Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence

On The Actual Freedom Mailing List

With Correspondent No. 74


June 25 2005

RESPONDENT No. 94: [I have every reason to believe that you experience life just as you report. And the loss of the ‘entity’ within is crucial to the maintenance of this condition. One could say that the self/SELF disappeared or became so ‘unconscious’ as to be effectively gone]. ‘You’ do still seem to maintain qualities that I might describe as ‘self’.

RICHARD: As what this flesh and blood body might seem to be maintaining, and what is actually happening, are two entirely different things it may very well pay to focus on the latter.

RESPONDENT: At many places on the AF website, it is said that if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. ... it must BE a duck.

RICHARD: Aye (and ‘waddles like a duck’ is the other characteristic): the following quotes, which you have seen fit to snip out, are but two instances of what this particular duck has quacked on many an occasion:

• [Richard]: ‘I set my sights further than being a mere saviour of humankind, all those years ago when I was determined to be free of the human condition, and I am not likely to fall back into that position now that I have succeeded’.

And:

• [Richard]: ‘I have no ambitions whatsoever to be anything other than what I am now; I thoroughly enjoy my current lifestyle, as it is, totally, completely, utterly. I fully enjoy my own company; I fully enjoy the company of a choice companion; I fully enjoy the company of select associates ... this is the lifestyle I have chosen; this is the lifestyle I wish to live; this is the lifestyle I am living.
I enjoy normal things: I live in a normal suburban duplex; I eat at normal restaurants; I meet normal people at cafés; I chat about normal things; I have normal pastimes ... to be able to freely live this normal lifestyle in a seaside village is why I set out to become free of the human condition all those years ago. I never intended – and I do not intend – to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein I cannot live a normal lifestyle.
Which is why Peter suggested the relative anonymity of the internet to make my discovery public’.

Yet what was it that my co-respondent immediately declared did still seem to be being maintained (which they might describe as ‘self’) by way of explanation? None other than this:

• [Respondent No. 94]: ‘It is as if the final remnant of self is identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: Why this sudden disregard for what appears to be?

RICHARD: There is no way, without being silly, that those quoted quacks (and there are more of similar ilk) can be construed as appearing to be coming from the final remnant of self who is identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’.

RESPONDENT: If you say there is no identity in the flesh and body called Richard, but if others notice arrogance, or an attitude of being a saviour etc. (just as an example) in your communication style (which are evidently traits of having an identity within the flesh and blood body) why should they ignore it, as per your suggestion: ‘it may very well pay to focus on the latter’?

RICHARD: If you wish to focus upon what this flesh and blood body might still seem to be maintaining (the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’) rather than on what is actually happening – a marked disinclination to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein a normal lifestyle cannot be lived – then that is your business.

RESPONDENT: How can they know what is ACTUALLY happening within your body?

RICHARD: By taking notice of how this particular duck waddles and quacks, perchance?

RESPONDENT: One can only go by your behaviour.

RICHARD: And the behaviour (aka the waddles) of this particular duck, in regards what seems to be identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’, is of what nature?

RESPONDENT: Only you can know what is happening to you.

RICHARD: On the contrary, the behaviour of this particular duck, in regards what seems to be identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’, can be readily ascertained by anyone ... to the point that there has been criticism for not being such a public spectacle (of actively discouraging live meetings for instance).

RESPONDENT: In fact, with you it is harder to know what is actually happening, since you discourage live meetings ...

RICHARD: Hmm ... and that behaviour is the proof of identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’ is it?

RESPONDENT: ... and only want to communicate your insights.

RICHARD: What I write comes out of my living experience and has nothing to do with insights ... none of what I am living is applied theory born out of insight (or intuition). There is this which is actually happening and my words are an account, a report, a narrative, written as a direct experience as it is occurring. In other words, it is located in or based upon or drawn from actuality – factual experience – as peace-on-earth is just here right now, as it already has been, and always will be.

RESPONDENT: This way, it is impossible for an interested person to find out if in your daily life you are actually free from irritation, anger, rudeness etc.

RICHARD: How would finding out that in my daily life I am actually free from irritation, anger, rudeness, etcetera, demonstrate there be no identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’?

RESPONDENT: All we have is your written words.

RICHARD: And all you would get in a live meeting would be spoken words ... how are spoken words, as opposed to written words, going to demonstrate there be no identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’?

June 26 2005

RESPONDENT: If you say there is no identity in the flesh and body called Richard, but if others notice arrogance, or an attitude of being a saviour etc. (just as an example) in your communication style (which are evidently traits of having an identity within the flesh and blood body) why should they ignore it, as per your suggestion: ‘it may very well pay to focus on the latter’?

RICHARD: If you wish to focus upon what this flesh and blood body might still seem to be maintaining (the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’) rather than on what is actually happening – a marked disinclination to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein a normal lifestyle cannot be lived – then that is your business.

RESPONDENT: The (assumed) saviour role maintenance is not my concern at all.

RICHARD: I did notice, of course, that you wrote [quote] ‘an attitude of being a saviour’ [endquote] and not ‘the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a saviour’ ... it did seem a reasonable assumption, at the time, that you were referring to the same thing.

RESPONDENT: That was what the other correspondent is concerned about.

RICHARD: If I might point out? Your entire query was about what [quote] ‘others notice’ [endquote] ... I only made it personal because it was you who reached for the keyboard (and not those undesignated others).

RESPONDENT: I have, on more than one occasion, been happy to discover that you have no desire to attract attention by travelling around, holding AF camps, and whatnot.

RICHARD: Okay ... I am only too happy to rephrase my response so that it be in accord with your clarifying explanation: if others wish to focus upon what they assume this flesh and blood body to be maintaining (an attitude of being a saviour) rather than on what is actually happening – a marked disinclination to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein a normal lifestyle cannot be lived – then that is their business.

RESPONDENT: My concern is: Your words sometimes do convey the attitude of arrogance.

RICHARD: I see ... so when you asked about others noticing [quote] ‘arrogance, or an attitude of being a saviour etc’ [endquote] I was somehow supposed to discern that, while the attitude of being a saviour was not your concern at all, the attitude of arrogance is your concern?

RESPONDENT: Arrogance is something I would associate with an identity within.

RICHARD: As the word arrogance stems from arrogate – ‘appropriate, assume, or claim (to oneself) unduly or without justification’ (Oxford Dictionary) – and is marked by or arises from a feeling or an assumption of superiority toward others (as in unduly/unjustifiably appropriating authority or importance) your association of same with an identity within is not misplaced.

RESPONDENT: Can you not look at your words yourself, and see that sometimes they do convey arrogance?

RICHARD: I have had variations on this theme thrown at me for years and years ... ‘don’t be uppity’ or ‘who do you think you are’ or ‘you need to learn to know your place’ and so forth. Peoples like to fondly quote that ‘the emperor has no clothes’ homily but ... but never, ever have the audacity to demonstrate that the emperor actually has no clothes or you will be jumped on from a great height and told: no, no, no, just take your place amongst all us other humans ... 6.0+ billion of us can’t possibly be wrong, you know.

And thus do all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so on, go on forever and a day.

*

RESPONDENT: One can only go by your behaviour.

RICHARD: And the behaviour (aka the waddles) of this particular duck, in regards what seems to be identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’, is of what nature?

RESPONDENT: Let the other correspondent respond to it.

RICHARD: As I was unaware that I was somehow supposed to discern that, while the attitude of being a saviour was not your concern at all, the attitude of arrogance is your concern I am only too happy to rephrase my response so that it be in accord with your clarifying explanation ... to wit: and the behaviour (aka the waddles) of this particular duck, in regards an attitude of arrogance you claim my words do convey/sometimes do convey, is of what nature?

*

RESPONDENT: In fact, with you it is harder to know what is actually happening, since you discourage live meetings ...

RICHARD: Hmm ... and that behaviour is the proof of identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’ is it?

RESPONDENT: Come on. Why do you pick on one particular detail of an argument and repeat it in every sentence?

RICHARD: As I was unaware that I was somehow supposed to discern that, while the attitude of being a saviour was not your concern at all, the attitude of arrogance is your concern I am only too happy to rephrase my response so that it be in accord with your clarifying explanation ... to wit: and that behaviour (discouraging live meetings) is the proof of an attitude of arrogance is it?

*

RESPONDENT: This way [discouraging live meetings], it is impossible for an interested person to find out if in your daily life you are actually free from irritation, anger, rudeness etc.

RICHARD: How would finding out that in my daily life I am actually free from irritation, anger, rudeness, etcetera, demonstrate there be no identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’?

RESPONDENT: Again. Why do you conveniently ignore the other attribute, that of arrogance, that I mentioned in my email?

RICHARD: Again, as I was unaware that I was somehow supposed to discern that, while the attitude of being a saviour was not your concern at all, the attitude of arrogance is your concern I am only too happy to rephrase my response so that it be in accord with your clarifying explanation ... to wit: how would finding out that in my daily life I am actually free from irritation, anger, rudeness, etcetera, demonstrate there be no attitude of arrogance?

*

RESPONDENT: All we have is your written words.

RICHARD: And all you would get in a live meeting would be spoken words ... how are spoken words, as opposed to written words, going to demonstrate there be no identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’?

RESPONDENT: As regards arrogance, someone’s behaviour, body language might very well be useful to observe. Verbal/written communication is but one facet of one’s interaction with the world.

RICHARD: If I may ask? Are you really suggesting that I abandon the lifestyle I have chosen, the lifestyle I wish to live, the lifestyle I am living (wherein I enjoy normal things such as eating at normal restaurants, meeting normal people at cafés, chatting about normal things, having normal pastimes, and in all other ways being able to freely live the normal lifestyle that I set out to become free of the human condition for all those years ago) and instead [quote] ‘attract attention by travelling around, holding AF camps, and whatnot’ [endquote]?

June 27 2005

RESPONDENT: If you say there is no identity in the flesh and body called Richard, but if others notice arrogance, or an attitude of being a saviour etc. (just as an example) in your communication style (which are evidently traits of having an identity within the flesh and blood body) why should they ignore it, as per your suggestion: ‘it may very well pay to focus on the latter’?

RICHARD: If you wish to focus upon what this flesh and blood body might still seem to be maintaining (the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’) rather than on what is actually happening – a marked disinclination to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein a normal lifestyle cannot be lived – then that is your business.

RESPONDENT: The (assumed) saviour role maintenance is not my concern at all.

RICHARD: I did notice, of course, that you wrote [quote] ‘an attitude of being a saviour’ [endquote] and not ‘the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a saviour’ ... it did seem a reasonable assumption, at the time, that you were referring to the same thing.

RESPONDENT: That was what the other correspondent is concerned about.

RICHARD: If I might point out? Your entire query was about what [quote] ‘others notice’ [endquote] ... I only made it personal because it was you who reached reach for the keyboard (and not those undesignated others).

RESPONDENT: My query was less about the traits themselves (be it an attitude of a saviour or the attitude of arrogance), than about the fact that you were asking the correspondent to disregard what appeared in favour of what was ACTUALLY happening.

RICHARD: I was not ‘asking’ I was suggesting – as in my ‘it may very well pay’ phrasing – and neither was I asking my co-respondent to ‘disregard’ what this flesh and blood body might seem to be maintaining (the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’) but suggesting that they focus instead upon what is actually happening – a marked disinclination to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein a normal lifestyle cannot be lived – as that actuality can be readily ascertained by anyone ... to the point that there has been criticism for not being such a public spectacle (of actively discouraging live meetings for instance).

Thus your above sentence might look something like this when phrased in accord with what actually occurred:

• [example only]: ‘My query was less about the seemed trait itself (an attitude of a saviour) than about the fact that you were suggesting your co-respondent focus upon the readily ascertained actuality (a marked disinclination to become same)’. [end example].

Be that as it may ... what would be so counter-productive about asking my co-respondent (were that to have been the case) to disregard what appears to be happening in favour of what is actually happening, anyway?

Would that not be a sensible approach?

June 28 2005

RESPONDENT: If you say there is no identity in the flesh and body called Richard, but if others notice arrogance, or an attitude of being a saviour etc. (just as an example) in your communication style (which are evidently traits of having an identity within the flesh and blood body) why should they ignore it, as per your suggestion: ‘it may very well pay to focus on the latter’?

RICHARD: If you wish to focus upon what this flesh and blood body might still seem to be maintaining (the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’) rather than on what is actually happening – a marked disinclination to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein a normal lifestyle cannot be lived – then that is your business.

RESPONDENT: The (assumed) saviour role maintenance is not my concern at all.

RICHARD: I did notice, of course, that you wrote [quote] ‘an attitude of being a saviour’ [endquote] and not ‘the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a saviour’ ... it did seem a reasonable assumption, at the time, that you were referring to the same thing.

RESPONDENT: That was what the other correspondent is concerned about.

RICHARD: If I might point out? Your entire query was about what [quote] ‘others notice’ [endquote] ... I only made it personal because it was you who reached reach for the keyboard (and not those undesignated others).

RESPONDENT: My query was less about the traits themselves (be it an attitude of a saviour or the attitude of arrogance), than about the fact that you were asking the correspondent to disregard what appeared in favour of what was ACTUALLY happening.

RICHARD: I was not ‘asking’ I was suggesting – as in my ‘it may very well pay’ phrasing – and neither was I asking my co-respondent to ‘disregard’ what this flesh and blood body might seem to be maintaining (the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’) but suggesting that they focus instead upon what is actually happening – a marked disinclination to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein a normal lifestyle cannot be lived – as that actuality can be readily ascertained by anyone ... to the point that there has been criticism for not being such a public spectacle (of actively discouraging live meetings for instance). Thus your above sentence might look something like this when phrased in accord with what actually occurred: [example only]: ‘My query was less about the seemed trait itself (an attitude of a saviour) than about the fact that you were suggesting your co-respondent focus upon the readily ascertained actuality (a marked disinclination to become same)’. [end example]. Be that as it may ... what would be so counter-productive about asking my co-respondent (were that to have been the case) to disregard what appears to be happening in favour of what is actually happening, anyway? Would that not be a sensible approach?

RESPONDENT: In the saviour case, I agree that is a sensible enough suggestion. What about arrogance, though?

RICHARD: But I did not ask (to use your terminology) my co-respondent to disregard what appeared to be arrogance in favour of what was actually happening ... that is a matter which you intercalated, along with a wide-ranging etcetera, into my specific response to one particular allegation.

June 28 2005

RESPONDENT: My query was less about the traits themselves (be it an attitude of a saviour or the attitude of arrogance), than about the fact that you were asking the correspondent to disregard what appeared in favour of what was ACTUALLY happening.

RICHARD: I was not ‘asking’ I was suggesting – as in my ‘it may very well pay’ phrasing – and neither was I asking my co-respondent to ‘disregard’ what this flesh and blood body might seem to be maintaining (the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’) but suggesting that they focus instead upon what is actually happening – a marked disinclination to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein a normal lifestyle cannot be lived – as that actuality can be readily ascertained by anyone ... to the point that there has been criticism for not being such a public spectacle (of actively discouraging live meetings for instance). Thus your above sentence might look something like this when phrased in accord with what actually occurred: [example only]: ‘My query was less about the seemed trait itself (an attitude of a saviour) than about the fact that you were suggesting your co-respondent focus upon the readily ascertained actuality (a marked disinclination to become same)’. [end example]. Be that as it may ... what would be so counter-productive about asking my co-respondent (were that to have been the case) to disregard what appears to be happening in favour of what is actually happening, anyway? Would that not be a sensible approach?

RESPONDENT: In the saviour case, I agree that is a sensible enough suggestion. What about arrogance, though?

RICHARD: But I did not ask (to use your terminology) my co-respondent to disregard what appeared to be arrogance in favour of what was actually happening ... that is a matter which you intercalated, along with a wide-ranging etcetera, into my specific response to one particular allegation.

RESPONDENT: Okay, so can we address that issue now?

RICHARD: Sure ... as I did not ask (to use your terminology) my co-respondent to disregard what appeared to be arrogance and etcetera, in favour of what was actually happening, your simple questions are baseless.

July 02 2005

RESPONDENT No. 94: Do you become ‘aroused’ without any mental component (i.e. do you find yourself with an erection when a partner expresses some desire to engage in sex) or what?

RICHARD: Here in this actual world it is impossible to ever be hedonic 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 – is null and void.

You may find the following self-explanatory:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Is it correct to say that ‘actual sex’ is non-erotic?
• [Richard]: ‘As the word ‘erotic’ usually means ‘of or pertaining to sexual love; amatory, esp. tending to arouse sexual desire’ (Oxford Dictionary) ... yes; where the word ‘erotic’ means erogenous – ‘of a part of the body: sensitive to sexual stimulation; capable of giving sexual pleasure when touched or stroked’ (Oxford Dictionary) – then ... no’.

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... if you are making sex where come these erections, out of the blue?
• [Richard]: ‘No, engorgement of the genitals comes from tactile stimulation’.

RESPONDENT: Don’t you ever get an erection without tactile stimulation?

RICHARD: Yes ... nocturnal tumescence can and does occur during the transition from sleeping to waking (the autonomic release of nitric oxide, synthesised from arginine and oxygen by the enzyme nitric oxide synthase, can enable erectile tissue to involuntarily engorge in both males and females).

RESPONDENT: If you watch a pornographic movie, for example?

RICHARD: No ... all appetitive desires are non-existent. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I was talking over with a friend yesterday at lunch about music and its relation to emotions. We both agreed that music – whatever kind – does not necessarily evoke an affective response in, for example, alexithymic/anhedonic people, very young children or someone way into the path of Actual Freedom or Actually Free. However, my friend assured me that if a certain type of music (classical, violin, piano) is played then it has to have some type of an effect on the human brain. I know that the very act of listening has an effect on the brain but do you experience anything else besides?
• [Richard]: ‘No, not at all ... and I did have a few classical pieces in my record collection all those years ago (mainly rhapsodies, overtures, and suites). The following passage is how I have described the anhedonic actualism experience: [Richard]: ‘To feel pleasure affectively (hedonistically) is a far cry from the direct experiencing of the actual where the retinas revel in the profusion of colour, texture and form; the eardrums carouse with the cavalcade of sound, resonance and timbre; the nostrils rejoice in the abundance of aromas, fragrances and scents; the tastebuds savour the plethora of tastes, flavours and zests; the epidermis delights to touch, caress and fondle ... a veritable cornucopia of luscious, sumptuous sensuosity. All the while is the apperceptive wonder that this marvellous paradise actually exists in all its vast array’. [endquote]. Coupled with the inability to affectively feel pleasure is, of course, the inability to affectively feel pain (as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate) even though most, if not all, definitions of anhedonia only say ‘the inability to feel pleasure’ ... actualism, being most definitely not hedonism, can never be sadistic, masochistic, or sadomasochistic.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Non-affective stimulation of some kind?
• [Richard]: ‘No stimulation (other than the physical delectation as described above) at all ... just the same as watching voluptuous movies (sexually-explicit x-rated videos), for example, or a succulent feast being prepared in living colour in a cooking programme on lifestyle television, for another.
The affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain is null and void’.

*

RESPONDENT No. 94: Would the idea of masturbation ever arise?

RICHARD: Having lived with a female companion since 1992 there has been no occasion where, being but a substitute for the real thing, it would ... there is (presumably) no reason why it would not, though, were the situation to be different.

RESPONDENT: Would you masturbate without thinking of a partner?

RICHARD: As your query is drawn from my speculative response then what you are asking me to do is to further conjecture about a supposition ... what I can say, however, is that the anhedonic pleasure of sex and sexuality, here in this actual world, has nothing to do with mental imagery.

Indeed, it is impossible to either imagine or form images where there is no identity (the affective faculty in its entirety – which includes its imaginative/intuitive facility – has no existence whatsoever in this flesh and blood body).

RESPONDENT: Just a physical stimulation of your genital organs would it be, then?

RICHARD: If the hetero-sexual tactile stimulation already referred to in my initial response at top of this page is anything to go by there is (presumably) no reason why mono-sexual tactile stimulation would be any different ... other than, of course, a difference in quality.

*

RESPONDENT No. 94: Do you experience hunger?

RICHARD: No (all appetitive desires are null and void).

RESPONDENT: If you don’t eat for a day or two, there would be certain sensations in your body which are usually classified as hunger by normal humans.

RICHARD: The bodily sensation of an empty stomach is not what is usually classified as hunger by normal humans – and it does not take a day or two of not eating anyway but only a few hours – as what is usually classified by normal humans as hunger is a feeling of being hungry which arises from that sensation ... which feeling desists (in normal humans) when replaced by a feeling of satiety which arises from the sensation of a full stomach after having eaten.

I have quite often gone without food for twenty four hours or more yet have never, ever, experienced hunger.

RESPONDENT: Appetitive desires are something different.

RICHARD: On the contrary, hunger *is* an appetitive desire.

July 07 2005

RICHARD: (...) it is impossible to either imagine or form images where there is no identity (the affective faculty in its entirety – which includes its imaginative/intuitive facility – has no existence whatsoever in this flesh and blood body).

RESPONDENT: This is what I don’t understand: What does imagination have to do with intuition or affective feelings?

RICHARD: First of all, where I say ‘imaginative’ I am not meaning conceptive and where I say ‘intuitive’ I am not meaning insightful ... plus where I say ‘the affective faculty’ I am not referring to only the affective feelings but all of it in its entirety (complete with its epiphenomenal psychic ability).

Indeed, by ‘the affective faculty in its entirety’ I am referring, all-inclusively, to the human psyche itself.

Here in this actual world, where there is no psyche, the ability to imagine/envision/hallucinate is non-existent (the difference between imagination and hallucination is a difference in degree and not of kind) ... just as the facility of believing, of being delusional, is not extant either.

*

RESPONDENT No. 94: Do you experience hunger?

RICHARD: No (all appetitive desires are null and void).

RESPONDENT: If you don’t eat for a day or two, there would be certain sensations in your body which are usually classified as hunger by normal humans.

RICHARD: The bodily sensation of an empty stomach is not what is usually classified as hunger by normal humans – and it does not take a day or two of not eating anyway but only a few hours – as what is usually classified by normal humans as hunger is a feeling of being hungry which arises from that sensation ... which feeling desists (in normal humans) when replaced by a feeling of satiety which arises from the sensation of a full stomach after having eaten.

RESPONDENT: This is certainly new to me.

RICHARD: Laboratory tests have shown that stimulation of the lateral nucleus of the hypothalamus (known as the ‘feeding centre’) activates feeding in animals – whereas lesions of the lateral nucleus abolish all desire to eat (aphagia) – and that stimulation of the ventromedial nucleus of the hypothalamus (aka the ‘satiety centre’) inhibits feeding ... whereas lesions of the ventromedial nucleus can lead to compulsive eating (hyperphagia).

Incidentally, it has been found that opiates also stimulate the ventromedial nucleus (hence the use of amphetamine for control of obesity).

*

RICHARD: I have quite often gone without food for twenty four hours or more yet have never, ever, experienced hunger.

RESPONDENT: Okay, what did you experience?

RICHARD: In terms of the hunger-satiety pleasure/pain complex ... nothing.

RESPONDENT: If your blood sugar level goes down due to a 24 hour (or more) long fast, would you not feel (or experience) weakness ...

RICHARD: On those occasions where I have gone without food for twenty four hours or more, without ever experiencing hunger, I have not experienced weakness.

RESPONDENT: ... some kind of nausea ...

RICHARD: On those occasions where I have gone without food for twenty four hours or more, without ever experiencing hunger, I have not experienced some kind of nausea.

RESPONDENT: ... certain sensations in the gut which indicate an emptiness ...

RICHARD: The bodily sensation of an empty stomach occurs within a few hours.

RESPONDENT: ... certain acidity which indicates non-use of the digestive secretions etc.?

RICHARD: Having no pleasure/pain centre to be triggered no complex mechanism involving glucose, fats, amino acids, and so on, in plasma has been able to induce a feeling of hunger via the lateral nucleus of this brain’s hypothalamus (nor satiation via the ventromedial nucleus either).

RESPONDENT: Why classify only the affective feeling of hunger as hunger?

RICHARD: Mainly because the bodily sensation of an empty stomach is not what is usually classified as hunger by normal humans – what is usually classified by normal humans as hunger is a feeling of being hungry which arises from that sensation – which feeling desists (in normal humans) when replaced by a feeling of satiety which arises from the sensation of a full stomach after having eaten.

*

RESPONDENT: Appetitive desires are something different.

RICHARD: On the contrary, hunger *is* an appetitive desire.

RESPONDENT: I’m not at all sure.

RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say about the word ‘appetitive’:

• ‘appetitive: characterised by appetite [a desire to satisfy a natural need, esp. for food or for sexual pleasure; an instinctive craving; capacity for food, sexual activity, etc.]’. (Oxford Dictionary).

As my co-respondent asked me about experiencing hunger immediately after enquiring about sexual libido (from the Latin meaning ‘desire’, ‘lust’) there was no reason to assume they were wanting to know if this flesh and blood body still experienced the bodily sensation of an empty stomach.

‘Twould be a rather trivial question, no?

July 07 2005

RESPONDENT: Richard, do you have the transcript of a dialogue in which you probed someone for a recollection of a PCE?

RICHARD: No ... literally millions of words have disappeared into thin air.

RESPONDENT: I am interested in probing myself for this. Do you have any suggestions?

RICHARD: Just for starters the following may be of assistance (a written-at-a-later-date section of my version of a discussion with another many years ago):

• [Richard]: ‘... by ‘blue-print’ I mean conditioning into society at large. What I am particularly concerned about is the effect this socialisation has had upon him specifically. Can he see that he has been constructed, from birth onward, to fit into a mould, a pattern? Can he see that this has been so effective that he has taken this construct to be what he actually is?
He is shifting uncomfortably in his chair and looking a trifle shamefaced. He takes a slow sip from his wine to buy time. Dinner is simmering gently on the stove and it is high time to give it a stir ... and bring some rice to the boil before turning it down. The lights are low and the sweet scent of night-flowering jessamine wafts powerfully in through the screened windows, complementing the aroma of the spices that are cooking slowly. Overhead the slow-moving ceiling fan creaks slightly as it stirs the air. Altogether it is a very pleasant evening and I am happy to be here. Having attended to the culinary deeds I settle back into my seat, as he seeks to assimilate what I am talking of into his already existing mind-set. He explains that I have a way of confronting people with new concepts and can I please slow down as I nearly have him spinning in confusion. But he has indeed become aware of the automatic clichés he has been using – and believing in – and admits that I am right in that he is not as unique as he would like to think.
Can he remember any pure consciousness experiences? Can he remember experiencing a moment – or moments – wherein everything falls into place correctly and perfectly? Wherein everybody, oneself included, and everything, is utterly pure? There is an ambience of total peace and harmony. Kindliness and spontaneous generosity of character come spontaneously and easily. One knows, with an absolute certainty, that it is possible to be free of all the ills of humankind ... to become free of the ‘Human Condition’ is the only solution to life’s troubles worth pursuing. In the PCE, ‘I’ temporarily abdicated the throne and I knew, by direct experience, that freedom was already actual. It was ‘me’ that was the problem, not the absence of perfection. When ‘I’ ceased to be, perfection became, as always, apparent. One sees that there is only one person who can actually manifest your own freedom from failure in human relationship. Me, myself ... yours truly. It is very important to have confidence in one’s own ability to discriminate between current ‘human’ knowledge and what one personally knows from the PCE’s. This will give one that essential optimism and assurance ... it is the ability to plough on regardless of whatever stands in one’s way until one evokes one’s destiny. It is all to do with a certainty ... the solid knowing, born out of the PCE, that it is here for oneself and anyone ... if only one will act upon this sureness. Can he relate to this?
He can. He starts hesitantly, but gaining assurance goes on. He has never told this to anyone before, not even to his wife, because it was a very precious experience to him ... afraid to be made fun of. It happened back before he was married, when he was single and living out in the bush in an old shack. He had hitch-hiked back from town and was dropped off at the nearest intersection. He was walking the last two kilometres ... minding his own business and not thinking of anything in particular ... he remembers seeing some cows in a paddock on the right-hand side of the track ... they were black and white ... and they were especially vivid that day. As he went around the curve in the track ... past a big old tree ... the valley opened up before him. He knew all this as he had walked this track many times before ... but on this occasion he and the trees and the cows and the valley ... were ... sort of ... transformed. It was all as I had just described to him: everything and everybody is in its place, utterly correct and simply perfect. There is this total contentment with life as-it-is inside of him ... and outside, too. And all this has nothing to do with anything ... meaning that it is not precipitated by something. It just happens. Everything is absolutely wonderful exactly as-it-is. It is an amazing experience.
I can see, by the look on his face, that he is again having the flavour of this experience. What can he say, now, about faith and trust? Does he feel the need for them? Or is there only confidence and certainty? It is important that one remembers this. Right now he is experiencing it as an actuality, whereas five minutes ago he was struggling to understand it intellectually ...’. (pages 50-51, Article 6: ‘Confidence And Certainty Renders Trust And Faith Irrelevant’ from ‘Richard’s Journal’; Second Edition ©2004 The Actual Freedom Trust).

July 12 2005

RESPONDENT: Suggestions and comments: 1. The video clip resolution should be adjustable (or multiple resolution choices should be provided). 80 megabytes containing only two minutes is way beyond the reach of most internet consumers even today (especially in the third world).

RICHARD: The 720p resolution on the ‘Out from Control Sample’ WMV HD (‘Windows Media Video High Definition’) is already as low as HD can go ... 1080i is the optimum resolution.

RESPONDENT: 2. As suggested by others, stills can be provided for the videos.

RICHARD: Stills are redundant for any spoken dialogue which has been transcribed to text as posture, facial expressions/eye-movement, gesticulations, tone of voice, and so forth, all require moving pictures for their conveyance.

RESPONDENT: I will create some and put it up on a website, if that is allowed by the AF webmasters.

RICHARD: Just for the record: so as to preserve the integrity of content the copyright for all material is held by The Actual Freedom Trust – which has its own domain (actualfreedom.com.au) – and the web site is currently being hosted on an off-shore high-tech server with more than enough space available for any material the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust collectively decide to put on offer.

RESPONDENT: 3. The ending shot of the sunset is remarkable.

RICHARD: The ending shot is actually a fade-out into a sunrise ... yet, be that as it may, there is more to observe than just the behaviour of the sun.

July 14 2005

RESPONDENT: Suggestions and comments: 1. The video clip resolution should be adjustable (or multiple resolution choices should be provided). 80 megabytes containing only two minutes is way beyond the reach of most internet consumers even today (especially in the third world).

RICHARD: The 720p resolution on the ‘Out from Control Sample’ WMV HD (‘Windows Media Video High Definition’) is already as low as HD can go ... 1080i is the optimum resolution.

RESPONDENT: Okay, I was not aware that HD was the only option. It is certainly the best, but whether it is the most expedient is the question I was asking.

RICHARD: The HD video format was chosen for its quality (the qualitative difference between 480p Standard Definition Video and 1080i High Definition Video is of a magnitude up to six times better) and not its expediency – the 4.0+ million freely available words on The Actual Freedom Trust web site already provide that – just as the screensaver was ... where upwards of 50 different screensavers were trialled so as to select the highest quality available at the time.

All of the items on that order-form page you downloaded the sample from, none of which are essential reading/viewing, are optional extras ... luxury items, as it were, and go towards defraying the costs associated with both maintaining The Actual Freedom Trust and its publishing operations.

It pleases me immensely that all the necessary words explicating both an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice be available free of charge for anyone to access anywhere in the world.

*

RESPONDENT: 2. As suggested by others, stills can be provided for the videos.

RICHARD: Stills are redundant for any spoken dialogue which has been transcribed to text as posture, facial expressions/ eye-movement, gesticulations, tone of voice, and so forth, all require moving pictures for their conveyance.

RESPONDENT: No, facial expressions in still images can express irritation, or anger.

RICHARD: Although you said ‘as suggested by others’ there was, unless I have missed some e-mails, only one person who wondered if it is possible to [quote] ‘post pictures of *the* video clip with a text dialogue’ [emphasis added] ... thus my response to your observation that stills can be provided for *the videos* was written in that context.

Of course, as a generalisation, a still image of a person’s facial expression can communicate a feeling – just as a still image shows a posture, an eye-position, and a gesticulation – yet stills are redundant for any spoken dialogue which has been transcribed to text as all those components require moving pictures for their conveyance.

RESPONDENT: However, my offer of putting up still images was just so that those who could not download the whole of the clip could at least see what you look like, in case they were curious.

RICHARD: The physiognomy – the general appearance – of this flesh and blood body (just as it would be for any other body) is irrelevant to this flesh and blood body’s actual freedom from the human condition.

The whole purpose of making the videos publicly available is so that the visual/ audile interaction of the parties concerned can be seen/heard – rather than just the written word interaction on this mailing list – so that (just for a topical example) those who claim there is an attitude of arrogance in my written communication style can see/hear for themself whether it be factual or just another fantasy.

*

RESPONDENT: I will create some and put it up on a website, if that is allowed by the AF webmasters.

RICHARD: Just for the record: so as to preserve the integrity of content the copyright for all material is held by The Actual Freedom Trust – which has its own domain (actualfreedom.com.au) – and the web site is currently being hosted on an off-shore high-tech server with more than enough space available for any material the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust collectively decide to put on offer.

RESPONDENT: Ok. How does one contact the AF trustees? Aren’t Vineeto, Peter who are also the webmasters also the trustees? Can we have a list of all the trustees?

RICHARD: The directors of The Actual Freedom Trust can be contacted at the following address:

The Directors,
The Actual Freedom Trust.
P.O. Box 1404,
Byron Bay 2481,
Australia

*

RESPONDENT: 3. The ending shot of the sunset is remarkable.

RICHARD: The ending shot is actually a fade-out into a sunrise ... yet, be that as it may, there is more to observe than just the behaviour of the sun.

RESPONDENT: :-)

RICHARD: It is fun, is it not, finding out just what makes one tick?

RESPONDENT: What I did observe was your sense of pleasure when the lady you are talking to, said that she saw how staying in the real world was selfish.

RICHARD: I am always pleased when someone – anyone – profoundly understands something vital to their well-being ... peace-on-earth is at stake. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘My keenness for another’s experience always accords to the following sequence:
1. I am primarily interested for your sake (for the sake of the particular flesh and blood body) as you are a fellow human being.
2. I am secondarily interested for everybody’s sake (for the sake of flesh and blood bodies in general) as another person being actually free increases the possibility of setting a chain-reaction in process.
3. I am lastly interested for my own sake (for then not only am I am no longer arguably a ‘freak of nature’ but I can compare notes, as it were, so as to more reliably separate out what is species specific from that which is idiosyncratic)’.

Just substitute the word ‘pleased’ for ‘interested’ ... it amounts to the same thing.

RESPONDENT: Your pleasure had a facial expression of, what one might consider, self-satisfaction.

RICHARD: I am sure peoples are going to impute all manner of things into the postures, the facial expressions/eye-movements, the gesticulations, the tones of voice, and so forth ... just as they do with the written word.

It is not for nothing I say that experiential proof is the only proof worthy of the name. Vis.:

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

Alternatively, if one were to read/listen with all their being they may very well find themself being catapulted into the magical wonder-land that this verdant and azure planet actually is.

‘Tis the ‘all their being’ which is the key.

August 04 2005

RICHARD: In 1985 I had the first of many experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment (as described in ‘A Brief Personal History’ on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust web site) and it 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 ‘quits the body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism). Thus I knew even before becoming actually free that this condition was entirely new to human experience while still alive ...... furthermore, in the ensuing years, as I proceeded to penetrate deeper and deeper into the state of being known as spiritual enlightenment, the psychic footprints, as it were, of those who had explored some of the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself gradually became less and less in number and finally petered out altogether leaving only virgin territory wherever the (psychic) eye would look.

RESPONDENT No. 90: What did these psychic footprints ‘look’ like?

RICHARD: They looked more or less like the footsteps to be found in the metaphorical term ‘follow in another’s footsteps’.

RESPONDENT No. 90: Can you explain to me what you mean by psychic footprints without recourse to idiom, simile, metaphor or figure of speech? What exactly is a psychic footprint? What is it comprised of? How and under what conditions are they left? How are they detected? How can you be sure they were left behind by someone else and not imagined or created?

RESPONDENT: I am also interested in this question.

RICHARD: The questions you go on to ask (psychic communication) – and the facility you refer to (psychical premonitions) – is not what is being referred to above (an apotheosised field of consciousness wherein metaphysical knowledge is directly attainable).

RESPONDENT: What exactly is psychic communication? We all know it exists in the real world, but what is it? Is it an electromagnetic wave? Is it an imaginative feeling? There is not much space devoted on the AF website to the phenomenon known as the psychic web. What is the medium in which this web is formed? How can psychic connections happen at a distance in space and time?

RICHARD: You must have missed the following exchange a little over five weeks ago:

• [Richard]: ‘... even though I use the term ‘psychic currents’, to refer to the extrasensory transmissions conducted via affective vibrations (colloquially known as ‘vibes’), and even though affective feelings are associated with electrochemical activity in brain scans, it does not necessarily mean they are electric currents ... and neither does it necessarily mean they are currents of water or air, either, as that word (literally meaning ‘to run’ as in ‘flowing’ or ‘streaming’) is nothing more than a convenient word to utilise.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I still can’t comprehend how something that is not actual can have effects at an actual distance of 150 miles.
• [Richard]: ‘Perhaps if you were to keep it simple to start off with, by examining what is colloquially known as ‘vibes’ (emotional/passional feelings), it may be more readily comprehended: another person’s anger, for instance, can be affectively felt from a near-distance and, as such, can have an effect (and, quite often, the desired effect) despite the intervening physical space ... and the same applies to love (for another instance) or virtually any other strongly-felt feeling.
By going deeper into those affective feelings it can be found that they swirl around, as it were, forming a whirlpool or an eddy, somewhat analogous to a whirlpool or an eddy of water or air, creating a centre (a vortex) which is the very stuff of the swirling (a vortex of water or air is the very swirling water or air) as the one is not distinct from the other ... ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’.
It is that vortex which is the (affective) force known as a psychic force.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘What is the ‘medium’ via which these psychic currents are transmitted if not the physical one?
• [Richard]: ‘It is a psychic medium ... a vortical force-field, so to speak.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Is there a notable difference between psychic vibes and psychic currents?
• [Richard]: ‘Only in regards to a difference in the range of their effect’. (Tuesday June 07 2005).

RESPONDENT: Is there valid information contained in the psychic medium, for example, that someone’s loved one is in grave physical danger?

RICHARD: There can indeed be valid information communicated psychically ... separating the grain from the chaff is another matter, though.

RESPONDENT: I have known one person who woke up in the middle of the night having an a undefinable premonition, and she did not have any actual information to support such a fear-drenched state, but it did happen that her son died in an accident that night at that very hour.

RICHARD: The problem with psychical premonitions is that, when tested exhaustively under the scientific method the results are about 50-50 (the same as guesswork) thus they are not a reliable means of communication.


CORRESPONDENT No. 74 (Part Six)

RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

The Third Alternative

(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)

Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.

Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-.  All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity