Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘D’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’

with Correspondent No. 4


Continued from Mailing List ‘AF’: No. 60

May 8 2009

Re: AF website mirror

RESPONDENT: The most striking aspect of this for me is the incredible lack of perspective and lack of generosity that Richard shows in regard to Srid’s intentions. The idea that someone who earns plenty of money at Microsoft would be interested in parasitically profiting from the AF Trust’s work is verging on crazy. Everyone else seemed to understand that Srid was trying to do people a favour (albeit in a misguided way, for reasons Richard has explained). But that Richard write to (and of) Srid as if he were a parasite and a crass opportunist rather than a well-meaning person is just pretty ugly from where I stand. (And I’m not ‘feminine’).

CO-RESPONDENT: Do you think it is possible that Richard was just speaking frankly which has been interpreted as harsh?

RESPONDENT: No, it’s easy enough to speak frankly without being harsh. In any case, it’s not the overt ‘harshness’ that I had in mind. It’s what the harshness (apparently) proceeds from: a lack of perspective and generosity / magnanimity with respect to Srid’s intentions.

Why all this controversy? It seems obvious to everyone else that Srid was trying to do people a simple favour, but his action is portrayed as crass opportunism and parasitism instead. I find that ungenerous and indecent. It would have been quite easy to request the mirror to be taken down, for all the valid reasons given, without going there. (Everyone agrees that the reasons are valid).

People can bend over backwards to explain Richard’s ungracious attitude toward his fellow human being, as they always do; that’s their business; I just don’t see it as something to like or admire or aspire to ... more a case of needing to maintain interest in the PCE/AF condition despite how Richard manifests it in relation to others.

RICHARD: G’day No. 4, It occurred to me to pop in and let you know how fascinating it is to read your ... um ... non-harsh words about the harshness which your ‘pictures-not-pixels’ perception imbues my words with.

By which I mean your speaking-frankly-without-being-harsh words such as: just pretty ugly; incredible lack of perspective; indecent; lack of generosity; ungracious attitude; lack of perspective; ungenerous; lack of magnanimity; verging on crazy; and so on.

I am somewhat curious as to just what words you would use if you ever were to begin speaking harshly about the harshness which your ‘pictures-not-pixels’ perception imbues my words with.

After all, they would have to be uglier words than ugly is, for just one instance, in order to be harsh-not-frank words ... and that is quite a low bar, which you have set for yourself, to get under.

Ah, well ... better you than me, eh?

Regards, Richard.

May 10 2009

Re: Richard

RESPONDENT No. 5: Richard, If the door to the human condition vanished behind you, why are you still here grovelling in the dirt box with it?

RESPONDENT: As bizarre and unlikely as it seems sometimes – and I say this without irony – maybe he really does care about and actually like us. Not the stuff that we value and enjoy about ourselves and each other, and not all the stuff that we (as identities) are immersed in ... but what we would/ could be (and actually are) – without all the stuff that fucks us up.

You know I also find his way of going about it bizarre and ineffective. It’s tempting at times to write him off as a madman, or one in whom there’s a mixture of great intelligence and insidious brokenness.

RICHARD: G’day No. 4, I will resist the (cheeky) temptation to blandly enquire just what bizarre and ineffective way that might be, to which you refer, as follow-up emails to this one of yours have made it evident to most that my posts are being censored.

This madman (to use your frank-not-harsh word) does have a method to his madness (to use a cliché), in this instance, which he is only too happy to elucidate ... provided this email survives the heavy hand of censorship, of course.

(The incongruity of the discoverer of an actual freedom from the human condition being censored, on the only active actual freedom discussion list in the world, has not escaped me).

And, as it relates to the integrity of The Actual Freedom Trust web site (which will remain the only guaranteed-to-be-accurate suppository of authentic reports/ descriptions/ explanations of an actual freedom from the human condition once its discoverer is dead), that elucidation requires some backing-up in time.

For over nine years now a certain middle-aged codger (whose family name will not appear here lest this email be censored for that hypocritical reason), sitting hunched before a computer with dogs for company and an array of sock-puppet aliases, has cyber-stalked the discoverer of an actual freedom from the human condition, in various forums where his discovery is discussed, in an ongoing attempt to vilify/ discredit same in any way possible no matter how slight (as evidenced, for instance, in the recent howler of the week award) ... to the point it amounts to an obsession, at the very least, if not a persecution.

As reasoned argument with such a vilifier/ discreditor is a fruitless method – devolving very quickly into a slanging match in which a non-vilifier simply cannot compete – a more beneficial method is to discredit the discreditor ... to wit: demonstrate a complete and utter lack of credibility, via the marked absence of integrity, and the nasty game is exposed.

That hypocritical censoring of my posts, by this vilifier/ discreditor, quite serendipitously revealed up-front a marked double-standard (which is in keeping with that absence of integrity) inasmuch the justification given was specifically about written permission. Vis.:

[quote] ‘The only reason a post would deserve to be deleted here would be if that post was a cross posting from another mailing list revealing the identity/ pseudonym of a writer whose written permission was not included in that post’ (No. 5, message 5341 – now deleted).

Yet only six months ago (17 Nov 2008) the hypocritical vilifier/ discreditor did exactly that: they made public on this forum (just as they have done on various occasions before on other forums via other sock-puppets) a name for which they did not have, nor ever have had, written permission to disclose.

But it gets far worse than mere double-standards, of course, for this is what they wrote after making that name public (edited for space):

[quote] ‘I think we can all understand why Richard doesn’t advertised [sic] it on the AF site (...). What is most sensible of him is not disclosing his exact whereabouts. I am sure Richard will remain quite safe ... (...)’. ( No. 5, message 3554 – now deleted).

Here we have a known vilifier/ discreditor assuring everyone that they know better than Richard (not to mention the directors protecting his safety) as to what exactly is sensible to ensure his continued survival.

Just think about the implications and ramifications of that, for a moment, given the evidence of history in regards assassinations of pioneers/ trail-blazers/ whistle-blowers/ leaders and the such-like.

Think of Mr. Mohandas Ghandi, for instance.

Think of Mr. Martin Luther King, for another.

Think of Mr. John Lennon, in fact (who merely sang ‘Give Peace A Chance’).

The list could go on and on, but that should be sufficient for the nonce.

Does everybody reading this now see how vital it is that the integrity of The Actual Freedom Trust web site remain inviolate?

And I ask this question because, once I am dead and gone, The Actual Freedom Trust web site, with its (legally) registered imprimatur, will remain the only guaranteed-to-be-accurate suppository of authentic reports/ descriptions/ explanations of an actual freedom from the human condition.

*

No. 4, I have a proposition to put to you: how about we meet, personally, face-to-face for an easy chat at some mutually suitable and neutral location?

You have mentioned, previously, how you live only a couple of hundred kilometres to the south of here, where I currently reside, so getting there incurs no travel problems for me (I have a lower back condition which prohibits extensive travel).

If you are agreeable perhaps you might know of a café somewhere local – one with an outside terrace, preferably, due to the bizzaro-world regulations about tobacco usage – as I have neither the interest nor need to know your street address.

Let me know publicly if you agree ... then the details of where and when and how can take place privately.

If nothing else it is an opportunity for you to find out if I really am a prick.

Regards, Richard.

P.S: I will also take this opportunity to ask the owner of this list (not the moderators for it appears one of them is corrupt) to delete every post/ every instance where that name appears.

May 10 2009

Re: Richard

RESPONDENT: Thanks for your offer, Richard. I accept it with pleasure.

I’ll be a moving target in the near/ medium term, but will be up in Lismore in November (and nearby for a while thereafter) ... so if it’s suitable for you at the time, I’d be happy to meet you in an open-air cafe of your choice (or just have a stroll) anywhere around Lismore / Byron / Lennox Head, etc. (We can arrange the details privately [xauxaux@ ... deleted] as you suggested).

As regards being a prick, I think that one has already been laid to rest in my mind. It has been interesting to observe, in the recent thread about Srid’s mirror site, how No. 2 and No. 7 both had a similar first impression to mine, but did not allow the affective reaction to eclipse their reason; and as it turned out, the things that offended me (or caused me to take offence by proxy, as it were) amounted to nothing. I can willingly concede that there would have been numerous instances of that in the past, where the fault was mine, and I was too pig-headed to see it. (No doubt causing my mate No. 30[AF-list] much frustration) ;-)

Having seen a good practical demonstration of how ‘the devil is not in the details’ can lead one astray, I hope to learn from it in future.

Also, since the other night when I wrote to you about being ‘friendly’, I’ve done some serious re-thinking more about what it actually means to be friendly, and it’s clear that I’m the one who has an ‘incredible lack of perspective’ in that regard. I still think/ hope/ imagine that it’s possible to have both actual caring / genuine friendliness without it coming across as an absence of conventional friendliness. In fact, I can even see that you are like that ... but you sometimes make people work hard to see it that way (or, shall we say, harder than I’m accustomed to working).

But when there’s a conflict between seeming nice, being conventionally friendly, not hurting feelings on the one hand, and being genuinely helpful to people on the other, there should be no contest.

Regarding your privacy and safety, I certainly understand/ respect your position.

Regarding a certain ‘middle aged codger (...) sitting hunched before a computer’, I’ll withhold judgement, on account of the glass house I live in. But I do hope that the person behind [whatever] public image(s) can ultimately benefit from all this, and not feel too alienated and resentful to take a fresh look at things.

You asked: ‘Does everybody reading this now see how vital it is that the integrity of The Actual Freedom Trust web site remain inviolate?’

Yes, unreservedly.

Cheers, ...

RICHARD: G’day No. 4, Thank you for your detailed response.

Lismore in November will be just fine by me (I moved out of Byron Bay some years ago). (see)

I will send you an email, privately, sometime soon so that you will have my email address in case you want to make other arrangements as circumstances change.

As for me, being retired and on a pension means pretty well any time is okay.

As for your comments about ‘friendly’ and your re-thinking: what I have noticed is a misunderstanding of the way I use the word benevolence. For instance:

• [Richard]: ‘I like my fellow humans and wish them no harm at all – I wish well upon everyone including myself – which well-wishing is the root meaning of the word ‘benevolence’. (Benevolent: Old French – ‘benivolent’ from: Latin – ‘benevolent’: present participle stem of ‘bene velle’: ‘wish well’)’. Richard, Selected Correspondence, Benevolence

Even when I am being firm, unrelenting, and so forth, I never cease wishing well (because I simply cannot switch it off).

In real world terms, then, it is simply not possible to be friendly/ kindly in all situations ... there are occasions where one needs to be firm. Sometimes even stern.

Regarding withholding judgement ... of course (and not just because of glass houses) as there are extenuating circumstances.

Now, obviously I posses confidential information which I will never, ever be revealing as it is just not my style (I do indeed like my fellow human no matter what mischief they get up to).

What I can freely do, however, is point you to Message No. 3746 (second/ third paragraph).

As for not feeling too alienated/ resentful and taking a fresh look at things: I will finish with the (edited) essence of the very first email the person (presumably) behind whatever public image(s) ever wrote to me:

[quote] ‘Every word you say is a bright gem in the darkness, thank you Richard. Now I understand why there can be no new identity for ego me, no new birth just total annihilation, total self immolation, no more limited beliefs in always conditional love, compassion, truth. (...) Please don’t stop helping us inquire, you are the only member on the list that makes continuous sense (...). I wait with baited breath for every no nonsense dialogue you post. (...) Thank you from the depths of my heart Richard. (...)’. (June 29 1999)

Who knows ... that initial inspiration/ enthusiasm may not be forever lost but just buried.

Regards, Richard.

May 13 2009

Re: Different Way Of Being

RICHARD: (...) The virtual freedom being referred to in ‘Richard’s Journal’ is, of course, the full-blown experiencing of it: an out-from-being-under-control and, thus, different way of being nowadays known as an ongoing excellence experience.

(This ongoing excellence experience is what the methodological aspect of a virtual freedom – a persistent and diligent application of the actualism method – can morph into whenever that current-time awareness method has been applied to a sufficiency for that to occur/ have happen).

This penultimate out-from-under-control/ different-way-of-being is barely distinguishable from a pure consciousness experience. (It was from this ongoing excellence experiencing that pure consciousness experiences occurred on a near-daily basis – sometimes two-three times a day – for the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago).

RESPONDENT: If I had read about this at age 19, I would have been in, boots and all. Although at the time I didn’t carefully distinguish between PCEs, ‘excellence experiences’ and various other different-ways-of-being, I did take risks and go to considerable lengths to seek out these experiences. I knew (and of course am still convinced of it) this world could be experienced as a magical place, if only the state of mind-body (as I saw it then) were receptive to it. (That for me was always the prime motivation for drug use – as opposed to merely ‘getting out of it’ – hence the interest in psychedelics).

Now with the approach of early middle-age I realise how relatively timid I’ve become ... clinging to human sorrow and its soothing / beautiful compensatory feelings, instead of trying all-out for something better.

I’m inspired to give this another try. If I can approach it with the same intensity and optimism that I had back then, this time armed with the information/ knowledge/ sensibility that makes it actually viable, who knows? I’m willing to find out.

RICHARD: For what it is worth, then, somebody of late middle-age, known to me personally, added another aspect to virtual freedom last year via an ongoing pure consciousness experience of 4 months and 28 days duration. (Prior to that the longest known so far had been one of 3 weeks duration).

Regards, Richard.

May 14 2009

Re: Different Way Of Being

RICHARD: For what it is worth, then, somebody of late middle-age, known to me personally, added another aspect to virtual freedom last year via an ongoing pure consciousness experience of 4 months and 28 days duration.

RESPONDENT: Wow! That’s great news for the rest of us too: the more these things happen, the less likely it is that the sustained PCE / AF has anything to do with genetic predisposition. That’s excellent. Even if the final mutation doesn’t happen, it’d be a pretty incredible life alternating between excellence and purity. (‘Way ahead of ordinary human expectation’ is a fair assessment).

If you can speak on this person’s behalf, did that PCE end of its own accord, or was there a known trigger event that caused the instinctual passions to reassert themselves?

Cheers, ...

RICHARD: G’day No. 4, I have permission to speak on this person’s behalf – she features in the DVD video-shoot entitled ‘A Pure Consciousness Experience’ – on the understanding that no name or any other such details are divulged.

Yes, there was a known trigger event: she was in a Japanese restaurant watching the waiter whilst he was cooking, quite taken by the fact he was so much in his own world, when a comment was made to her, which was incorrect, but she noticed that there seemed to be ‘something’ (as in slight reaction) in her response.

It was from that moment she knew that something had changed, as it was the first sign of any emotion, and later in the day whilst watching a very violent movie she experienced fear.

I am pleased you experience this sustained PCE as great news (for it certainly is that in itself in regards what is humanly possible) as that ‘genetic predisposition’ issue would probably be quite something to be well rid of, eh?

Regards, Richard.

May 16 2009

Re: Richard

RICHARD (to Respondent): (...) the only guaranteed-to-be-accurate suppository of authentic reports/ descriptions/ explanations of an actual freedom from the human condition.

RICHARD: I haven’t had such a good laugh in quite a while. Vis.:

‘suppository: a conical or cylindrical pellet designed to be inserted into the rectum or vagina to melt and release a medicament or serve as a lubricant’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Thus the above section reads something like this (for example):

• [example only]: ‘... the only guaranteed-to-be-accurate pellet designed to be inserted into the rectum or vagina to melt and release authentic reports/ descriptions/ explanations of an actual freedom from the human condition’ [end example].

So much for ... um ... choosing my words very carefully, eh?

(Although it does lend a whole new connotation to the word ‘osmosis’ than normally found in dictionaries).

What the word should have been, of course, is repository. Vis.:

repository: a receptacle, building, or other place, in which things are or may be deposited or stored (...)’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Oh, well ... c’est la vie, I guess.

Regards, Richard.

December 14 2009

Re: The Floating Convivium Project

RICHARD: As the ship (the MS Actualis) will serve as a residence as well as a venue, with the potential to travel virtually anywhere in the world if need be, it was apposite to call it ‘The Floating Convivium Project’ (from the Latin for ‘feast’ as in the enjoyment of jovial banquets and good company; the quality of being convivial; the relishing of festivity and so on).

There is more to both an actual and a virtual freedom from the human condition than nuclear couples living in separate homes; the overall aim is to provide the genesis of peoples living peacefully and harmoniously together on a community-wide basis.

I just happen to particularly like the boating life-style.

RESPONDENT No. 6: Thank you Richard and also Tom, Peter and other associates in the project. It amazes me to learn that in past few weeks I have had thought of such a setting (as I still indulge in such fancy dreams, hence my suggestions on an actualist convention as well). This sounds better than best.

RICHARD: G’day No. 6, Yes, I noticed you first mentioned an actualist convention back in October – although you were more inclined towards a song, a dance and a word with the master debater [No. 7] then – and it would appear that your thoughts took a more exotic turn thereafter. Maybe sucking a whole mall of oranges had its effect, eh?

As for indulging in fancy dreams: I reached back into those of my youth for this one – tropical isles, turquoise lagoons, coral sands, swaying palms and all the rest – and found it could be easily resurrected for the purpose of an intimate acquaintance with my fellow human beings.

And speaking of youthful dreams it is appropriate to mention how, around the time of puberty onwards, adolescents become increasingly serious and childhood fun gives way to societally-inculcated obligations and responsibility. As these are embedded into an instinctually affective programme (I have seen many a frisky lamb turn into a sedate sheep, and frolicsome calves into sombre cattle, as maturity takes its toll) they turn into having the appearance of being innate ... when they are not.

Life here in this actual world – the world of sensuous delight – is akin to being a child again but with the undeniable advantage of adult sensibilities; when the occasion calls for it I can adopt a suitably solemn expression, nod sagely as appropriate, and get away with being just a big kid having a ball in the otherwise grim and glum land of the grown-ups; indeed, I can even tell them how much fun I am having – that I am just a big kid – and yet they are so serious they assume me to be making some kind of obscure or idiosyncratic joke.

*

Anyway, what I am finally succeeding in doing is seducing some of my fellow humans – those who have not lost the plot totally – to come out and play, now, as we are all but a missed heartbeat or two away from physical death each day again. Being retired, with more than sufficient means for the rest of my life, is nowadays to my advantage, of course, yet there is simply no reason at all why gainful employment need be anything other than fun.

For instance, all my best work (back when supporting both a wife and a family) always happened when I was having the most fun; in fact I have some very blurry black and white ‘home movie’ type footage of myself, circa March 1981, which ends with ‘me’ saying: ‘Do your own thing ... but have fun; if you’re not having fun then, hell, stop doing it, something is wrong; if you’re not having fun, if you have to force yourself to go to work, if you’re unhappy, something is wrong’. Within weeks ‘he’ was carted off to a hospital emergency care unit in a catatonic state and ... and here we are today having this illuminating chat about our fancy dreams.

Who else can be enticed to come out and play – to join me here in this actual world – and live life where all is fun yet where everything which needs to be done does get done (albeit playfully) because of those oh-so-vital adult sensibilities? ‘Tis yours for the asking, so to speak, as no one is stopping you but yourself; no time is the right time to make it all happen as the right time only comes about when you have it happen; it is not a case of being ready for it as being ready only occurs when you have it occur; all you get by waiting is more waiting as now is the moment where it all happens; everything which happens only ever happens now. Actuality is where more than your fancy dreams can come true – much, much more – as life itself, here, is beyond even any of your most absolutely wild fantasies.

This is what is actually better than best.

RESPONDENT No. 7: I appreciate this Richard... and I know that, with the little credibility I have left ...

RESPONDENT: Hey, what’s all this then? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but it looks like one of those times when, instead of beating yourself up for whatever’s wrong, you could pat yourself on the back for noticing it... and not feel sheepish about doing so.

RESPONDENT No. 7: Thanks No. 4, but at the moment ‘I’ Love you, and I’m still crying, and my girlfriend is laughing (calling herself a ‘large vagina’), and I am really really happy that (despite the pain) somebody finally had the sense to put a stop to ‘me’... don’t know where ‘I’ heading, but it’s a lot better than where ‘I’ was at.

RICHARD: G’day No. 4, I am choosing to respond to you thisaway as No. 7’s response to you is necessary for clearing up your [quote] ‘misunderstanding’ [endquote] of him. (I will just talk about him, in front of him, as if he were not there).

Your response was fine – right on the ball in fact – had you been interacting with a practising actualist (for it is indeed the best way forward to pat oneself on the back for noticing it).

If you were to back-track through No. 7’s posts – even of just recent times – you would find out how you are not interacting with a practicing actualist but an upstart, a challenger, instead ... albeit couched in the guise of the forum’s resident humorist. (It is quite okay to talk about him, in front of him as if he were not there, as No. 7 knows full well what he is doing; what is more, he knows that I know that he knows what he is doing).

Now, whilst one can get away with quite a lot under the guise of humour – to say one’s agenda is [quote] ‘to first become actually free, and then advise Richard on what he’s doing wrong’ (8140, 11.12.09) is damn’ good humour – but to not just snip my words (which is entirely acceptable to make an in-sentence comment) but to replace them completely with [quote] ‘...bla, bla, bla’ (8088, see) is to be crossing the line. And No. 7 not only knew he crossed that line he also knew, when I did precisely the same (in-kind) to this crossing the line of his, that I knew that he knew that he had crossed that line.

Thereafter, whatever I wrote probably would have had the result ‘he’ desired; that I chose to say [quote] ‘Oh, look ... there’s a unicorn over there! was of particular effect as I had already used the example of a (non-existent) unicorn in an earlier post to another.

And what No. 7 knew all along was actually non-existent – as evidenced in the world of the PCE – was none other than the love ‘he’ wanted so desperately to be there. Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 7]: ‘‘I’ sometimes still hope that Richard will one day realize, ‘Hey, Irene was right, there is room for love after all!’ (7984, 6.12.09).

No. 7, however, with his eagle eye could not help but make the connection betwixt Devika (as my de facto wife) wanting the sequel to fairy stories being the ‘and they lived happily ever after’ part and how Irene (as my de jure wife) ‘died a lonesome spinster’.

And what happened next was, as they say, a matter of history: ‘his’ whole world of love started to ‘self’-destruct before our very eyes. Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 7]: ‘... I have been crying, and crying, and my heart is swollen with pain, something is happening and ‘I’ can’t grab on to anything... for the historical fuckin’ record, eh No. 4? No ‘masks’ here, No. 6 ... Richard, you’re dangerous... (8165, 13.12.09).

As to why love was so important – nay, so vital, in fact – then look no further than this:

• [Respondent No. 7]: ‘I went from dabbling in what actualists call a virtual freedom straight into feelings/ passions of grandeur (probably because ‘I’, still experiencing a damaged ‘ego’, was absolutely terrified when faced with the possibility of psychic death – which is, in my experience, ‘scarier’ than physical death). (7984, 6.12.09).

And therein lies the whole point of me writing about sexuality and intimacy (and having no choice but to reveal something about my wives in order to do so despite usually being so circumspect about others): the extinction of ‘being’ itself can evoke a fear so vast it best be called dread (whereas physical death usually does not).

Lastly, and to explain why I can talk about him, in front of him as if he were not there, the following is quite self-explanatory:

• [Respondent No. 7]: ‘To put it bluntly... it is unlikely that I would be alive today if not for actualism (which I discovered about 7 years ago). (7967, 5.12.09).

Thus it should all play itself out as per the script ‘he’ is improvising as it happens.

Regards, Richard.

P.S.: Hey, No. 7 ... you can tell your laughing girlfriend that my term is [quote] ‘an enormous vagina’, not just a large one, because that is the way in which a wonderfully wanton woman, when safely being the sexual creature she indubitably is, can experience herself in that other dimension, as it were, where sex and sexuality is virtually dripping off the walls.

Furthermore, if she is laughing joyfully this size distinction quibble matters not all; if she is laughing scornfully, however, she is missing out big-time on being precisely who she is.

And, so as to not get hung up on the word (as any word like that will do), when I say ‘scornfully’ I am meaning something like this:

• [Respondent No. 7]: ‘Oh, don’t mind him... he’s a war veteran! He’s also an expert on ashtray intimacy and, on occasion, thinks of himself as a giant penis...’ (8096, 10.12.09).

(By the way, your ‘an expert on ashtray intimacy’ quip is quite humorous).

Continued on Direct Route: No. 2

Continued from Direct Route: No. 2

January 8 2013

Privacy vs. Public Interest

RESPONDENT: Dear list members, After much consideration I have decided that I am not prepared to leave this matter unresolved. I believe it is too important to be glossed over or brushed aside. [...]. I believe the public interest justifies posting the two documents below. I received these documents on Friday, October 15, 2010 from a person who was trying to do me a favour, and to whom I’m grateful. They were found on a USB drive inadvertently left by Richard in India. They are copy-pasted here in full, without modification. [...].

[Begin document 1]

(THIS E-MAIL WAS NEVER SENT)

7Oct97 VETNET-AUSTRALIA@... [...].

RICHARD: G’day ‘[No. 4]’ (alias ‘John Wilde’, alias ‘[Sock Puppet ‘PW’] alias ‘[Sock Puppet ‘PD’] alias  ‘[Sock Puppet ‘R’]’).

Where you say you received that text (which you have chosen to make public) on Friday, October 15, 2010 – from a person who was trying to do you a favour and to whom you are, for some as yet unfathomable reason, still currently grateful – you also say ‘they were found on a USB drive inadvertently left by Richard in India’.

Is that ‘USB drive’ the same ‘memory stick’ referred to by ... um ... Someone Undeniably Recognisable By Her Indiscretions, in the following post? Vis.:

#12599
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Mon Jan 7, 2013 2:02 am
Subject: Re: [...] Actualism and Buddhism

• [Respondent No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘AA’)]: [...] a range of material was found in a memory stick that Richard had accidentally left behind in a place he stayed in India in 2010. The owner of the guest house handed it over to investigators and some other people whom Richard met during his visit examined the contents of the memory stick. [...].
• [Richard to No. 25]: I have no hesitation whatsoever in stating, for a fact, that no such memory stick was [quote] ‘accidentally left behind’ [endquote] by me, either in the guest house specifically referred to – the hotel Shivalay cottages at Heini, Upper Dharamkot, Himachal Pradesh – or in any other residence, place or location anywhere at all in India, during my March 26th to September 2nd visit, on a regular tourist visa, in 2010. Richard to No. 25, 6 January 2013

Moreover, is that person who was trying to do you a favour, and to whom you are, for some as yet inexplicable reason, currently still grateful, the same person you referred to as the ‘star witness’, in two of your posts on the 13th of February, 2012, on this forum? Vis.:

#10xxx
From: [Respondent]
Date: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [No. 2] and [No. 4]

• [Respondent]: Those are kind words; thank you. I’ve wondered at times if I’ve made a colossal mistake.
I have questioned everything (the information I’ve received, my responses to it, and my motives) as rigorously as I can, over and over again, but there’s just no other feasible conclusion I can reach: Either Richard isn’t actually free, or actual freedom isn’t what he said it was. [...].
The fact is, we (everyone involved) were sincerely intent on attaining actual freedom, until the ‘star witness’ happened to learn too much about how its ‘genitor’ really operates, and shared some information with us (discreetly, separately, over time, for our own benefit – which I greatly appreciate). [...].

*

#11xxx
From: [Respondent]
Date: Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:30 pm
Subject: Re: [No. 2] and [No. 4]

• [Respondent]: Hi [No. 00], You wrote:
• [No. 00]: [...]. Is the colossal mistake you wonder about your belief in Richard and the viability of actual freedom – after having had some positive experiences?
• [Respondent]: No, I mean that I’ve wondered if I’m making a colossal mistake in coming out *against* actual freedom, because to do so *in error* would be ... not good, to put it mildly.
• [No. 00]: [...] (since you say that you are disappointed and disillusioned, wretchedly sad, amazed at your own credulity). You seem to refer to the ‘star witness’ (whoever that is) as the main source of your disillusionment. Have I interpreted correctly?
• [Respondent]: Main source, but not only source. Yes. [...].

The reason for asking is that the first piece of text which you have chosen to make public – the ‘VETNET’ text – is, quite unmistakably, virtually identical to the same text posted by ... um ... by Someone Undeservedly Renowned By Her Impersonation at 5:06 pm on Monday, January 02, 2012, on a forum explicitly set-up to entice more indiscretions from ill-meaning recreants. Vis.:

#46
From: [Respondent No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘IP’)]
Date: Mon Jan 2, 2012 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: Debunking AFT

• [Respondent No. 14]: We don’t need imagination to detect a hoax... Actualism is a hoax.
Actualy Free people too. Actual Freedom idem.
Like Relativity theory, cold fusion, N-rays and so on. And all hoaxes are irrational par excellence. Ce la vie!
‘Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere.’ – Carl Sagan.
• [Respondent No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘IP’)]: Thre are some lies in this composed-but-never-sent-mail as Richard’s sons and elder sister keep a close contact with him.
(this e-mail was never sent)
7Oct97 VETNET-AUSTRALIA@... [...].

Regards, Richard.

January 9 2013

Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest

RESPONDENT No. 25: Has it escaped your notice that Richard’s claims in his Journal and his website to have become actually free in 1992, which commenced a couple year period where (purely cognitive) angst was experienced (but not physically evident), and Richard refers to this experience as at least partly ‘grotesque’ [...] and it occurred after becoming actually free, whereas in the various [‘VET-NET-AUSTRALIA’] articles, he refers to a ‘breakdown’ in 1992 whereas he sought medical help in 1993 when he could no longer bear the effects of PTSD (including the physical effects mentioned in the article(s) and not cognitive only) and only after that found his way to an actual freedom?

The reason why the authenticity and veracity of these articles are important: 1. They contradict the official accounts in Richard’s journal and website.

2. Richard will not address it to date, either in the negative or affirmative. [...]. So, for me, the question now is.... What is Richard hiding and why is he not forthcoming regarding the article(s)? And why is he painting the messengers out to be liars and fabricators, yet still will not simply state that the article(s) is a fabrication? I understand his explanation is that answers beget further inquiries, but why is that important specifically in this case for him to not address it, when he freely answers other questions that have arisen, such as his denial of accidentally leaving a memory stick in India during his visit in 2010?

RESPONDENT No. 29: So in the website’s version... a normal guy puts into a method he devised to induce changes: first enlightement and then AF. And this [‘VET-NET-AUSTRALIA’] article suggests the outcome was a desperate strategy of a mentally disturbed guy trying to cope with all the manic psychic changes that PTSD was causing in him.

RESPONDENT: Spot on. To me, the second is an even more impressive tale. What a horrific and heart-wrenching process, and what an incredibly courageous and determined man he was to go through all that, and to come out the other side a happy man. I thoroughly admire much of what Richard has done. He’s a much greater man than I’ve ever been or ever will be. [...].

RICHARD: G’day No. 25, No. 29, & No. 4, It is no secret that I had two major ‘nervous breakdowns’, and at least one minor one (where I became catatonic and was rushed to a local hospital’s EU), the first of which occurred ‘with sudden onset’ (one of the diagnostic symptoms) at sunrise on the 6th of September, 1981, and the second, also ‘with sudden onset’, in the late afternoon of the 30th of October, 1992, in an abandoned cow-pasture.

The first breakdown resulted in a severe psychotic disorder – so severe, in fact, as to entail massive delusions of grandeur (another diagnostic symptom) and megalomania such as being the ‘Parousia’ and the next ‘Maitreya’, for instance, with acute dissociative and solipsistic thought patterns plus major reality impairment (object estrangement, space dislocation and time distortion) – which persisted, night and day, for eleven years before culminating in the second breakdown, resulting in an official diagnosis as having become depersonalised, derealised, alexithymic and anhedonic (diagnosed as a chronic, thus incurable, psychotic disorder that began with a 30+ month period of a macabre and gruesome ‘mental anguish’ (yet another diagnostic symptom) that baffled both psychiatrists and psychologists) and which has persisted for all 20+ years through to the present day.

Just why certain peoples are getting so all huffed-and-puffed about a comparatively minor anxiety disorder, such as what post-traumatic stress is, simply denies comprehension ... especially so when that secular approach, in the presentation of actualism/ actual freedom, is something I have already posted at least two emails about to this very forum (in fact, just a few months before I went to India). Vis.:

#7318
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Tue Nov 7, 2009 12:57 am
Subject: Re: Peculiar Information # 5

• [Richard]: [...]. I am gradually putting together a personal web-page – a more biographical account (plus many snapshots taken at various stages of my life going back to childhood) in a secular way of presentation – which goes into the personal details of my childhood experiences, my military experience, my marriage experiences, my parental experiences, my artistic experiences, my latter-day lifestyle and so on and so forth.
I have long had the intention of presenting my discovery in that manner – in a secular way – so as to have more emphasis on the philosophical/ psychological features and a marked de-emphasis on the mystical/ metaphysical aspects.
(I have, on occasion, verbally presented my story to peoples of a materialist/humanist persuasion, without recourse to any metaphysicality at all, and they have had no difficulty in their comprehension of it when delivered in that manner)’. Richard to No. 14, 7 November 2009

Here is part of a follow-up response of mine to some quite rare encouragement feed-back. Vis.:

#7459
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:18 am
Subject: Re: Peculiar Information # 5

• [Rick]: Excellent idea, Richard, and thank you for continuing to ‘reach out’ to all of us like through the secular approach you mentioned. I for one will be really, really looking forward to this.
• [Richard]: G’day Rick, I appreciate your words of encouragement.
It is a secular approach only in its way of presentation as the content is no different, in essence, from what I already have online.
Indeed, I started my new website by copy-pasting paragraphs from here and there on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website and then adding to it, or subtracting from it, whatever seemed suitable.
In other words, although there is some new material (mainly of an autobiographical nature) it is essentially no different to that which is already available.
(Although I am noticing how it is beginning to take on a life of its own, as it were, as I add a bit here and a bit there and delete something here and something there, and so on). Richard to Rick, 10 November 2009

Also, here is a timely reminder:

• [Respondent No. 50 (List AF)]: (: Are there doctors that are interested in keeping track of you besides psychiatrists?
• [Richard]: Nobody from the medical profession is keeping track of me these days (the psychiatric tracking you refer to was only for three years in the early-to-mid ‘nineties).
The last thing the psychiatrist said to me back then was that *this is beyond psychiatry*. [emphasis added]. Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 50, 30 September 2003

While I am at it, here is a bit of humour, just for fun. Vis.:

• [Richard to Respondent No. 4]: For obvious reasons I will not be responding, either in the negative or the affirmative, to any such queries about any living person having a genealogical linkage ... what I will say, though, is this: I do find it cute that both you and your elder sibling are saying, in effect, that peace-on-earth is a disease, an illness, with an unidentified cause. Richard to Respondent, Actual Freedom mailing list, 23 May 2005

Finally, I will hereby state, loud and clear, that I will never, ever be so foolish as to get sucked into answering either in the negative or the affirmative to any ‘did you write this’ queries/ demands regarding pages of text popping up hither and thither on the internet for, at the very least, the following four reasons:

1. I would have to go through each page of text not only line-by-line but word-by-word as well, comparing it with something of mine somewhere on a multi-million word web site as certain peoples can and do add, delete or substitute words as they see fit for nefarious purpose.

2. Even if (note ‘if’) some text somewhere did match, line-by-line and word-by-word, with something of mine somewhere amongst all of my millions of words then, by virtue of not having authorial and editorial control over it there is no way of it being guaranteed that words will not be added, deleted or substituted afterwards.

3. If there is something I want to publicly share with my fellow human being it will be found on The Actual Freedom Trust website ... that is what the (registered) legal entity ‘The Actual Freedom Trust’ was set-up for.

4. I have a life.

Regards, Richard.

January 9 2013

Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest

RESPONDENT: [...]. Closer to topic: The person you’re asking about has had enough of this whole ‘charade’, for now at least.

RICHARD: Well ... ‘for now’ is not good enough; only ‘forever’ will suffice.

RESPONDENT: She doesn’t want to be dragged into any more online rancour ...

RICHARD: Ha ... nobody ‘dragged’ her into anything; she started it all of her own accord, at 1:45 pm on Thursday the 15th of September, 2011, and in the world of grown-ups there are consequences. (I had meant to re-title the thread to ‘Public Interest vs. Personal Security and Physical Safety’ when I started this new one, so as to emphasise the gravity of what her vindictiveness compelled her to do, and only remembered just after clicking ‘send’).

RESPONDENT: ... and I shouldn’t have exposed her to it again by posting those documents.

RICHARD: Again, what you did is an example of consequences.

RESPONDENT: She wants to be left in peace ...

RICHARD: Then she should have left me in peace, in the first place, instead of putting my personal security and physical safety in jeopardy.

RESPONDENT: ... neither giving nor receiving any grief.

RICHARD: In which case she will be well-advised to hop on an aeroplane and fly to Australia, as she had planned before this current madness took her over, and become ‘the happiest person on this earth.

I am still right here, where I have been all along, and always will be.

Regards, Richard.

January 9 2013

Re: New direction for the list: aye yet again... :) ... What Say Ye.

RESPONDENT No. 24: Thank you to all who replied.. [...].

RESPONDENT: [...]. In my (considerable!) experience, the two biggest obstacles to fruitful conversation are ‘team spirit’/ ‘us vs them’ attitudes and aggressive/ defensive emotional reactions. Re the latter, I know actualist culture tends to regard other people’s feelings as their problem – but in practice it still makes sense not to needlessly trigger them; and when they are trigged, not to use it against them but to be considerate, to step back, to look for a *mutually* beneficial way forward.

RICHARD: You delineate the two biggest obstacles to fruitful conversation, in your experience, as follows:

1. ‘team spirit’/ ‘us vs them’ attitudes.

2. aggressive/ defensive emotional reactions.

You then immediately go on to say, regarding Item No. 2, that you know ‘actualist culture’ (whatever that is) ‘tends to regard other people’s feelings as their problem’.

Do you not see the following?

1. You immediately launch into an Item No. 1 mode (that is, you versus a phantasm you call ‘actualist culture’).

2. You impute a fallacy (the tendency ‘to regard other’s feelings as their problem’) as pertaining to that phantasm.

3. You impugn that fallacy (‘in practice it still makes sense not to *needlessly* trigger them’) which you imputed as pertaining to that phantasm.

4. You then posit an issue (‘when they are trigged’) in order to preach (‘not to use it against them but to *be considerate*’) and propose the solution (‘to step back, to look for a *mutually beneficial* way forward’).

Here is an exchange I had, around 8 & 1/2 years ago (13 July 2004), with someone who specifically asked me two questions which elicited quite a comprehensive response. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: Richard, when you engage in these discussions do you anticipate the kind of emotional effect your words might elicit and try to avoid provoking malice and sorrow in your correspondent, or do you simply say what you have to say, and leave it up to the reader to deal with any feelings that might arise? Do you ever *intentionally* provoke malice and/or sorrow in your correspondents?

• [Richard]: I have located the following passage:

• [Richard]: ‘I have over a decade’s experience of interacting with people replete with feelings and am well aware they can cause them to do all manner of things – up to and including possible and probable homicide – and thus always take into consideration that their rationality can be cast aside in an instant’. Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 49, 23 January 2004

Furthermore, in regards to your comments in another e-mail on this topic, I am incapable of both derision – ‘the action of deriding [‘laughing contemptuously or scornfully at’]; ridicule, mockery’ (Oxford Dictionary) – and mockery – ‘derision, ridicule [‘subjection to mocking and dismissive language’]; a derisive utterance’ (Oxford Dictionary) – nor can I either chide – ‘quarrel or dispute angrily with; give loud and angry expression to dissatisfaction; scold; rail at’(Oxford Dictionary)– or toy with – ‘deal lightly or frivolously with; trifle, amuse oneself with a person’ (Oxford Dictionary) – my fellow human being as there is no affective faculty in this flesh and blood body. Richard to Respondent, Actual Freedom mailing list, No. 60, 13 July 2004

Regards, Richard.

January 9 2013

Re: New direction for the list: aye yet again ... :) ... What Say Ye.

RESPONDENT: [...]. In my (considerable!) experience, the two biggest obstacles to fruitful conversation are ‘team spirit’/‘us vs them’ attitudes and aggressive/ defensive emotional reactions. Re the latter, I know actualist culture tends to regard other people’s feelings as their problem – but in practice it still makes sense not to needlessly trigger them; and when they are trigged, not to use it against them but to be considerate, to step back, to look for a *mutually* beneficial way forward.

RICHARD: You delineate the two biggest obstacles to fruitful conversation, in your experience, as follows:

1. ‘team spirit’/‘us vs them’ attitudes.

2. aggressive/defensive emotional reactions.

You then immediately go on to say, regarding Item No. 2, that you know ‘actualist culture’ (whatever that is) ‘tends to regard other people’s feelings as their problem’.

Do you not see the following?

1. You immediately launch into an Item No. 1 mode (that is, you versus a phantasm you call ‘actualist culture’).

2. You impute a fallacy (the tendency ‘to regard other’s feelings as their problem’) as pertaining to that phantasm.

3. You impugn that fallacy (‘in practice it still makes sense not to *needlessly* trigger them’) which you imputed as pertaining to that phantasm.

4. You then posit an issue (‘when they are trigged’) in order to preach (‘not to use it against them but to *be considerate*’) and propose the solution (‘to step back, to look for a *mutually beneficial* way forward’).

Here is an exchange I had, around 8 & 1/2 years ago, with someone who specifically asked me two questions which elicited quite a comprehensive response. Vis.: [...snip...].

RESPONDENT: Yes. I deleted that message shortly before you responded, mainly because of that expression ‘actualist culture’.

What I was mainly suggesting in that article (or ‘preaching’ as you put it) was (1) applying the principle of charity: basically assuming that a correspondent is reasonable (willing and able to be reasoned with) unless proven otherwise, and (2) being considerate of their feelings, and willing to make some effort not to (a) not antagonise them needlessly in the first place, and (b) back up and be willing to be find a constructive way forward once antagonism does arise.

And yes, I can see how associating the lack of either of those characteristics with an ‘actualist culture’ wasn’t reasonable.

RICHARD: The reason why I selected that particular paragraph – indeed the reason why I responded at all – was it neatly encapsulated, as a microcosm, the entire issue at large (the macrocosm) ... to wit: retaining/ maintaining the human condition versus freedom from the human condition.

Thus when I wrote Points 1-to-4, above, I had in mind what you called ‘some research material’ in Message No. 126xx and used those 1-to-4 points as a demonstration of how the ‘team spirit’/ ‘us vs them’ attitude operates in reality, in action, in real-time.

Now, whilst I was well aware that the ‘us’ you were referring to, verbally, was actualists (and the ‘them’ non-actualists), the reality was you immediately launching into Item No. 1 mode (as per my Point No. 1 above) whereby the ‘us’ in reality, in real-time action, is non-actualists and the ‘them’ actualists.

Ergo, conjure phantasm –> impute a fallacy –> impugn the fallacy –> preach morality/ethicality –> propose the solution. (And this has been going on, and on, for around 8 & 1/2 years).

Speaking personally, there is no ‘us vs them’ operating here – here in actuality – as we all fellow human beings here (in actuality).

Regards, Richard.

January 10 2013

Re: New direction for the list: aye yet again..:) ... What Say Ye.

RESPONDENT No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]: sure the ‘principle of charity is great policy [...] but it won’t work here because; the culture Richard is inculcating assumes by default that your correspondent is NOT reasonable or willing to be reasonable, or able to be reasoned with, as Richard proposes that the whole human condition (meaning all human beings) are deemed ‘stupid, aggressive and false’.

RESPONDENT: [...]. You and I have been seeing this sadistic, manipulative, pedantic, cruelly derisive arse-hole that I wrote about last night for many years, whereas in person he (truly) was nothing like that. I still don’t quite have a handle on what that means, other than the obvious projection factor. [...].

One of the most striking things about meeting Richard in person was his lightness of touch. He’s actually very easy to get along with, very reasonable (in the sense that we’ve used in this thread – flexible in the way he converses about stuff, willing and able to be reasoned with), and he doesn’t have the above qualities that mar so much online communication. I’m still not really able to pin down the exact reasons for the differences. I can find naive explanations, and I can find cynical ones. But I seem to understand him best – as in, get the flavour of the Richard that I met in person – when I adopt the attitude of, like him for whatever he is. And I understand him least, and dislike him most, when I try to see him as the best that humankind can possibly ever aspire to. [...].

God I’m stupid. There are two psychic projections onto Richard here. There’s the flawed, malicious, sarcastic, pedantic, fucked-up unit. And there’s the actually free exemplar of the best that is humanly possible. They’re *both* psychic projections; and as is the nature of psychic projections, they come in pairs. Fuck. [...]. One creates the other. No wonder the chronic ambivalence.

[Richard]: ‘I am still right here, where I have been all along, and always will be’ [endquote].

Indeed. Got it.

RICHARD: [...] whilst I was well aware that the ‘us’ you were referring to, verbally, was actualists (and the ‘them’ non-actualists), the reality was you immediately launching into Item No. 1 mode (as per my Point No. 1 above) whereby the ‘us’ in reality, in real-time action, is non-actualists and the ‘them’ actualists.

Ergo, conjure phantasm –> impute a fallacy –> impugn the fallacy –> preach morality/ ethicality –> propose the solution. (And this has been going on, and on, for around 8 & 1/2 years).

Speaking personally, there is no ‘us vs them’ operating here – here in actuality – as we are all fellow human beings here (in actuality).

RESPONDENT: Yep. Things are falling into place nicely now. Thank you.

I’m only now beginning to see how many of the negative impressions I had of you are actually inseparable from the positive ones. The more I tried to escape the ambivalence by validating either one of the projections, the more it reinforced the other, and made my stuckness between the two poles inescapable. (Psychically inescapable anyhow).

Much becoming clear. Wow.

RICHARD: G’day [No. 4 (real name)], Yes, there is neither saint nor sinner (aka ‘the lotus has its roots in mud’) here – here in actuality – where 7+ billion flesh-and-blood bodies are already living, and any ascribing of (idealistic) saintly qualities onto an actually free flesh-and-blood body stems from attempting to counteract the imputed sinner qualities (i.e. automorphically imputed).

RESPONDENT: [...]. While it’s still fresh, here’s what kick-started the end of this 8-year process. A conversation with someone last night ended with us reaching a similar conclusion that Richard is fucked-up, but we can like him and wish him well anyway, and put an end to all the animosity forever.

The polarity was not escaped by validating/ embracing either of its poles and rejecting the other. All attempts to see the perfect ‘Richard’ as perfect had failed. It’s only when the animosity toward the flawed ‘Richard’ was released that the energy maintaining the polarity was dealt a fatal blow.

Wow, this is really interesting.

RICHARD: It appears that an often-overlooked feature of the actualism method – neither suppressing nor expressing both the positive *and* the negative emotions/ passions (both the good *and* bad affective feelings) so that the third alternative may hove into view – has finally worked for you. Vis.:

[Respondent]: ‘I’m only now beginning to see how many of the negative impressions I had of you are actually inseparable from the positive ones’. [endquote].

[Editorial Note: all impressions for a feeling-being are, by default (i.e. auto-centrically), emotionally-based/ passionally-backed impressions].

Vineeto recently spoke of this feature of the actualism method as being essential for feeling-being ‘Vineeto’, when ‘her’ out-*from*-control virtual freedom turned into an out-*of*-control panic mode (in Message No. 12614). Vis.:

[Vineeto]: ‘This second panic only lasted for 3 days but because it happened during the out-from-control virtual freedom it turned into an out-of-control panic mode. Only ‘her’ decade-long training in keeping ‘her’ hands in ‘her’ pockets and *neither repress nor express* the intense feelings racing through ‘her’ allowed the extreme situation to subside so soon afterwards ... and look where I am today’. [emphasis added].

And, once the third alternative hove into view for ‘her’, ‘she’ was once again tapping into pure intent personified – per favour ‘the quickening’ – and thereby got back to being (safely) out-*from*-control once more.

RESPONDENT to Claudiu: [...]. And the key point is that that animosity was not released by embracing the perfect ‘Richard’ instead. That had been tried and failed a thousand times. And now it’s obvious why.

CLAUDIU: So, how do you consider Richard now, sans polarity & animosity?

RESPONDENT: I like how you’ve phrased the question ‘*how* do I consider him’... because this isn’t about him as such; it’s more an insight into the ‘Richard’ I’ve been dealing with and how I’ve been relating to it.

RICHARD: It is indeed an insight – a valuable insight – into how *your* phantom ‘Richard’ is conjured into ‘being’. (Each person – each feeling-being – conjures up, via their own imaginative facility, their own phantom ‘Richard’; you may have noticed that no two phantom ‘Richards’ are identical).

RESPONDENT to Claudiu: The answer to that ‘how’ (now) is: take him as he comes. The notion that he’s someone I’m impelled to attack or defend, criticise or justify, embrace or reject, has had all the energy taken out of it. The process of figuring out where to stand and how to position oneself in relation to Richard has started to look pretty funny, because that’s part of the very process that creates a ‘Richard’ (or rather, several of them). I’ve mainly been dealing with: ‘Richard-the-fucked-up-and-unknowingly-malicious’ vs ‘Richard-the-actually-innocent-and-benign’. While I’ve often suspected either one of them of being a fabrication or phantom, it has never really *hit home* to me that they both are. [...].

The notion that he’s someone I’m impelled to attack or defend, criticise or justify, embrace or reject, has had all the energy taken out of it. Without all that other stuff, I can just read what he’s saying, and take it from there.

RICHARD: And it will be very interesting to see just where you ‘take it from there’ to because the ‘[No. 4]’ identity has been notorious for switching back-and-forth.

Regards, Richard.

P.S.: You will have noticed that I have taken you literally when you said you were going to drop all the personae. Vis.:

[quote]: ‘I’m going to drop all the personae and speak to you frankly ...’. (Message No. 126xx).

Is it indeed correct to assume that you have finally ditched the ‘[No. 4]’ identity? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘There have been many times when I wanted to ditch the ‘[No. 4]’ identity and come back as someone else, someone new, to make a fresh start without the weight of the past. But each time, I decided it would be a disservice to the people I had been writing to if ‘[No. 4’ stalked off to forge his own destiny, and then a different, trouble-free, actualism-friendly identity emerged in his place. Better for the historical record to show what really happened’. (Message No. 8129).

January 14 2013

Re: New direction for the list: aye yet again..:) ... What Say Ye.

RESPONDENT No. 25: Considering that it is apparently your attitude(s) towards ‘Richard’ that have changed, not your understanding of events, facts, etc.... do you think that the information you provided regarding your personal experiences and perspective on the documents you posted, etc. was in any way important or valuable (outside) of the ‘energy’ you refer to that fueled their postings?

RESPONDENT: Concerning the origin and content and authorship of those docs I haven’t changed my mind at all. I thought that was quite plain, but if it isn’t: there you have it. Regarding their relevance/ importance, I guess you mean two sides to it: the content, and the politics of its publication. Re content: I said before, I think it’s the best thing Richard ever wrote. (Richard, I know it hasn’t been formally established as your work, but I’m not going to insult anyone’s intelligence by pretending that there’s any doubt in my mind about its authorship. Having made the mistake of posting them, I’m at least going to give my true opinion of their content and significance).

To me these documents give a much more vivid and inspiring account of how deeply messed up the human condition can be, and how something radical can be done about even the very worst of it. I find it a much more powerful presentation than the presentation that seems geared toward [former] spiritual seekers. (But, to have taken the choice to publish it upon myself was just stupid; it’s not my place to decide what another can or should or shouldn’t reveal about himself, and the way in which it should be revealed). Regarding the practical significance of ‘mental disorders’: Richard has said that his mental disorders were so severe that they make ‘mere’ PTSD a relatively minor anxiety disorder. People can do with that information as they see fit. (For me, it would not be a deterrent; more an inspiration in fact).

*

Just one other point on that: On the second day of my first visit to Richard, he told me a lot about his war experiences, and he also said something (details vague and sketchy here) about how his psychologist or psychiatrist was aghast, turned white, at the prospect of someone choosing to go all the way into and *through* insanity. Now, at the time, I had not realised the full extent of what that actually entailed. (Nowhere near it). But it’s worth pointing out that Richard hadn’t tried to conceal that from me. He told me it in a context where he knew I’d be writing about our conversations too. What this means is, I’ve been using something against him, for political purposes, that he never really tried to conceal. I’m sorry for that Richard. What could have been a true inspiration to people turned into a hatchet job.

RICHARD: G’day No. 4, I am pleased you have been able to recall, albeit in a vague and sketchy manner, that I talked with you a lot about my war experiences (and how a psychologist and a psychiatrist were aghast – it was the psychiatrist who paled visibly – at the prospect of me choosing to go all the way into and *through* insanity, culminating in those 30+ months, to the other side) as it provides a sound basis for this matter currently at hand to continue to unfold.

Ponder this, for a moment, if you will: given that I was so frank with you – a person known to me solely from the internet – on only the second day of having met for the first time (as well as me knowing full well you would be writing publicly about our conversations) does it not occur to you I was, at the very least, equally frank with ... um ... your Indian source/ Indian friend?

Also, given I was able to tell you as much as I did, in those few short days, does it not also occur to you just how much more I would have shared with someone – similarly known to me solely from the internet – over a much, much longer period?

In other words, stories being bandied about in regards to (supposedly) concealed information only being discovered *after* I left India for Australia – be it on some-such memory stick as was (purportedly) ‘accidentally left behind’ or otherwise – can only begin to be somewhat believable, surely, provided there be a prior assumption of me being uncharacteristically (as per your above remembrance) close-mouthed with her, eh?

Besides which, here is a snippet from a post to the Google Groups forum at the time (more, in context, further below):

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:04 PM,
[Respondent No. 6] wrote:
[...snip...]. As regards the person, Richard is totally and utterly dedicated to bring suffering of people to end and put himself under unabashed scrutiny. it is better to scrutinize and understand what is being posited before rushing in to criticize. [...snip...].

Before I go on some follow-up words of yours are particularly apposite to what I am going to say next. Vis.:

[Respondent]: ‘(...) anyone who really engages with Richard, and with what he’s on about, will sooner or later find themselves in the same murky territory that I’ve been in, that my Indian friend has been in, and that anyone who’s had any intense and protracted involvement with Richard has been in ...’. (Message No. 12xxx).

That ‘same murky territory’ you are referring to is the human condition in action – currently being played-out, on computer screens, to the mutual benefit of all concerned – and which is gradually unfolding, step-by-step, as this onscreen, and thus public, melodrama builds towards its ultimately happy ending.

Now, the reason why I say melodrama – which is ‘a sensational dramatic piece with exaggerated characters and exciting events intended to appeal to the emotions’ according to the Oxford Dictionary – is because the genesis of all those stories that have been bandied about was a rather daring person’s decision to set in motion an experiment (her word exactly) to find out whether an alternate route to an actual freedom from the human condition could be forged via the (affective) fusion of love.

Vis.:

Google Groups Forum:

*

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010,
• [Respondent No. 6] wrote: Greetings, No. 19 yes, i was able to meet Richard. [...snip...].
Further more, i have discovered something else that can facilitate my freedom and it is marvelous. It is like being intoxicated on every moment of life, packing it with wonder and life, each moment again.
[...snip...].
P.S.: ccing No. 14 and Richard since they do not subscribe to this group mailing system.

*

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:41 PM,
• [Respondent No. 29] wrote: And what is that ‘something else’...not sure you have described it ...

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:04 PM,
• [Respondent No. 6] wrote:
companionship, love, relationship – fusing yourself with the love of your life. this fusion is not being with the person, but is more like merging and fusing so that separation does not exist and operates even when physically apart. to my mind, that is the best way that a relationship can be lived. It is not a surrender but fusion. I have long held the theory and /knew/ that it was possible, but i am putting it in practice now. My exploration is now slightly different from actualism per se. I make use of understanding of actualism and methods etc, but i am on my own trip , in some ways. Just an experiment to see where it leads me to.
To come back to meeting with Richard:
It is essential for anyone who is interested in actualism to read from the website sans biases – as in suspend them all for a while – to derive understanding. Else a reader will end up projecting and misunderstanding the whole premise. As regards the person, Richard is totally and utterly dedicated to bring suffering of people to end and put himself under unabashed scrutiny. it is better to scrutinize and understand what is being posited before rushing in to criticize. The reason i say so is that the first response to something radical tends to be in opposition to the idea.

*

On Mon, May 17, 2010,
• [Respondent No. 6] wrote: greetings, [No. 29] [...snip...].
• [Respondent No. 29]: And why you have gone in this route? Is it an underlying fear of losing that person of love? You know this is not an intellectual query for me. Neither is this idle curiosity. So please to explain if you can. And what and how exactly is this ‘fusion’ consist of ?
• [Respondent No. 6]: I have taken this route because a person is now a part of my life and it seems like a viable course to me. ‘fusion’ really means giving myself 100% to the person, as in aiming for ‘no separation’. If i am able to do this, then i will be giving myself and the person the best of me, the whole of me, 100% undivided attention and locked open intimacy.
As a fringe benefit everyone and everything else will receive the same attention.
As for any apprehension that if an actually free person can sustain a relationship with a non-actually free person (a feeling being). In my experience, it is not only possible but something to look forward to – imagine being with a person who is 100% sensible, not given to moods, does not have any anger/ aggression, regards you as a fellow human being and does not curb your independence or freedom, is 100% attentive and intimate 24 x 7. No man or woman (feeling being) could resist such a proposition.

In view of the public interest in experimenting with various routes – such as Srid’s current experiment with an ‘equanimity towards all physical sensations’ practice (based upon Mr. Satya Goenka’s misunderstanding of the Pali word vedāna) – it is timely to append the score thus far. Vis.:

1. Via insanity

0 f. & 1 m.

2. Via direct-route

4 f. & 1 m. (NB.: updated on 08Aug2015).

3. Via aff practice

0 f. & 0 m.

4. Via love’s fusion

0 f. & 0 m.

5. Via equanimity

0 f. & 0 m.

Regards, Richard.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

P.S.: So as to give some idea of what played a significant part, in motivating all that made-up stuff, an email of mine at the following URL is worth a close reading (including and particularly the post-script). Vis.: List D, Rick, 31 December 2011

In case you miss that postscript this is its URL: List D, Rick, Footnote 1

It begins with ‘Vineeto took efficacious advantage of a ...’ (and that event, in and of itself, is what played a significant part in setting it all in motion).

January 15 2013

Re: New direction for the list: aye yet again..:) ... What Say Ye.

RICHARD: [...]. Ergo, conjure phantasm –> impute a fallacy –> impugn the fallacy–> preach morality/ethicality –> propose the solution. (And this has been going on, and on, for around 8 & 1/2 years).

Speaking personally, there is no ‘us vs them’ operating here – here in actuality – as we are all fellow human beings here (in actuality).

RESPONDENT: Yep. Things are falling into place nicely now. Thank you. I’m only now beginning to see how many of the negative impressions I had of you are actually inseparable from the positive ones. The more I tried to escape the ambivalence by validating either one of the projections, the more it reinforced the other, and made my stuckness between the two poles inescapable. (Psychically inescapable anyhow). Much becoming clear. Wow.

RICHARD: Yes, there is neither saint nor sinner (aka ‘the lotus has its roots in mud’) here – here in actuality – where 7+ billion flesh-and-blood bodies are already living, and any ascribing of (idealistic) saintly qualities onto an actually free flesh-and-blood body stems from attempting to counteract the imputed sinner qualities (i.e. automorphically imputed).

RESPONDENT: And even the ‘third alternative’ (neither sinner nor saint) had been misappropriated as yet another psychic image/ entity: A heartless/ soulless identity that lacked the endearing human traits and, due to lack of an intuitive faculty, wasn’t able to properly understand itself. It’s basically another way of inadvertently turning a what into a ‘who’. And no surprise that the result doesn’t come close to capturing the innocence of a PCE.

RICHARD: G’day [No. 4 (real name)], Whilst none too sure precisely what you had in mind when you wrote that as such descriptive words, as a ‘heartless/ soulless identity that lacked the endearing human traits’, and ‘due to lack of an intuitive faculty’ was not able to ‘properly understand itself’, do read as if it is an ascription of androidic/ robotic qualities onto an actually free flesh-and-blood body.

The ascription of androidic/robotic qualities is already featured, on more than a few occasions, in my archived correspondence on The Actual Freedom Trust website. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: Richard, I should like to ask the simple question ‘In which way one person that lost his being and ego, is different than a robot?’
• [Richard]: Just because a person actually free of the human condition has no identity whatsoever (neither ego-self nor soul-self/ spirit-self) parasitically residing inside the flesh and blood body – and therefore no affective feelings – this absence of identity and its precious feelings does not thus make that person a machine, an automaton, an android (a robot, somewhat resembling a human being in appearance, designed to function in place of a living organism and carrying out a variety of tasks mechanically in accord with a pre-programmed circuitry).
I do not read/ watch science fiction but as I get these type of questions from time to time I have gradually been made aware of various ‘Star Trek’ characters, for instance, and it is pertinent to point out that the stuff of science fiction (creations of imagination) is entirely different to actuality ... a writer replete with identity/feelings trying to visualise life sans identity/feelings can, apparently, only conceive of a robotic-like creature speaking in a flat, monotone voice, and devoid of a sense of humour.

I am yet to hear of a robot that experiences life like this, for example:

• [Richard]: ‘I live in the infinitude of this fairy-tale-like actual world where, with its sensuous quality of magical perfection and purity, everything and everyobody has a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, wondrous, scintillating vitality that makes everything ‘alive’ and sparkling ... even the very earth beneath one’s feet. The rocks, the concrete buildings, a piece of paper ... literally everything is as if it were alive (a rock is not, of course, alive as humans are, or as animals are, or as trees are). This ‘aliveness’ is the very actuality of all existence ... the actualness of everything and everybody. We do not live in an inert universe’.

In fact a robot, being a machine, does not experience anything at all. Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 44a, 10 July 2003

As well as that, the ascription of anosognosia type qualities also already features, on several occasions, on the website. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: I am exploring into the issue of whether one can experience anything without knowing that one is experiencing it. So for example, there may be anger, emotional pain etc, and one does not know that.
• [Richard]: The medical term, for the symptoms you describe here, has popularly become known as anosognosia.
However, the people observing such a person, who does have this disorder, can vouch for displays of [quote] ‘anger, emotional pain etc.’ [endquote] whilst the person in question is not personally feeling them ... needless is to say that no such displays of [quote] ‘anger, emotional pain etc.’ [endquote] have been detected by anybody who has contact with me?
And I have been scrutinised closely by many, many people over the last nine years. List B, No. 31d, 16 May 2002

If what you had in mind was the ascription of, say, sociopathic personality disorder type qualities (or some-such dissociative/ repressive attributes) it would be a sub-set of the imputed ‘sinner qualities’ – i.e. automorphically imputed – already canvassed, much further above now, in the earlier part of this exchange.

Regards, Richard.

January 16 2013

Re: New direction for the list: aye yet again..:) ... What Say Ye.

RICHARD: [...]. Ergo, conjure phantasm –> impute a fallacy –> impugn the fallacy–> preach morality/ethicality –> propose the solution. (And this has been going on, and on, for around 8 & 1/2 years).

Speaking personally, there is no ‘us vs them’ operating here – here in actuality – as we are all fellow human beings here (in actuality).

RESPONDENT: Yep. Things are falling into place nicely now. Thank you. I’m only now beginning to see how many of the negative impressions I had of you are actually inseparable from the positive ones. The more I tried to escape the ambivalence by validating either one of the projections, the more it reinforced the other, and made my stuckness between the two poles inescapable. (Psychically inescapable anyhow). Much becoming clear. Wow.

RICHARD: Yes, there is neither saint nor sinner (aka ‘the lotus has its roots in mud’) here – here in actuality – where 7+ billion flesh-and-blood bodies are already living, and any ascribing of (idealistic) saintly qualities onto an actually free flesh-and-blood body stems from attempting to counteract the imputed sinner qualities (i.e. automorphically imputed).

RESPONDENT: And even the ‘third alternative’ (neither sinner nor saint) had been misappropriated as yet another psychic image/ entity: A heartless/ soulless identity that lacked the endearing human traits and, due to lack of an intuitive faculty, wasn’t able to properly understand itself. It’s basically another way of inadvertently turning a what into a ‘who’. And no surprise that the result doesn’t come close to capturing the innocence of a PCE.

RICHARD: Whilst none too sure precisely what you had in mind when you wrote that as such descriptive words, as a ‘heartless/ soulless identity that lacked the endearing human traits’, and ‘due to lack of an intuitive faculty’ was not able to ‘properly understand itself’, do read as if it is an ascription of androidic/ robotic qualities onto an actually free flesh-and-blood body.

The ascription of androidic/ robotic qualities is already featured, on more than a few occasions, in my archived correspondence on The Actual Freedom Trust website. Vis.: [...snip android/robot quote...].

As well as that, the ascription of anosognosia type qualities also already features, on several occasions, on the website. Vis.: [...snip anosognosia quote...].

If what you had in mind was the ascription of, say, sociopathic personality disorder type qualities (or some-such dissociative/ repressive attributes) it would be a sub-set of the imputed ‘sinner qualities’ – i.e. automorphically imputed – already canvassed, much further above now, in the earlier part of this exchange.

RESPONDENT: Yes, you’ve understood me, and I believe I’m understanding you. I’d created an ‘actually free identity’ that purports to be the third alternative to the sinner/ saint, but was (as you’ve correctly pointed out here) another variant/ sub-set of the ‘sinner’: one that is damaged and oblivious rather than ruthlessly self-centred.

RICHARD: G’day [No. 4 (real name)], Yes, we are indeed understanding each other and, even further to this understanding, do we both – now – understand that the third alternative to either spiritualism or materialism is actually non-imputable (i.e. automorphically) in any way other than some variant of the many and various sinner/ saint ascriptions?

Put differently, do we now both understand that anything outside of the human condition – actually outside of it – truly is (as I have remarked on many an occasion) inconceivable and/ or unimaginable and incomprehensible and/or unbelievable?

Hence, of course, the ascription of androidic/ robotic qualities – some science-fiction alien from another galaxy – or even of a ‘real stranger’ (for instance) from ‘another space’. Vis.:

• [quote]: ‘Dalai Lama: ‘Sometimes I Get Angry, Too’. Buddhist leader brings Dan Harris inside the mind of a monk’. {04/18/2011}.

• [Intro; 01:26]: ‘Even though the Dalai Lama has supported extensive scientific research on meditation, asking his own monks to put their own heads inside of scientist’s brain-scanners, he admits that even if you do hours and hours of meditation it’s by no means some sort of silver bullet; it will not guarantee you perfect happiness’.

• [Mr. Dan Harris; 01:45]: ‘Is your mind always calm?’
• [Mr. Tenzin Gyatso; 01:47]: ‘Hopefully’.
• [Mr. Dan Harris]: ‘You never lose your temper?’
• [Mr. Tenzin Gyatso]: ‘No-no-no-no. Occasionally I lose my temper’.
• [Mr. Dan Harris]: ‘You do?’
• [Mr. Tenzin Gyatso]: ‘Oh yes. If, uh, someone never lose temper then, perhaps, that may come from {gesturing upwards} another space’. {chuckles}.
• [Mr. Dan Harris]: {laughs}.
• [Mr. Tenzin Gyatso]: Real stranger. {laughs}.
• [Mr. Dan Harris]: ‘So, if someone says to you ‘I never lose my temper’ you don’t believe them?’
• [Mr. Tenzin Gyatso]: ‘Oh, no. No ...’.

(abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/dalai-lama-angry-13400561).

Moreover, because the third alternative to either spiritualism or materialism is literally inconceivable and/or unimaginable and incomprehensible and/or unbelievable – as well as actually non-imputable (i.e. automorphically) in any way other than some variant of the many and various sinner/saint ascriptions – it is not at all surprising how all of the pragmatic/hardcore dharma leaders/ practitioners, for example, spuriously demoted my eleven years intimate experience, night and day, of fully-fledged spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment in order to posit actualism/ actual freedom as being ... um ... ‘ten-fetter’ arahantship.

(Otherwise they would be face-to-face with the (metaphysical) fact that the long-awaited ‘Maitreya’/ ‘Mettaya’/ ‘Jampa’ has been and gone and they all missed-out on that event of the millennia).

Furthermore, because this third alternative to either spiritualism or materialism is literally inconceivable and/or unimaginable and incomprehensible and/or unbelievable – as well as actually non-imputable (i.e. automorphically) in any way other than some variant of the many and various sinner/ saint ascriptions – it is not at all surprising how all but a few of the sane peoples (inclusive of, and particularly so, counsellors, therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists) have no choice but to diagnose both my eleven years of full enlightenment/ awakenment and my twenty-plus years of an actual freedom from the human condition as insanity.

(Hence their demotion of that enlightened/ awakened experiencing of being the ‘Parousia’, the ‘Maitreya’, the ‘Messiah’, etcetera, to that of a patient in a psychiatric ward thinking they be Mr. Napoleon Bonaparte or Ms. Marie Antoinette, or whoever, else they all missed-out on that event of the millennia as well).

RESPONDENT: It’s fascinating stuff. In practical terms, it was really casting a shadow over my recollection and evaluation of PCEs, and I’m really chuffed to find that, along with my growing insight into the creation of identities and stances, the innocence of the PCE is being restored.

RICHARD: Interestingly enough, when Devika transmogrified into Irene (which she pronounced ee-rain-ah) she declared both of her primary peak experiences (her term for PCE’s) in Amsterdam long before she met me – both her brief riding-a-bicycle-across-an-intersection one and her three-weeks-of-being-beyond-enlightenment experience – as having been corrupted, polluted, by the numerous PCE’s she had after having met me/whilst being with me and similarly sought to recollect and re-evaluate them.

(Which, in her case, involved surreptitiously slipping agape love and compassion into them and, thus, rendering both indistinguishable from ASC’s).

RESPONDENT: (Oddly, for all my talk of ‘crazy’, ‘insane’, and what-not, I don’t mind being the guy who’s fascinated by ordinary things like the play of light in a glass ashtray. It occurs to me as I write this that I was probably subject to some rather cynical and repressive influences around the age of seven, but it never *quite* crushed that naivete out of me. Anyway, still learning as I go, here...).

RICHARD: Hmm ... could you be referring, by any chance, to the same personality whom you referred to in Message No. 9615 (plus follow-ups in 9616 & 9617) just before advising you were off to England again and, hopefully, then to northern Spain to walk the Camino de Santiago (Message 9619)?

• [Respondent]: ‘(...) I know a thing or two about narcissism and narcissists ... possibly more than anyone in this forum ... and not from books. You see, I’ve spent large parts of my life – decades – witnessing first-hand how a narcissistic / (non-violent) psychopathic personality thinks and behaves, and oftentimes being embroiled in their self-created dramas.
The difference between a narcissist and an ordinary person – let alone an actualist – is stunning (and shocking at times). A narcissist’s genuine unconcern for other people couldn’t be learned or faked, even if you tried ...’. (Message 9615)

Regards, Richard.


RESPONDENT NO. 4 (Part Two)

RETURN TO MAILING LIST ‘D’ INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

The Third Alternative

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

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

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

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity