|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 74
RESPONDENT: Richard claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone. RICHARD: If you could provide the passage where I said I prefer to have the company of a woman ‘instead of being alone’ it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: You did not say this in so many words. RICHARD: I did not say this in any words ... here is the only instance I could find where this has ever appeared:
Put simply: it is your imaginary Richard who claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone ... not me. RESPONDENT: But as you claim it is a privilege, obviously you would prefer it to being alone. RICHARD: If I may point out? The e-mail wherein I wrote that it is both a delight and a privilege to be living with a female companion was posted on Friday 22/10/2004 AEST – whereas your (quoted from above) e-mail was posted on Wednesday 06/10/2004 AEST – which means that it was obvious to you 14 days earlier that Richard prefers to have the company of a woman ‘instead of being alone’. RESPONDENT: Isn’t that what calling it a privilege would imply? RICHARD: Even if it did (which it does not) that would not alter the fact that your ‘you did not say this in so many words’ justification, for claiming that Richard claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone, is not to be found in my ‘it is both a delight and a privilege [to be living with a female companion]’ words. * RICHARD: It is this simple: there are over 3.0 billion females on this planet ... and one of them wants to spend their most irreplaceable commodity (their time) living with me/being with me, twenty four hours a day/seven days a week, for the remainder of their life. Now, that is something special (it is, so to speak, putting one’s money where one’s mouth is big time) ... hence ‘privilege’. RESPONDENT: Well, such a commitment is not to be sneezed at, but in what way does availability of this commodity (another person’s time for you) make you more delighted than being alone? RICHARD: The delight, to be living with a female companion, does not come from it being a privilege that a fellow human being wants to spend their most irreplaceable commodity (their time) living with me/being with me, twenty four hours a day/ seven days a week, for the remainder of their life ... the delight is in the day-to-day enjoyment and appreciation of being with/living with that person. It does not provide for ‘more’ delight than being alone/living alone – there is just as much delight in the day-to-day enjoyment and appreciation in being alone/living alone – as it is the capacity to both enjoy and appreciate which determines the quality of the delight. * RICHARD: To put it all into perspective: I have nothing to offer in the normal sense – no affection/ love/ adoration, no empathy/ sympathy/ commiseration, no high-paying career/house/car/money in the bank, no children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren (because of an irreversible vasectomy) – nor anything in the abnormal sense (no charisma/ magnetism/ radiant transmission outside of the scriptures, no enlightenment/ awakenment/ self-realisation through an intense master/disciple relationship) ... and nothing to offer in regards a singular dispensation in becoming actually free from the human condition (I cannot set anybody free). RESPONDENT: Of course, but it must be kept in mind that there is something special about you. RICHARD: Indeed ... as far as I have been able to ascertain no other human is being as-they-are and, thus indubitably, being liked solely for being what-they-are (and not for what they can give/ do/ provide/ dispense and so forth). RESPONDENT: You are an uncommon individual. Association with the rare can be quite gratifying in itself, as can be witnessed all over the world where people pine for a mere vision/handshake of a famous actor/leader. RICHARD: My female companion derives no gratification whatsoever from being with me/living with me because I am an uncommon individual ... any delight she experiences, in this regard, stems from her enjoyment and appreciation of being with/living with me being as-I-am – with no strings attached/no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive – for what-I-am (and not for what I can give/ do/ provide/ dispense and so forth). * RICHARD: In short: a fellow human being likes me as-I-am – with no strings attached/no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive – for what-I-am ... and not for what I can give/ do/ provide/ dispense and so forth. And this is truly marvellous. RESPONDENT: Again, it may be gratifying for them to be living with a man who claims to be the first free man on earth. RICHARD: Again, my female companion derives no gratification whatsoever from being with me/living with me because I am the first free man on earth ... any delight she experiences, in this regard, stems from her enjoyment and appreciation of being with/living with me being as-I-am – with no strings attached/no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive – for what-I-am (and not for what I can give/ do/ provide/ dispense and so forth). RESPONDENT: Is that so very unimaginable? RICHARD: If it is an imaginative discussion you are wanting you are at the wrong address. RESPONDENT: But let’s not talk about what gratifies them. RICHARD: Too late ... we already have. RESPONDENT: The question here was why you would want to spend time (during the day or during the night) with them? RICHARD: The reason why I am currently being with/living with a female companion, both day and night, is because it is both a delight and a privilege. RESPONDENT: And you still haven’t answered that. RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following:
I, for one, can see a clear answer to two direct questions (as in ‘what ...? and ‘why ...?’) ... plus an unambiguous comment on an observation and information related to that comment. * RESPONDENT: I mean, can there be an icing on a cake, a cake which is infinitely big? RICHARD: Indeed there can be (and dollops of cream on top of the icing as well) ... bucket-loads of it, in fact. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Hmm ... I don’t quite agree with the co-respondent that the after-thought creates the self. Maybe ... it needs investigation. But it is craving or need for a certain pleasure which creates suffering, whether or not the ‘self’ enters the picture. RICHARD: As long as there is a craving or need for a certain (hedonic) pleasure then untold bucket-loads of (anhedonic)
pleasure will be being kept at bay * RESPONDENT: My dialogue with Richard started with questioning about sex, but it degenerated into nit-picking over a thought experiment I proposed ... RICHARD: Hmm ... given that you said you would be [quote] ‘very much interested in actualism’ [endquote] if you were to be informed that it was enjoyable, here in this actual world, to kiss a perfumed robot, yet in the very next e-mail stated that you would [quote] ‘find it quite pathological if a person imagined having sex with a dead body/robot’ [endquote], is it any wonder I drew that blatant dichotomy to your attention? RESPONDENT: As I very clearly explained the difference between the two evaluations, i.e. that it is not pathological if a thought-experiment is devised for investigative purposes as opposed to hedonistic/ gratification-oriented purposes, I think your re-iteration of the so-called blatant dichotomy does not serve any useful purpose. RICHARD: If you could provide the passage where you ‘very clearly explained’ the difference between the two evaluations it would be most appreciated. * RICHARD: To cavalierly dismiss clarity in communication as being nit-picking is hardly the stuff of an intelligent dialogue. RESPONDENT: I agree. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that, at least, that is clear. * RESPONDENT: ... ( which was a mere part of the discussion but which became the focus of his onslaught). RICHARD: If I may point out? ‘Twas you that devoted an entire e-mail to it – snipping out all else which was being discussed – and not me. RESPONDENT: I repeatedly tried to generalize from the thought experiment so that we could leave it behind (when I mentioned what my real queries were, regarding ego, mutualness etc.) but you again and again turned to the thought experiment which you had claimed you were unable to answer meaningfully. RICHARD: Could it be the reason why I again and again, as you say, turned to it was only because you repeatedly tried to generalise from what I was immediately up-front about, when you first presented it in your third e-mail, as being such an implausible scenario (somewhat akin to licking a dead fish in lieu of cunnilingus) that I could not provide a meaningful reply? As for your ‘real queries’ – and thank you for that acknowledgement – about ego in regards mutuality ... it is this simple: there has, of course, been occasion when I have sensually kissed/had sexual experience with a fellow human being whilst they were sans identity – during a pure consciousness experience (PCE) both ego and being are in abeyance – so there is no necessity to concoct imaginative scenarios ... all you had to was ask. Viz.:
Yet what was your response? None other than this:
Did it never occur to you how come I could say, confidently, that neither person had to be subjectively alive/identity-based (both ego and soul)/be an identity to experience mutuality in sex and sexuality? Viz.:
I do not see how I can be more clear than that. * RESPONDENT: Also, if you look at Vineeto’s post about how Richard met a woman at a Satsang retreat, you will notice that Richard points out that there is a certain ‘environment’ in the air, what has happened so many times before. RICHARD: Here is the extract from ‘Richard’s Journal’ you are referring to: (snip quote). I have highlighted the words which you refer to as ‘a certain ‘environment’ in the air, what has happened so many times before’ for reasons which will become clear (below). RESPONDENT: I don’t know how to distinguish this ‘feeling’ from how a normal person feels when he is starting to enter into courtship with a woman. RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following (from the first paragraph in the above extract): (snip quote). Here is the very next section which immediately follows on from where the above extract ends: [Richard]: ‘(...) this ambience is here, this very moment ... there is no denying of this. There is almost a breathless hush. Who will speak it? Who will say it first? Who will be the one to spell it out, to acknowledge the immanence that is the very air between us? [endquote]. I am using the word ‘immanence’ in its ‘(of God) permanently pervading and sustaining the universe’ Oxford Dictionary meaning for the clearly enunciated reason (in the extract) that the woman who was to become my companion was well-informed, from both the night before and the half-hour just gone by, as to just who it was she was sitting there with under the noonday sun on a deserted white beach. RESPONDENT: You still have not responded to the criticism of your enlightenment that if you felt romantically inclined (or felt a personal love for this woman) then your enlightenment falls short of the standards in this matter. RICHARD: If you would provide the passage where I say I felt romantically inclined (or felt a personal love) for the woman who was to become my companion I may be able to respond constructively to your query. In the meanwhile I will say this: I do not use the word ‘immanence’ lightly ... I was Love Agapé and Divine Compassion – or, rather, there was only That (Love Agapé and Divine Compassion) – when I first met the woman, who was to become my companion, halfway along a deserted white beach. RESPONDENT: How can you classify your own (past) state as enlightenment when comparing with the highest accomplishments in that field, your (past) reactions are to be found wanting? RICHARD: If I may ask? Just what, and where, are they (which are to be been found wanting in regards the highest/furthest reaches of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment)? * RICHARD: What is the basis of your ‘serious doubts’ as to whether Richard is free of the instinctual drive to copulate (as in just what is it that I have reported/described/explained which would occasion such)? RESPONDENT: Because you are indulging in it ... RICHARD: Where did I say I was indulging in the instinctual drive to copulate? RESPONDENT: ... [Because you are indulging in it] and you consider it a privilege. RICHARD: Where did I say I considered it a privilege to indulge in the instinctual drive to copulate? * RESPONDENT: But why they choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life? RICHARD: Has it ever occurred to you to ask the obverse question as well (why a person actually free of the human condition would choose a solitary life of nonsexual mono-existence? RESPONDENT: Because he wouldn’t need it ... RICHARD: If by ‘it’ you mean a person actually free of the human condition would not ‘need’ a life of heterosexual co-existence then why would such a person not choose such a life? Or, to put that the other way, because a person actually free of the human condition does not ‘need’ a life of heterosexual co-existence then why would such a person choose a solitary life of nonsexual mono-existence? RESPONDENT: [Because he wouldn’t need it], and involving another person (who is most likely not free of the human condition) in one’s life is going to involve conflicts, fights, struggles for space, etc. I mean why would one want to live in a fish market instead of around a peaceful garden? RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have lived a life of heterosexual co-existence for many years now and not once have I ever ceased living in the magical fairy-tale-like paradise this actual world is. Here is a clue:
And:
And:
* RESPONDENT: Simply a matter of preference [to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life]? RICHARD: Indeed ... any such choice, being a choice sans the instinctual drive to copulate, is a freely-made choice. RESPONDENT: Doesn’t really sound very convincing. RICHARD: What would really sound convincing, then (according to you)? RESPONDENT: That you are living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress. RICHARD: I see ... do you want me to prove that a person actually free of the human condition does not need a life of heterosexual co-existence by living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress, then? RESPONDENT: Why do you choose to live with a woman, by the way, and not a man? RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following:
Quite simply: my sexual orientation is heterosexual. RESPONDENT: Presuming you were a heterosexual during your human-condition years, it would be remarkable if now you could be happy living with a man or with a child (without any sex involved, of course) instead of a woman. RICHARD: It is indeed remarkable that I can be happy (and harmless) living with a man or with a child – just as I can be living on my own (as detailed much further above) – because, as the never-beginning/ never-ending happiness (and harmlessness) which abounds here in this actual world is unconditional (no conditions at all), it means that any body can. Nobody is standing in anybody’s way except oneself ... your freedom, or lack thereof, is in your hands and your hands alone. RESPONDENT: Is it too much to presume that your choice of your current partner is based upon her gender? RICHARD: Yes – there are too many reasons to spell out here why my freely-made choice was to live with my current companion – however the reason why I am sexually active with her is because of her gender (given that my sexual orientation is heterosexual). Plus if I were to spell-out the reasons I would rather they be on one of those spinning wheels (such as at a fair-ground) so that none are deemed more important than any others simply because of their place on a list. RESPONDENT: What would that imply? RICHARD: Nothing other than that my sexual orientation is heterosexual. RESPONDENT: Wouldn’t that imply that the possibility of sex is still important to you? RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? I did not become actually free from the human condition just so that I could be single/celibate, be a vegetarian/vegan/fruitarian, live on a mountaintop/in a cave/in a jungle/be itinerant, be loving/compassionate/pacifistic, be transcendent/ blissed-out/ in a trance and ... and any other criteria you may care to provide from the institutionalised insanity popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment which has been the summum bonum of human experience up until now. An actual freedom from the human condition is beyond all that ... this is a new paradigm, as it were, which is being presented. * RESPONDENT: Of course, they don’t need to convince me [that it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life]. But ... RICHARD: If I may interject? You could have simply back-spaced out the words ‘doesn’t really sound very convincing’ before clicking ‘send’. RESPONDENT: What I mean is that you guys are free to live your life the way you want to. RICHARD: Aye ... yet because I do just that (make a freely-made choice to live a life of heterosexual co-existence) you say, on the one hand, that what would sound convincing that it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life would be for me to be living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress, whilst on the other hand say that I do not need to convince you that it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life, but that if I do claim freedom from the human condition I open myself to scrutiny. Here is my question: how would living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress make me open to your scrutiny? Whilst you are considering that I will draw the following to your attention:
RESPONDENT: But if you claim freedom from the human condition etc., you open yourself to scrutiny. RICHARD: Perhaps you mean something like this:
If so, why would it take me to be living with a person, with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress, for it to sound convincing that it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life? * RESPONDENT: .. .[But] as part of the actualist cavalcade, they certainly are open to scrutiny, especially since they make claims that they are (to varying extents) free from the ‘human condition’. RICHARD: Why would you scrutinise that which you do not need to be convinced about ... is all this but a dilettante’s game to you? RESPONDENT: Of course not. I need to be convinced since you guys are claiming something which I am very interested in. If you were just living your life without claiming anything extraordinary, why on earth would I want to be convinced of anything regarding your life? RICHARD: Here is the situation: we have had more than a few discussions now, you and I, wherein I have made it
abundantly clear that where there is no identity whatsoever all conditioning – be it self-inflicted conditioning, familial conditioning,
peer-group conditioning, or societal conditioning – has nothing to condition and falls by the wayside (hence choices made are freely made
choices) and that here in this actual world (the sensate world) it is impossible to ever be hedonic (aka ‘a pleasure-seeker’) as the affective
pleasure/pain centre in the brain – as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate Yet you say what would sound convincing that it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life would be for me to be living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress. Quite frankly ... it just does not make sense.
RESPONDENT: Richard claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone. RICHARD: If you could provide the passage where I said I prefer to have the company of a woman ‘instead of being alone’ it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: You did not say this in so many words. RICHARD: I did not say this in any words ... here is the only instance I could find where this has ever appeared:
Put simply: it is your imaginary Richard who claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone ... not me. RESPONDENT: When I asked you why you do certain things instead of others, you said that you make a free choice, i.e., you prefer coffee to tea, prefer a vagina to a dead fish, etc. Hence, I extrapolated. RICHARD: Yet this is what you actually wrote to your co-respondents:
Here is what a dictionary has to say about the word ‘claim’:
And the word ‘extrapolate’:
Thus, in effect, you are now acknowledging that your ‘Richard claims ...’ sentence really looks something like this:
RESPONDENT: The very fact that the extrapolation sounds unreasonable is the reason I wrote the parody. RICHARD: What is unreasonable is to transmogrify an extrapolation into being on a par with what has been actually stated, arbitrarily define that which has been actually stated, and then draw a conclusion. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: The parody actually pokes a sceptical finger at the notion that a relationship can be just preferred instead of being alone. RICHARD: Meanwhile, back to the topic at hand: would it be reasonable to say that a conclusion drawn from an extrapolation coupled to an arbitrary definition is hardly the basis for an intelligent discussion? And I ask this as, although I am aware your co-respondents had not demonstrated an inclination towards such a discussion, you are indeed on record as stating that is what you are looking for on this mailing list. * RESPONDENT: [You did not say this in so many words]. But as you claim it is a privilege, obviously you would prefer it to being alone. RICHARD: If I may point out? The e-mail wherein I wrote that it is both a delight and a privilege to be living with a female companion was posted on Friday 22/10/2004 AEST – whereas your (quoted from above) e-mail was posted on Wednesday 06/10/2004 AEST – which means that it was obvious to you 14 days earlier that Richard prefers to have the company of a woman ‘instead of being alone’. RESPONDENT: So, my extrapolation about your being with a woman being a preferred state (or it being a ‘delight and a privilege’) was proved right by your later comments. RICHARD: Where has your extrapolation (formed at least 14 days prior to the ‘delight and a privilege’ e-mail), that Richard just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone, been proved right by my later comments? RESPONDENT: Does the fact that I can guess what your attitude is towards your female partner make you uncomfortable? RICHARD: Nothing anyone guesses, asserts, alleges, and so on, ever makes me uncomfortable. Perhaps some background information might save your imagination from having to work over-time: my current companion shared a house in a large coastal city with my previous companion before either of them ... (1) ever met me ... and (2) moved to the seaside village where I reside. My previous companion and I, whilst living together, happened to meet the woman who was to become my current companion when strolling along a village street one day and stopped to chat (as peoples everywhere are wont to do): in the midst of the conversation the woman who was to become my current companion experienced what she described, as it was occurring, as an intimacy closer than she had ever had with herself ... which closeness prompted her to move in with me and my then companion (her previous house-mate). Viz.:
Thus you can extrapolate, infer, find obvious what is not in so many words, and so forth, all you will that I am living with my current companion instead of being alone/rather than alone/in preference to being alone ... yet no amount of any such guess-work will ever alter the historical fact that I was *not* alone when my freely-made choice was to be with her/live with her. Furthermore (and so as to forestall any more such guess-work), when my now-previous companion, upon being kidnapped by love, packed her bags and moved out my freely-made choice, from a position of *not* being alone/living alone, was to continue being with/living with my now-current companion ... even though my preference was to be with/live with both companions. And, as to prefer something over something else is just that (a preference), and nothing more than that, it matters not one jot that my preference was not met. * RESPONDENT: Isn’t that what calling it a privilege would imply [that obviously you would prefer it to being alone]? RICHARD: Even if it did (which it does not) ... RESPONDENT: Why not? RICHARD: Because this is what I mean by my usage of the word ‘privilege’ in this context:
How you can consider that this obviously implies I would prefer the company of a woman to being alone has got me stumped. * RICHARD: ... [Even if it did (which it does not)] that would not alter the fact that your ‘you did not say this in so many words’ justification, for claiming that Richard claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone, was not found in my ‘it is both a delight and a privilege [to be living with a female companion]’ words. RESPONDENT: Of course it is not there verbatim. RICHARD: It is not even there in not so many words. RESPONDENT: But does the word ‘implication’ mean anything to you? RICHARD: Aye ... it means watch out for jumping to conclusions (especially when coupled with arbitrary definitions). * RICHARD: It is this simple: there are over 3.0 billion females on this planet ... and one of them wants to spend their most irreplaceable commodity (their time) living with me/being with me, twenty four hours a day/seven days a week, for the remainder of their life. Now, that is something special (it is, so to speak, putting one’s money where one’s mouth is big time) ... hence ‘privilege’. RESPONDENT: Well, such a commitment is not to be sneezed at, but in what way does availability of this commodity (another person’s time for you) make you more delighted than being alone? RICHARD: The delight, to be living with a female companion, does not come from it being a privilege that a fellow human being wants to spend their most irreplaceable commodity (their time) living with me/being with me, twenty four hours a day/seven days a week, for the remainder of their life ... the delight is in the day-to-day enjoyment and appreciation of being with/living with that person. It does not provide for ‘more’ delight than being alone/living alone – there is just as much delight in the day-to-day enjoyment and appreciation in being alone/living alone – as it is the capacity to both enjoy and appreciate which determines the quality of the delight. RESPONDENT: Delight is definitely a relative state. RICHARD: I see this topic has come up before:
If by ‘a relative state’ you mean the quality of delight, being determined by the capacity to both enjoy and appreciate, is related to that ability then ... yes, it is a relative experience. RESPONDENT: If you are delighted at the same level (not more or less) all the time, then what does the sentence, ‘I am delighted to be sharing my day with an as-is-accepting partner’ mean? RICHARD: The sentence ‘the delight in the day-to-day enjoyment and appreciation of being with/living with a fellow human being who wants to spend their most irreplaceable commodity (their time) living with me/being with me, twenty four hours a day/seven days a week, for the remainder of their life’ means that the (unmediated) capacity to both enjoy and appreciate being with/living with my current companion has ensured the optimum delight ... just as the (unmediated) capacity to both enjoy and appreciate being alone/living alone does. RESPONDENT: If nothing can make you un- or less-delighted, why even make such a statement? RICHARD: Because you asked a question about the ‘more’ delight, which you presupposed was to be associated with not being alone/not living alone, just as you did in regards to it being a privilege, to be with/live with my current companion, supposedly adding value to my life (and thus belying my report that the world is perfect as-is in actuality). RESPONDENT: Saying that to live with a woman (who is choosing to live with you as-is etc.) is both a delight and a privilege means it is in some way a better state than either a) to not have such a partner b) to have a partner who does not have those qualities. RICHARD: Perhaps this may be of assistance: whenever the occasion arises I am delighted to be living alone/being alone. Does that throw some light upon the matter ... or are you now going to ask me what it is about living alone/being alone that makes me more delighted and/or mean it is in some way better than a) to have such a companion b) to have a companion who does not have those qualities? * RICHARD: To put it all into perspective: I have nothing to offer in the normal sense – no affection/ love/ adoration, no empathy/ sympathy/ commiseration, no high-paying career/ house/ car/ money in the bank, no children/ grandchildren/ great-grandchildren (because of an irreversible vasectomy) – nor anything in the abnormal sense (no charisma/ magnetism/ radiant transmission outside of the scriptures, no enlightenment/ awakenment/ self-realisation through an intense master/ disciple relationship) ... and nothing to offer in regards a singular dispensation in becoming actually free from the human condition (I cannot set anybody free). RESPONDENT: You are an uncommon individual. Association with the rare can be quite gratifying in itself, as can be witnessed all over the world where people pine for a mere vision/handshake of a famous actor/leader. RICHARD: My female companion derives no gratification whatsoever from being with me/living with me because I am an uncommon individual ... RESPONDENT: Even if you be right, how can you be so sure? RICHARD: I have been with/lived with my current companion for nigh-on eight (8) years now and I can assure you, for whatever that is worth, that not once throughout that entire period has she ever derived gratification from being with me/living with me for reasons such as you propose. RESPONDENT: Can you read others’ minds? RICHARD: No ... that is something only an identity can do, provided they develop that facility, on occasion and even then the readings amount to about the same as guess-work (50/50) and are thus unreliable and therefore useless as a means of determining facticity. * RICHARD: ... any delight she [my current companion] experiences, in this regard, stems from her enjoyment and appreciation of being with/living with me being as-I-am – with no strings attached/no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive – for what-I-am (and not for what I can give/ do/ provide/ dispense and so forth). RESPONDENT: So, this is the age-old unconditional-love recycled in actualist terms? RICHARD: There is nothing being re-cycled in the terms used to report/describe/explain actualism ... let alone the antidotal pacifier for malice. RESPONDENT: More so since your partner is not free from the affective faculty? RICHARD: As there is nothing being re-cycled in the terms used to report/describe/explain actualism there is nothing to be ‘more so’ ... for any reason. * RICHARD: In short: a fellow human being likes me as-I-am – with no strings attached/no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive – for what-I-am ... and not for what I can give/ do/ provide/ dispense and so forth. And this is truly marvellous. RESPONDENT: Again, it may be gratifying for them to be living with a man who claims to be the first free man on earth. RICHARD: Again, my female companion derives no gratification whatsoever from being with me/living with me because I am the first free man on earth ... any delight she experiences, in this regard, stems from her enjoyment and appreciation of being with/living with me being as-I-am – with no strings attached/no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive – for what-I-am (and not for what I can give/ do/ provide/ dispense and so forth). RESPONDENT: Is that so very unimaginable? RICHARD: If it is an imaginative discussion you are wanting you are at the wrong address. RESPONDENT: Another person’s motives can only be speculated about. RICHARD: I have been with/ lived with my current companion for nigh-on eight (8) years now and I can assure you, for whatever that is worth, that not once throughout that entire period has it ever been a matter of speculation that she has never derived gratification from being with me/living with me for reasons such as you propose. RESPONDENT: Even that person cannot be trusted if he says something about his inner state since self-deception is too common a phenomenon. RICHARD: As I have been incapable of trusting for nigh-on twelve (12) years now I have no hesitation at all in reporting that it has never been a matter of trust that she has never derived gratification from being with me/living with me for reasons such as you propose RESPONDENT: To dismiss a discussion about others’ motives by saying that one is at the wrong address just because one is not sure ... RICHARD: Yet I did not dismiss ‘a discussion’ about my current companion’s motives (let alone because you are not sure) as I made it quite clear that it was [quote] ‘an imaginative discussion’ [endquote] I was referring to when I said you were at the wrong address. RESPONDENT: ... [To dismiss a discussion about others’ motives by saying that one is at the wrong address just because one is not sure] is not a very cordial thing to say. RICHARD: I am only too happy to rephrase my sentence so as to be in accord with your sensibilities: if it is an imaginative discussion you are wanting you are writing to the wrong person. And I say this for the following clearly-enunciated reason:
* RESPONDENT: But let’s not talk about what gratifies them. RICHARD: Too late ... we already have. RESPONDENT: You HAVE to score every point, don’t you? RICHARD: I do not ‘HAVE’ to score any point (let alone every point) and it is nothing more devious than this: after saying what you wanted to say, about what gratifies my companion, you then propose that we – as in your ‘let’s’ phrasing – not talk about what you had just had to say. If you really did not want it (what you had to say) discussed then why not just back-space it all out before clicking ‘send’? * RESPONDENT: The question here was why you would want to spend time (during the day or during the night) with them? RICHARD: The reason why I am currently being with/living with a female companion, both day and night, is because it is both a delight and a privilege. RESPONDENT: And you still haven’t answered that. RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following: [Co-Respondent]: ‘In a PCE, there is no need for a relationship as everything is already perfect. There is an enormous feeling of well being and there seems to be no particular motivation to go and find another person and prove that two people of the opposite gender can live together in peace, harmony, equity, etc. My question is: ‘What motivates Richard to be in a relationship with a woman if he is living in Actual Freedom (which I understand to be more or less a permanent PCE)?’ I mean, why bother? [Richard]: ‘It is not to ‘prove’ that two people can live together in peace and harmony that I am currently living with a female companion – it is impossible to be anything other than happy and harmless here in this actual world – and it is no ‘bother’ at all to live in marriage-like association with a fellow human being of either gender (according to sexual orientation) ... it is both a delight and a privilege. [endquote]. I, for one, can see a clear answer to two direct questions (as in ‘what ...? and ‘why ...?’) ... plus an unambiguous comment on an observation and information related to that comment. RESPONDENT: So, in other words, it is just a preferred way of living for you? RICHARD: Nowhere in that sentence of mine do I see anything at all related to the word ‘preferred’ (or even to what the word ‘preferred’ implies). RESPONDENT: So, is my original comment that Richard just prefers to live with a woman instead of being alone, wrong? RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to snip-out all but the relevant-to-this-discussion words in the above quote it may become clear:
Whereas this is what your preconceptions might persuade you to see when you read such a sentence:
Or:
* RESPONDENT: I mean, can there be an icing on a cake, a cake which is infinitely big? RICHARD: Indeed there can be (and dollops of cream on top of the icing as well) ... bucket-loads of it, in fact. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Hmm ... I don’t quite agree with the co-respondent that the after-thought creates the self. Maybe ... it needs investigation. But it is craving or need for a certain pleasure which creates suffering, whether or not the ‘self’ enters the picture. RICHARD: As long as there is a craving or need for a certain (hedonic) pleasure then untold bucket-loads of (anhedonic)
pleasure will be being kept at bay RESPONDENT: Makes sense. RICHARD: Then why does it not make sense, to you, that there is as much anhedonic pleasure in being alone/living alone as there is in being with/living with a companion (of either gender according to sexual orientation)? Or, to put that the other way around, why does it not make sense to you, then, that there is as much anhedonic pleasure in being with/living with a companion (of either gender according to sexual orientation) as there is in being alone/living alone? * RESPONDENT: How can you classify your own (past) state as enlightenment when comparing with the highest accomplishments in that field, your (past) reactions are to be found wanting? RICHARD: If I may ask? Just what, and where, are they (which are to be found wanting in regards the highest/furthest reaches of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment)? RESPONDENT: Your response to a woman who was interested in your state led to a situation in which you were personally (as in sexually) involved with her, all this while you (presumably) were enlightened. RICHARD: Perhaps some background information may throw some light upon the matter: when I first met the woman, who was
to become my previous companion, halfway along a deserted white beach I was in the process of emerging from a five-year episode which I came to
call my ‘puritan period’ (if this starts to sound familiar it is because it is an exegesis from my ‘A Brief Personal History’ As during that period I was already living in what has been described as the ‘Unknown’ I had had some serious reservations about the validity of spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment as an ultimate state and had been to India the previous year to see if I could ascertain why. My discoveries there had led me to consider the possibility that it was not the final stage, so I was ripe and ready to plunge into the ‘Unknowable’. I was able to experience what lay beyond the ‘Unknown’ several times ... the first of these experiences occurred at maybe three in the morning (I had no watch) and was accompanied by a sense of dread the likes of which I had never experienced even in a war-zone – made all the more acute because I had not experienced fear for four years (I was living in a state of Divine Compassion and Love Agapé which protected me from the underlying fear). This dread contained the existential angst of discovering that ‘I’ was nothing but a contingent ‘being’ and that ‘I’ would cease to ‘be’. Then the condition I went on to experience had the character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was experienced at the time – and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death when an Enlightened One/Awakened One ‘quits the body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism) and so on. It seemed so extreme that the physical body must surely die for the attainment of it. To put it into a physical analogy, it was as if I were to gather up my meagre belongings, eradicate all marks of my stay on the island, and paddle away over the horizon, all the while not knowing whence I go ... and vanish without a trace, never to be seen again. As no one on the mainland knew where I was, no one would know where I had gone. In fact, I would become as extinct as the dodo and with no skeletal remains. The autological self by whatever name would cease to ‘be’, there would be no ‘spirit’, no ‘presence’, no ‘being’ at all. This was more than death of the ego, which is a major event by any definition; this was total annihilation. No ego, no soul – no self, no Self – no more Heavenly Rapture, Love Agapé, Divine Bliss and so on. Only oblivion. It was not at all attractive, not at all alluring, not at all desirable ... yet I knew I was going to do it, sooner or later, because it was the ultimate condition and herein lay the secret to the ‘Mystery of Life’. Having said that here is the text which immediately precedes that passage previously quoted (wherein I described how I came to meet the woman who was to become my companion):
Thus when I did meet the woman, who was to become my companion, on that very beach which stretched unbroken for many a kilometre, I was [quote] ‘ready and willing for whatever it takes to resolve or dissolve whatever stands in the way of genuine peace-on-earth for anyone and everyone’ [endquote] ... after five years, in the enlightened/awakened state, of being single, celibate, itinerant, vegan, and so on, and so forth. And yet, despite that information being freely displayed in my ‘A Brief Personal History’ article on The Actual Freedom Trust website, you see fit to ask how I can classify my then state as enlightenment, compared with the highest/furthest reaches in that field, simply because my five-years-on period, of being personally (as in sexually) involved with a woman, is to be found wanting by you. RESPONDENT: This kind of phenomenon [being personally (as in sexually) involved with a woman] is not to be found in people who are considered the supreme examples of enlightenment (e.g. G Buddha, Ramana Maharishi). RICHARD: I draw your attention to something you wrote further below:
* RESPONDENT: My dialogue with Richard started with questioning about sex, but it degenerated into nit-picking over a thought experiment I proposed ... RICHARD: Hmm ... given that you said you would be [quote] ‘very much interested in actualism’ [endquote] if you were to be informed that it was enjoyable, here in this actual world, to kiss a perfumed robot, yet in the very next e-mail stated that you would [quote] ‘find it quite pathological if a person imagined having sex with a dead body/robot’ [endquote], is it any wonder I drew that blatant dichotomy to your attention? RESPONDENT: As I very clearly explained the difference between the two evaluations, i.e. that it is not pathological if a thought-experiment is devised for investigative purposes as opposed to hedonistic/gratification-oriented purposes, I think your re-iteration of the so-called blatant dichotomy does not serve any useful purpose. RICHARD: If you could provide the passage where you ‘very clearly explained’ the difference between the two evaluations it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: Sure, here it is. I had hoped your memory was stronger, since you usually remember correspondences well enough to retort. RICHARD: Oh, it is not a matter of a weak memory ... did you happen to notice, when you copied and pasted the passage, that it came just before the end section of your last responsive e-mail in that exchange? Whereas the earlier e-mail of yours, where I drew the blatant dichotomy to your attention (and which I referred to further above), was two posts prior to that and, as I am not prescient, is it any wonder I did so? Moreover, had it not been for what you classify as degenerated nit-picking, and an onslaught on a mere part of the discussion, you never would have written that passage which came just before the end section of your last responsive e-mail. May I ask? Given your use of words such as ‘degenerated’ and ‘nit-picking’ and ‘onslaught’ do you still consider
your imaginative scenario to be a valid means of determining my modus vivendi * RICHARD: What is the basis of your ‘serious doubts’ as to whether Richard is free of the instinctual drive to copulate (as in just what is it that I have reported/ described/ explained which would occasion such)? RESPONDENT: Because you are indulging in it ... RICHARD: Where did I say I was indulging in the instinctual drive to copulate? RESPONDENT: You are indulging in sexual intercourse, I meant. RICHARD: Okay ... here is an example of what your response now looks like:
I draw your attention to something you wrote further above:
Am I to take it that, as far as you are concerned, the untold bucket-loads of (anhedonic) pleasure do not include (anhedonic) sexual pleasure? RESPONDENT: Hence, any claim that you are free of the desire for sexual intercourse would have to withstand close scrutiny (which would not be required if you were living a celibate life). RICHARD: I draw your attention to something you wrote further below:
As I get the impression that, according to you, a person actually free from the human condition would not be having sex, period (be it hetero-sexual sex, homo-sexual sex, mono-sexual sex , or auto-sexual sex ), then here is a question for you to ponder: would global peace-on-earth – as in an actual freedom from the human condition for all peoples – mean the end of the human race, then? * RESPONDENT: ... [Because you are indulging in it] and you consider it a privilege. RICHARD: Where did I say I considered it a privilege to indulge in the instinctual drive to copulate? RESPONDENT: Again, please don’t put words in my mouth. RICHARD: Here is the question you are responding to (plus your answer as-is):
Here is what the word ‘it’ means in this context:
I clearly asked what the basis of your serious doubts were, as to whether Richard is free of the instinctual drive to copulate, and you responded by saying the serious doubts are because Richard was indulging in it (the instinctual drive to copulate) and considered it (the instinctual drive to copulate) a privilege. In short: I did not put any words into your mouth which were not already there (albeit in the form of the objective dative pronoun you used instead). RESPONDENT: You consider it a privilege to live with an as-is-accepting woman, with whom you have sex. RICHARD: If I may point out? The question is about [quote] ‘the instinctual drive to copulate’ [endquote] and not copulation per se. RESPONDENT: I can only talk about the observable facts. RICHARD: Oh? What is observably factual about this (for just one example)? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Whether you are free of the instinctual drive to copulate or not is not an observable fact. RICHARD: Not so ... it is an observable fact for my current companion and was an observable fact for my previous companion. RESPONDENT: Only the fact of your having sex is. RICHARD: Now here is something for you to muse upon: suppose Richard were to be living the celibate life, which you said (further above) would not require close scrutiny, then how would that make it an observable fact that Richard is free of the instinctual drive to copulate when the only observable fact, as far as you are concerned, is that Richard is not having sex? * RESPONDENT: But why they choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life? RICHARD: Has it ever occurred to you to ask the obverse question as well (why a person actually free of the human condition would choose a solitary life of nonsexual mono-existence? RESPONDENT: Because he wouldn’t need it ... RICHARD: If by ‘it’ you mean a person actually free of the human condition would not ‘need’ a life of heterosexual co-existence then why would such a person not choose such a life? Or, to put that the other way, because a person actually free of the human condition does not ‘need’ a life of heterosexual co-existence then why would such a person choose a solitary life of nonsexual mono-existence? RESPONDENT: [Because he wouldn’t need it], and involving another person (who is most likely not free of the human condition) in one’s life is going to involve conflicts, fights, struggles for space, etc. I mean why would one want to live in a fish market instead of around a peaceful garden? RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have lived a life of heterosexual co-existence for many years now and not once have I ever ceased living in the magical fairy-tale-like paradise this actual world is. Here is a clue:
And:
And:
RESPONDENT: Ok, so despite the occasional complaint from your partner regarding the absence of ‘affective caring’ etc., you have a harmonious existence. RICHARD: No, what I am saying, in those above three quotes, by way of providing a clue as to why I have been able to live a life of heterosexual co-existence for many years now and not once ever ceased living in the magical fairy-tale-like paradise this actual world is, is that I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world. In short: even if (note ‘if’) the observations of my previous companion/current companion were indeed, as you make out, to be complaints I have a harmonious existence irregardless. RESPONDENT: Fine. RICHARD: Perhaps, upon sober reflection, you may find that your ‘fine’ comment has nowt to do with what is being presented? * RESPONDENT: Simply a matter of preference [to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life]? RICHARD: Indeed ... any such choice, being a choice sans the instinctual drive to copulate, is a freely-made choice. RESPONDENT: Doesn’t really sound very convincing. RICHARD: What would really sound convincing, then (according to you)? RESPONDENT: That you are living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress. RICHARD: I see ... do you want me to prove that a person actually free of the human condition does not need a life of heterosexual co-existence by living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress, then? RESPONDENT: It would certainly look more convincing. RICHARD: How would me living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress make it certainly look more convincing, that a person actually free of the human condition does not need a life of heterosexual co-existence, when all that would be an observable fact, as far as you are concerned, would be that I am not having sex? * RESPONDENT: Why do you choose to live with a woman, by the way, and not a man? RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following: [Richard to Respondent]: ‘... knowing the difference between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity is a matter of gender orientation – determined, as I understand it, somewhere around the twelfth to sixteenth week of gestation – and not just a case of conditioning. [endquote]. Quite simply: my sexual orientation is heterosexual. RESPONDENT: Fine. So you agree in the above Q&A that you choose to live with a woman because she is a WOMAN, i.e., who can satisfy your heterosexual orientation. RICHARD: No ... what I clearly agree with, in the above question and answer, is that I choose to live with a woman, *and not a man*, because my sexual orientation is heterosexual. RESPONDENT: I.e. you choose your partner based on your SEXUAL orientation. RICHARD: No ... I choose a woman as a companion, *and not a man*, based upon my sexual orientation. RESPONDENT: This is getting clearer and clearer. RICHARD: I do not see how it is getting clearer and clearer for you ... you are (presumably) intent on reading whatever you deem necessary, into my specifically answered reply to your specifically asked question, in order to see the evidence your preconceptions ordain as surely being there. * RESPONDENT: Is it too much to presume that your choice of your current partner is based upon her gender? RICHARD: Yes – there are too many reasons to spell out here why my freely-made choice was to live with my current companion – however the reason why I am sexually active with her is because of her gender (given that my sexual orientation is heterosexual). RESPONDENT: Look, please be simple. RICHARD: Look, I am being simple: you asked me whether it was too much to presume that my choice of my *current companion* was based upon her gender so I answered according to what actually happened ... to wit: yes [it is too much to presume that my choice of my *current companion* was based upon her gender and] there are too many reasons to spell out here why my freely-made choice was to live with her. On top of that direct answer to a direct question I added the information that the reason why I am sexually active with her is (given that my sexual orientation is heterosexual) because of her gender ... but it would seem that such clarity in communication is, according to you, to use too many words. RESPONDENT: Don’t use too many words. RICHARD: As I am the person actually free from the human condition, and not you, it is reasonable to assume that I would be the person better placed to know how, and what, and where, to write about such a condition: consequently I use, have used, and will continue to use, as many words as I consider it necessary to take for me to report/describe/explain just what my experience is ... rather than have you dictate how many words I should use. RESPONDENT: You choose your partner based on her sexual identity as well as orientation. RICHARD: No ... I choose a woman as a companion, *and not a man*, based upon my gender and sexual orientation (just as her choice for me, *and not a woman*, as a companion would be based upon her gender and sexual orientation). RESPONDENT: That is what you just said above. RICHARD: It is not what I said above ... I specifically answered your question as specifically asked. RESPONDENT: The so-called other factors pale in comparison with this big factor. RICHARD: They are not ‘so-called other factors’ ... they are specific to the question you specifically asked. Viz.:
First you ask me a general question (as in your ‘a woman and not a man’ phrasing) then switch from the general to the particular (as in your ‘your current partner’ phrasing) only to shift to the general once again (as in your ‘you choose’ phrasing) in the midst of your response ... whilst somewhere in between giving me a mini-lecture on being simple and not using too many words. RESPONDENT: May I remind you that this is so for the vast majority of humankind? RICHARD: I do not need to be reminded that the vast majority of human beings choose a partner based upon gender and sexual orientation ... a person of a particular gender and sexual orientation would have to be pretty silly to choose, for example, a partner of the opposite gender with a same-sex sexual orientation. RESPONDENT: Sex is primary. RICHARD: Instinctually-driven sex is primary ... yes. RESPONDENT: By the way, did you ever propose to a man to start living with you? RICHARD: Ha ... I never even proposed to my current companion that she start being with me /living with me and my then companion (it was her proposition to move in). RESPONDENT: (Of course, sex wouldn’t enter the picture at all then). RICHARD: Given that my sexual orientation is heterosexual then ... no, it would not. RESPONDENT: And therefore, it would be much more convincing that you don’t need sex anymore. RICHARD: Are you aware that what you are saying is, in effect, that your convincement requires a heterosexually-orientated person, free of the instinctual drive to copulate, to be living with/being with a celibate same-sex companion? May I ask? Just what is the point of being free of the instinctual drive to copulate, then, if not to be able to freely enjoy and appreciate sex and sexuality? * RICHARD: Plus if I were to spell-out the reasons [why my freely-made choice was to live with my current companion] I would rather they be on one of those spinning wheels (such as at a fair-ground) so that none are deemed more important than any others simply because of their place on a list. RESPONDENT: Interesting defence. RICHARD: It is not a defence (let alone an interesting one): it is a straight-forward description of what is actually the case. RESPONDENT: I presume you would put the sex of your partner also on the spinning wheel, correct? RICHARD: No ... as my gender is male and my sexual orientation is heterosexual it is a given, as it were, that my companion be of female gender (the spinning wheel is for the qualities and attributes which occasion it to be that particular female). * RESPONDENT: What would that [your choice of your current partner being based upon her gender] imply? RICHARD: Nothing other than that my sexual orientation is heterosexual. RESPONDENT: Wouldn’t that imply that the possibility of sex is still important to you? RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? I did not become actually free from the human condition just so that I could be single/celibate, be a vegetarian/ vegan/ fruitarian, live on a mountaintop/in a cave/in a jungle/ be itinerant, be loving/ compassionate/ pacifistic, be transcendent/ blissed-out/ in a trance and ... and any other criteria you may care to provide from the institutionalised insanity popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment which has been the summum bonum of human experience up until now. RESPONDENT: May I remind you, we were originally talking about this very institutional insanity called enlightenment (Vineeto’s original post about your meeting on the beach) which you claimed for yourself? RICHARD: No ... we were originally talking about your [quote] ‘serious doubts’ [endquote] as to whether Richard was free of the instinctual drive to copulate ... only you put it this way:
As both Peter and Vineeto are entirely capable of speaking for themselves I am, of course, responding to your ‘serious doubts’ about me ... and I did not become actually free from the human condition just so that I could be single/celibate, be a vegetarian/ vegan/ fruitarian, live on a mountaintop/in a cave/in a jungle/be itinerant, be loving/ compassionate/ pacifistic, be transcendent/ blissed-out/ in a trance and ... and any other criteria you may care to provide from the institutionalised insanity popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment which has been the summum bonum of human experience up until now. RESPONDENT: But I would like to make one other point. Celibacy cannot per se be considered part of enlightenment. An actualist, a normal person can also choose to be celibate without any deep reasons. Just for convenience, maybe. RICHARD: And is the obverse (being sexually active) also valid where you live ... or is it a one-way street? * RESPONDENT: Of course, they don’t need to convince me [that it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life]. But ... RICHARD: If I may interject? You could have simply back-spaced out the words ‘doesn’t really sound very convincing’ before clicking ‘send’. RESPONDENT: What I mean is that you guys are free to live your life the way you want to. RICHARD: Aye ... yet because I do just that (make a freely-made choice to live a life of heterosexual co-existence) you say, on the one hand, that what would really sound convincing [why Richard would] choose a life of heterosexual co-existence, instead of a solitary life, would be for me to be living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress, whilst on the other hand say that I do not need to convince you that it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life, but that if I do claim freedom from the human condition I open myself to scrutiny. Here is my question: how would living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress make me open to your scrutiny? RESPONDENT: Then I would ask you if you masturbate, if you have wet dreams etc. RICHARD: How would that establish that I was free of the instinctual drive to copulate? Are you under the impression that a flesh and blood body sans the instinctual passion of desire is a non-orgasmic body (incapable of having sexual orgasms)? * RICHARD: Whilst you are considering that [how living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress would make me open to your scrutiny] I will draw the following to your attention:
RESPONDENT: All of these include ejaculation in one form or the other. Hence, I consider them sexual acts. RICHARD: You do seem to have missed the salient point that there is nobody – nobody at all – on this planet with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress with for me to live with (so as to really sound convincing to you that I am free of the instinctual drive to copulate). Perhaps you could address the question sensibly this time around? Here it is again for your convenience:
* RICHARD: Why would you scrutinise that which you do not need to be convinced about ... is all this but a dilettante’s game to you? RESPONDENT: Of course not. I need to be convinced since you guys are claiming something which I am very interested in. If you were just living your life without claiming anything extraordinary, why on earth would I want to be convinced of anything regarding your life? RICHARD: Here is the situation: we have had more than a few discussions now, you and I, wherein I have made it
abundantly clear that where there is no identity whatsoever all conditioning – be it self-inflicted conditioning, familial conditioning,
peer-group conditioning, or societal conditioning – has nothing to condition and falls by the wayside (hence choices made are freely made
choices) and that here in this actual world (the sensate world) it is impossible to ever be hedonic (aka ‘a pleasure-seeker’) as the affective
pleasure/pain centre in the brain – as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate RESPONDENT: I understand your words, but please bear with me as I find them hard to believe. RICHARD: Maybe that is the problem (trying to believe that which is is actual)? * RICHARD: Yet you say what would really sound convincing [why Richard would] choose a life of heterosexual co-existence, instead of a solitary life, would be for me to be living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress. Quite frankly ... it just does not make sense. RESPONDENT: Maybe not to you. RICHARD: First of all a point of order: I have inserted the words I should have used into the above sentence (in squared brackets) and deleted what was there as they were incorrect ... it still does not make any sense, of course, but at least it now accurately reflects the original. Perhaps you could explain, then, how it does make sense (that what would really sound convincing why Richard would choose a life of heterosexual co-existence, instead of a solitary life, would be for me to be living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress? And I ask this as, if I were to be living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress (if there were such a person), my choice would not be a life of heterosexual co-existence then, would it? It would be a choice of a life of nonsexual co-existence.
CORRESPONDENT No. 74 (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 |
