|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Rick
July 26, 2015 Hi Vineeto, From here out (and going back too if it's a simple enough swap), please feel free to use my name, 'Rick', in the correspondence archives, instead of an anonymized numerical identifier such as 'Respondent No. 75' or 'Respondent No. 10'. Best regards, (...) RICHARD: As altruism is an instinctive impulse (and not a matter of will), and as it is a situation (and not wishfulness) which evokes that powerful instinct for group survival, then unless the fact that any action within the human condition is bound to fail is grasped with both hands, and taken on board to such an extent that it hits home deeply, the predominant impulse for individual survival, even though less powerful, will prevail. RICK: Could you expand on that ‘the fact that any action within the human condition is bound to fail’ part, please? I’m not sure I understand. RICHARD: Throughout history, and stretching back into prehistory, many and various peoples have sought to bring about peace and harmony by many and various means ... all of which have failed, and will continue to fail, because they are actions brought about within the human condition. I have written about this before ... for example: [Richard]: ‘Any system brought about by political change, social reform, economic reconstruction, cultural revisionism, and so on, is bound to fail, no matter how well thought out, because blind nature’s genetically endowed survival passions, and the ‘being’ or ‘presence’ they automatically form themselves into, will stuff it up again and again. I have seen this repeatedly on the familial level, on the local community level, on the national level, and on the an international level ... plus, more pertinently, on the partnership (marriage/ relationship) level. Unless one can live with just one other person, in peace and harmony twenty four hours of the day, nothing is ever going to work on any other scale’. [endquote]. RICK: Yeah, so far nothing has worked. RICHARD: And that realisation (that despite the best attempts of many and various peoples over many and various millenniums, to bring about peace and harmony by many and various means, so far nothing has worked) is of vital importance as it efficaciously clears the work-bench of all accumulated detritus in one fell-swoop so that one can start afresh ... I distinctly recall the identity in residence all those years ago informing ‘his’ wife at the time that ‘he’ had been doing it the following-the-herd way for 30+ years, but to no avail, and that it was high-time ‘he’ set about doing it ‘his’ way (and when she asked what way that was ‘he’ said ‘he’ did not know but it would become progressively apparent, provided ‘he’ took the first step, with each successive step ‘he’ took). So ‘he’ set about imitating the actual – as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) in late July 1980 – on the first of January 1981 simply by each moment again being relentlessly attentive to, and scrupulously honest about, how that only moment of ever being alive was experienced so as to feel as happy and as harmless (as free of malice and sorrow) as was humanly possible inasmuch any deviation from such felicity/ innocuity was attended to with the utmost dispatch in order to live as peacefully and as harmoniously as ‘he’ could with ‘his’ wife and children, in particular, and with anyone and everyone, in general, who came into ‘his’ presence. And that way of living was so successful, compared to the norm, that in a very short time ‘he’ was wont to exclaim to all and sundry that ‘he’ had discovered the secret to life (for that is how far beyond normal human expectations the felicitous/ innocuous state which has nowadays become known as a virtual freedom truly is) and ‘he’ was perplexed as to why, it being such a simple thing to do, no-one had ever done it before. * RICK: So the fact has to be grasped that there is no solution, no answer, no action, or changes that will work so long as one is still an identity? RICHARD: Aye, the very act of searching for and/or applying solutions, answers, actions, or changes, that would (supposedly) work within the human condition will, of necessity, ensure that the powerful instinctive impulse known as selfism (the selfish instinct for individual survival) remains predominant for no other reason than that of the identity itself being the human condition. Put succinctly: where there is no identity there is no human condition. RICK: Then what of applying the actualism method? RICHARD: The application of the actualism method (which is, in essence, to effect an imitation of the actual) is a means to an end which is not within the human condition: as such it will, of necessity, ensure that the selfish instinct for individual survival (selfism) loses its dominance. RICK: Wouldn’t that be an action done within the human condition ... RICHARD: Of course it is ... after all one must start from where one is at. RICK: ... only to fail like any other action done within the human condition? RICHARD: If there is no vital interest in peace-on-earth, or were that vital interest to fade away such that the pure intent to attain to one’s destiny dissipates, then the actualism method would fail, or begin to fail, like any other action done within the human condition as it is the end which energises the means (and which is why the means needs not to be dissimilar from the end). I kid you not ... even a virtual freedom does not provide an absolute immunity from recidivation. RICK: Obviously not since it worked for you. RICHARD: Ahh ... the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago had that magic elixir (so to speak) by the bucket-load for the meaning of life had become stunningly apparent in that 1980 PCE which set the entire process in motion ... peace-on-earth is a fringe-benefit, a side-effect, of living in this actual world. * RICK: What works most effectively? RICHARD: The situation of course ... despite all of humanity’s hard-won civilisation (socialisation, humanisation, edification, education, refinement, sophistication) both those people on the news you wrote about earlier, and yourself, are still suffering because of this or that. RICK: So I can make this situation occur (the instinctive impulse of group survival, aka altruism, aka what causes one to ‘self’-immolate) in me by grasping ‘the fact that any action within the human condition is bound to fail’. Is that right? That is what works? Among other things, I suppose. RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following (from further above):
RICK: Right. So why hasn’t it occurred in me (the instinctual impulse of altruism)? The reason, I think, is because maybe I see myself on a different boat than others ... better off than some people and worse off than others. (For example) I think I am better off than someone who is extremely disturbed by voices in their heads telling them to kill people. And I think I am worse off than someone who is virtually free of the human condition. RICHARD: Yet no one is better off than another, at the core of their being (which is ‘being’ itself), or worse off than someone else. * RICHARD: It is as straightforward as this: blind nature does not care two-hoots about you and me personally – essentially blind nature is only concerned with the survival of the species (and any species will do as far as blind nature is concerned) – but I do ... the question is: do you? RICK: Yeah, neither blind nature nor the cosmos care whether I am happy or not. But I certainly care about myself and am concerned about my well-being ... sure. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way (with emphasis on the plural): blind nature does not care two-hoots about *individuals* – essentially blind nature is only concerned with the survival of the species (and any species will do as far as blind nature is concerned) – but an individual does ... the question is: do you? RICK: You are asking if I care about particular individuals like family, friends, pets? RICHARD: No, I am asking if you care about individuals, period ... because all human beings are in the same boat in regards the human condition (no one is better off than another, at the core of their being, or worse off than someone else). RICK: Yes, every once in a while I am concerned about other peoples’ situation. RICHARD: That is not what I asked ... I am asking if you care about individuals, period. RICK: For the most part, though, I seemingly care only about me and the rest of the world come in a distant second place. RICHARD: Why do you separate yourself out from all your fellow human beings/ all your fellow human beings out from yourself as if the one should take precedence over the other/ the other should take precedence over the one? It is altruism in the virtuous sense, as in being an unselfish/ selfless self, to put the other before oneself (as an antidote to being selfish). * RICHARD: By and large the instinct for survival of the group is the more powerful – as is epitomised in the honey-bee (when it stings to protect/ defend the hive it dies) – and it is the utilisation of this once-in-a-lifetime gregarian action which is referred to when I speak of an altruistic ‘self’-immolation or ‘self’-sacrifice, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. RICK: The key it seems is figure out how I can utilise this once-in-a-lifetime gregarian action that you refer to. It sounds like something I would definitely want to do ... and as soon as possible. RICHARD: Okay ... you wrote earlier about people on the news suffering because of this or that: do you too suffer because of this or that? RICK: Well as far as heartache, anxiety, depression, emotional pains, and general feelings of malice and sorrow ... yes. RICHARD: That is precisely what I am enquiring about (the suffering which ‘this or that’ can bring to the surface): is that not your own suffering there – on the news each time you tune in – reflected back at you as if looking into a mirror? RICK: Hmm ... yeah, pretty much the same. RICHARD: In what way is your heartache, anxiety, depression, emotional pains, and general feelings of malice and sorrow (for instance) at all different from the heartache, anxiety, depression, emotional pains, and general feelings of malice and sorrow you see in people on the news suffering from because of [quote] ‘this or that’ [endquote]? RICK: I see a difference in frequency and intensity from person to person. Like, for instance, someone who is extremely disturbed by voices in their heads telling them to kill people all the time and someone who is virtually free of the human condition who rarely experiences any disturbances at all. RICHARD: Sure, but is your suffering essentially any different to the suffering you see in people on the news? * RICK: There are things that people go through that I can’t relate to though (like how they react towards a certain situation is quite different then how I would react). RICHARD: If, for example, you were to react towards a certain situation with frustration (or with anger or fear or sorrow) in what way is that frustration (or that anger or fear or sorrow) quite different to the frustration (or the anger or fear or sorrow) of those people you are referring to? RICK: I think the main difference I see is that some people might experience frustration (or anger or fear or sorrow) all the time and very intensely while others might experience frustration (or anger or fear or sorrow) very rarely and in much weaker doses. RICHARD: Yet a difference in degree is not a difference in kind ... let alone [quote] ‘quite different’ [endquote]. * RICK: People’s frustrations, anger, fear, and sorrow happen for different reasons and I suppose it is the fact that they are feeling frustration, anger, fear or sorrow is what I have in common with them. RICHARD: Exactly ... and as the end of all the suffering, which ‘this or that’ can bring to the surface, is the end of the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so on, is not the very situation you find both yourself and others already in a situation of such a magnitude as to evoke the clannish instinct of group survival? RICK: Yes, there are times (every so often) that I do want to do something for humanity as a whole. Humanity and myself are in a rotten disposition. RICHARD: As you are not separate from humanity/ as humanity is not separate from (you are humanity/ humanity is you) do you now see why I have kept on asking if you care about individuals, period? Simply because blind nature does not care about individuals – essentially blind nature is only concerned with the survival of the species (and any species will do as far as blind nature is concerned) – and simply because only an individual can care about individuals then, unless/ until an individual does dare to care, all the misery and mayhem will go on forever and a day ... just as it has done over the millennia which stretch back into the mists of prehistory. And to dare to care is to care to dare. * RICHARD: Do you not find yourself, when you see your own suffering there on the news each time you tune in reflected back at you as if looking into a mirror, wanting with all of your being, to bring to an end once and for all, the inherent suffering which epitomises human nature? RICK: Yeah, I have experienced that before. RICHARD: Good ... as you have experienced it before you can experience it again; and when you experience it again you can experience it again and again ... and again and again and again until it is continuous. RICK: Realistically though, I can’t do anything to end the suffering of 6 billion people. RICHARD: Indeed not ... each and every person’s freedom, or lack thereof, is right where it ought to be (in their hands and their hands alone). RICK: It’s impossible. I can’t even accomplish ending suffering in myself as yet. RICHARD: And even when suffering has ended, forever, in yourself you still cannot end it in others (which is just as it ought to be anyway). RICK: ‘Self’-immolation though would help in that there is one less person perpetuating suffering on itself and others. RICHARD: Aye, but there is more to it than that: there is no suffering whatsoever here in this actual world (I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies). RICK: That is more realistic but not as good as ending, forever, the suffering of all of humanity. RICHARD: What one does is one sets the pace for others ... nothing inspires quite like success does. RICK: That would be amazing, though, that if it could be done (the end of all suffering) in one person (Richard) and then another person (myself or anyone else) that it can be done for the other 6 billion peoples. RICHARD: There is no reason why it (the end of suffering) cannot spread exponentially ... like a chain-letter. * RICHARD: Do you comprehend that oblivion is the end of suffering forever? RICK: Indeed ... That is my understanding. RICHARD: The key to being free, then, is not altruism per se but wanting, with all of one’s being, to bring to an end, once and for all, the inherent suffering which epitomises human nature. Viz.:
RICK: Yeah, I want that – I want the end to pain and suffering. And if I presently don’t want it bad enough (although I think I have sufficient motivation and desire) ... I want to want it bad enough. Basically, what is keeping me motivated is the memory of the last time I suffered greatly ... And that situation reminded me of the time before that I suffered greatly. So, what is pushing me is my memory of so many of my personal unpleasant experiences and the fear that another bout of suffering is on the horizon (which I know there will always be to a greater or lesser extent until ‘I’ am no more). I just do not want my particular suffering to go on any longer (and people’s sufferings in general because I know how much it sucks to experience emotional pains). So that is my current motivation for oblivion. RICHARD: Okay ... when you see your own suffering there on the news, each time you tune in, reflected back at you as if looking into a mirror such as to drive it home deeply to you that there is no solution whatsoever to the human condition anywhere within the human condition, do you not then find yourself wanting oblivion so much that all your instinctual passionate energy of desire, normally frittered away on petty desires, is fuelling and impelling (‘impelling’ as in a pulling from the front) you ineluctably into that, and that alone, like a moth to a candle? RICK: Yes ... But I think not often enough. RICHARD: I do not mean wanting it as in wishful thinking: when I say one has to want it like one has never wanted anything else before I mean it just like that ... like nothing else one has ever wanted before. The ‘moth to a candle’ analogy means that one cannot help but be pulled towards that ... and towards that alone. RICK: Actually, most of my day seems to be frittered away on petty desires. RICHARD: Why? Have you not just said you have suffered [quote] ‘greatly’ [endquote] ... and more than once at that? Do you really need to go through that again before you will cease frittering your day away on petty desires? RICK: But every so often I get inspired and a focus comes in (but not often enough I’m afraid). RICHARD: What is it that inspires you? Where does that inspiration come from? Why does that inspiration go away? Incidentally, there is no need to reply to these type of questions as they are more to encourage a curiosity about yourself, about what makes you tick, than anything else ... besides which this e-mail is getting far too long any way. * RICHARD: All I was ascertaining was whether you had ever desired oblivion before coming across the actualism words and writings ... for then there is a deep urge just sitting there waiting, as it were, to come to the surface given the right opportunity. RICK: If by oblivion you mean the end of pain and suffering? RICHARD: Aye ... as expressed in the classic example of seeking oblivion in alcohol, or some other drug, so as to blot out all the cares and worries for a while. RICK: Well, then yes. RICHARD: In which case there is a deep urge just sitting there waiting, as it were, to come to the surface given the right opportunity. RICK: When I was eight years old I had a traumatic experience which opened me up to new kinds of emotional pains and experiences. Ever since then I have become increasingly aware of any emotional disturbances in myself and wanted freedom from pain. About four years ago I basically decided to dedicate my time towards ‘fixing’ myself and all my issues. For some reason, things only got worse and reached a climax about a year and a half ago until I got so fed up with the method I was using to fix myself (because it wasn’t working and things were only getting worse and friends and family had been in emotional stress because of worrying about me) ... that I immediately abandoned my method (hours of meditation, spiritual/ philosophical thoughts, retreat into my ‘inner-world’ where I thought the answer lied) and sought something new. That is when I happened across the actualism writings and it hit deep and was a breath of fresh air. Mainly, the idea that psychological/ psychic ‘self’-immolation is possible and that no more pain is possible under any circumstance. RICHARD: Okay ... and has that [quote] ‘idea’ [endquote] brought to the surface the deep urge for oblivion first felt at eight years of age? RICK: Yes. It seems the more I’ve experienced hardship the more I’ve wanted out of it. To the point, where about four years ago, I dedicated myself to permanently getting myself out of it. RICHARD: Oh? That deep urge for oblivion came to the surface four years ago? * RICHARD: A cautionary note: one has to be absolutely certain that this course of action is what one really wants to do – for once unleashed it is impossible to stuff it back in the bottle – as there were several occasions along the way where the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago wished ‘he’ had never taken the cap off. RICK: To me, I don’t care what pains or disturbances are ahead as long as they are not in vain and I ultimately ‘die’. RICHARD: It was more the ending of ‘me’ being starkly imminent which occasioned the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago to wish, on several occasions along the way, ‘he’ had never taken the cap off ... emotional/ passional pains and disturbances are par for the course in everyday life in the real-world. RICK: Why did the ending of ‘him’ being starkly imminent occasion ‘him’ to wish that ‘he’ had never taken the cap off? RICHARD: Because of the sheer totality, and the utter finality, of extinction ... everything goes, forever; nothing remains, whatever. RICK: What feelings arose? RICHARD: None of any account that I can recall – the wishful thinking for ‘good old-fashioned’ normality was more a musing wistfulness than a yearning or longing – and, although there was a sense of desperacy (as in gravity, direness, extremity), there was no feeling of despair. * RICK: For a year and a half I’ve wanted ‘die’. RICHARD: Why? RICK: Because I want to permanently do away with my personal suffering and the suffering I cause towards others by simply being alive. There was and is way too much suffering that I have caused/ am causing towards myself and those around me. Dying seems to be the only thing to do to end the pain. It is nice to hear that such a thing is possible without actually killing the body. Psychological and psychic ‘self’-immolation, death of everything ‘I’ am and ever have been for the sake of peace-on-earth for this body, in this lifetime, is extremely appealing. RICHARD: You say it is nice to hear that such a thing is possible without actually killing the body ... have you ever desired that (physical death)? RICK: Yes, on several occasions. Not so much now though (probably because I am not as depressed and/or that I’ve found out there is an alternative to ending suffering by suicide). But in the past I have fantasized about the end of all the pain physical death would bring. Never to the point of attempting suicide though because I always had a hope that things would get better/ I would figure the mess out. RICHARD: Okay ... and again all I was ascertaining was whether you had ever desired oblivion – as in the oblivion of physical death – before coming across the actualism words and writings (and again for the reason that there is, then, a deep urge just sitting there waiting, as it were, to come to the surface given the right opportunity). * RICK: And I’ve had no success so I am looking for reasons as to why it hasn’t happened yet. RICHARD: Your answer to the previous question may very well provide a vital clue ... it does entail finding out about the workings of yourself (what makes you tick) of course. RICK: My answer to the previous question didn’t offer any apparent clue as to why I am failing to ‘die’. I would not expect it to though because my reason for wanting to ‘die’ has been pretty clear to me for quite some time (about a year and a half). Do you see any clue to why it hasn’t happened yet based on my answer to the previous question you asked me or any other of my responses? RICHARD: Yes (although it could just be the way you put sentences together) ... for instance what the words ‘it is nice to hear ...’ conveys is poles apart from what something like this does: [example only]: ‘As physical death had seemed to be the only way to end all the hurt and hurting, permanently, I cannot even begin to tell you what a relief it is to hear that psychological/ psychic suicide is possible’. [end example]. RICK: Yeah, that is a much more accurate description of how I felt than the one I gave. RICHARD: This may be an apt place to copy-paste the following from further above:
RICK: I don’t follow. Could you explain what you’re getting at? RICHARD: Only you can know your every thought, your every feeling, your every instinctual impulse – nor can I know the nuances of your ethnic background, the intimate details of your familial upbringing, the subtleties of your peer-group aspirations and so on – so it is only you who can effectively become curious about what makes you tick. To say that my description of how you felt was more accurate than the one you gave surely indicates, does it not, that it is high time you became interested enough in yourself so as to finally become curious about what makes you tick? And, as the same applies to the three other instances which followed, I will leave them out for reasons of space. (...) RICHARD: It is this simple: unless one is vitally interested in peace on earth, in this lifetime as a flesh and blood body only, one will never even begin to free the crippled intelligence from the debilitating passions bestowed by blind nature. Yet becoming vitally interested is but the preliminary stage, because until one becomes curious as to whether what is being written here about biological inheritance can be applied to themselves, only then does the first step begin. Then curiosity becomes fascination ... and thus the fun begins to gain a momentum of its own. One is drawn inexorably further and further towards one’s destiny. RICK: Yeah, it sucks to accept this but I still might be at that ‘preliminary stage’ which is to be vitally interested in peace on earth/ end of suffering but not curious enough to find out what makes me tick for the sake of curiosity and definitely not fascinated. I’ll get there though. A PCE should clear a lot up. By the way, I’m changing my focus now. Instead of focusing on trying to utilise this altruistic impulse and ‘self’-immolate (it’ll happen when it happens) ... I’m going to try and induce a PCE. I am going to be patient but will try to make my lot in life as happy and charming as can be so as to bring about a peak experience (and just to generally make life nicer on myself and others). A PCE will clear a lot up for me and, according to actualism writings, will produce a pure intent which will take one safely all the way to the end (altruistic ‘self’-immolation). Presently, I think my outlook on life is too glum for a PCE to occur. When I compare how I experience my moments of being alive to how Richard was experiencing his moments of being alive while he was still an identity (the first half of ‘Richard’s Journal’), I see a stark difference. My outlook/ experience of the moment isn’t as appreciative and delighted as Richard’s was. Nor as felicitous or happy. RICHARD: Okay ... and, just as a matter of interest, it was somewhere in that first few months of being as happy and as harmless (as free of malice and sorrow) as was humanly possible, in 1981, that the altruistic impulse kicked in irrevocably. I will leave you with something Peter had to say:
RICK: Richard ... I have a question. How do I induce a PCE? RICHARD: The most simple (and thus mnemonical) answer to your question is: by allowing it to happen. RICK: I ask and ask myself how it is I’m experiencing this moment of being alive and still there is no pure consciousness experience. I haven’t had one yet. How can I go about bringing one up? RICHARD: It takes the felicity and innocuity of naiveté to bring about a PCE: where one is happy and harmless a benevolence and benignity which is not of ‘my’ doing operates of its own accord ... and it is this beneficence and magnanimity which occasions the PCE. The largesse of the universe (as in the largesse of life itself), in other words. RICK: Should I try and focus on what my senses are experiencing (i.e. paying attention to colours, noises, smells, textures, and such) and ignore feelings? RICHARD: As what you are asking is, in effect, whether a PCE can be induced by focussing on sensate experience with a bored, nervous, scared, regretful, and etcetera, attentiveness the answer is: no. RICK: Because when I ask myself how it is I’m experiencing this moment of being alive, I am always experiencing this moment of being alive through some feeling, usually a strong feeling (i.e. being bored, nervous, scared, regretful, etc.) and so I pay full-attention to my internal state and what’s going on in my psyche and I get all caught up in what’s going on in there so much so that I am not able to ‘live as these senses’. RICHARD: The essence of the actualism method is to minimise both the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and
desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) – and the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and
passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – by nipping them in the bud This enables one to (initially) feel good, to (then) feel happy and harmless, to (eventually) feel perfect for 99% of the time (a virtual freedom) ... and by thus deactivating both the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ feelings, and therefore activating the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (happiness, delight, joie de vivre, bonhomie and so on), then with this freed-up affective energy maximised, in conjunction with sensuousness (delectation, enjoyment, appreciation, relish, zest, gusto and so on), the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness (unmediated perception). In short: it is the on-going felicitous/ innocuous sensuousness which ensures a win-win situation. RICK: Thus, I wonder that maybe I should switch my focus from paying attention to my internal state of affairs when asking myself how I’m experiencing this moment of being alive, to exclusively focusing on what is happening externally (sensately). RICHARD: As what you are wondering is, in effect, whether apperception (unmediated perception) can be brought about by focussing on sensate experience with a bored, nervous, scared, regretful, and etcetera, attentiveness your wonder is entirely misplaced. RICK: Any thoughts on that approach? RICHARD: Just this: the more one enjoys and appreciates simply being alive – to the point of excellence being the norm – the greater the likelihood of a PCE happening ... a bored, nervous, scared, regretful, and etcetera, person has no chance whatsoever of allowing the magical event, which indubitably shows where everyone has being going awry, to occur. It really is as straightforward as that.
RICK: Richard ... I have a question. How do I induce a PCE? RICHARD: The most simple (and thus mnemonical) answer to your question is: by allowing it to happen. RICK: I ask and ask myself how it is I’m experiencing this moment of being alive and still there is no pure consciousness experience. I haven’t had one yet. How can I go about bringing one up? RICHARD: It takes the felicity and innocuity of naiveté to bring about a PCE: where one is happy and harmless a benevolence and benignity which is not of ‘my’ doing operates of its own accord ... and it is this beneficence and magnanimity which occasions the PCE. The largesse of the universe (as in the largesse of life itself), in other words. RICK: Should I try and focus on what my senses are experiencing (i.e. paying attention to colours, noises, smells, textures, and such) and ignore feelings? RICHARD: As what you are asking is, in effect, whether a PCE can be induced by focussing on sensate experience with a bored, nervous, scared, regretful, and etcetera, attentiveness the answer is: no. RICK: This is what occasioned me to wonder if exclusive attention should be payed to the senses ... RICHARD: Just so there is no misunderstanding: that exclusive focus you were wondering about in your previous e-mail referred to ignoring strong feelings such as being bored, nervous, scared, regretful, and etcetera. Viz.:
By way of contrast I only ever use the term [quote] ‘exclusive attention’ [endquote] to refer to this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever actually here). For example:
And that type of focus is best known as fascination (as in being irresistibly attractive/ an irresistible attractiveness). For instance:
For more examples simply copy-paste the following, as-is, into the search-engine box at a search engine of your choice:
Then press ‘enter’ (or left-click ‘search’) ... you should get about 69 hits (there are 109 instances altogether). RICK: ... [This is what occasioned me to wonder if exclusive attention should be payed to the senses] in order to induce a PCE and to better appreciate life on this planet:
Here’s another question then. Will focusing on what my senses are experiencing bring about felicity and innocuity? RICHARD: First of all, that response of mine (posted on Friday, 30/09/2005, at 6:49 PM ADST) was written in the context of you having just informed me about feeling [quote] ‘more at ease with life’ [endquote] ... whereas my latest response (sent at 4:55 AM on Saturday, 4/03/2006, AEDST) was written in the context of you having just informed me about strongly feeling [quote] ‘bored, nervous, scared, regretful, etc.’ [endquote]. Furthermore, the reason why I said [quote] ‘again’ [endquote], in that response of mine you have part-quoted from Put succinctly: the actualism method will not work as advertised when treated as being a materialism method.
RICK: I think the main idea behind what I was enquiring in the last letter and your answer to it is this:
RICHARD: That part of my explanation, of what I wrote five months ago in the context of you having informed me about feeling [quote] ‘more at ease with life’ [endquote], is not my answer to what you were enquiring about, in the context of having informed me about strongly feeling [quote] ‘bored, nervous, scared, regretful, etc.’ [endquote], in your last e-mail ... this is:
For example:
RICK: Let me get this straight: paying *exclusive* attention to what one’s senses are experiencing is NOT the way in which one will induce happy and harmless feelings on oneself (and therefore a PCE)? RICHARD: I only ever use the term [quote] ‘exclusive attention’ [endquote] to refer to this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever actually here) ... the past, although it did happen, is not actual now; the future, though it will happen, is not actual now; only now is actual. RICK: Does this mean that one has to ALSO pay attention to what is happening internally (feelings, emotions, thoughts, and such)? RICHARD: There are, essentially, three ways of experiencing:
There is no way that the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ can be construed as (exclusively) meaning ‘how am I sensately experiencing this moment of being alive’. RICK: So, when you say ‘you’ payed exclusive attention to this moment of being alive and that that exclusive attention brought about apperception ... you mean that ‘you’ were paying exclusive attention to the sum total of what was being experienced at that moment (both in the psyche and sensately)? RICHARD: I only ever use the term [quote] ‘exclusive attention’ [endquote] to refer to this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever actually here) ... copy-paste the following, as-is, into the search-engine box at a search engine of your choice:
Then press ‘enter’ (or left-click ‘search’) ... you should get about 69 hits (there are 109 instances altogether).
RICK: Richard, you wrote:
RICHARD: Yes, I replied thusly on the understanding (a) that ‘regular exercise’ referred to a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) ... and (b) that, given the general thrust of the entire e-mail, it was a personal question (relating to what life is like after the extirpation, in toto, of the progenitor of stress). Speaking of which: that stressor – the word stress is aphetised from the word distress – has, of course, a vested interest in deflecting attention away from itself. RICK: I have read that stress can be bad for the body, in that it can have a very negative effect on one’s immune system and thus make the body subject to many kinds of illnesses and problems. But the general agreement among health experts across the globe is that regular exercise (along with good nutrition) is the best thing to promote a healthy body. RICHARD: Hmm ... have you ever considered a career in penning propaganda? RICK: What evidence do you have that says that regular exercise isn’t good for the body? RICHARD: Ha ... if your above paragraph is an example of what constitutes evidence in your neck of the woods then the following should be more than sufficient:
RICK: I’m curious to see where you got that information. RICHARD: Out of nothing more than idle curiosity I have just now typed <stress number one killer> into an internet search-engine ... the Time Magazine (for example) ran a cover story, on June 6, 1983, in which it was stated that [quote] ‘In the past 30 years, doctors and health officials have come to realize how heavy a toll stress is taking on the nation’s well being. According to the American Academy of Family Physicians, two-thirds of office visits to family doctors are prompted by stress-related symptoms. At the same time, leaders of industry have become alarmed by the huge cost of such symptoms in absenteeism, company medical expenses and lost productivity. Based on national samples, these costs have been estimated at $50 billion to $75 billion a year, more than $750 for every U.S. worker. Stress is now known to be a major contributor, either directly or indirectly, to coronary heart disease, cancer, lung ailments, accidental injuries, cirrhosis of the liver and suicide – six of the leading causes of death in the U.S. Stress also plays a role in aggravating such diverse conditions as multiple sclerosis, diabetes, genital herpes and even trench mouth. It is a sorry sign of the times that the three bestselling drugs in the country are an ulcer medication (Tagamet), a hypertension drug (Inderal) and a tranquilizer (Valium)’. [endquote]. That was, of course, the prevailing wisdom in the ‘eighties ... the current flavour-of-the-month (this decade’s wisdom) is depression.
RICK: Richard, you wrote:
RICHARD: Yes, I replied thusly on the understanding (a) that ‘regular exercise’ referred to a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) ... and (b) that, given the general thrust of the entire e-mail, it was a personal question (relating to what life is like after the extirpation, in toto, of the progenitor of stress). Speaking of which: that stressor – the word stress is aphetised from the word distress – has, of course, a vested interest in deflecting attention away from itself. RICK: Sorry ... What do you mean? RICHARD: Just by way of example: that progenitor of stress – the stressor within – has persuaded an otherwise intelligent person to downplay the debilitating effect of stress and champion the remedial effect of regular exercise (along with good nutrition) by glossing over the former with the word can – ‘may possibly’ (Oxford Dictionary) – and lending legitimacy to the latter with the word is (‘have place in the realm of fact/be the case or the fact’). Viz.:
Moreover, the debilitating effect of stress was further negated by it merely being something read somewhere whilst the remedial effect of regular exercise was further legitimised by the presentation of it as being the general agreement among health experts across the globe. In case that is still not clear: by making the body partake in a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) the stressor has successfully eluded attention ... once again. * RICK: I have read that stress can be bad for the body, in that it can have a very negative effect on one’s immune system and thus make the body subject to many kinds of illnesses and problems. But the general agreement among health experts across the globe is that regular exercise (along with good nutrition) is the best thing to promote a healthy body. RICHARD: Hmm ... have you ever considered a career in penning propaganda? RICK: Nope I haven’t. I don’t think there’s enough money to be made there. RICHARD: Golly, there are literally billions of dollars made available annually all around the world, both in government grants and commercial funding, for persons with little more than a facility for fine-sounding phrases and some letters after their name ... by way of a neat little primer into the whole pseudo-science industry I will refer you to the following booklet: https://web.archive.org/web/19970412002851/http://www.junkscience.com/sws.html * RICK: What evidence do you have that says that regular exercise isn’t good for the body? RICHARD: Ha ... if your above paragraph is an example of what constitutes evidence in your neck of the woods then the following should be more than sufficient: [example only]: ‘I have read that regular exercise (along with good nutrition) can be good for the body, in that it can have a very positive effect on one’s immune system and thus make the body less subject to many kinds of illnesses and problems. But the general agreement among health experts across the globe is that stress reduction is the best thing to promote a healthy body’. [end example]. RICK: Nope, not sufficient. RICHARD: Oh? Yet all I did was write the obverse of what you wrote. RICK: How about some articles and quotes from credible sources? That’s the good stuff. RICHARD: As far as I have been able to ascertain there is no such good stuff – there have been no articles from credible sources relating to what life is like after the extirpation, in toto, of the progenitor of stress – to quote from. * RICK: I’m curious to see where you got that information. RICHARD: Out of nothing more than idle curiosity I have just now typed <stress number one killer> into an internet search-engine ... the Time Magazine (for example) ran a cover story, on June 6, 1983, in which it was stated that [quote] ‘In the past 30 years, doctors and health officials have come to realize how heavy a toll stress is taking on the nation’s well being. According to the American Academy of Family Physicians, two-thirds of office visits to family doctors are prompted by stress-related symptoms. At the same time, leaders of industry have become alarmed by the huge cost of such symptoms in absenteeism, company medical expenses and lost productivity. Based on national samples, these costs have been estimated at $50 billion to $75 billion a year, more than $750 for every U.S. worker. Stress is now known to be a major contributor, either directly or indirectly, to coronary heart disease, cancer, lung ailments, accidental injuries, cirrhosis of the liver and suicide – six of the leading causes of death in the U.S. Stress also plays a role in aggravating such diverse conditions as multiple sclerosis, diabetes, genital herpes and even trench mouth. It is a sorry sign of the times that the three bestselling drugs in the country are an ulcer medication (Tagamet), a hypertension drug (Inderal) and a tranquilizer (Valium)’. [endquote]. That was, of course, the prevailing wisdom in the ‘eighties ... the current flavour-of-the-month (this decade’s wisdom) is depression. RICK: Yeah. I found when I typed <importance of exercise> into the search engine of Google one of the links that came up was to an article from Pharmabiz.com (which describes itself as ‘India’s most comprehensive pharma portal’). The article states ‘Medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities, who studied the habits and health of 17,000 middle aged and older men, reported the first scientific evidence that even modest exercise helps prolong life. Dr. Ralph S. Paffenbarger, the visiting professor of epidemiology ...’ RICHARD: Bingo! RICK: ‘... at the Harvard School of Public Health, who is the principal author of the report said, ‘we have found a direct relationship between the level of physical activity and the length of life in the college men we have studied’. He added, ‘This is the first good evidence that people who are active and fit have a longer life span than those who are not’. A strong connection between hard work and healthy heart has also been convincingly demonstrated in the same study. The study showed that the less active persons ran a three times higher risk of suffering a fatal heart attack than did those who worked the hardest. Review of fatal heart attacks revealed that the less active men were also three times more likely to die unexpectedly and rapidly within an hour after the attack. Exercise increases calories output. The body fat can be reduced by regular exercise. It is therefore, useful for weight reduction in conjunction with restricted food intake. According to a study by Dr. Peter Wood of Stanford University Medical School ...’ RICHARD: It only took about three minutes to locate the following list of epidemiological studies he participated in (he has a doctoral degree in science): http://prevention.stanford.edu/facultystaff/detail.asp?22 RICK: ‘... [According to a study by Dr. Peter Wood of Stanford University Medical School], author of ‘California Diet and Exercise Programme’, very active people eat about 600 more calories daily than their sedentary counterparts but weigh about 20 percent less. Up to 15 hours after vigorous exercise, the body continues to burn calories at a higher rate than it should have without exercise. Moderate physical exercise has been found to be accompanied by less obesity and lower cholesterol levels’. [endquote]. Sounds like they are saying that regular exercise IS good in promoting a healthy body. RICHARD: Of course it sounds like that ... after all, that is the whole point of the exercise (pun intended). RICK: Why is it you say that it isn’t? RICHARD: Because there is no stressor whatsoever parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body there is no need for a remedial regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity). It is all so simple here in this actual world.
RICK: A question, Richard: You wrote (about this other enlightened guy), ‘Incidentally, this
other person was far more deluded than I was ... they had manifested the typical stigmata’. (actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-delusion.htm) RICHARD: Yes ... stigmata mysticus (in all its cultural variations) is the physical manifestation of an emotional/ passional play in a fertile imagination. RICK: I’ve always been curious ... Do people with stigmata inflict physical harm on themselves to form the wounds of Christ, or what? RICHARD: Here is a useful word:
RICK: Being that you’ve had close encounters with the metaphysical and the transcendental I thought you might know about such things. RICHARD: The following is of related interest:
RICK: I’ve just got back from a camping trip and during my stay in the country, I was thinking and pondering about the human condition and how to be free of it. One of the things that I thought about, which you’ve talk a lot about, is the elimination or reduction of the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and the maximizing of felicitous feelings. Try as I might, I have a hard time feeling anything other than ‘good’ feelings (feelings of security, superiority, love, trust, pride, accomplishment) and ‘bad’ feelings (feelings of insecurity, inferiority, shame, jealousy, heartache, frustration, embarrassment, nervousness, worry). I have been living for so long trying to maximize the ‘good’ feelings/ trying to minimize the ‘bad’ feelings (without success) that I don’t know how to go about to bring about felicitous/ innocuous feelings in myself ... Some help? RICHARD: When was the last time you felt good (a general feeling of well-being)? RICK: I’m starting to really see that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings are just opposites sides of the same coin ... that I can’t feel one without some other part of me feeling the other ... that I can’t have the ‘good’ without having the ‘bad’ and vice-versa. So now, I can really be open to a third alternative (felicitous/ innocuous feelings) ... but how and where can I find it. RICHARD: When was the last time you felt good (a general feeling of well-being)? RICK: How did you do it? RICHARD: The identity in residence back then did it by tracing back to the last time ‘he’ felt good (a general feeling of well-being). RICK: How were you able to stop feeling either ‘good’ or ‘bad’? RICHARD: The identity in residence back then was able to stop feeling either the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) – or the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – by tracing back to the last time ‘he’ felt good (a general feeling of well-being) and seeing how silly it was to have that felicitous/ innocuous feeling be usurped by those other feelings.
RICK: Could you list some examples of what you’d classify as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and what you’d classify as felicitous/innocuous feelings so I could keep an eye out for them. RICHARD: As a broad generalisation: the ‘good’ feelings are those that are of a loving (ardent feelings of profound affection and endearment) and a compassionate (empathetic feelings of deep sympathy and commiseration) nature; the ‘bad feelings are those that are of a malicious (spiteful feelings of intense hatred and resentment) and a sorrowful (melancholy feelings of yawning sadness and grief) nature; the felicitous feelings are those that are of a happy and carefree (blithesome feelings of great delight and enjoyment) nature; the innocuous feelings are those that are of a harmless and congenial (gracious feelings of ingenuous tranquillity and affability) nature. The following may be of particular interest:
(...) RICK: How were you able to stop feeling either ‘good’ or ‘bad’? RICHARD: The identity in residence back then was able to stop feeling either the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) – or the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – by tracing back to the last time ‘he’ felt good (a general feeling of well-being) and seeing how silly it was to have that felicitous/ innocuous feeling be usurped by those other feelings. RICK: Right, right. And what would be the difference between feeling good (a general feeling of well-being) and ‘good’ feelings? RICHARD: The former is a felicitous/ innocuous feeling and the latter are the antidotally pacifying affectionate/
compassionate feelings Continued on Mailing List ‘D’: Rick
RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
