Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘B’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’

with Respondent No. 3

Some Of The Topics Covered

who Richard is – fellow human beings – identity – ego-soul – Being – ‘I’ – 100% commitment – enabling an intellectual openness – cognitive dissonance – intelligence and anthropocentricism – what the word metaphysics means – wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides renders an intelligent source of everything preposterous

February 15 1998:

RESPONDENT: This is a likely point for a comment. I feel grateful for communication. I wonder if I am a ‘who’. I am comfortable on the mountainside with Wind – Sun – Tree beings: wonderful, in a word. What I am doing is typing; then house cleaning; then cooking. I am here in the typing-blink-aware of wind, mountainside through east windows tans, greens, clear powder blue sky-blink-here. I categorise, prioritise, share statistics: 56 year old female in vigorous happy health.

RICHARD: You say that you are a fifty six year old female in vigorous happy health, wondering if she is a who. I am a fifty year old male, also in vigorous happy health, and the father of four children and seven grandchildren from my first marriage. My current companion and I are, by choice, childless and will stay so ... enough is enough! I was born and raised on a dairy farm in the south-west of Australia and currently live on the most easterly point of the Australian seaboard in a small village called Byron Bay. I rent a three-bedroom brick house about one kilometre from the beach. The sound of the waves is an almost constant back-drop ... and is especially audible late at night. The wee small hours are my favourite time for writing and I most often wake up at two or three o’clock in the morning and write until the first kookaburras start their laughing-like call from some trees over the back fence. Then I like to sit and sip an early morning coffee, with my feet up on the computer desk, and be with the first grey light coming into the room ... through to the first glow of pre-dawn ... and then the sunrise itself.

The climate here is sub-tropical, which means a warm rain (a deluge) in summer and a dry winter of clear blue skies with warm days and cool nights. At the moment it is a simply delightful morning in late summer. From where I am sitting in my comfortable leather (executive) chair, I can see some prettily coloured parakeets flying and fluttering amidst the foliage of the large bushes outside the sliding glass doors. Their plumage is a splash of colour against the vivid green of the leaves; they seem to be squabbling amongst themselves as they jostle for position ... or maybe they are playfully flexing their wings in the sheer exuberance of being alive on this sunny day. Looking past them, over the high wooden fence, I can see the two large pine trees standing proud; their needles are etched dark green against the crisp blue sky, with the bright sunshine streaming through to their sturdy branches. Away off in the distance, coming faintly over the small field where two horses are busily grazing, comes the faint sound of cars going to and fro along the road running north and south along the coast. Altogether it is an agreeable moment to be alive and living in the magical wonderland that is this actual world.

And your environment: you mention a mountain-side through east windows with tans, greens and a clear powder blue sky. How delightful it does sound, for I have also spent time in the mountains (The Himalayas) and there is a special quality that only mountains have. Perhaps because they are old; perhaps because they are majestic; perhaps because, with valleys, they provide a feeling of being in the world rather than upon it ... like it is out on the flat desert ... or upon the ocean. And then you go on to say that you are typing ... then house cleaning ... then cooking. Being retired and on a pension, I thoroughly enjoy all the household tasks ... made all so much easier now that the children are grown up. And then you say that you are grateful for communication. I am so impressed with computers and the ease of communication via the Internet, and, although I have only been doing this for a short while and still have a lot to learn, I find it surprisingly easy to master. When I first bought my computer, I presumed that I would have a lot of difficulty (my only technological expertise was operating the ATM at the bank), but this was not to be the case.

I like communicating, sharing experience. We are all fellow human beings who, finding ourselves here, compare notes as to what sense we have made out of being alive, about being here on this planet earth, as a human being. And what a joy and delight that is. To not only explore and to investigate, but to uncover and discover ... and then to relate one’s experience to another and have them relate their experience to oneself. And thus, together, a picture gradually emerges as to what it is all about. There is a small circle of associates I am privileged to be with here, who gather together spontaneously and discuss life, the universe and what it is to be a human being. As my discoveries about myself are rather radical – to put it mildly – we always have plenty to talk about. It is such a pleasure to be able to have candid conversation; to be able to pursue an inquiry into the depths of one’s psyche with others in the full knowledge that one does so with impunity ... for nothing we come across do we hold against each other. We are exploring together, and the frankness pays off. The rewards for doing so are both immediate and ultimate.

Altogether, it is thoroughly fascinating to be here, doing this business called being alive.

February 16 1998:

RICHARD (to Respondent No. 20): When this flesh and blood body is rid of the psychological and psychic entities that live a parasitical existence in their unwitting host, one is able to appreciate that what I am (‘what’ not ‘who’) is this body. Then I am automatically benevolent and carefree ... and happy and harmless, for one has eradicated malice and sorrow with the demise of the ego and the soul.

RESPONDENT: Parasitical nature of psychic and psychological ‘entities’ hasn’t been carefully considered from this (my) point of view; but then, little credence has been given ‘them’. Would you say more about the nature of such entities? Do you mean just the ego and the ‘soul’?

RICHARD: The ego and the soul, yes. In my experience I have found that ‘I’, as an identity, a ‘being’ called the self, am made up of two parts: the ego and the soul. As a generalisation only, the ego is located mostly as being in the head and the soul as being in the heart. As it is commonly agreed that to be egotistical is to be selfish (and thus acting in a way that is not conducive to social harmony) it is the current wisdom that ‘I’, the self as ego, must psychologically self-immolate. In a valiant effort to right the wrongs that beset oneself and all of humankind, one can dissolve the (mortal) ego and realise oneself as the (immortal) soul, for the good of society in general and the individual in particular. One is then in unity – a state of oneness – with that which is sacred and holy. The resultant Altered State Of Consciousness is called Enlightenment, which has been held to be the Summum Bonum of human existence for at least three thousand years ... if not more. Yet there is still as much suffering now as there was back then. Therefore, something is not working to produce the desired result ... peace on earth. Why is this so?

Upon closer inspection one finds that one has jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. When the self dissolves – as ego – one’s sense of identity remains intact. Instead of identifying as the self (ego), one now – as an Enlightened Being – identifies as the Self (soul). ‘I’ am no longer existing, now, as an ego, but ‘I’ am still in existence, forever, as a soul. ‘I’ am disguised as a timeless and eternal ‘Being’ (always written with a capital ‘B’) – and continue to wreak ‘my’ havoc upon an unsuspecting public. One is still ‘being’, now a blissful enlightened ‘Being’ – emanating Love Agapé and Divine Compassion to all and sundry.

It is being any presence at all, as a ‘being’ or a ‘Being’, that is the problem.


RICHARD (to Respondent No. 20): Suffering is psychological ... only the entities suffer. Thus they forever seek consolation, commiseration and solace. Hence the neediness for the whole gamut of pity, sympathy, empathy, compassion and love. When one is actually free, none of these products of pathos are necessary ... in fact, with the ego and soul’s demise, they cease to exist. They, too, are bogus.

RESPONDENT: Wonderful to say it so clearly. It comes from this freedom, no doubt.

RICHARD: As I said above, ‘I’ can cease identifying as the ego and identify as the soul ... a shift in consciousness which manifests Love Agapé and Divine Compassion. Unfortunately for its success, Love Agapé is born out of malice and is dependent upon hatred to sustain itself ... and therefore can not provide the ultimate solution: freedom from animosity. Also, Divine Compassion – which has its roots in sorrow and is dependent upon resentment to sustain itself – is unable to provide freedom from anguish. Love and compassion actually perpetuate malice and sorrow, for these deep-seated passions are their essential progenitors. Yet no one questions the efficacy of Love Agapé and Divine Compassion as a means of resolving malice and sorrow once and for all. As a palliative for suffering they are beyond compare – they superseded pity, sympathy and empathy by a mile – but they remain forever a panacea only. Consolation and solace for all the malice and sorrow, no matter how Divine that solace and consolation may be, are not cures that last.


RICHARD (to Respondent No. 20): A peak experience is when everything is seen to be already perfect – it always has been and always will be – and that ‘I’, the self, have been standing in the way of the perfection being apparent ... Here a solid and irrefutable native intelligence can operate freely because the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’ are extirpated.

RESPONDENT: And ‘peak’ may not be necessary. When I was 10 or so, I played with a sense of radiating outward/inward in all directions. This was only remembered as the nature of the experience when it happened recently during sitting.

RICHARD: I would be interested to hear a description of your experience, if you would be so inclined ... and if I am not being too imposing. I consider it important that as many such experiences be detailed for others to draw confirmation that they are not alone in seeing and experiencing something magical, something perfectly pure, even if briefly, in this world as-it-is. I will append a short example written by a woman from The Netherlands:

‘One of my peak experiences happened on the fore-shore. All of a sudden, unmediated, ‘I’ and my world-view had disappeared and an immediate intimacy became apparent. Although I had lived in this village before and had grown very fond of it and its residents, there had always been a distance between me and other people, which had to be bridged by temporary feelings of love and affection which were never satisfying for long. Now a shift in seeing had occurred, and looking at the people around me, I noticed that the distance between me and others had miraculously vanished. Not only between me and other people but equally between me and the trees, me and the houses on the boulevard, even between me and the ocean. Nowhere was there a boundary. Another dimension had taken its place, which I initially experienced as a closeness closer than my own heartbeat, yet it was certainly not love for all or oneness with everything. It was another paradigm than the one in which the opposites play their major role ... and to depict it I needed another vocabulary than words like distant and close, separation and oneness. Opposites can only be used when there is a stationary benchmark to judge them by. When ‘I’, the standard from which everything was measured, ceased to be, a pure appraisal of the situation could take place. I saw everybody, including me as-this-body, and everything else, in its own proper place and nothing was wrong in any way. The concept of bonding, belonging and relationship could simply not be applied, not even with my partner, as there was nobody inside to do the relating. This perfect intimacy was everywhere at once, not generated somewhere specific and then diffused to other locations as is the case with love’.

Life is great, is it not?

May 29 1999:

RESPONDENT No. 31: As a matter, I really appreciate if you keep things simple and present your ideas one at a time.

RICHARD: Yet I do keep things simple because I have only one central point: everybody is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

RESPONDENT: Your central point is a judgement of others?

RICHARD: May I ask? Why do you attempt to stifle free speech? How will the human race become free of the human condition if each and every person adopted that NDA wisdom of ‘Thalt shall not be judgmental’ (which is but a re-hash of that ‘Tried and Failed’ Christian adage about ‘Judge ye not ...’ anyway)? Why? Do you really want all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides for ever and a day?

Put it this way (about that being judgmental nonsense) do you personally:

1. Condone rape and child abuse?
2. Approve of rape and child abuse?
3. Have no opinion about rape and child abuse?
4. Disapprove of rape and child abuse?
5. Proscribe rape and child abuse?

Do you see what I mean when I repeatedly write about morals being those ‘unliveable edicts handed down by bodiless entities’? It is simply a fact that one makes appraisals of situations and circumstances each moment again in one’s daily life ... this ‘judging’ is called making a decision. And all those wannabe ‘angelic beings’ castigate anyone who thinks for themselves ... whilst secretly doing the very self-same thing.

RESPONDENT: Do you include yourself?

RICHARD: Are you asking: ‘Is Richard going 180 degrees in the wrong direction?’ No.

RESPONDENT: And if you see an opposite is appropriate, do you not adopt this?

RICHARD: Of course ... this is called making a decision after taking an appraisal of the situation and circumstances (what some would call ‘making a judgement of others’).


RESPONDENT No. 32: It is as if they are looking through a telescope from the wrong end. Just turn it around and you will see the love, compassion, beauty, delight and joy that comes from using the instrument correctly.

RICHARD: By saying that ‘they’ are ‘looking through a telescope from the wrong end’ are you telling me that you are not going 180 degrees in the wrong direction? If so, why do you promote the ‘Tried and Failed’ remedies like love and compassion and beauty?

RESPONDENT No. 31: No, he is not telling that. How could he? That telescope is designed only for Richard.

RESPONDENT: Agreement as to love’s success; compassion’s effectiveness and beauty’s encouragement.

RICHARD: Yet the Gurus and the God-Men; the Avatars and the Saviours; the Masters and the Messiahs; the Saints and the Sages have had 3,000 to 5,000 years to demonstrate the effectiveness of ‘love’s success; compassion’s effectiveness and beauty’s encouragement’ ... and peace on earth is nowhere to be found. How much longer will a ‘Tried and Failed’ system continue to be so highly revered despite its abject failure to produce the goods?


RICHARD: If I may suggest? Discard your telescope and use a microscope instead ... and put love and compassion and beauty under examination.

RESPONDENT No. 31: Heisenberg’s principle will not allow that!

RESPONDENT: Exactly. These attitudes and attributes form a web which dissection cuts apart.

RICHARD: A ‘web’ of what? A ‘web’ of solace and succour wherein ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul can be comforted, stroked, endorsed and perpetuated? Is this why nobody will put love and compassion and beauty under a microscope?

If thought can get such rigorous scrutiny as the Mailing List gives it ... why not feelings?

Are feelings sacrosanct?

May 31 1999:

RICHARD: May I ask? Why do you attempt to stifle free speech?

RESPONDENT: You take my question to attempt ... stifling you? <bg>

RICHARD: How else was I to take it ... but whatever motivated you to do it, it did not work. Maybe you have some success with this technique in stifling peoples who rely upon re-hashes of pithy aphorisms to guide their life and thus you automatically applied it here? Or maybe not ... maybe you had some other reason for trying it on?

I guess you would know?


RICHARD: How will the human race become free of the human condition (...)?

RESPONDENT: To me, this sounds like a contradiction in terms.

RICHARD: Okay, I will put it this way: how will human beings (both individually and thus collectively) become free of the instinctually-derived malice and sorrow? Does that clear up the apparent ‘contradiction in terms’ adequately? If so, please allow me to re-present my question. Vis.:

How will human beings (both individually and thus collectively) become free of the instinctually-derived malice and sorrow if each and every person adopted that NDA wisdom of ‘Thalt shall not be judgmental’ (which is but a re-hash of that ‘Tried and Failed’ Christian adage about ‘Judge ye not ...’ anyway)?


RICHARD: If each and every person adopted (...)?

RESPONDENT: Why so many words jumping to generalities, rather than simple, direct personal experience? I find it unnecessary reading.

RICHARD: If I may point out? Firstly, the Christian adage of ‘Judge ye not ...’, is very specific and not ‘generalities’. The NDA re-hash of this adage of ‘You’re being judgmental ...’, is very specific and not ‘generalities’ either. And secondly, this observation is indeed born out of my ‘simple, direct personal experience’ and confirmed and reaffirmed on a near-daily basis. You may or may not be aware that I live in Byron Bay, Australia, which is known world-wide, in some circles at least, as the New Age ‘Mecca’. Thus I have almost unfailingly similar interactions with wannabe angelic do-gooders peddling re-hashed aphorisms that are not worth the parchment they were written on all those years ago ... hoariness does not necessarily wisdom make.

Methinks you will discover that I am very specific when one reads with both eyes ... but, of course none of it is necessary reading. Nobody is forcing you to be happy and harmless ... it is a matter of personal choice as to whether one continues to nurse malice and sorrow to one’s bosom or not.


RICHARD: Do you see what I mean when I repeatedly write about morals being those ‘unliveable edicts handed down by bodiless entities’?

RESPONDENT: I see your point and elect to focus instead on right living in the moment rather than considering your version of ‘ain’t it awful’.

RICHARD: If I may point out? Your ‘right living’ is based upon re-hashed pithy aphorisms (which may or may not include ‘right’ views, ‘right’ intention, ‘right’ speech, ‘right’ action, ‘right’ livelihood, ‘right’ effort, ‘right’ awareness and ‘right’ concentration). Thus you are ‘electing to focus’ upon ‘Ancient Wisdom’ instead of thinking for yourself.

RESPONDENT: Excuse me if this sound rude. What do I know? Nothing to speak of.

RICHARD: You can be as rude as you wish ... I never take offence. As for your query ‘What do I know?’ and your NDA answer ‘Nothing to speak of’ ... for one who professes to know nothing to speak of, you spoke plenty already. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘Why do you promote the ‘Tried and Failed’ remedies like love and compassion and beauty?’
• [Respondent]: ‘Agreement as to love’s success; compassion’s effectiveness and beauty’s encouragement’.

Thus by agreeing to ‘love’s success; compassion’s effectiveness and beauty’s encouragement’ you make out that you know that the ‘Tried and True’ is effective in curing all the ills of humankind. You say this despite the fact that the Gurus and the God-Men; the Avatars and the Saviours; the Masters and the Messiahs; the Saints and the Sages have had 3,000 to 5,000 years to demonstrate the effectiveness of ‘love’s success; compassion’s effectiveness and beauty’s encouragement’ ... and peace on earth is nowhere to be found.

Therefore I ask, just how much longer will a ‘Tried and Failed’ system continue to be so highly revered despite its abject failure to produce the goods? Is it because these attitudes and attributes form a ‘web’ of solace and succour wherein ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul can be comforted, stroked, endorsed and perpetuated? Is this why nobody will put love and compassion and beauty under a microscope?

If thought can get such rigorous scrutiny as the Mailing List gives it ... why not feelings?

Are feelings sacrosanct?

September 29 1999:

RESPONDENT: Richard, I agree. Let me begin again. Sensory data is the experience here; more like the 17 senses which No. 00 once posted. Will check on this URL if there’s interest.

RICHARD: I am interested. I did read an article years ago that detailed thirteen senses but, as they became increasingly specious after the first five and not fitting the classification of sense organ, I did not keep the reference. It may very well be worth re-visiting, however, after all these years.

RESPONDENT: Sense of linking (inextricable interwoven) with the manifest universe and also connection with boundary conditions.

RICHARD: Could you expand on what ‘boundary conditions’ means for you?

RESPONDENT: A sense, recently noticed (again?) of awareness; this sense integrating the five most obvious categories of sensory interface.

RICHARD: Are you referring to consciousness? Generally speaking, being aware of (whatever) is the same as being conscious of (whatever).

RESPONDENT: Interface: facing ‘both’ directions; one way ‘interactions’ ... a contradiction of terms.

RICHARD: Ahh ... but is there actually an ‘inner’ and an ‘outer’ for there to be any need of an interface?

RESPONDENT: So, yes; sensory data aware of itself communicating and mega-communicating. Aware without need for communication since the system itself is the communication.

RICHARD: Oh ... the ‘system itself is the communication’ of what ... and whence? Or is it that ‘the medium is the message’?


RICHARD: There is a widespread belief that suffering is good for you ... whereas in my experience the only good thing about suffering is when it comes to an end. Permanently.

RESPONDENT: But an important good thing, suffering and end of suffering.

RICHARD: There is nothing good (good as in salubrious) about suffering.

RESPONDENT: Without joy, no suffering and versa vica.

RICHARD: Without suffering ... utter delight, complete enjoyment and total appreciation (and no vice versa).

RESPONDENT: So what? Why look with separation? Why call forth the 10,000 things? So that I arises, seeing this manifest duality, consensus reality. So there is play for inquiry. Why? There is no why; why is a dead end. No creation likewise. I agree.

RICHARD: I have no idea who or what you are agreeing with ... certainly not me. I am not even too sure what you are saying ... or if you are saying anything at all.


RICHARD: Seeing that this is a Mailing List set up under the auspices of the ‘Teachings’ brought into the world by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (who used the word ‘compassion’ frequently and with special emphasis on what he meant by it) then it would serve far better to use his example than speculate about what a long-dead deity such as Mr. Gotama the Sakyan may or may not have said or done (if he lived at all).

RESPONDENT: Protest: I’m not here under anyone’s auspices. The Mailing List was set up more openly, in my opinion.

RICHARD: I do not have an opinion either way ... I was simply referring to this invitation: ‘Listening-l is a forum for people to discuss and investigate the teachings of J. Krishnamurti in relation to their daily problems and their understanding of life carried out on a mailing list ... everybody is welcome on the list who has a serious interest in deeply questioning him/herself and the world we find ourselves in. It is not necessary to be familiar with Krishnamurti’s teachings but it will interest people who are open to a fundamental change which means investigating the innermost problems of mankind i.e., ourself. This list is unmoderated’. (

RESPONDENT: Language is what we make it, both the language of words, gestures, eye contact, feeling, reflecting and the ‘ancient/lost’ pre-language (could be called knowing – which may be stored ‘in the unconscious domain’?) do you know?

RICHARD: It may be true for some people – or maybe many – that ‘language is what we make it’ but once words get out of the private domain (thought) into the public domain (communicating with one’s fellow humans) there is the necessity for some basic agreement as to what a word signifies. Speaking personally, I think with the same words that I communicate with ... it is so much easier. As for the ‘unconscious domain’ ... that is the stuff of metaphysics (where anything can mean nothing and nothing can mean anything).

I have no ‘unconscious domain’ whatsoever.

October 22 1999:

RESPONDENT No. 39: Yes, two things stand out: pure intent and don’t possess it. I am looking at pure intent to see if I have it and I am on guard to not pursue it or possess it.

RICHARD: You say that ‘two things stand out’ ... yet you slip in a third thing as if I had said it ( ‘to not pursue it’ ) when it is really ‘ancient wisdom’ that promotes that view. Speaking personally, the ‘I’ that was pursued it like ‘he’ had never pursued anything before ... ‘he’ made it the number one priority in ‘his’ life. ‘He’ was a married man, with four children, running ‘his’ own business, with a house mortgage to pay off and a car on hire purchase ... in other words: normal. And all the while that ‘he’ pursued it, ‘he’ was working twelve-fourteen hour days, six-seven days a week ... yet ‘his’ pursuit of peace-on-earth took absolute precedence over all other matters and dominated ‘his’ every moment (‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’).

RESPONDENT: Eido Rochi of Dai Bosatsu Zendo once said to us (mid 80s) that if we want enlightenment, we must want it as a drowning man wants air; that the closer we come to it, the more compelling it will be, of itself.

RICHARD: Yes, ‘compelling’ indeed ... once started in earnest (which means launching the sincere 100% commitment that one’s peers will call ‘obsessive’ so as to adroitly avoid having to do so themselves) a thrilling momentum takes over and one is impelled ineluctably to one’s destiny. One is finally out from being under control ... which is perhaps why so many hesitate to take that first and final step.

What an adventure it is to be alive!

August 21 2001:

RESPONDENT No. 19: What do you mean by ‘emotionally accept?’

RICHARD: To cease emotionally objecting, resisting, rejecting (or denying) and to be emotionally welcoming, consenting, receiving (or acknowledging) ... without being emotionally aloof, indifferent, apathetic (or vacillating).

RESPONDENT: Yes, to be open.

RICHARD: I would suggest that to be emotionally ‘open’ is to be embracing each situation that life provides by emotionally welcoming, readily consenting to, receiving fully and unabashedly acknowledging every circumstance so as to find out, once and for all, just what is going on ... and to discover what intelligence actually is.

This is because one needs to somehow enable an intellectual openness ... so as to circumvent/break through what is known as ‘cognitive dissonance’.


RICHARD: This way intelligence need not be compromised ... intelligence will no longer be crippled.

RESPONDENT No. 19: What do you mean by ‘intelligence’ as you are writing about?

RICHARD: I am referring to one’s native intelligence ... meaning ‘indigenous prudence’ or ‘congenital judicity’ or ‘autochthonous acumen’.

RESPONDENT No. 19: Are you talking about ‘intelligence’ operating on a universal level – a level that is neither limited to this planet nor to a blood and bones body?

RICHARD: No ... most definitely not.

RESPONDENT: Richard, why do you define intelligence only relative to ‘one’s native’ state?

RICHARD: Because it has taken countless aeons for carbon-based life-forms to evolve through to being intelligent in one species alone: the human animal. Of course the human animal values intelligence highly – it is what separates humans from other animals – and allows the ability to observe, reflect, plan and implement considered activity (which other animals cannot do) for beneficial reasons.

But to take this faculty which humans value highly and seek to impose it upon this marvellous, amazing, wondrous and magical universe is to commit the vulgar error of anthropocentricism.

RESPONDENT: By ‘one’ I assume you refer to homo sapiens, particularly those now living.

RICHARD: Only those now living ... death is oblivion.

RESPONDENT: Would you consider the concept of intelligence as prior to or as context for its use by humans?

RICHARD: I am only ever interested in facts and actuality ... and until space exploration discovers intelligent life-forms elsewhere this verdant and azure planet called earth is the only place where intelligence is known to exist.


RESPONDENT No. 19: As people are most selfish and self concerned, and corporations are only interested in the bottom line, what intelligence are you talking about?

RICHARD: I am meaning a down-to-earth and matter-of-fact practicality ... an innate sensibility.

RESPONDENT No. 19: Are you saying that there is an ‘intelligence’ that supersedes the general condition of the human being – an intelligence along the lines of which K spoke?

RICHARD: No ... I am not referring to anything metaphysical at all.

RESPONDENT: Do you mean to say metaphysics are irrelevant?

RICHARD: The word ‘metaphysics’ originally meant ‘after the physics’ but has come to mean (a) any philosophy ... and (b) anything non-physical (be it abstract logic, prescient revelation and any religiosity, spirituality or mysticality). I meant ‘metaphysical’ as in any immaterial ‘supreme intelligence’ meaning (aka the truth, god, that which is sacred, holy and so on).

What is intelligent about a non-material ... um ... source of everything (all time; all space; all matter) manifesting, with full knowledge aforethought, in such a way as to occasion the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on which epitomise the human condition?

It renders the very substance, of what the word ‘intelligence’ indicates, preposterous.




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