Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

August 10 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 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: Oh. I thought the term ‘psychic’ was common in both topics and maybe they have a common ground.

RICHARD: As I am not a mind-reader all I can go by is what thoughts you choose to type-out and send ... and the questions you went on to ask (psychic communication) – and the facility you referred to (psychical premonitions) – are not what is being referred to above (an apotheosised field of consciousness wherein metaphysical knowledge is directly attainable).

RESPONDENT: What kind of metaphysical knowledge is ‘directly attainable’ via this field of consciousness?

RICHARD: In regards to what is being referred to above ... that no enlightened being/awakened one had ever explored the furthest reaches of ‘Being’ itself (let alone having gone beyond it).

RESPONDENT: What is the validity of this knowledge?

RICHARD: It has all the validity necessary for me to know that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/human history.

*

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’.

RESPONDENT: I did miss it. You didn’t answer the co-respondent’s question as to how something non-actual can have, as-it-were, an effect in the physical world so as to wake up another person at night.

RICHARD: The something that is not actual being discussed – the extrasensory transmissions conducted via affective vibrations – does not operate in the physical world ... psychic communication occurs only in the world of the psyche.

RESPONDENT: These analogies [‘a whirlpool or an eddy of water or air’] are illustrative but not clarifying.

RICHARD: I will put it this way, then: do you comprehend that an identity’s anger, for instance, can be affectively felt by another identity from a near-distance and, as such, can have an effect (and, quite often, the desired effect) despite the intervening physical space ... and that the same applies to love (for another instance) or virtually any other strongly-felt feeling?

If so, then by experientially going deeper into those affective feelings it can be found that they swirl around, as it were, forming a whirlpool or an eddy and thus creating a centre (a vortex) which is the very stuff of the swirling as the one is not distinct from the other ... ‘you’ are ‘your’ feelings and ‘your’ feelings are ‘you’.

It is that vortex – which is essentially ‘you’ at the core of ‘your’ being – that is the (affective) force known as a psychic force ... it is not for nothing that I say psychic currents are the most effective power plays. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘All sentient beings, to a greater or lesser extent, are connected via a psychic web ... a network of energies or currents that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’. Feeling threatened or intimidated can result from the obvious cues – the offering of physical violence and/or verbal violence – or from the less obvious ... ‘vibe’ violence (to use a ‘60’s term) and/or psychic violence. Similarly, feeling accepted can occur via the same signals or intimations. Power trips – coercion or manipulation of any kind – whether for ‘good’ or ‘bad’ purposes, are all psychic at root ... the psychic currents are the most effective power plays for they are the most insidious (charisma, for example)’.

And:

• [Richard]: ‘It is not just the emotional/passional ‘vibes’ which constitute the ethereal network but, more insidiously, the psychic currents – a network of intuitive/affective energies that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’ (aka ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’) – which stem from ‘being’ itself (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) irregardless of conscious intent.
There are some peoples, of course, who cultivate these psychic currents such that they do become conscious intent (as in psychic powers)’.

And:

• [Richard]: ‘The colloquialism ‘vibes’ does not refer to body-language but to the affective feelings and gained currency in the ‘sixties (as in ‘I can feel your pain’ or ‘I can feel your anger’ and so on) – even the military are well aware of this as I had it impressed upon me, prior to going to war in my youth, that fear is contagious and can spread like wildfire if unchecked – and another example is being in the presence of an enlightened being (known as ‘Darshan’ in the Indian tradition) so as to be bathed in the overwhelming love and compassion such a being radiates.
Yet behind the feelings lie the psychic energies/currents which emanate from being itself’.

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘A question to Richard: What about this psychic web? It seems at odds with the here and now down to earth stuff. Especially when it refers to ‘vibes’ between people who are present. I was taught in psychology classes that the verbal message is only 20 percent of the message, the rest being expression and body language. (...)
• [Richard]: ‘Put succinctly: there is no psychic web in this actual world – the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum – to be at odds with the ‘here and now down to earth stuff’.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘So I understand this to mean that the psychic web is something in the real world as opposed to the actual world and as such has no actual existence outside imagination.
• [Richard]: ‘It has no existence outside of the psyche – which includes the imaginative/intuitive faculty of course – and whilst the psyche is in situ the psychic currents reign supreme ... albeit behind the scenes, as it were, and most often overlooked/unnoticed.
Hence my observation regarding them being the most effective power plays’.

RESPONDENT: Okay, let me phrase my questions more precisely: 1. Can the psychic vibes/currents be detected by non-psychic entity (for example a electro-magnetic detection device or a barometer)? As far as I understand, no. 2. Can the psychic vibes/currents be detected by a living flesh and blood body in which the identity is extinct? As far as I understand, no. In that case, you must be unable to detect the anger of another person if he is in the same room and there are no visible/audible signs of his anger?

RICHARD: That is correct (nor their love, either, for another example) ... it is all so peaceful here in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: 3. Can the psychic vibes outlast the death of the body? For example, is it possible to feel that the former (now-dead) occupants of a house were extremely distressed in their last hours?

RICHARD: It is possible for another identity to feel the now-dead other identity’s terminal distress ... yes (some more so than others and some not at all).

RESPONDENT: 4. Is it useful to have receptivity for the psychic vibes in order to make better judgements about the world?

RICHARD: Speaking personally I operate and function far, far better sans both the affective faculty (and thus affective vibes) and its epiphenomenal psychic facility (and thus psychic energies) ... so much so that any notion of increasing their effect holds no interest for me whatsoever.

RESPONDENT: I say this because you do agree that there can be valid information in the vibes (but that recognizing the validity of the information is ‘another matter’). Can there not be research into increasing the accuracy of the psychic reception?

RICHARD: For what purpose ... so as to justify identity staying existent, perchance?

*

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.

RESPONDENT: Not really.

RICHARD: Au contraire, they are really not a reliable means of communication.

RESPONDENT: In my example, 50-50 guesswork that something bad is happening to a loved one is a great deal more information than oblivion to such a possibility (as in a normal day). One may try to call up one’s loved ones and try to call up a doctor in case something is wrong. In other words, a 50% probability about an extremely unlikely event is a lot of information.

RICHARD: As I am not a gambler I do not profess to know very much about odds ... what I do know is that a 50% probability (such as in tossing a coin) does not necessarily mean that a guessed event will happen on every second occasion (a coin may come down ‘tails’ 49 times or more in a row, for instance, before it comes down ‘heads’).

Indeed, the 50-50 odds requires hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of sequences before empirical validation can occur that it is actually so ... I recall reading somewhere, although I am vague about the details, that it is the advent of computers which have finally enabled enough ‘tosses’ of a coin to be done sequentially so as to finally prove it (other than mathematically that is).

Transferred to your example it could mean calling-up one’s loved ones/a doctor so many times as to occasion them to finally say ‘don’t call us, we’ll call you’.

August 25 2005

RESPONDENT: Richard, do you see that your conversational style is confrontational?

RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Do you see your stupidity?
• [Richard]: ‘As that falls into the category known as ‘the fallacy of many questions’ (as in the classic ‘have you lost your horns’ and the more popular ‘have you stopped beating your spouse’ examples) your query cannot be answered as-is’.

RESPONDENT: That a discussion quickly becomes a debate with requests for evidence, proofs, repetitious put-downs, requests for withdrawal of an accusation or allegation etc.

RICHARD: Since coming on-line in 1997 I have asked for a withdrawal of an accusation, allegation, etcetera, on four occasions. Viz.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... what you contribute here smacks of delusion, of false and contradictory claims.
• [Richard]: ‘So as to substantiate your statements, would you care to demonstrate where I am deluded; where I am false; where I am contradictory? Either that or withdraw your easy-to-say throwaway lines’.

Here is the second occasion:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Apparently one must not question your authority or authenticity.
• [Richard]: ‘Au contraire ... I do indeed welcome questioning: [Richard]: ‘I welcome rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion and invite people to either agree or disagree (those who are neutral on the subject will just ignore it). I have been doing this for eighteen years now and have had the full gamut of scorn and derision and ridicule and flattery and gratitude and compliments ... and indifference. But I would not be where I am now if I had kept it all to myself. All those people who over those years pointed out flaws in my then ‘wisdom’ aided me immensely as far as I am concerned. [endquote].
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Your actions speak otherwise at times.
• [Richard]: ‘If you will provide the instances where I have not welcomed rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion I will most certainly attend to them.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘If you will excuse me, I don’t feel like going through your years of correspondence to find an instance, 2, 3 or 200.
• [Richard]: ‘No, I will not excuse you: you made the allegation – ‘your actions speak otherwise at times’ – thus it is up to you to substantiate it.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘That’s not to say it would be that hard.
• [Richard]: ‘Good ... then it will not be ‘that hard’ to provide the instances where I have not welcomed rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion, eh?
*
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Not all the times ... just some times.
• [Richard]: ‘Again ... if you will provide the instances where I have not welcomed rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion ‘just some times’ I will most certainly attend to them.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Again ... you’ll have to excuse my lack of thoroughness.
• [Richard]: ‘Again ... I will do no such thing: either provide the instances where I have not welcomed rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion ‘just some times’ or withdraw the allegation’.

Here is the third occasion:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... [Richard’s condition] is an outgrowth of the sickest ego-maniacal-self-inflating-inflationary-egotistical-narcissistic solipsism ...
• [Richard]: ‘I will draw your attention to the following: ‘solipsism: the view or theory that only the self really exists or can be known’. (Oxford Dictionary). It would appear that you have, basically, two choices: either produce some (referenced) quotes from The Actual Freedom Trust web site to that effect or unreservedly withdraw each and every commentitious allegation you have just made ... specifically that Richard’s condition is: 1. ... an outgrowth of the sickest solipsism. 2. ... an outgrowth of an ego-maniacal solipsism. 3. ... an outgrowth of a self-inflating solipsism. 4. ... an outgrowth of an inflationary solipsism. 5. ... an outgrowth of an egotistical solipsism. 6. ... an outgrowth of a narcissistic solipsism. Not all that surprisingly I will not be holding my breath waiting’.

And here is the fourth occasion (just recently):

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘He [Richard] can be right or scizophrenic.
• [Richard]: ‘There are two main ways the word ‘schizophrenic’ is used. For some examples: ‘schizophrenic: 1. (psychiatry) characteristic of or having schizophrenia; 2 (transf. & fig.) characterised by mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements, attitudes, etc’. (Oxford Dictionary). ‘schizophrenic: 1. of, relating to, or affected with schizophrenia; 2. of, relating to, or characterised by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements’. (American Heritage® Dictionary). ‘schizophrenic: 1. of schizophrenia: relating to or resulting from schizophrenia; 2. offensive term: an offensive term meaning characterised by conflicts and contradictions (insult)’. (Encarta Dictionary). As only a psychiatrist – who, unlike a psychologist, is a medical doctor as well – has the necessary professional qualifications to make a diagnosis of schizophrenia (and who would be able to spell the word correctly) it is reasonable to assume you are referring to the second, the transferred and figurative, usage of the word. As it is you who makes the allegation it behoves you to either substantiate your contention, with referenced text which unambiguously demonstrates mutually contradictory or inconsistent elements and attitudes and/or the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic [opposed, antipathetic] elements and/or is characterised by conflicts and contradictions, or withdraw it unconditionally’.

If those four instances, in a period spanning eight years, constitutes a style that is confrontational in your book then all I can say is ‘guilty as charged M’Lud’.

As for requests for evidence, proofs: am I to take it that, according to you, anyone can say whatever about anything without substantiating it?

RESPONDENT: Do you think that is a sensible way to discuss things?

RICHARD: If asking another to substantiate what they are saying is not a sensible way to discuss things then the word ‘sensible’ may as well be expunged from the lexicon.

RESPONDENT: Or is it that you want to set the other person right, by verbal thrashing.

RICHARD: If asking another to substantiate what they are saying represents verbal thrashing, where you come from, then I am well-pleased not to be there.

September 09 2005

RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘6. Peace-on-earth can become apparent to anyone at all irregardless of gender, age or race because the perfection of the infinitude of this spatial and temporal universe is already always here at this place in infinite space ... now at this moment in eternal time’. (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/aprecisofactualfreedom.htm). I think the word irregardless should be changed to regardless.

RICHARD: Both words mean the same thing. Viz.:

• ‘irregardless: = regardless [without regard to or consideration of something; despite the consequences, nonetheless]’. (Oxford Dictionary).

December 28 2005

RICHARD: ... when I was first catapulted into an actual freedom from the human condition I was astonished to discover that beauty had disappeared (I had trained as an art teacher and had made a living as a practising artist). Howsoever I was to discover that beauty is but a pale imitation of the purity of the actual. Even so, it was initially disconcerting (to say the least).

RESPONDENT No. 106: If I may interject here? By the time you became actually free you had experienced numerous PCE’s, some of which had come while painting and/or listening to music. If I am not mistaken, you had even produced some of your best work when ‘you’ were absent. Why, then, would it be disconcerting, or even surprising, to find yourself experiencing on a permanent basis something which you had experienced many times before and had actively sought to make permanent?

RICHARD: First and foremost: [now snipped]. Second [now snipped]. Third, although a PCE is so close to what this flesh and blood body experiences 24/7 as to be virtually identical in every respect it must be borne in mind that it is a temporary experience, wherein identity is in abeyance and not extinct, and thus by being latent can cast an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced ... which influence, and once again through lack of precedence, that identity all those years ago was not aware of.

RESPONDENT: Richard, from dictionary.com: ‘abeyance: the condition of being temporarily set aside; suspension’. [endquote]. From the AF Library section on PCE: ‘This is knowing by direct experience, unmoderated by any ‘self’ whatsoever’. [endquote]. I find it surprising that now you report that the identity does have an ‘ever so slight influence’ even in a PCE.

RICHARD: I did not say it [quote] ‘does’ [endquote] have an ever-so-slight influence ... I specifically said that, by being thus latent, and not extinct, it *can* cast an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced. Viz.:

• ‘can: may possibly ...’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Maybe it would have been more clear to have added the qualifier ‘on occasion’. For example:

• [example only]: ‘... it must be borne in mind that a PCE is a temporary experience, wherein identity is in abeyance and not extinct, and thus by being latent can, on occasion, cast an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced ...’. [end example].

RESPONDENT: Well the question then is: Is the identity in total abeyance or not in a PCE?

RICHARD: Unless identity is in total abeyance it is not a PCE but an ASC ... for instance:

• [Richard]: ‘Often people who do not read what I have to say with both eyes gain the impression that I am suggesting that people are to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire psyche itself is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the affective faculty is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings ... as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) where, with the self in abeyance, the feelings play no part at all. However, in a PCE the feelings – passion and calenture – can come rushing in, if one is not alert, *resulting in the PCE devolving into an altered state of consciousness (ASC)* ... complete with a super-self. Indeed, this demonstrates that it is impossible for there to be no feelings whilst there is a self – in this case a Self – thus it is the ‘being’ that has to go first ... not the feelings’. [emphasis added]. 

Here is another:

• [Richard]: ‘If the experience is ‘perhaps tinged’ with an affective element then it is not, or is no longer, a pure experience. Indisputably the PCE has no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – no affective element whatsoever – as a PCE is a pure consciousness experience’. 

RESPONDENT: And your last sentence above is confusing: An identity is not ‘aware’. It is a merely a poisoning facade over unmediated perception.

RICHARD: I am using the word ‘aware’ in the following sense:

• ‘aware: conscious of, informed of, familiar with, sensitive to; inf. clued up on, in the know’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Thus the latter part of that last sentence could have been written like this:

• [example only]: ‘... which influence, and once again through lack of precedence, that identity all those years ago was not conscious of’. [end example].

Or:

• [example only]: ‘... which influence, and once again through lack of precedence, that identity all those years ago was not informed of’. [end example].

Or:

• [example only]: ‘... which influence, and once again through lack of precedence, that identity all those years ago was not familiar with’. [end example].

Or:

• [example only]: ‘... which influence, and once again through lack of precedence, that identity all those years ago was not sensitive to’. [end example].

Or:

• [example only]: ‘... which influence, and once again through lack of precedence, that identity all those years ago was not clued up on’. [end example].

Or:

• [example only]: ‘... which influence, and once again through lack of precedence, that identity all those years ago was not in the know about’. [end example].

I will take this opportunity to add that an as-fully-informed-as-possible identity is vital to the whole process as only an identity, and no-one else, can set its host free. For instance:

• [Richard]: ‘... you have a vital role to play, not only in regards peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as that flesh and blood body, but in enabling the already always existing meaning of life (or ‘the purpose of the universe’ or ‘the reason for existence’ or however one’s quest may be described) into becoming apparent.
In short: your freedom, or lack thereof, is in your hands and your hands alone’. 

Another way of putting it is that identity has a job to do. Viz.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Is it correct to say that ‘I’ am in abeyance during the PCE?
• [Richard]: ‘That was the word that occurred to me to describe the experience ... ‘suspended’, maybe (as in ‘the operation has been suspended until further notice’)?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Or is it more accurate to say that ‘I’ have vacated the scene completely and totally?
• [Richard]: ‘Oh, yes, there is a marked absence of ‘me’ during the experience ... perhaps it is more correct to say that it is after the experience, when ‘I’ reappear, that in hindsight it becomes obvious that ‘I’ was in abeyance?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘What causes ‘me’ to return?
• [Richard]: ‘Because *‘I’ have a job to do*: ‘I’ am going to make the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for this body and that body and every body ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life’. 

RESPONDENT: And also, do you mean to say that in a PCE, an identity is still there to take stock of the experience, to compare it with others (‘and once again through lack of precedence, that identity all those years ago was not aware of.’).

RICHARD: No, I do not mean that at all ... I meant it in the same way as is clearly expressed in both my ‘First and foremost ...’ section and my ‘Second ...’ section. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘First and foremost (...) whilst it is true that ‘his’ best work was produced when ‘he’ was absent (and thus beauty played no part at all), *when ‘he’ came out of abeyance and reviewed that art* ‘he’, of course, automatically imbued it with beauty ...’ [emphasis added].

And:

• [Richard]: ‘Second (...) it never struck ‘him’ afterwards, *when ‘he’ came out of abeyance*, that there was no beauty in actuality’. [emphasis added].

Having thus already written in that qualifier twice before it did not seem necessary to repeat it a third time.

December 29 2005

RICHARD: ... when I was first catapulted into an actual freedom from the human condition I was astonished to discover that beauty had disappeared (I had trained as an art teacher and had made a living as a practising artist). Howsoever I was to discover that beauty is but a pale imitation of the purity of the actual. Even so, it was initially disconcerting (to say the least).

RESPONDENT No. 106: If I may interject here? By the time you became actually free you had experienced numerous PCE’s, some of which had come while painting and/or listening to music. If I am not mistaken, you had even produced some of your best work when ‘you’ were absent. Why, then, would it be disconcerting, or even surprising, to find yourself experiencing on a permanent basis something which you had experienced many times before and had actively sought to make permanent?

RICHARD: First and foremost: [now snipped]. Second [now snipped]. Third, although a PCE is so close to what this flesh and blood body experiences 24/7 as to be virtually identical in every respect it must be borne in mind that it is a temporary experience, wherein identity is in abeyance and not extinct, and thus by being latent can cast an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced ... which influence, and once again through lack of precedence, that identity all those years ago was not aware of.

RESPONDENT: Richard, from dictionary.com: ‘abeyance: the condition of being temporarily set aside; suspension’. [endquote]. From the AF Library section on PCE: ‘This is knowing by direct experience, unmoderated by any ‘self’ whatsoever’. [endquote]. I find it surprising that now you report that the identity does have an ‘ever so slight influence’ even in a PCE.

RICHARD: I did not say it [quote] ‘does’ [endquote] have an ever-so-slight influence ... I specifically said that, by being thus latent, and not extinct, it *can* cast an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced. Viz.: ‘can: may possibly ...’. (Oxford Dictionary). Maybe it would have been more clear to have added the qualifier ‘on occasion’. For example: [example only]: ‘... it must be borne in mind that a PCE is a temporary experience, wherein identity is in abeyance and not extinct, and thus by being latent can, on occasion, cast an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced ...’. [end example].

RESPONDENT: I am only too happy to re-phrase: If the identity can exert an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced even in a PCE (and this ‘can’ can become ‘does’ on occasion), then *on that occasion* when it actually does so, the PCE is no longer pure.

RICHARD: If I may point out? The words [quote] ‘even in a PCE’ [endquote] are your words and not mine.

RESPONDENT: Either it is a PCE un-contaminated by an identity, be it in an ever-so-slight degree or to any degree, or it is not.

RICHARD: Aye ... unless identity is in total abeyance it is not a PCE.

RESPONDENT: It is double-talk to say that the identity is in abeyance but still it *can* (or *does on occasion*) have an ever-so-slight influence in a PCE.

RICHARD: It would indeed be double-talk to say that identity is in abeyance but can, on occasion, have an ever-so-slight influence [quote] ‘in a PCE’ [endquote].

*

RESPONDENT: Well the question then is: Is the identity in total abeyance or not in a PCE?

RICHARD: Unless identity is in total abeyance it is not a PCE but an ASC ...

RESPONDENT: Ok, so it would not be a PCE be when the identity is in abeyance but is exerting an ever-so-slight influence on the experience. Correct?

RICHARD: Where identity is casting an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced it is not, or is no longer, a PCE.

RESPONDENT: If correct, then please clarify in what way (other than the obvious one of being temporary) is experiencing a PCE, in which the identity is in total abeyance, and not having even an ever-so-slight influence, different from actual freedom?

RICHARD: The very fact that identity is in abeyance – a ‘dormant condition liable to revival’ (Oxford Dictionary) – during a PCE, and not extinct, renders it a potentially unstable condition, liable to degradation and/or dissolution at any moment, and bound to eventually cease happening anyway ... as such it can in no way be said to be identical in every respect, to an actual freedom from the human condition, but only virtually so.

Furthermore, being potentially unstable a PCE is, by that very factor, subject to variation and fluctuation (wherein it momentarily ceases to be a PCE) from time-to-time.

Moreover, the comprehension that it is, after all, a temporary condition casts a (barely perceptible) pall over the experience.

RESPONDENT: Is it that one has to be on guard not to let passion and calenture (or any other affective feelings) take over?

RICHARD: All it takes is the habitual attentiveness engendered by being aware of how this moment of being alive is experienced – and that awareness is the very enjoyment and appreciation of being alive at this moment (the only moment of ever being alive) – inasmuch any diminishment of the quality of that experiencing is patently obvious (simply by virtue of a lessening of that enjoyment and appreciation).

RESPONDENT: Would you say such alertness is effortless?

RICHARD: No, the alertness of being on guard implies effort ... whereas enjoyment and appreciation is a breeze.

January 05 2006

RICHARD: It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): one felt good previously; one is not feeling good now; something happened to one to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling; one finds out what happened; one sees how silly that is (no matter what it was); one is once more feeling good.

RESPONDENT: Just as an example, Richard? I was feeling good till today morning. When I came to office today at 9.30am, I came to know that I have been dismissed due to a false complaint of a co-worker. I am not feeling good, in fact I am feeling shaken and insecure and thinking hard as to how to take care of my family. I am not vengeful or spiteful towards the complainant. For the life of me I can’t see how this sudden state of insecurity or of worry about my financial future is ‘silly’. I am considering it a justifiable reaction to a crisis. Hence, I am feeling as-is (worried, insecure and nervous). Any comments?

RICHARD: Just for starters:

1. In what way is feeling shaken going to take care of your family?
2. In what way is feeling insecure going to take care of your family?
3. In what way is feeling worried going to take care of your financial future?
4. In what way is feeling nervous going to take care of your financial future?

Now, you also report [quote] ‘thinking hard’ [endquote] ... in what way is feeling shaken/ feeling insecure/ feeling worried/ feeling nervous going to enable you to sensibly and thus judiciously think, reflect, appraise, plan, and implement the considered activity which such a situation, as being dismissed in such circumstances as being falsely complained about, quite obviously requires?

In other words would not feeling good, as you were prior to today morning, be much more conducive to intelligence operating in such an optimum manner?

If so, then what is standing in the way of feeling good again, as you were prior to today morning, is nothing else other than your shaken/ insecure/ worried/ nervous consideration that feeling shaken/ feeling insecure/ feeling worried/ feeling nervous is a justifiable reaction to a crisis.

Surely there is nothing, but nothing, which can ever sensibly justify having one’s intelligence being run by feelings?

January 10 2006

RICHARD: It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): one felt good previously; one is not feeling good now; something happened to one to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling; one finds out what happened; one sees how silly that is (no matter what it was); one is once more feeling good.

RESPONDENT: Just as an example, Richard? I was feeling good till today morning. When I came to office today at 9.30am, I came to know that I have been dismissed due to a false complaint of a co-worker. I am not feeling good, in fact I am feeling shaken and insecure and thinking hard as to how to take care of my family. I am not vengeful or spiteful towards the complainant. For the life of me I can’t see how this sudden state of insecurity or of worry about my financial future is ‘silly’. I am considering it a justifiable reaction to a crisis. Hence, I am feeling as-is (worried, insecure and nervous). Any comments?

RICHARD: Just for starters:

1. In what way is feeling shaken going to take care of your family?
2. In what way is feeling insecure going to take care of your family?
3. In what way is feeling worried going to take care of your financial future?
4. In what way is feeling nervous going to take care of your financial future?

Now, you also report [quote] ‘thinking hard’ [endquote] ... in what way is feeling shaken/ feeling insecure/ feeling worried/ feeling nervous going to enable you to sensibly and thus judiciously think, reflect, appraise, plan, and implement the considered activity which such a situation, as being dismissed in such circumstances as being falsely complained about, quite obviously requires?

In other words would not feeling good, as you were prior to today morning, be much more conducive to intelligence operating in such an optimum manner?

If so, then what is standing in the way of feeling good again, as you were prior to today morning, is nothing else other than your shaken/ insecure/ worried/ nervous consideration that feeling shaken/ feeling insecure/ feeling worried/ feeling nervous is a justifiable reaction to a crisis.

Surely there is nothing, but nothing, which can ever sensibly justify having one’s intelligence being run by feelings?

RESPONDENT: Thanks. Just for information, the situation I described is a hypothetical one (not an actual one) ...

RICHARD: Your prefatory [quote] ‘just as an example’ [endquote] does make that clear ... my in-kind response to what was presented is essentially no different to how I have responded, when conversing with another in-person, on more than a few occasions (most of which were about anger being justifiable, some about feeling worried, a few about feeling sorrowful).

For example, one fine afternoon some time ago someone whose son had come of age, and who had just left the family home to take up a job in a city situated many an hours drive way, came to see me: she was visibly agitated, fretful, and soon advised me she was apprehensive, anxious, worried about him driving all that way, so I asked her to explain to me in just what way those feelings of hers could possibly work as a preventative for any potential vehicular crash.

And so the discussion moved on, through the many and various aspects of the human condition such feelings bring to the surface, but to no avail until she happened to mention, en passant, that she would not be able to feel at ease until he had arrived safely (she had extracted a promise from him to call her as soon as he arrived) whereupon, after launching into a graphic description of the frenetic pace of around-the-clock city traffic, as contrasted to the laid-back village tempo, I suggested that her worrying days were far from over, that she had better ready herself for the long haul, maybe even get in a supply of anxiety supplements from the local snake-oil emporiums in case her apprehension were ever to wane over the years to come.

That did the trick.

RESPONDENT: ... but your comments are as valid. I agree with you on all counts. Being bounced around / being overwhelmed with / being guided by feelings is a hindrance to an intelligent appraisal of the situation and of working towards a solution to a crisis.

RICHARD: Indeed ... and it is the very circularity, the self-perpetuating nature, of worriedly deciding that feeling worried is justifiable which demonstrates how recycled worriment actively cripples intelligence.

February 02 2006

CO-RESPONDENT (to No. 87): So many of us see the same thing, and have for years. I’m sure we’ve all wondered many times whether it was just us, or whether there was really something there to see. How could we all be imagining this? This was my take on it after a particularly shitful episode back in January ‘04 ... and as far as I can see nothing has changed since then. Just another dozen or so correspondents have come and gone in apparent disgust or disillusionment. (lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=909449957).

RICHARD: Here is my response to your [quote] ‘take on it’ [endquote]:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=909456484

And here is what your co-respondent was replying to:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=909449803

Finally, here is my response to that reply:

http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?sort=&mid=909452231

If you could explain how any of that demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/ that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/ that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004) it would be most appreciated.

CO-RESPONDENT: If you can’t see it already, you never will.

RICHARD: If you cannot explain it, it never happened.

CO-RESPONDENT: If you are not amenable to the explanations, nobody can ever explain.

RICHARD: I am clearly referring to you about your explanation – or rather the marked absence of same – and your futile attempt to shift the focus off yourself by recourse to a generalisation about peoples in general regarding a hypothetical lack of amenability is both a waste of your time typing it out and the bandwidth used to send it. I will say it again: if you cannot explain it – that which you allege is [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – in the January 2004 exchange you cited it never happened. It is your call.

CO-RESPONDENT: My ‘call’ is that you are talking in pixels ...

RICHARD: I am referring to the text of mine reproduced on a computer monitor in the same format as when printed-out on paper.

CO-RESPONDENT: So what does Richard do?

RICHARD: He corrects your misrepresentation, of course, as he is not [quote] ‘talking in pixels’ [endquote] but is clearly referring to the text of his, reproduced on a computer monitor in the same format as when printed-out on paper, which exchange you characterised as being [quote] ‘a particularly shitful episode’ [endquote] ... presumably because of the picture you see (in lieu of taking my words at face value).

CO-RESPONDENT: Goes straight to the ‘pixels’ again.

RICHARD: Golly ... next you will be telling me that I speak in sound waves and not words.

CO-RESPONDENT: Nice demonstration of a pure intent not to understand.

RICHARD: Au contraire ... I took particular note of what you had to say in your [quote] ‘take on it’ [endquote]. Viz.: [Co-Respondent]: ‘Look at the actual words close up, and the overall picture dissolves, just as a newspaper photograph of a human face dissolves into black and grey dots under a magnifying glass. But is the picture not ‘there’? Are there only dots? (...) See, there’s no picture here, nothing but black and grey dots. Hey, whaddya know, he’s right, look, see for yourself, nothing but black and grey dots here ...’. [endquote].

CO-RESPONDENT: ... No. 87 and I are talking in pictures.

RICHARD: As I do not send [quote] ‘pictures’ [endquote] then what you and your contemporary identity see, when my as-in-print words appear on your respective monitors, has nowt to do with what I type out.

CO-RESPONDENT: You can’t see the picture by looking at the individual pixels.

RICHARD: As a suggestion only: try looking at the as-in-print words rather than the pixels (or ink-dots were they printed-out) themselves.

CO-RESPONDENT: So what does Richard do ... he goes straight to the pixels again.

RICHARD: That is just preposterousness masquerading as an explanation: I clearly and unambiguously say look at the words rather than the pixels ... and, so as to forestall an obvious rejoinder, I will re-post the following:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... why don’t you arrange live dialogues and make them available in your website? (...) At least we could see how you look like and how you sound!
• [Richard]: ‘Ha ... what I look and sound like adds nothing to the content of my words: *the content of the words is what is important* not the appearance of the body which utters them or the sound of them as produced by this voice box. Of course any appreciation of the content requires objections to the way it is delivered to cease happening’. [emphasis added].

CO-RESPONDENT: You can squint at the dots all you like ...

RICHARD: I neither squint nor look at dots ... I look at what the words, when taken literally, actually convey.

CO-RESPONDENT: ... you’re looking in the wrong place for the thing that I’m seeing ...

RICHARD: I am looking at the words I wrote (the identical words I speak when communicating with my fellow human being in-person) in the exchange you allege is [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets ... and the thing you are seeing has no existence outside of your intuitive/imaginative facility.

CO-RESPONDENT: ... [you’re looking in the wrong place for the thing that I’m seeing,] and No. 87’s seeing, and lord knows how many have seen before us.

RICHARD: Do you really expect a person sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto – which includes its intuitive/imaginative facility – to be able to see the picture you, your contemporary identity, and some unnamed/uncounted other identities, see (instead of taking my words at face value)?

CO-RESPONDENT: The way you’re approaching this is silly.

RICHARD: The way I am approaching this is to ask for your explanation as to how the as-in-print words, in that January 2004 exchange you cited, is [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets ... if to ask you to explain, with a straight answer, a detailed answer, an answer complete with reference to the text in question, is a [quote] ‘silly’ [endquote] approach then obviously sensible, rational, down-to-earth discussion is not a feature in your current game of ego.

CO-RESPONDENT: It’s like you’re whacking someone over the head with a baseball bat, and will go on doing so without any regard for their protests until they can tell you exactly which molecule is (allegedly) causing their skull to fracture.

RICHARD: Meanwhile, back at the topic to hand, if you could explain how any of the exchange in question demonstrates [quote] ‘the same thing’ [endquote] as what my co-respondent interprets – that Richard corresponds with just about every correspondent with verbal attacks/ that peace on earth is nowhere to be found in Richard’s correspondence/ that Richard is just another vain ego up on his pedestal imagining his own subjective interpretation – such as to justify you saying, that as far as you can see, nothing has changed since then (January 2004) it would be most appreciated.

RESPONDENT: In case you are finding it hard to comprehend (as is apparent) ...

RICHARD: I am not finding what my co-respondent is doing hard to comprehend ... I have been discussing these matters with my fellow human being for 25 years now and have had that particularly insidious argument (that the devil is not in the detail) presented to me on many an occasion.

RESPONDENT: No. 60’s analogy of looking at the big picture versus details (pixels or dots) is just that, an analogy.

RICHARD: It is not an analogy ... my co-respondent is literally saying that. Viz.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... it has seemed to me as if Richard was behaving like a pedantic prick throughout, playing Perry Mason for his own amusement, already certain of his own conclusions, closed to new information or ideas, teasing, frustrating, deflecting, diverting, thwarting, trying to maintain a spotless record, side-tracking the flow of conversation away from No. 56’s area of interest and expertise, away from the issues of substance he wanted to discuss. I ‘saw’ No. 56 being irritated by this, but I also had the impression that he would have been willing to have a frank dialogue, had Richard not come across as so smug and meticulously defensive at the same time.
Those were my impressions. It raises the question: how much does a person ‘read into’ a situation, and how much is actually there? To go back and comb carefully through each word, I reckon it’s a safe bet that Richard hasn’t actually said much, if anything, that is provably incorrect. Furthermore, there were no emotions in his words. Everything I infer about his intent, feelings, purpose, is what ‘I’ supply with the distortions of empathy and imagination. Look at the actual words close up, and the overall picture dissolves ...’. (Wednesday, January 28, 2004 16:39 PST).

I was not behaving like a pedantic prick throughout; I was not playing Perry Mason for my own amusement; I was not closed to new information or ideas; I was not teasing; I was not frustrating; I was not deflecting; I was not diverting; I was not thwarting; I was not trying to maintain a spotless record; I was not side-tracking the flow of conversation; I was not smug and meticulously defensive.

My co-respondent on that occasion, self-acknowledged to be a scientist by profession, formulated an hypothesis about me which had no basis in fact whatsoever (what I share with my fellow human being is experiential and not scientifical) and, despite at least ten opportunities to do so, would not budge one iota from their ill-conceived position ... yet all the while wanting me to instead discuss a mathematical model of the universe in (supposedly) scientific terms.

RESPONDENT: He is not referring to you writing in pixels or words etc.

RICHARD: My co-respondent is not referring to the words I wrote ... they are clearly referring to what I [quote] ‘seemed’ [endquote] to be doing; they are clearly referring to what they [quote] ‘saw’ [endquote]; they are clearly referring to the [quote] ‘impressions’ [endquote] they had; they are clearly referring to what they [quote] ‘infer’ [endquote].

Anything but, in other words, taking what I have to say at face value: as I say what I mean, and mean what I say, to instead [quote] ‘read into’ [endquote] my words all manner of things which are simply not there can only be an exercise in futility ... and to adamantly defend those intuitive imaginings only serves to (a) compound the situation and (b) waste time and bandwidth and (c) fritter away a vital opportunity.

RESPONDENT: He is trying to say that instead of looking at individual sentences or phrases or words or parts of a conversation to find out where exactly is the aggression ...

RICHARD: I will stop you right there: your usage of that (definite article) determiner presupposes it has already been determined that there is aggression and it is just a matter of advising me where to look to find it ... whereas a truly [quote] ‘impartial observer’ [endquote] would phrase it something like this:

• [example only]: ‘He is trying to say that instead of looking at individual sentences or phrases or words or parts of a conversation to find out whether or not there is any aggression ...’. [end example].

Put succinctly: your prejudice is showing.

RESPONDENT: ... it is better to look at the entire conversation as a whole (as his other analogy of a dancing woman demonstrates) and see what impression is conveyed to an impartial observer.

RICHARD: And what impression does the conversation in question (January 2004) convey to that impartial observer?

RESPONDENT: And in your conversations, more often than not, the impression is that of a prick, not a caring human being.

RICHARD: As I said at the beginning: I have been discussing these matters with my fellow human being for 25 years now and have had that particularly insidious argument (an argument which rests upon no evidence whatsoever but relies solely upon intuition and imagination) presented to me on many an occasion.

This is one of those occasions.

If I might ask: have you actually read the conversation in question – spanning at least 34 e-mails – from beginning to end? Have you familiarised yourself with the preceding discussions which took place prior to that particular exchange? Are you thus cognisant of where my co-respondent was coming from, what their stated agenda on that occasion was and, therefore, where they were heading to?

Also, are you aware that they reappeared on the mailing list almost a year later and were caught red-handed upon having resorted to fraudulency and outright mendacity?

Just curious.