by any means necessary’ – leaves me totally uninterested in anything at all he has to say’ [endquote] yet you ask me whether an error in one subject (anarchism) invalidates Mr. Ilan Shalif’s research on the emotions and his ‘General Sensate Focusing Technique’. I will pass without further comment as all of this is becoming way too laboured. * RESPONDENT: Perhaps his detailed instruction of how to sensately focus could be of use for a beginning actualist. RICHARD: Given that Mr. Ilan Shalif’s management plan depends upon the instinctual passions remaining firmly in situ forever in just what way could his detailed instruction on how to ‘sensately focus’ be of use for a beginning actualist? RESPONDENT: I’m not suggesting an actualist practice the GSFT. RICHARD: I never said you did ... I clearly asked in just what way could his detailed instruction on [quote] ‘how to ‘sensately focus’’ [endquote] be of use for a beginning actualist. RESPONDENT: I thought his description of how to focus could help an actualist in feeling their feelings .. RICHARD: Aye ... and that description – ‘*how* to [sensately] focus’ – is the crux of the very question I asked. RESPONDENT: ... [I thought his description of how to focus could help an actualist in feeling their feelings] – i.e. it might be instructive in how the process of attention works. RICHARD: If you could answer the question as asked it would be most appreciated ... I will re-phrase it so as to be in accord with your re-phrasing (plus emphasise the critical words so as to provide focus):
* RESPONDENT: Of course GSFT is not AF. RICHARD: Of course not ... and, as the elimination of fear (for just one instance) would mean, for a General Sensate Focusing Technique practitioner, the ending of their serenity, it never will be. Just as no other psychological/psychiatric management technique ever will either. RESPONDENT: Until psychological/ psychiatric management techniques start sensible talk about self-immolating, AF will have no cousins, let alone sisters, brothers or parents. RICHARD: Which, of course, includes the ‘General Sensate Focusing [Management] Technique’ and, speaking personally, I will not be holding my breath whilst waiting for them to start as job security, if nothing else, will hinder such ‘sensible talk’ as you refer to. And here is a clue as to why: it will not only mean the ending of psychological/ psychiatric management techniques/ coping mechanisms but the end of psychology/ psychiatry per se. What do you reckon the first five letters in both those words refers to?
RESPONDENT No. 63 (to No. 25): I’m participating in a discussion list and suggesting that some of its members are full of bullshit. PETER: Over the years we have had many people who have come to this mailing list with this motive. It appears that for whatever personal reasons ... RESPONDENT: And they are ‘personal reasons’ indeed. PETER: ... [It appears that for whatever personal reasons] they are moved to fabricate distortions, concoct falsehoods, contrive exaggerations, broadcast innuendo, disseminate gossip, seed insinuations, create suspicion, encourage ambiguity, cast aspersions and, if that doesn’t work, revert to rudeness and even hostility ... RESPONDENT: It’s been a strange experience seeing this as I’ve never seen such extreme behaviour on another list. RICHARD: Not only is ‘such extreme behaviour’ a feature of this mailing list it is quite
typical of what happens in some face-to-face interactions Further to the point: not only has my current companion also similarly observed this she has experienced the same for herself ... ‘tis not for nothing I stress that actualism is not for the faint of heart/the weak of knee. It does indeed take nerves of steel to plumb the stygian depths of the human condition.
RESPONDENT: Richard, when talking with a female friend about your Journal she asked the following questions: 1) Were all three people in the three-way relationship with Irene, yourself and Grace engaging in sexual relations ... RICHARD: Yes, although the ménage à trois – ‘an arrangement or relationship in which three people live together’ (Oxford Dictionary) – started out as a platonic association for my current companion. RESPONDENT: ... (i.e. were Irene and Grace sexually active together, etc.)? RICHARD: As I do not have permission from my previous companion to publicly disclose personal information I will not be responding, be it either in the negative or the affirmative, to queries such as that. RESPONDENT: 2) Was there any hint that Irene may have been jealous of your sexual relationship with Grace? RICHARD: No, the fundamental, or pivotal, reason for what ensued is as detailed in ‘Richard’s Journal’ (of which my previous companion has had a copy ever since it was first published) and in various places throughout my correspondence ... to wit: having fallen in love with a person who loved another she energetically transformed that unrequited love into being Love Agapé ... and the rest is history. RESPONDENT: 3) Why, if you had a ‘perfect’ relationship with Irene, would you want to add a third party? RICHARD: This is the way I described how it all began:
My previous companion was, of course, well aware of such an intimacy. Viz.:
In short: the ménage à trois was initiated by, and primarily based upon, an actual intimacy ... and not sex and sexuality. RESPONDENT: I don’t remember this being covered thoroughly in past correspondence and now that I think about it, that is rather surprising to me. RICHARD: Oh? Are you not aware then, that were your female friend’s question to be asked in a world-wide context, rather than from a parochial point of view, it would look somewhat odd ... as in rather unusual or out of place? Mr. George Murdock, an anthropologist by profession, catalogued 853 societies globally: 83.5% of them
permitted or preferred polygyny, with but 16% (mainly western) imposing monogamy by law (yet which, by allowing divorce, permit
successive polygamy) and only four societies, out of the 853 catalogued, permitted polyandry In other words a ménage à deux is not the norm.
RESPONDENT: Richard, another question thread from same friend: 1) How old were your children when you became enlightened and how did that event affect them and their/your relationship? RICHARD: The eldest was around fourteen years old, the second eldest thirteen, the second youngest six
years old, and the youngest five; at the time they were all affected differently, and to varying degrees, ranging from
incomprehension to indifference; my relationship changed from one of parentage to one of friendship (and they all appreciated that
immensely ... as exemplified by the youngest often saying how glad she was that the ‘bossy-boots dad’ was gone). RESPONDENT: 2) How old were your children when you became actually free and how did that event affect them and their/your relationship? RICHARD: They would have been, respectively, about twenty five years of age, twenty four, eighteen and seventeen; at the time none of them were affected as they were not around to notice anything (they were all scattered far and wide living their own lives); my association – there is no relationship in actuality – with them is no different than with any other fellow human being ... and which fellowship regard they all have, to varying degrees, had some perplexity in accommodating themselves to (as exemplified by the second-youngest saying, at age twenty two or thereabouts, that she sometimes wished she had had a normal father as, unlike her then girlfriends who were getting married and having children of their own, she had ‘inherited’ a quest to pursue and could not settle down). RESPONDENT: 3) What is your current involvement with your offspring? RICHARD: The same as with any other of my fellow human beings. To explain: when a person – any person – no longer has familial ties or kinship bonds to pull or be pulled by then any interaction, if there be any, is a freely made choice arising out of common interests ... indeed, even though my own progenitors are both still alive I never have reason to call them by telephone nor ever go to visit. There is nothing mysterious about it ... it is more or less the same as not interacting with that elderly couple Mr./Ms. Smith, of High Street, Any-Town, with whom I also have no interests in common with. RESPONDENT: 4) If someone were to ask your offspring about you, what might they say? RICHARD: I really do not know ... plus it would depend upon which one them it was who was asked (and, quite possibly, on how they were feeling about me at the time). RESPONDENT: How do they view you and an actual freedom from the human condition? RICHARD: I have neither asked how they (any of them) view me nor how they (any of them) view an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: I remember a correspondence where you said something like: ‘it took 5 years to unravel the legacy of Richard the identity in relation to ‘his’ family’. RICHARD: I found two references to my then-children which include the word ‘legacy’ ... here is the one you are referring to:
And here is the other one ... perhaps more relevant to what your female friend is enquiring about:
RESPONDENT: I am interested in a more in-depth explanation of this topic by yourself. RICHARD: Okay ... nationalism, and thus patriotism with all its heroic evils, is an amplified form of tribalism: tribalism is an augmentation of clanism; clanism, being familistical, is but a much larger extension of the extended-family; and the extended-family stems, of course, from where blood is the thickest it can ever possibly be than water ... to wit: the core family group itself. Now, although the root cause of war itself is the instinctual passions in action, the primary impulse for warfare at large is, more often than not, none other than kinship bonds (or any extension thereof no matter how attenuated in modern-day nations) and yet the ties of consanguinity are widely held in high esteem, almost to the point of being subject to taboo, and thus generally exempt from an investigation into the human condition (as is evidenced from time-to-time both on this mailing list and others, for example, by derogatory comments about the way I interact with the fellow human beings who happen to be my progeny). Here in this actual world, where everybody is special simply by being alive as a flesh and blood body, kinship ties/ family bonds are nowhere to be found ... which means that, not only is the root cause of war eliminated, the fundamental impulse for warfare at large, generally speaking, has been similarly eradicated. It is all so simple, here.
CORRESPONDENT No. 68 (Part Four) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
