Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence

On The Actual Freedom Mailing List

With Correspondent No. 92

June 17 2005

RESPONDENT: Richard, some objections and thoughts: I do not know what anything is fundamentally, or why it is that way or how it works beyond the layer of understanding below it which simply redefines what is not understood/known. So I don’t know why you asking yourself how you are experiencing life now made you free from unhappiness.

RICHARD: I never asked how I am experiencing life ... it was the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago who asked, each moment again until it became a non-verbal attitude towards life, a wordless approach to being alive, how ‘he’ was experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment anyone is ever alive).

RESPONDENT: But I accept that it perhaps did or appeared to – if you are that (whatever ‘you’ is with no self).

RICHARD: What I am with no ‘self’ (in its entirety) is this flesh and blood body only ... I use the first person pronoun without smart quotes simply as a matter of convenience, and to avoid being unduly pedantic, to refer to this flesh and blood body sans both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (spirit).

RESPONDENT: Do you know these things?

RICHARD: What the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago knew was that ‘he’ was standing in the way of the already always existing peace-on-earth from being apparent ... ‘he’ did not find it at all necessary to know what anything is, fundamentally, or why it is that way or how it works, in order to be exclusively attentive to how ‘he’ was experiencing the only moment ‘he’ was ever alive.

RESPONDENT: Does the process through which you have gone mean you now know lots of things.

RICHARD: I have located the following text:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Is there anything you don’t know?
• [Richard]: ‘Yes ... I know a lot about some things; a little about many things; and nothing about a lot of things’.

RESPONDENT: That is not your claim yet you speak as if you somehow know it all.

RICHARD: I have located the following text:

• [Richard]: ‘I am on record as saying that I am not an expert on everything ... and that I have no intention of becoming one. My expertise lies in the nature of consciousness and how to end malice and sorrow forever. I have the solution for things like wars, rapes, murders, tortures, domestic violence, child abuse, sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide and so on ... not things like quantum theory sub-atomic particles and the such-like’.

RESPONDENT: Maybe you just claim to see the wood from the trees.

RICHARD: I do not just claim to see the wood from the trees.

RESPONDENT: In any case I doubt you know why you know or conscious, especially if all you are is meat.

RICHARD: If you want me to respond meaningfully you will need to write that in a way which makes sense.

RESPONDENT: In particular how do you know that what worked for you will work elsewhere.

RICHARD: This is one of those never-ending queries: person ‘A’ discovers something and shares that discovery with others; person ‘X’ asks whether what worked for person ‘A’ will work for another whereas person ‘B’ gives it a go and achieves the same result; person ‘X’ asks whether what worked for person ‘A’ and person ‘B’ will work for anyone else whereas person ‘C’ gives it a go and achieves the same result; person ‘X’ asks whether what worked for person ‘A’ and person ‘B’ and person ‘C’ will work for everyone else whereas person ‘D’ gives it a go and ... and just how many others would it take to satisfy person ‘X’ that something works universally (5.999 billion others perchance)?

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

Put simply: how on earth can something work if nobody will put it to work because it has not yet been demonstrated to be workable?

RESPONDENT: You are making big claims about the whole of humanity. That you don’t acknowledge this lack of knowledge on your part I find distasteful.

RICHARD: I have located the following text:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘(...) And don’t even try to insult either my intelligence or my physics major in college by suggesting that I read a book – my concentration in college was in quantum mechanics.
• [Richard]: ‘I have no notion of why you would give me this caution as I specifically stated that ‘I am no physicist’ and that neither did I ‘claim any proficiency in quantum physics whatsoever’ and that ‘I am more than willing to be advised otherwise on the matter’ in regards to ‘the little I do understand of this – mostly mathematical and theoretical – physics’.
Golly ... if I were to be any more humble or modest or unassuming or unpretentious or self-effacing or deferential or without airs than those provisos I would be carving a furrow in the floor with all my genuflecting, prostrating, bowing, scraping and tugging of the forelock.
I genuinely would like to be advised on this – apparently – arcane subject because I cannot see it for myself’.

RESPONDENT: In fact your verbose writing has that air of it throughout.

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

• ‘throughout: through the whole of; in or to every part of; everywhere in (...) right through from beginning to end; through the whole extent, substance, etc.; in every respect; in or to every part, everywhere’. (Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: Is that fair enough?

RICHARD: No, not at all (as those few quotes clearly demonstrate).

RESPONDENT: Your highbrow writing will not appeal to many people ...

RICHARD: If I may point out? It is the content, not the manner, of what somebody – anybody – has to say which is truly appealing or not.

RESPONDENT: ... do you have plans to present in a way that will hold more people’s attention.

RICHARD: I have no plans to present my discovery in a way which will attract peoples who find style, not substance, appealing.


RESPONDENT: You say are just a body and a body is material and as such has no choice separate from the rest of the universe. So you have no choice i.e. there is no you. You don’t appear to point this out, why is that?

RICHARD: I have located the following text:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘(...) there is some force that created the universe.
• [Richard]: ‘This infinite and eternal physical universe, being boundless and limitless, beginningless and endless, unborn and undying, has always been and always will be. As there is no creation there is no ‘force that created the universe’.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘That force directs your life.
• [Richard]: ‘That ‘force’ may very well direct your life ... but I can assure you that no ‘force’ directs me: I am a thorough-going atheist through and through. There is not the slightest trace of religiosity, spirituality, mysticality or metaphysicality in me whatsoever. I am an actualist ... not a spiritualist.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You think you have free will?
• [Richard]: ‘No.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘What determines your actions?
• [Richard]: ‘The situation and the circumstances in the world of people, things and events.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Your thoughts – right?
• [Richard]: ‘Not necessarily ... mostly ‘automatic pilot’ operates via habituation. Something new to experience requires thought ... reflecting, comparing, evaluating, considering and then implementing. Altogether a rather delightful episodic event.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Do you control your thoughts?
• [Richard]: ‘This brain thinks thoughts perfectly without any ‘I’ or ‘me’ in there stuffing things up.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Where do they come from?
• [Richard]: ‘Are not thoughts neuronal activity betwixt the synapses? An electro-chemical process? As such they come from the calorific energy of foodstuffs plus oxygen from the air breathed.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Can you CREATE thoughts?
• [Richard]: ‘This brain thinks thoughts all of its own accord ... easily, simply and fluently. It is altogether a marvellous occurrence’.

RESPONDENT: The same is true for everyone surely ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? Were the same indeed true for everyone then both The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list would not exist ... the very fact that many and various peoples both read the website and subscribe to its associated forum self-evidently indicates that it be not true for everyone.

RESPONDENT: ... [The same is true for everyone surely] as the self/soul is a ghost, some unhelpful wiring – there is no self anywhere and hence no choosing anywhere – to follow the method or not right?

RICHARD: Whilst there is no identity whatsoever in actuality, in this actual world (the sensate world), there are perhaps 6.0+ billion identities in reality, in the real world (the world of the psyche), hence the choice exists, each moment again, for each and every one of those identities vitally interested in the meaning of life/peace on earth (as distinct from those only interested in punditry) to follow the method or not.


RESPONDENT: You have been attentive to what it is to be a human and you must have noticed that mostly music and reading together splits the attention, which does 2 things: i) makes the reading less effective ......

RICHARD: Au contraire ... the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago had more than a few pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) triggered whilst both listening to music (particularly Pink Floyd’s ‘Dark Side Of The Moon’ and ‘The Wall’) and reading what had been written during previous PCE’s and other outstanding moments.

RESPONDENT: ... ii) makes a stimulation craving/worried human feel better as there is no room for their sorrow.

RICHARD: If I might point out? An identity vitally interested in the meaning of life/peace on earth is not a stimulation craving/worried identity.

RESPONDENT: Why have you therefore included music over intense reading pages?

RICHARD: As your [quote] ‘therefore’ [endquote] refers to two invalid conclusions drawn from an erroneous premise your query as such has no answer.

RESPONDENT: Aweful music too. Really aweful.

RICHARD: As it is impossible to cater for all tastes I will pass without further comment.


RESPONDENT: I have studied long and hard and find much that is familiar to your method.

RICHARD: As nobody else, as far as I have been able to ascertain, has become actually free from the human condition by practicing whatever it is that you find to be familiar to the actualism method then it is obvious that any such familiarity can only be superficial.

RESPONDENT: Indeed it is identical to some methods that would call themselves ‘meditation’ ...

RICHARD: You do comprehend, do you not, that mere assertions add nothing to a sensible discussion?

RESPONDENT: – it is all just words.

RICHARD: As the actualism method is not [quote] ‘all just words’ [endquote] then that is the end of any such identicalness.

RESPONDENT: You have a pithy phrase of your own here, but the basic investigation which is HEAVY ...

RICHARD: The sincere application of the actualism method is light and airy ... in a word: fun.

RESPONDENT: ... and not easy at all ...

RICHARD: The sincere application of the actualism method is indeed easy ... dead easy, in fact.

RESPONDENT: ... and subject to thinky thoughts ...

RICHARD: If the actualism method were to be subject to anything it would be to feely feelings.

RESPONDENT: ... manipulation is not really new or 3rd at all.

RICHARD: As thought manipulation plays no part in the actualism method your conclusion has no substance.

RESPONDENT: Thinky thoughts will basically win and render the method useless in nearly all cases is my experience of humans.

RICHARD: Well now ... it was high time, then, that someone came up with something entirely new, eh?


RESPONDENT: Why do you present your method as quite so unique?

RICHARD: Mainly because, going by its effect, it is.

RESPONDENT: You may be on to something but I find this very off-putting.

RICHARD: As the something you allow I may be onto is unique then why do you find it off-putting that the method which effected same also be so?

RESPONDENT: Is it just marketing (which is fair enough)?

RICHARD: As the efficacy of the actualism method speaks for itself it needs no marketing.

RESPONDENT: And why don’t you give an example, a real salt on the tongue, eyeball account of what it was like for you applying the method for a day or even 2 minutes?

RICHARD: I have located the following text:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) back in 1981, in the early days of starting on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition, I was standing in the kitchen of my ex-farmhouse, situated on a couple of acres of land in a remote countryside location, washing the breakfast dishes; I was not interested in washing the dishes/I had never been interested in washing the dishes; I did not like washing the dishes/I had never liked washing the dishes; washing the dishes was an uninteresting chore, an unlikeable task, that just had to be done (otherwise I would not be doing it/would never had done it/would never do it) ... and all the while the early-morning sun was streaming in through the large glass windows, in the eastern wall to my front, beckoning me, enticing me to hurry-up and get the uninteresting and unlikeable job over and done with so that I could scamper outside and get stuck into doing the interesting things I really liked doing/wanted to do.
Howsoever, the tool for facilitating the actualism method – asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) – had by now become a non-verbal approach to life, a wordless attitude towards being alive, and all-of-a-sudden, whilst standing there with my hands in the sink being anywhere but here, at anytime but now, it was a delight and a joy to be doing exactly what it was I was already doing anyway ... standing in the golden sunlight with hands immersed in delicious, tingling-to-the-touch, hot soapy water.
I find myself looking at what the hands are feeling (the hot soapy water) and become aware I have never seen hot soapy water before – have never really seen hot soapy water before – and become fascinated with the actuality of what is happening: it is as if the hands know what to do without any input from me; they are reaching for a plate, they are applying the scourer appropriately, they are turning the plate over, they are applying the scourer appropriately, they are lifting the cleaned plate out of the washing sink; they are dipping it into the rinsing sink; they are placing it in the rack to drip ... and all this while they are feeling the delicious tingling sensation of hot soapy water as it strips-away the grease and other detritus.
I am not required at all; I am a supernumerary; I am redundant; I can retire, fold in my hand, pack in the game, depart, disappear, dissolve, disintegrate, vamoose, vanish, die – whatever – and life would manage quite well, thank you, without me ... a whole lot better, in fact, as I am holding up the works from functioning smoothly.
‘I’ was not needed ... ‘my’ services were no longer required’.

RESPONDENT: What actually happened in the beginning?

RICHARD: What happened for the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body on the first of January 1981 (the day ‘he’ first put the method ‘he’ devised into practice) was so amazing for ‘him’ that ‘he’ said to ‘his’ then wife that ‘he’ had discovered the secret to life ... ‘he’ would go on to say it was so easy to feel happy and harmless for 23 hours 59 minutes of the day (an arbitrary figure) that ‘he’ wondered why it had never been done before.

RESPONDENT: What happened in you when you asked this question?

RICHARD: What happened for the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body was that ‘he’ mainly felt happy and harmless irregardless of the situation and circumstance ... the 00 hours 01 minute of the day (an arbitrary figure) that ‘he’ did not never detracted from what has nowadays become known as a virtual freedom and was often quite easily rectified.

RESPONDENT: I don’t mean sparks flew and ASC’s happened ...

RICHARD: Okay ... because sparks *did* fly and both PCE’s and ASC’s (altered states of consciousness) *did* happen.

RESPONDENT: I mean what happened, banal or otherwise ... to help point the way ... what were the pitfalls?

RICHARD: It was the numerous PCE’s which pointed the way ... the pitfalls were (due to a lack of precedence) the ASC’s which pointed the other way.

RESPONDENT: Your account of the method leaves a lot to be desired.

RICHARD: Oh? And just what is it, then, that you desire to be in my account which is left out?

RESPONDENT: I say this with lots of experience as a trainer/ school teacher/ self-annihilator/ spiritual practiser/ seeker/ observer.

RICHARD: I see ... and that qualifies you to pass judgement upon something which this discussion is clearly demonstrating you know next to nothing about?


RESPONDENT: Your writings are full of soooo much ...

RICHARD: The following may be of assistance:

• [Richard]: ‘How you conduct your correspondence is entirely up to you, of course, and all I can do is point out that what you choose to write is what determines the response you receive.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘How low will you go?
• [Richard]: ‘As low as you wish to go ... it is you who sets the pace.

RESPONDENT: ... and yet the nitty gritty of sticking to the method is all that really matters surely.

RICHARD: If the nitty gritty of sticking to the method was all that really matters to my fellow human being then they would not fritter away a vital opportunity by engaging me in other matters ... matters such as, for example, my utilisation of words not (generally) in use in every day language.

RESPONDENT: And the use of words not in use in every day language is not necessary ...

RICHARD: Pardon me for breathing ... I write using the same words I use in my everyday language.

RESPONDENT: ... and is exclusive though impressive ...

RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You go to a great deal of effort to show off intellectual and verbal skills and often scoff at what others say in as clever a manner as you can think up.
• [Richard]: ‘It is no effort at all to write intelligently and skilfully, as I happen to like words and have always enjoyed the wide range this particular language commands, and have no intention of dumbing-down just because someone has an ill-founded objection to such proficiency’.

RESPONDENT: ... and this messes with peace on earth yes?

RICHARD: Not at all ... the already existing peace-on-earth is always just here right now irregardless what words I utilise.


RESPONDENT: Do you enjoy your actions being influential and getting approval and bearing fruits?

RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:

• [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)’.

RESPONDENT: Is this only apparent?

RICHARD: It is not even apparent.

RESPONDENT: Why do you enjoy people finding the site ...

RICHARD: Mainly because it demonstrates (1) that the reach of the internet is truly global and (2) that the decision to go public via the internet (rather than publish the traditional way) was a prudent choice (3) that the skill-acquisition required, the expenditure of leisure-time and the (borrowed) monies spent achieving same have all been worthwhile.

RESPONDENT: ... (and then mostly drifting on as is the way)?

RICHARD: If nothing else those persons are, however dimly, aware there is a third alternative – which means in practice that they may mention it en passant to another (more than a few do) or even come back to it later (some have done so) – or, at the very least, some more words are exchanged which may be (and some have been) of assistance to other readers.


RESPONDENT: Finally if you really are free from all the things you say then that is amazing.

RICHARD: It is indeed ... there is such a pristine purity and peerless perfection here in this actual world that it is inconceivable/incomprehensible and unimaginable/unbelievable to a denizen of the real world.

Or, as the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago would say, it is beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.

RESPONDENT: But can you tell me what really matters per se?

RICHARD: Certainly: the meaning of life (peace on earth is but a fringe-benefit).

June 18 2005

CO-RESPONDENT: (...) I’m going to investigate it [ALL the human pains] with an electron microscope. Should I?

RICHARD: A sincere, dedicated attentiveness to how you are experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive) will do just fine.

RESPONDENT: The word ‘how’ makes it difficult for me to grasp.

RICHARD: Am I to take it that nobody has ever greeted you with either (the formal) ‘how do you do’ solicitation, as to your well-being, or with (the informal) ‘how are you going’ query?

RESPONDENT: What sort of answer – experiential or otherwise does it beg?

RICHARD: It does not beg anything ... it is a straightforward query as to what way or manner one is experiencing the only moment one is ever alive.

RESPONDENT: Bit like asking: how am I typing this? Why with my hands!

RICHARD: Try this on for size and see how it fits:

• [example only]: ‘In what way or manner am I experiencing this moment of being alive whilst typing this with my hands? [end example].

RESPONDENT: Or: With pleasure.

RICHARD: In which case you are sensibly enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive (whereas were the answer to be ‘with displeasure’, for instance, then you have something to investigate so as to find out why you are wasting the only moment you are ever alive in such a silly way).

RESPONDENT: Or: I just am.

RICHARD: In which case you have something to investigate so as to find out why you are frittering away the only moment you are ever alive by being neutral.

RESPONDENT: Or: By intending to.

RICHARD: And now that you are carrying out what you intended in what way or manner are you experiencing this moment of being alive whilst doing that?

RESPONDENT: See what I mean?

RICHARD: What I see is that you have taken a straightforward query about how one is experiencing something (the only moment one is ever alive) and turned it into being about how one is doing something (as if the word ‘experiencing’ is irrelevant) and are now asking me if such silliness constitutes sensible dialogue.


RESPONDENT: What does how mean?

RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say:

• ‘how: (a question as to) the way or manner (of doing something)’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Thus ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ could just as easily be formulated as ‘in what way am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ or ‘in what manner am I experiencing this moment of being alive’.

RESPONDENT: It can either point to: with what method? ... or: what are its characteristics/what is it like?

RICHARD: Am I to take it that when someone – anyone – being solicitous as to your well-being asks ‘how do you do’/‘how are you going’ you have difficulty in grasping whether they are enquiring as to with what mode of procedure it is you are utilising for salubrity or what its quality is/its features-attributes-properties are?


RESPONDENT: How is your sentence different from: ‘Notice what you are experiencing with your senses now?’

RICHARD: First of all, your sentence does not indicate that it is this moment of being alive (the only moment anyone is ever alive) which you are experiencing; second, by specifying that it be your sensate experiencing it leaves out both your affective and cognitive experiencing; third, the word ‘notice’ (as in observe, heed, and so on) is passive, impersonal/detached, and not interrogative, personal/involved.

RESPONDENT: Which is the same as: ‘Look closely at what is happening now’.

RICHARD: Again there is no indication that it is this moment of being alive (the only moment anyone is ever alive) which is the happening being looked closely at – as with your first sentence it could be any thing/any creature/any event which is being noticed/observed closely – and neither does it accommodate affective and cognitive perception nor is it explicitly inquisitive, necessarily intimate, or specifically an engagement.

RESPONDENT: Or: ‘Be conscious of what is happening’ ...

RICHARD: In what way does that (a) designate that it is this moment of being alive (the only moment anyone is ever alive) which is the happening to be conscious of ... and (b) include being conscious of sensitive and affective and cognitive experiencing ... and (c) inextricably implicate being conscious in a questioning and subjectively participatory manner?

RESPONDENT: ... which is what your mother meant when you used a big knife as a kid: ‘Think about what you are doing!’

RICHARD: No parent I have ever met, heard of, or read about, ever meant ‘how are you experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive)’ when they exclaimed ‘think about what you are doing (with that big knife)’.

RESPONDENT: All of the above are new-age clichés.

RICHARD: Ah, that would explain why none of them bear any relationship whatsoever to what the actualism method is on about.

RESPONDENT: Nothing wrong with that but they have been practised without success by many people. I would guess millions.

RICHARD: Well now ... it was high time, then, that someone came up with something entirely new, eh?


RESPONDENT: Now (‘this moment’) = the only moment you are ever alive is a 100% cliché ...

RICHARD: Here is the full version:

• [Richard]: ‘It is essential for success to grasp the fact that this is your only moment of being alive. The past, although it did happen, is not actual now. The future, though it will happen, is not actual now. Only now is actual. Yesterday’s happiness and harmlessness does not mean a thing if one is miserable and malicious now ... and a hoped-for happiness and harmlessness tomorrow is to but waste this moment of being alive in waiting. All you get by waiting is more waiting’.

RESPONDENT: Again nothing wrong with that but it so not new ... and makes no difference in my experience.

RICHARD: Do you comprehend that, although the past was actual when it was happening, it is not actual now and that, although the future will be actual when it does happen, it is not actual now ... that only this moment is actual?

If so, do you further comprehend that anytime you felt happy and harmless/will feel happy and harmless does not mean a thing if you are not feeling happy and harmless now ... that a remembered occasion/an anticipated occasion pales into insignificance if you are currently feeling malicious and sorrowful?

Furthermore, do you understand that to be living this moment – the only moment you are ever alive – by feeling malicious and sorrowful is to be frittering away a vital opportunity to be fully alive ... to totally enjoy and appreciate being what you indubitably are (a sensate creature) whilst you are here on this planet?

If so, is it not silly to waste this only moment you are ever alive by feeling malicious and sorrowful ... when you could be feeling happy and harmless?

RESPONDENT: Having your sentence there often is like someone trying to give up smoking/go on a diet/start jogging ...

RICHARD: In what way is how I have previously explained the workings of the actualism method like trying to follow the dictates of neo-puritanical social engineers masquerading as public health officials? Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... if ‘I’ am not feeling good then ‘I’ have something to look at to find out why. What has happened, between the last time ‘I’ felt good and now? When did ‘I’ feel good last? Five minutes ago? Five hours ago? What happened to end those felicitous feelings? Ahh ... yes: ‘He said that and I ...’. Or: ‘She didn’t do this and I ...’. Or: ‘What I wanted was ...’. Or: ‘I didn’t do ...’. And so on and so on ... one does not have to trace back into one’s childhood ... usually no more than yesterday afternoon at the most (‘feeling good’ is an unambiguous term – it is a general sense of well-being – and if anyone wants to argue about what feeling good means ... then do not even bother trying to do this at all). Once the specific moment of ceasing to feel good is pin-pointed, and the silliness of having such an incident as that (no matter what it is) take away one’s enjoyment and appreciation of this only moment of being alive is seen for what it is – usually some habitual reactive response – one is once more feeling good ... but with a pin-pointed cue to watch out for next time so as to not have that trigger off yet another bout of the same-old same-old. This is called nipping it in the bud before it gets out of hand ... with application and diligence and patience and perseverance one soon gets the knack of this and more and more time is spent enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. And, of course, once one does get the knack of this, one up-levels ‘feeling good’, as a bottom line each moment again, to ‘feeling happy and harmless’ ... and after that to ‘feeling perfect’ (...)’.

RESPONDENT: ... it is fine for a bit after the newness of the decision but within days or weeks it is forgotten and life continues as it was before. That is exactly what has happened with your sentence to me, or was I not sincere enough?

RICHARD: Going solely by what you have written – and it can only be but a guess – I would suggest looking up what the word ‘cynical’ means in a few good dictionaries.


RESPONDENT: Forget the word spiritual probably best by the way.

RICHARD: As far as I can ascertain you are saying something like this:

• [example only]: ‘By the way, it is probably best to forget the word ‘spiritual’. [end example].

RESPONDENT: Spirit to me if anything means change towards happiness.

RICHARD: I see ... you are aware, are you not, it does not mean that to the many and various Masters and Messiahs, God-Men and Gurus, Sages and Seers, Avatars and Arahants, Saviours and Saints, and so on and so forth, who have held humankind in thralldom with their beguiling solipsistic narcissism over many aeons?

RESPONDENT: So your method is fundamentally spiritual in nature to me.

RICHARD: What you take the fundamental nature of the actualism method to be is, of course, your business ... I can only suggest and what another does with my suggestions is entirely up to them because, when all is said and done, it is they who either reap the rewards or pay the consequences for any action or inaction they may or may not have happen.

RESPONDENT: But does it work?

RICHARD: No, not if you are so confused about what the word spiritual means – ‘of, pertaining to, or affecting the spirit’ (Oxford Dictionary) – that you take spirit to refer to [quote] ‘change towards happiness’ [endquote] and not to the emotional/passional entity whom you instinctually intuit, affectively feel, and thus seriously think, you are.

I am, of course, speaking of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon self-realisation).




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