Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘D’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’

with Correspondent No. 4


Continued from Mailing List ‘AF’: No. 60

Jul 4 2015

Re: [No. 4]’s Notes 1

CLAUDIU: It strikes me that a lot of people realize there is something wrong with the world. A lot of movies are about this. [...snip ‘The Matrix’ & ‘Tomorrowland’ as movie examples + ‘Liberals’ & ‘Conservatives’ & ‘Libertarians’ & ‘Anarcho-capitalists’ as examples of political ideologies + ‘Buddhism’ & ‘Christianity’ as examples of religions...]. But the point is, they all miss the actual problem, which is ‘being’ itself. And actual solution: self-immolation. (Message № 19694; 12 June 2015)

RESPONDENT: Yeah, that’s something that’s been obvious to me for a long time. Everyone feels exiled from a peace, joy, plenitude and authenticity that’s vaguely intuited or dimly remembered, and we’re all blaming someone or something for our dis[en]franchisement.... looking in the wrong place, and usually doing stupid/ crazy/ futile things to win it back somehow. The reason I’ve come back to this arena is because I think you/we are the only ones who are even close to understanding the true nature of this estrangement/ exile. [emphasis added]. (Message № 197xx; 12 June 2015)

[Addendum; 20 June 2015]: Actually, the main reason I came back here is because I’ve had quite a few experiences and realisations of both the ‘push’ and ‘pull’ variety. The ‘push’ has been further confirmation of just how self-centred and selfish it is to be a ‘self’, even a ‘good’ one. And the ‘pull’ is, of course, more experiences of what it’s like to be free from all that. And those experiences have confirmed the authenticity of it, and that I don’t need to fear it. It doesn’t turn me into the person that I feared actualism – or my notion of it – might turn me into. To have confidence in that matters a lot. (Messages № 197xx & 197xx).

*

RESPONDENT: Things I know to be true. 1) This world, this lifetime, is where it’s at. The peace, joy, freedom, plenitude and authenticity I know and remember is here, and nowhere else. 2) When freed from my own suffering and strife, I am benignly intelligent, considerate, capable and intend no harm to anyone. 3) There is something utterly priceless here; it is freely available at all times; yet most people most of the time are utterly blind to it / estranged from it. 4) These are the things most worthy of my best efforts in life. To the extent that these concur with actualism, I concur with actualism. [emphases added]. (Message № 197xx; 13 June 2015)

*

RESPONDENT: A few days ago I wrote that these are a few things I know to be true: 1) This world, this lifetime, is where it’s at. The peace, joy, freedom, plenitude and authenticity I know and remember is here, and nowhere else. 2) When freed from my own suffering and strife, I am benignly intelligent, considerate, capable and intend no harm to anyone. 3) There is something utterly priceless here; it is freely available at all times; yet most people most of the time are utterly blind to it / estranged from it. 4) These are the things most worthy of my best efforts in life. Despite a lot changes in my attitude over recent years, these have remained pretty constant. They’re based on now quite extensive personal experience, and they’re dependent/ contingent on nothing else. So I can be fully on board with it (and only this, at this point). In terms of practical application: Historically, I have not been able to link these aims up with ‘feeling good’ -- (minimising the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and maximising the felicitous feelings) -- as an effective practical modus operandi. Of course, anything close to this way-of-being does feel good, is felicitous, and does entail minimal ‘good’ or ‘bad’ feelings. However, feeling good has always seemed more of a consequence than a cause of true benefit for me... and repeated experiments have taught me no different. [Addendum; from Message № 19789]: To simplify this bit... in my personal experience: having ‘feeling good’ as an aim – and then trying to feel good – sucks. But having an aim that does feel good, and then using ‘feeling good’ as a guide to whether or not one is on track with that aim, doesn’t suck, and makes sense. [end Addendum]. So, what makes most sense to me is to use these points above as my preferred standard of ‘enjoyment and appreciation’, if you will. I can set my compass there, and always steer in that direction, and feel good about doing it. So, that’s what I intend. I’ll use this thread for updates, and any feedback is of course welcome. [emphasis added]. (Message № 197xx; 20 June 2015)

*

RESPONDENT: ‘(...) In my personal experience: having ‘feeling good’ as an aim – and then trying to feel good – sucks. But having an aim that does feel good, and then using ‘feeling good’ as a guide to whether or not one is on track with that aim, doesn’t suck, and makes sense’.
I’ve been considering this distinction, holding it up to closer scrutiny, trying to ascertain whether there’s (still) any real substance to it.
The main thing I’m finding is the legacy of a strong aversion to narcissistic hedonism. I’ve seen at close quarters (family member) the consequences of putting one’s own enjoyment and interests first and foremost, without much moral feeling and/or respect for moral principles to minimise the effect on others, and without an active connection to pure intent.
A lot of experience of this kind has made me averse to the idea of using ‘feeling good’ per se as a reliable guide to anything genuinely good in life, let alone as a reliable guide to the ultimate benefit for all humankind. And when the expression ‘feeling good’ is accompanied by expressions like ‘come what may,’ – which emphasises its unconditionality but also its amoral quality – it triggers a feeling of aversion. Hence my desire to contextualise ‘feeling good’ in a way that allows me to be wholly and unreservedly on board with it.
So the concerns underlying this are valid, but my feeling of aversion is not. I do have an active connection to pure intent (which BTW is currently manifesting as a clearer connection to and greater confidence in the effortless, intelligent benevolence that’s free to operate in a PCE). I do not need to be leery of ‘feeling good’ for its own sake. I do not have any objection or aversion to feeling good per se, so there is absolutely no reason not to enjoy feeling good for its own sake.
Since one of the main reasons for not feeling good is having an objection to feeling good, I’m finding that being clearer about the above distinction makes me more free to feel-good-because-it-feels-good (with the caveats being well understood, rather than an affective shadow resistance)
. (Message № 198xx; 22 June 2015)

*

RESPONDENT: ‘(...) In my personal experience: having ‘feeling good’ as an aim – and then trying to feel good – sucks. But having an aim that does feel good, and then using ‘feeling good’ as a guide to whether or not one is on track with that aim, doesn’t suck, and makes sense’.
I’ve been considering this distinction, holding it up to closer scrutiny, trying to ascertain whether there’s (still) any real substance to it. I’m finding two things.
The first is relatively trivial. I don’t like to be seen as an uncritical follower – which in this case would be someone who’s making a religion out of shallow faux-felicity and false gaiety, and/or someone who’s given up his critical faculties to be a happy little sheep in a happy little flock, and/or someone who has betrayed his highest principles for the sake of a personal [whatever]. And since I’ve seen other people that way sometimes, it’s natural that others might well see me that way – and I don’t like that. And one way to avoid that is to emphasise distinctions, to stand apart somewhat, to avoid common vocabulary, etc. And there’s a more personal affective analog to this social aspect: for someone who’s had a history of animosity toward actualism, to then unreservedly commit to feeling good, without caveat and without putting an individual stamp on it, is to... ‘give in’. Which is pretty crazy... but then, so am I.
(Message № 198xx; 22 June 2015)

RICHARD: Well, now you draw attention to it, a supportive profiling, as a matter of course, begins to coalesce ... and especially so as there is nothing ‘trivial’ about the above added-in paragraph (nor is it ‘relatively’ so either) as it is, rather, to still be massively maligning those innocent fellow human beings Richard, Vineeto and Peter – whose names you reducted, amalgamated/ homogenised and thus deindividualised as ‘RPV’ (starting with ‘P&V’ nigh on ten years ago), cynically mocked as ‘Ripeeto’ on more than a few occasions, and abstractly positioned as a phantasmagorical central bloc in an anosognosic-alexithymic actualism cult (recently reinvented above as a ‘religion’ comprising ‘a happy little flock’, with each ‘happy little sheep’ willy-nilly an ‘uncritical follower’ feeling a ‘shallow faux-felicity and false gaiety’ who, by having ‘given up his critical faculties’, has ‘betrayed his highest principles’ vis-à-vis ‘other people’ for ‘the sake of a personal [whatever]’ ) – plus Grace, Pamela, and any other similarly manumitted actualist, as well as all aspiratory manumitters (e.g., some of the active subscribers to this forum whom you are corresponding with) who are dedicatorily intent on an eventual global spread of the already always existing peace-on-earth, and yet all this maligning is solely for the sake of putting an animus-based egoistic ‘stamp’ upon what is evidentially a phantasy distinction.

The very action of that relatively-trivial-to-you opening paragraph being added-in, as if your now-deleted first version (ex-Message № 198xx) was inadequate otherwise, half-an-hour after having posted it has made it particularly adversive.

As it is more than just ‘pretty crazy’ to persist in the grotesquerie that actualism/ actual freedom is a ‘religion’ – upgraded from that [quote] ‘deluded cult’ [#136xx] of yesteryear to the point of bizarrerie even (in that choosing to be ‘feeling good’ each moment again is to be immediately branded as ‘an uncritical follower’ thereof) – your written words profile a persona who has lost the plot completely in this regard.

However, as being ‘pretty crazy’ (in conjunction with that ‘animosity toward actualism’ of historical disrepute) is explanatory of quite a lot of that history, your timely ‘more personal affective analog’ heads-up in this regard is appreciated as it throws light upon the outright weirdity of that ‘only kidding’ exchange of yours two days prior.

Viz.:

• [Respondent No. 15]: ‘(...). The PCE is a gift, but the PCE doesn’t explain how to practice the actualism method. People have been having PCEs, no doubt, since time immemorial, yet it was only when Richard came along that someone figured out how to find a way to unlock and live what the PCE brought but glimpses of. And Richard has taken great pains to clearly explain what he did, and provide that knowledge all for us to learn from... if we have the eyes to see it. To read it. To apply it in our own lives, and prove it for ourselves.
I say all that because if we can’t recognise the opportunity here... as being something quite unique in all of human history ... then we are going to continue to waste this precious opportunity’.
[emphases added].
• [Respondent]: ‘Ah, you see, now you’re veered off into Richardism (again), and that’s exactly what I wanted [to] avoid.
Only kidding :-)’.
~ (Message № 197xx; 20 June 2015).

The reason I say ‘outright weirdity’ is because of what that made-up epithet of yours (viz.: ‘Richardism’) means to you – even when you say you are only kidding – and which weirdity is exemplified by the sections of the above exchange I have made bold (emphasised so as to explicate why you retorted the way you did, when you read those highlighted sections, and why it is such a weird reaction).

To explain: you first used that ‘Richardism’ epithet in 2004, on The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list (a.k.a. the ‘Topica’ list), in a more-or-less straight-forward manner as follows.

Viz.:

> #30xx
> Date: Wed Jan 07 2004 – 00:13:02 AEST
> To: actualfreedom@topica.com
> From: [Respondent]
> Subject: Re: Brouhaha

>> [...]. If other people’s experiences are excluded or
>> invalidated by too narrow terminology and concepts, then
>> Actualism becomes something a little too close to Richardism.
>>

By the time you first used that epithet on the ‘Yahoo Groups’ forum, in 2008 as follows, it was infused with some meaning peculiar to your application of it.

Viz.:

> #11xx
> Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:28:11 -0000
> To: actualfreedom@yahoogroups.com
> From: [Respondent]
> Subject: Re: How I Achieved Actual Freedom – Part Two

>> [...].
>> Honestly, I think you guys do the world no favours (at least,
>> people who are interested in actualism) with these partisan
>> defences of every Richardism.
>>

However, it was not until 2013 before you provided an explanation of what that ‘Richardism’ epithet had specifically come to mean to you (such as to react to those highlighted sections further above, in Message № 197xx, in the ‘only kidding’ manner you did).

Viz.:

> #133xx
> Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 01:55:11 -0000
> To: actualfreedom@yahoogroups.com
> From: [Respondent]
>Subject: Re: Behind the Scenes

>> [...] many years ago, soon after I was introduced to actualism,
>> I had a strong suspicion that Richard’s psychic / psychological
>> transformations had not been the result of his practice, but
>> rather, the other way around: that he had been in the grip
>> of an irresistible pathological process beyond his control,
>> and that he had rationalised it in a messianic way
. [...].
>> [...]. And I doubted that the ‘freedom’ of others was genuine (or
>> equivalent to Richard’s); I explained it, rather, in terms of group
>> psychology.
>> I don’t have any reason to think that the practice of actualism
>> can induce any such condition; my whole beef was that it was
>> the other way around; that the pathological condition of
>> had [sic] induced and been rebranded
as ‘an actual freedom
>> from the human condition’, and had better be described as
>> ‘Richardism’
. [emphases added].
>>

Thus what the epithet ‘Richardism’ had specifically come to mean to you (viz.: ‘Richard’s psychic / psychological transformations had not been the result of his practice’ but, rather, the other way around in that ‘he had been in the grip of an irresistible pathological process beyond his control’ which ‘he had rationalised in a messianic way’ insofar as the ‘pathological state’ had been ‘rebranded as ‘an actual freedom from the human condition’ and had better be described as ‘Richardism’;) is nothing other than that strong suspicion your older sibling had implanted in your mind, back in the days of the ‘Topica’ list (in late 2004/ early 2005), despite what your best judgement told you at the time.

Viz.:

> #71xx
> Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 – 14:11:34 AEST
> To: actualfreedom@topica.com
> From: [Respondent]
> Subject: RE: Year In Review

>> [...]. My best judgement tells me that Richard’s method did work
>> for him, because he was driven by an absolute certainty and a 100%
>> commitment. (Unless as [No. 64] reckons the whole sequence of events
>> was a product of some bizarre and extremely rare pathology
--
>> but I doubt that). [emphasis added].
>>

Incidentally, and so as to provide a time-line context, that ‘bizarre and extremely rare pathology’ you were reminding your co-respondent of, there in that December 2004 post, with your ‘as [No. 64] reckons’ words, had been detailed expressly to me by that person himself some ten weeks earlier (in October 2004) on the ‘Topica’ list in Message № 65xx further below.

Now, do you see how your ‘best judgement’ told you at the time (i.e., two-and-a-half months later on) that an actual freedom from the human condition came about for Richard ‘because he was driven by an absolute certainty and a 100% commitment’ (which is the direct opposite to having, as you recalled further above in May 2013, a ‘strong suspicion’ that his actual freedom was because ‘he had been in the grip of an irresistible pathological process beyond his control’ which ‘he had rationalised in a messianic way’)?

Here it is again (from further above):

• [Respondent]: ‘(...) soon after I was introduced to actualism, I had a strong suspicion that Richard’s psychic / psychological transformations had not been the result of his practice, but rather, the other way around: that he had been in the grip of an irresistible pathological process beyond his control, and that he had rationalised it in a messianic way’.~ (Message № 133xx).

Even more to the point, and despite your confident ‘soon after I was introduced to actualism’ wording, your very first email to the ‘Topica’ list was posted thirteen months before you sent this ‘My best judgement’ December 2014 email of yours.

Viz.:

> #26xx
> Date: Thu Nov 06 2003 – 23:31:08 AEST
> To: actualfreedom@topica.com
> From: [Respondent]
> Subject: First questions

>> My first questions relate to what is (apparently) lost in AF. If
>> there is no imaginative faculty, no mind-space at all in which to
>> visualise objects and processes, how is it possible to understand
>> systems and processes that do not occur right before one’s eyes?
>> [...].
>>

Furthermore, you followed-up that ‘as [No. 64] reckons’ post of yours, about a month later, with a brief summary of how ‘My bro has argued that first came a pathological process, and then came the method to rationalise it as a voluntary process’ – plus expressing your bafflement as to how feeling-being ‘Richard’ could rid ‘himself’ of (full-blown) anger, even, in three weeks as a ‘result of his intentions and his method alone’ declaring that ‘it should be happening for others’ and asserting such not to be the case for them (as if the then-live ‘Topica’ list reports of ‘virtual freedom’ being posted almost daily from both feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ and feeling-being ‘Peter’ did not count as ‘others’ in your eyes) – and finished off by first picking-up on your co-respondent’s ‘expressed backwards cause-and-effect confusion’ thoughtie and characterising your bro’s off-the-wall scenario as an ‘arse-about cause-and-effect’ misattribution of volition before then expressing, frankly, how you did not know what to make of it at that stage (in January 2005).

In other words, still no ‘strong suspicion’ fourteen months after your first post.

Viz.:

> #76xx
> Date: Wed Jan 19 2005 – 02:06:17 AEST
> To: actualfreedom@topica.com
> From: [Respondent]
> Subject: RE: Year In Review

>>> [No. 56]: [...]. Personally, I think the whole HAIETMOBA thing is
>>> expressed backwards with some cause and effect confusion.
>>> HAIETMOBA is an observational hindsight, a realisation that
>>> one was being blocked by an issue.
>> [Repondent]: Interesting thought. I have wondered about Richard’s claim that it
>> took him about three weeks to get rid of anger. It’s not that I don’t
>> believe his claim – I’m quite prepared to take his entire biography
>> at face value – it’s just that I’m baffled as to how could such
>> a thing could happen as a result of his intentions and his
>> method alone
. If the intention and the method were were responsible
>> for this remarkable feat (in three weeks!) it should be happening
>> for others. But it isn’t
, and it sure isn’t happening for me.
>> My bro has argued that first came a pathological process, and
>> then came the method to rationalise it as a voluntary process
.
>> It isn’t hard to find examples of the sincere misattribution of
>> volition
to involuntary pathological processes, but they don’t
>> prove anything with regard to Richard. Is this arse-about cause-and-
>> effect
similar to what you’re suggesting? Frankly, I don’t know what
>> to make of it at this stage. [emphases added].
>>

What follows is the email your ‘bro’ sent to the ‘Topica’ list some three-and-a-half months earlier (in October 2004) – the post you were reminding your co-respondent of, in that further above December 2004 post, with your ‘Unless as [No. 64] reckons the whole sequence of events was a product of some bizarre and extremely rare pathology’ words – wherein he had detailed, expressly to me, his off-the-wall scenario.

Viz.:

> #65xx
> Date: Tue Oct 05 2004 – 12:22:15 AEST
> To: actualfreedom@topica.com
> From: [Respondent No. 64]
> Subject: RE: Attentiveness

>> [...]. In the case of actualism we know that the goal is to ‘self’-
>> immolate, which causes? / is caused by? a physical change which
>> extinguishes the entire psyche completely and permanently.
>> Radical.
>> No such thing has happened to anyone but you.
>> Because you are a unique case (so far) there is no way of knowing for
>> certain whether your ‘self’-immolation was caused by your method, or
>> whether both the method and the outcome were both products
>> of some unknown pathology.
>> The fact that nobody else has effected the physical change you under-
>> went, in spite of many years of practising your recommended method
>> with the utmost dedication, somewhat increases the likelihood that
>> your condition is (to some extent at least) a product of a unique? /
>> rare? / somewhat uncommon? pathology. No?
>> Certain features of your pre-AF experiences, eg. your catatonia,
>> imagining yourself to be the ‘Parousia’, feeling that you had been
>> selected by a divinity for a special mission, feeling you had pressed
>> an irrevocable ‘self’-destruct button, all suggest that you were in the
>> grip of a pathological process which eventually brought about ‘your’
>> demise.
>> I don’t know for sure. I don’t pretend to know for sure.
>> However, ...
>> (Of course ... go right ahead)
>> ... when someone says actualism ‘works’ for them, it certainly does
>> not ‘work’ for them in the way it worked for you.
>>

Also, and just for referencing, three days prior to the above he had (incorrectly) declared, as a fact, that Richard [quote]: ‘has a ...psychotic disorder of unknown aetiology’ [emphasis added].

Viz.:

> 65xx
> Date: Sat Oct 02 2004 – 12:23:38 AEST
> To: actualfreedom@topica.com
> From: [Respondent No. 64]
> Subject: RE: Attentiveness

> [No. 64] wrote:
>> [No. 66] wrote:
>> [...]. That’s pretty absurd to use the word ‘moral’ with regards
>> to all this. A non-actualist term of ‘utilitarian’ would be a
>> little better.
> Perhaps, but I don’t think so.
>> Pragmatic and sensible would be even better.
> No. there is far too much ideological zeal, fanaticism and personal
> desperation to regard this nonsense as ‘pragmatic and sensible’.
> Let’s look at some facts:
> Richard is insane. He has a severe and incurable psychotic disorder
> of unknown aetiology. He describes a condition that you personally
> have never glimpsed. (And I can tell from your writings that you have
> no clue what it entails; you are simply a liar if you say otherwise).
> Yet you apparently covet Richard’s condition so much that, without
> knowing a damn thing about it, you are already willing to abandon the
> love of your wife, family, friends, and even your unborn children. [...].
> [emphasis added].

First, I will summarise his ‘Tue Oct 05, 2004’ post in the third-person (plus correct some technical details) in a tabulated form for easy reference:

1. Your older sibling – referred to as ‘[No. 64]’ and ‘bro’ by you – stated that no such thing (as actualism’s goal, of radical ‘self’-immolation, which extinguishes the entire psyche completely and permanently) had happened to anyone but Richard.
2. He asserted that because Richard was a unique case (so far, in 2004, of course) there was no way of knowing for certain whether that resident identity’s ‘self’-immolation was caused by the actualism method.
3. He further asserted that because Richard was a unique case (so far, in 2004, of course) there was no way of knowing for certain whether both the actualism method and the outcome (i.e., the outcome of the actualism method) were both products of some unknown pathology.
4. He opined that the fact nobody else had effected the experiential change Richard underwent, in spite of many years of practising Richard’s recommended method with the utmost dedication, somewhat increased the likelihood that Richard’s condition was (to some extent at least) a product of a unique? / rare? / somewhat uncommon? pathology.
5. He proposed that certain features of the resident identity’s experiences prior to an actual freedom from the human condition – e.g., ‘His’ spiritual catatonia/ mystical catalepsy, ‘His’ apotheosised experience of being ‘The Parousia’, the apotheosised Knowledge that ‘He’ had been selected by The Absolute for a special mission, experientially knowing ‘he’ had pressed an irrevocable ‘self’-destruct button – all suggested that the resident identity circa 1981-1992 was in the grip of a pathological process which eventually brought about ‘his’ demise.
6. Although he did not know for sure/ did not pretend to know for sure, he did know, however, that when someone says actualism ‘works’ for them it certainly does not ‘work’ for them in the way it worked for feeling-being ‘Richard’.

Note well how the very basis of what ‘[No. 64] reckons’ and/or what ‘My bro has argued’ is stressed by him several times over ... to wit: (1.) that no such thing had happened to anyone but Richard; (2. & 3.) that Richard was unique; (4.) that nobody else had effected the experiential change Richard underwent; (5.) that a specific contributory element was that eleven-year period of the institutionalised insanity known as spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment (1981-1992) which was not, of course, the case for any of the subscribers to the ‘Topica’ list.

And I draw attention to the very basis of your sibling’s qualified-and-conditioned scenario (qualified as in his ‘no way of knowing for certain’ and his ‘to some extent at least’ codicils and conditioned by his ‘I don’t know for sure’ and his ‘I don’t pretend to know for sure’ caveats) because the epoch-changing events of late 2009/ early 2010 – whereupon a handful of daring pioneers joined me here in Terra Actualis, each in turn having gladly effected an identical pivotal event/ definitive moment of seamless transition (by virtue of the newly-opened-in-human-consciousness ‘direct route’ which obviated travelling the institutionalised insanity way) as had occurred for the trailblazer in an abandoned cow-paddock some eighteen-odd years earlier in late 1992 – demonstrably revealed that very basis, of his off-the-wall scenario, to have been null and void all along.

In other words: were he to be writing to this forum nowadays (since late 2009/ early 2010) he would be obliged to strip-out the very basis on which that October 2004 post of his was premised – leaving nothing but a few qualified-and-conditioned and, thus, vacuous absurdities on the screen as he was even wrong about the one item he declared to be ‘certainly’ the case (summarised in Point № 6)  ̶  which stripping-out, of course, you could have done yourself, for your own benefit if nothing else, after the epoch-changing events of late 2009/ early 2010.

Put simply: his premise has no basis in fact; his entire ‘argument’ stemmed from an official diagnosis by professionals in the field (i.e., accredited psychiatrists), that Richard has a severe and incurable (thus ‘chronic’) psychotic disorder, and your sibling’s ‘of unknown aetiology’ addendum is something he made up (aetiology= the cause or origin of a disease or disorder as determined by medical diagnosis) because the cause of being actually free from the human condition – i.e., in psychiatric terminology: being ‘depersonalised’ (sans identity in toto), ‘derealised’ (sans ‘real-world’/’reality’ altogether), ‘alexithymic’ (sans entire affective faculty), ‘anhedonic’ (sans hedonic pleasure & pain, as in, hedonic-tone non-existent) – is not at all unknown. In fact, his ‘argument’ is almost too silly for words because, if an actual freedom from the human condition were to have been ‘of unknown aetiology’, I would never have gone public in the first place.

To explain what your bro was even wrong about in Point № 6 (which also applies in Points № 1-5 as well): the actualism method – enjoying and appreciating being alive/ being here each moment again – is not, in and of itself, the vital factor which operates dynamically (and especially so at the pivotal event/ definitive moment whereupon the seamless transition occurs) so as to ensure the identity within will go blessedly into oblivion, simultaneously manumitting its host body, in a cheerful and thus willing act of altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice at the end of the wide and wondrous path (nowadays by virtue the ‘direct-route’ thereat) to an actual freedom from the human condition.

In short (and to put in your bro’s way of wording): ‘self’-immolation is not caused by the method/ the method is not the cause of ‘self’-immolation.

So where he asserts, for example, that: ‘there is no way of knowing for certain whether your ‘self’-immolation was caused by your method, or whether both the method and the outcome [i.e., the outcome of the method] were both products of some unknown pathology’ (and as summarised in Points №  2 & 3 as well) what he is really doing, as is typical of the modern-day’s post-modernists and their ilk, is ‘framing the narrative’, by ‘defining the parameters of discussion’ with a faux-dichotomy wherein an either-or (or an either-and-or) option, which excludes the actual cause (in this case, ‘pure intent’, of course), is triumphantly presented in a take-it-or-leave-it fait-accompli fashion.

Thus in Point № 6, where your bro asseverates (and eliding his ‘of course...go right ahead’ smart-aleckry): ‘However [...], when someone says actualism [i.e., the actualism method]  ‘works’ for them, it certainly does not ‘work’ for them in the way it worked for you’ he is so wrong that it would take days, if not weeks, to scrape all the egg of his smirkingly-triumphant face (were he capable of comprehending these explanatory words that is) inasmuch anyone enjoying and appreciating being alive/ being here, each moment again, is indeed able to say that actualism (i.e., the actualism method) ‘works’ for them in the way it ‘worked’ for the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago. (Else I would not be commending it – the reports/ descriptions/ explanations I share with my fellow human beings are, typically, field-tested accounts of that which has worked to deliver the goods) – but such pragmatism may be but an alien concept in the mind of a narrative-spinner).

Speaking of spinners-of-narrative (and, thence, of vacuous absurdities) and bearing in mind that this is all about what the epithet ‘Richardism’ means to you – (viz.: ‘Richard’s psychic / psychological transformations had not been the result of his practice’ but, rather, the other way around in that ‘he had been in the grip of an irresistible pathological process beyond his control’ which ‘he had rationalised in a messianic way’ insofar as the ‘pathological state’ had been ‘rebranded as ‘an actual freedom from the human condition’ and had better be described as ‘Richardism") – I will draw attention to the following email.

Viz.:

> # 129xx
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:51:41 -0000
> To: actualfreedom@yahoogroups.com
> From: [Respondent]
> Subject: Re: New direction for the list: aye yet again :)What Say Ye?

> > [Respondent] wrote:
> > > richard.actualfreedom no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > [Respondent] wrote:
> > > > (Oddly, for all my talk of ‘crazy’, ‘insane’, and what-not [...].
> > > > 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...).
> > > 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 (#9619)?
> > > [quote]: ‘(...) 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
...’. [endquote].
> > Yes. A highly developed capacity for scorn and ridicule, seldom re-
> > strained by a tender heart / conscience. *I can see aspects of this*
> > in both my own mode of attack and what I’ve been attacking.
> > All very interesting, actually. [emphases added].
> > Regards,
> > [No. 4]
> >

I will also draw attention to the following as it expands quite considerably upon the above brief description.

Viz.:

> #198xx
> From: [Respondent]
> To: actualfreedom@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 25 June 2015, 11:31
> Subject: Re: [No. 4]’s Notes 1

> [...]. My father – like Jesus ;-) -- was good. One of my brothers
> was good too. Not in a pious / soppy / do-gooder way; he was
> just kind-hearted, not inclined to hurt people, more inclined to
> help and protect. I was six years younger; he looked after me and
> taught me a lot of things. The other brother, referred to in
> passing earlier, was a different package altogether: harsh, cruel,
> sarcastic, callous, inclined to mock and torment and ridicule,
> inclined to stir up trouble in very inventive ways... and was
> seemingly devoid of remorse. He had had no respect for
> anything good and decent. If any one held anything in high
> regard or had tender feelings toward any one or anything,
> he’d find ways to sully it somehow
. He had an amazing intellect,
> but he was heartless and narcissistic. To my father he was a
> mystery and a source of much perplexity and sadness. I think my
> mother somehow managed to blind herself to this, even though
> she was basically good-natured herself. She made things worse
> by overvaluing his ‘cleverness’
, either not seeing or not
> acknowledging the other aspects of his character
.
> I grew up with a personality that was somewhere between the two,
> but with an emotional centre that was much more toward the ‘good’
> end of the spectrum. I loved and respected my father. In my earliest
> years I admired him a lot too (and it saddened me to eventually
> grow out of that, as kids eventually do). At heart, I felt I was
> like him and my ‘good’ brother. [...].
>[emphases added].

Yet despite you having known this all along, the character traits of ‘my bro’ and/or ‘[No. 64]’ that is, the following email of yours, posted nearly nine years after his ‘Tue Oct 05, 2004’ post, shows how the epoch-changing events of late 2009/ early 2010 – when that handful of daring pioneers (by virtue of the ‘direct route’) demonstrably exposed the very basis of your sibling’s off-the-wall scenario to have been null and void from the get-go – did nothing to dislodge those deeply-implanted beliefs about what the epithet ‘Richardism’ means to you (viz.: ‘Richard’s psychic / psychological transformations had not been the result of his practice’ but, rather, the other way around in that ‘he had been in the grip of an irresistible pathological process beyond his control’ which ‘he had rationalised in a messianic way’ insofar as the ‘pathological state’ had been ‘rebranded as ‘an actual freedom from the human condition’ and had better be described as ‘Richardism’’).

Viz.:

> #137xx
> Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 07:59:23 -0000
> To: actualfreedom@yahoogroups.com
> From: [Respondent Sockpuppet ‘WP’]
> Subject: Re: discussion mode vs practice mode

>> [...]. For so many years now I’ve been banging on about finding
>> much of value in (what’s called) actualism. But in order to really
>> be an actualist, to practice actualism, to embrace actualism all the
>> way, you have to be able to persuade yourself that Richard really
>> is that perfection personified, the absolute best that is humanly
>> possible. And there’s just no way in the world that I can do that.
>> [...]. It’s all or none. And it seems to me that ‘all’ will never,
>> ever be possible. So the only way out of this shit for me is
>> to have nothing to do with ‘actualism’, with Richard, or with
>> ‘Richardism’, to reject the whole paradigm altogether
, and yet
>> to still pursue the things I’ve found valuable in it all along.
>> Don’t know who I’m writing to here.... just trying to clarify my
>> own thinking and justifying myself at the same time. Just don’t
>> see any other viable option though.
>>[emphasis added].

Furthermore, you even have other people believing in your sibling’s vacuous absurdities – most notably, Someone Uniquely Recognisable By Her Inglish, of course – who wrote, in support (five days after your above post), as follows.

Viz.:

> #139xx
> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:24:23 -0000
> To: actualfreedom@yahoogroups.com
> From: [Respondent No. 6 Sockpuppet ‘MJ’]
> Subject: Re: Clarification

>> [...]. The burden of proof is on Richard and he is avoiding,
>> turning away, moving back from all of such issues and offering
>> unconvincing deflecting arguments. this is what makes [No. 4]
>> come back to this forum again and yet again
, he has been
>> around for a while. (...). This is about *ideology of Richardism*
>> and fighting against his brand of reasoning which is apparent
>> to some
and not so apparent to others.
>>[emphases added].

If I might ask? Are you planning on informing her that actual freedom is indeed ‘the real deal’ – so that she can, finally, begin taking the first of the necessary steps towards becoming that ‘happiest person on this earth’ she speaks of there – and thus begin undoing at least some of the damage you have done as per that ‘history of animosity toward actualism’ you freely acknowledged earlier when expressing your ‘more personal affective analog’ in your opening paragraph?

*

Now, all of the above brings this detailed accounting – prompted by your ‘pretty crazy’ heads-up – back to the outright weirdity of that ‘only kidding’ exchange of yours, re-presented here from much further above, wherein No. 15 had alluded to all those deeply-implanted absurdities (as in what the epithet ‘Richardism’ means to you) as ‘actualism-as-dogma’.

Viz

• [Respondent No. 15]: ‘I know much of what I write below will be familiar (...). But in writing all of this, I am hoping you can crack the shell of actualism-as-dogma and read this with a fresh set of eyes. (...) it was only when Richard came along that someone figured out how to find a way to unlock and live what the PCE brought but glimpses of. And Richard has taken great pains to clearly explain what he did, and provide that knowledge all for us to learn from... if we have the eyes to see it. To read it. To apply it in our own lives, and prove it for ourselves. I say all that because if we can’t recognise the opportunity here... as being something quite unique in all of human history ... then we are going to continue to waste this precious opportunity’.
• [Respondent]: ‘Ah, you see, now you’re veered off into Richardism (again), and that’s exactly what I wanted [to] avoid.
Only kidding :-)’.
[emphases added]. ~ (Message № 197xx; 20 June 2015).

Thus where [No. 15] says ‘it was only when Richard came along that someone figured out how to find a way to unlock and live what the PCE brought but glimpses of’, and how ‘Richard has taken great pains to clearly explain what he did and provide that knowledge all for us to learn from’, what you saw, with that vacuous ‘arse-about cause-and-effect’ absurdity percolating through your mind, was that [No. 15] had veered off ‘into Richardism (again)’ – inasmuch what he was reading about and applying would not result in him being able to ‘unlock and live what the PCE brought but glimpses of’ because, your bro had argued, ‘first came a pathological process and then came the method to rationalise it as a voluntary process’ – which was exactly what you had ‘wanted to avoid’ upon coming back to ‘this arena’ (as you termed it, in Message № 197xx, whilst sucking-up to Claudiu-the-Moderator with your ‘you/we are the only ones who are even close to understanding’ glad-handing) as your latest plan is to have a feel-good aim, instead, and use ‘feeling good’ as a guide to whether or not you are on track, to that idiosyncratic aim of yours, via any means other than the actualism method.

Thus, you are not only ‘pretty crazy’ but quite disingenuous as well (in regards the express purpose of this forum), eh?

*

Apart from all that (and returning to the relatively-trivial-to-you opening paragraph): what a lot of confected fuss that is, anyway, about something so simple, and so conducive to interpersonal peace and harmony – on the familial-kinship level (family, sept, clan, moiety, tribe, race), on the local-regional level (parish, shire, district, county, province), on the settlement-municipal level (hamlet, village, town, city, metropolis), on the res publica-body politic level (state, nation, republic, commonwealth, dominion, country), on the cosmopolitan-global level (international, intercontinental, transnational, world-wide), and, more pertinently, on the courting-mating  level (connubiality, conjugality,  marriage, partnership, relationship) – that any civil-minded person, civic-minded polity or marital counsellor would surely endorse whole-heartedly, as to be going about one’s everyday/ workaday life with a general feeling of well-being (a.k.a. ‘feeling good’) for as much as is humanly possible.

At its most basic: it is nice to feel good (whereas feeling bad is not nice).

RESPONDENT: The other aspect is more substantial. I’m dealing with the legacy of a strong and long-standing aversion to narcissistic hedonism. I’ve seen at close quarters (family member) the consequences of putting one’s own enjoyment and interests first and foremost, without much moral feeling and/or respect for moral principles to minimise the impact on others, and without an active connection to pure intent.

RICHARD: This other aspect of your phantasy distinction is not at all ‘substantial’ (let alone ‘more’ so) as it is, instead, a maligning-by-association of the words and writings of actualism/ actual freedom – with the self-gratifying mind-games which that self-absorbed and decidedly anti-actualist ‘bro’ of yours got-away with, in what reads like an indulgent if not doting household for decades (as per Message № 198xx et el.); mind-games such as imprinting those vacuous absurdities in your mind and watching them lodge there all these years – as nowhere on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is the slightest trace to be seen anywhere whatsoever, amongst any of those millions of freely available words and writings, of either promoting and/or promulgating a ‘narcissistic hedonism’ or promoting and/or promulgating being so by ‘putting one’s own enjoyment and interests first and foremost’ (let alone promoting and/or promulgating being so ‘without much [...] respect for moral principles to minimise the impact on others’ either) be it with or without an intimate connection betwixt the pristine-purity of an actual innocence and the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté (i.e., pure intent).

On the contrary, what is promoted and/or promulgated on the web site is enjoying and appreciating being alive/ being here each moment again – that is, despite the normal vicissitudes of life – by establishing a general feeling of well-being (a.k.a. ‘feeling good’), as a bottom line of experiencing and, thereby, all the while agreeably complying with the legal laws and observing the social protocols (i.e., the many and various customs, traditions, conventions, values, principles, morals, ethics, codes, observances, etiquettes, niceties, formalities, ceremonies, rituals, and so on, as observed in many and various ways in the many and various countries around the world).

Moreover, as a central aim in all the above is the fellowship regard of an actual intimacy whereby it is impossible to not like one’s fellow human being – and given that the means to the end are no different than that end (other than affectively for the one, in the meanwhile, and actually for the other, upon the end) – then any phantasy talk about having to minimise ‘the impact on others’ is patently preposterous, as well, as to maximise ‘the impact on others’ is to facilitate a global spread of peace and harmony.

RESPONDENT: A lot of experience of this kind [narcissistic hedonism] has made me averse to the idea of using ‘feeling good’ per se as a reliable guide to anything genuinely worthwhile ...

RICHARD: Over the years I have spoken at length with quite a variety of personal and/ or communal specialists in the field (be they a counsellor/ a therapist, a psychologist/ a psychotherapist, a psychiatrist/ a psychoanalyst, a doctor/ a practitioner, a sociologist/ a social scientist, a lawyer/ a solicitor, a teacher/ a professor, a politician/ a legislator, a senior public/ civil servant, and so on) and they have each in their own way both affirmed and endorsed various iterations of the basic proposition that it would certainly be conducive to personal/ interpersonal peace and harmony (i.e., something ‘genuinely worthwhile’ indeed) were all citizens – both children and adults, of any age/ era, sex/ gender, class/ caste, ethnicity/ race, culture/ society and country/ nation – to be going about their everyday/ workaday life with a general feeling of well-being (a.k.a. ‘feeling good’), per se, for as much as is humanly possible.

Interestingly enough, not a single one amongst that variety of professional peoples has ever transmogrified those various iterations of that very simple proposition into it being an advocacy of ‘narcissistic hedonism’ for all and sundry.

(But, then again, none of them were generating phantasy distinctions).

More to the point, however, is the fact that ‘the idea of using ‘feeling good’ per se as a reliable guide’ to something is not a specific feature of actualism practice (more on the ‘reliable guide’ topic further below) as the primary reason for going about one’s everyday/ workaday life ‘feeling good’ is because, quite simply, as it feels good to be feeling good (i.e., it ‘feels good’, as a pleasant hedonic-tone, to be ‘feeling good’ affectively) – and as it feels bad to be feeling bad (i.e., it ‘feels bad’, as an unpleasant hedonic-tone, to be ‘feeling bad’ affectively) – then the ongoing enjoyment and appreciation of being alive/ of being here, each moment again, is pleasantly facilitated in a most propitious (= favourable, auspicious, opportune) manner.

The only way in which ‘feeling good’ (and, progressively/ incrementally, then ‘feeling happy and harmless’ and, thereafter, then ‘feeling excellent’ and, thus, ‘feeling perfect’) could possibly be said to be a ‘reliable guide’ is in it being indicative of staying on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition (whereas ‘feeling bad’ is indicative of straying off the way).

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘The wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and the slightest diminishment of such felicity/ innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently wandered off the way. One is thus soon back on track ... and all because of every-day events (...)’. (Richard, This Moment of Being Alive).

RESPONDENT: ...[A lot of experience of this kind [narcissistic hedonism] has made me averse to the idea of using ‘feeling good’ per se as a reliable guide to anything genuinely worthwhile ...], let alone as a reliable guide to the ultimate benefit for all humankind.

RICHARD: It is, of course, a no-brainer (to utilise a colloquialism as truisms can be so trite at times) that ‘narcissistic hedonism’ is not a reliable guide to the ultimate benefit for all humankind.

(It is, however, a reliable guide when it comes to detecting phantasy distinctions).

On the topic of what really is the ‘reliable guide’, to that which actually is ‘genuinely worthwhile’, please be advised that variations on the theme of the following block of text feature at various places on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) there is sufficient information available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site to establish a prima-facie case worthy of further investigation (...). In other words: what one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written. Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path’. [emphasis added]. (../richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf98.htm#24Aug05).

In short: the only ‘reliable guide to the ultimate benefit for all humankind’ is the PCE, pure and simple, and nothing else.

RESPONDENT: And when the expression ‘feeling good’ is accompanied by expressions like ‘come what may,’ – which emphasises its unconditionality but also its amoral quality – it triggers a feeling of aversion.

RICHARD: The following are a couple of representative examples of that ‘come what may’ expression.

Viz.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Feelings can be ‘minimised’ by brute force, e.g. repression, denial, avoidance and distraction but what is the sensible way to do it?’

• [Richard]: ‘By getting into the habit – humans are very adept at habituation – of feeling felicitous/ innocuous come-what-may ... nothing, but nothing, is worth losing felicity/ innocuity in order to get malicious and/or sorrowful about. It is all very, very simple’. [emphasis added]. (../richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf84.htm#27Apr05).

*

• [Richard]: ‘Perhaps the following summary of the way the actualism method works in practice may be of assistance:

1. Activate sincerity so as to make possible a pure intent to bring about peace and harmony sooner rather than later.
2. Set the standard of experiencing, each moment again, as feeling felicitous/ innocuous to whatever degree humanly possible come-what-may.
3. Where felicity/ innocuity is not occurring find out why not.
4. Seeing the silliness at having those felicitous/ innocuous feelings be usurped, by either the negative or positive feelings, for whatever reason that might be automatically restores felicity/ innocuity.
5. Repeated occurrences of the same reason for felicity/ innocuity loss alerts pre-recognition of impending dissipation which enables pre-emption and ensures a more persistent felicity/ innocuity through habituation.
6. Habitual felicity/ innocuity, and its concomitant enjoyment and appreciation, facilitates naïve sensuosity ... a consistent state of wide-eyed wonder, amazement, marvel, and delight.
7. That naiveté, in conjunction with felicitous/ innocuous sensuosity, being the nearest a ‘self’ can come to innocence, allows the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to the infinitude this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is to operate more and more freely.
8. With this intrinsic benignity and benevolence, which has nothing to do with ‘me’ and ‘my’ doings, freely operating one is the experiencing of what is happening ... and the magical fairy-tale-like paradise, which this verdant and azure earth actually is, is sweetly apparent in all its scintillating brilliance.
9. But refrain from possessing it and making it your own ... or else ‘twill vanish as softly as it appeared’. [emphasis added]. (../richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf118.htm#16Jun06).

Apart from somehow overlooking the innocuous/ innocuity aspect (i.e., the harmless/ harmlessness aspect) of feeling good and/ or feeling felicitous and/ or feeling excellent and/ or feeling perfect – without which overlooking that ‘feeling of aversion’ is unlikely to be triggered – the fact that this ‘amoral quality’ can only safely come about per favour fellowship regard (as already referenced in the now much further above foot-noted quote from Message № 19576, regarding its default status, when actually selfless, due to an actual intimacy thus prevailing), is what reveals this to be but a phantasy distinction.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘... with that involuntary fellowship regard of an actual intimacy operating, come-what-may, acting in a mutually beneficial way is the status-in-quo (the complete absence of any self-centricity whichsoever ensures equity and parity be paramount)’. [emphases added]. ~ (Message № 19576).

RESPONDENT: Hence my desire to contextualise ‘feeling good’ in a way that allows me to be wholly and unreservedly on board with it.

RICHARD: Ahh ... it has obviously eluded your notice, then, that had you not first of all de-contextualised what the term ‘feeling good’ (a.k.a. a general feeling of well-being) refers to in actualism-lingo – meaning, of course, what it refers to in that ‘common vocabulary’ you avoid so as to ‘emphasise distinctions’ in order to be able to ‘stand apart somewhat’ and thus not ‘be seen as an uncritical follower’  – there would have been no need to re-contextualise it in a way that allows you to ‘be wholly and unreservedly on board with it’, eh?

Here it is, again, at its most basic: it is nice to feel good (whereas feeling bad is not nice).

Many years ago, now, I was sitting out to the side of my cave-site on a steep hillside, in the rain-forested hinterland to the north-west of where my dwelling is currently located, conversing with someone known to me from my art-college days – we had met-up on the Indian sub-continent a year or so before and had travelled together up into the foothills of the Himalayas (staying for a few months on a ridge about ten kilometres above Almora, Uttarakhand, known as Kasar Devi after a 2nd Century temple situated there) where many a deep and meaningful discussion had taken place (about life, the cosmos, and what it was to be spiritually enlightened/ mystically awakened, as he had been a spiritual-seeker of many years standing) with some profound experiences happening for him, thereof, including a three-day peak experience which settled into an unmistakable ASC thereafter – when all-of-a-sudden he stopped mid-sentence and, looking at me with head tilted quizzically, asked: ‘Why would you want to feel good all the time’?

Quite frankly, I sat there in near-astonishment, for a moment, before answering with what probably sounded to him somewhat tautologous: ‘Because it feels good to feel good’, and then adding, upon seeing him looking askance as if at listening to a simpleton, ‘whereas feeling bad doesn’t feel good, it feels bad; feeling good doesn’t feel bad, it feels good’. And, furthermore, for good measure: ‘It really is as simple as that ... and, as feeling good is a nice feeling to be feeling, all of the time, why would you want to feel bad instead’?

To this very day, thirty years hence, it is still somewhat astounding that there be so many who do not grasp this simple fact which the naïve boy from the farm had embraced whole-heartedly.

RESPONDENT: So the basic concerns underlying the distinction above are valid, but ...

RICHARD: I will interject mid-sentence so as to introduce what a dictionary has to say about the pivotal word in the above portion of that idiosyncratic ‘So...’ conclusion (an adverbial ‘so’ = therefore, thus, consequently, accordingly, for that reason/ for those reasons, as a result, then, ergo, hence, thence, whence) to your rather eccentric way of ‘considering this distinction’ – whilst ‘holding it up to closer scrutiny’ and ‘trying to ascertain whether there’s (still) any real substance to it’ (to ‘this distinction’ that is) – before ‘finding two things’ (i.e., those ‘basic underlying concerns’ which evoked that questionable distinction in the first place).

Viz.:

• valid (adj.): 1. well grounded; just: ‘valid objection’; 2. producing the desired results; efficacious: ‘valid methods’; 3. having legal force; effective or binding: ‘valid title’; 4. (logic) a. containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: ‘a valid argument’; b. correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: ‘a valid conclusion’; 5. (archaic) of sound health; robust; (n.): validity, validness; (adv.): validly; (synonyms): sound, cogent, convincing: these adjectives describe assertions, arguments, conclusions, reasons, or intellectual processes that are persuasive because they are well founded; what is valid is based on or borne out by truth or fact or has legal force: ‘valid excuse’, ‘a valid claim’; what is sound is free from logical flaws or is based on valid reasoning: ‘a sound theory’, ‘sound principles’; something is both sound and compelling: ‘cogent testimony’, ‘a cogent explanation’; convincing implies the power to dispel doubt or overcome resistance or opposition: ‘convincing proof’. [French valide, from Old French, from Latin validus, ‘strong’, from valēre, ‘to be strong’]. ~ (American Heritage Dictionary).

As those ‘basic underlying concerns’ (which evoked that questionable distinction in the first place) have no factual validity then the following will surely be self-explanatory as to why ‘narrative’ reigns supreme in the abstract realm of post-modern relativity and the ilk (i.e., a creative mind-space where ‘truths’ not only trump facts but where facts are ‘truths’ to be dissed at will, or even whim, at times).

Viz.:

• [Respondent Sockpuppet ‘JW’ (a.k.a. ‘[No. 4]’, et al.); 31/01/2014]: ‘I associate the word ‘fact’ with ideas and statements about the world, not the world as it is beyond human discourse. And it’s these ideas and statements that are acts of interpretation / interpretation-dependent / inextricable from some kind of interpretative process’.

(dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5128959#_19_message_5175434).

For what it is worth: to live in a factless world – where nothing can be verified and where anything can be ‘valid’ (albeit within a relativistic-subjectivistic and/or solipsistic-panegoistic style epistemological raisonné and rationalé) – is beyond being just ‘pretty crazy’ as to be ‘crazy’ per se.

A classic example of ‘truths’ trumping facts, and thus actuality, is as follows from the ‘Dharma Overground’ forum wherein a phantom ‘Richard’ is declared to be [quote] ‘batshit insane’ [endquote] because of a relativistic-subjectivistic style epistemological asseveration (i.e., a ‘truth’) – namely: that it is [quote] ‘impossible to posit the existence of a physical body beyond its imputation’ [endquote] – whereby any thought, even, of an actual world existing ‘out there’ is complete bollocks (i.e., a 2nd ‘truth’ derived solely from the 1st ‘truth’).

Viz.:

• [Person ‘A’ quoting Person ‘B’; 02/10/2014] ‘(...). At root, Actualism is just another method of development but its view [sic] is wrong on so many levels that I can’t begin to list them. (...). I still can’t see how people haven’t figured out that Richard is batshit insane and that his entire model [sic] collapses under scrutiny. (...). It becomes impossible to posit the existence of a physical body beyond its imputation, so to continue to think that an ‘actual world’, existing ‘out there’ and apart from the rest of experience is seen to be complete ballocks’. [endquote].

(dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/view_message/5596543#_19_message_5596543).

I do find it cute that any body sans identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty experientially confirming (i.e., by direct, or immediate, unmediated experiencing and, thus, not via ratiocination and/or intuition) the actuality of the physical world – the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum – is hence declared ‘batshit insane’ by an illusory/ delusory identity (an affective/ psychic entity) who has no physical existence whatsoever.

Ain’t life grand!

*

RESPONDENT: ...[the basic concerns underlying the distinction above are valid], but the feeling of aversion to the idea of feeling-good-for-its-own-sake is not.

RICHARD: Okay then ... generally speaking, an ‘aversion’ to be going about one’s everyday/ workaday life with a general feeling of well-being (a.k.a. ‘feeling good’), for the remainder of one’s life, stems from a basic resentment at being alive – of being in the sublunar realm as a sensitive, affective and cognitive human being with people as-they-are in the world as-it-is – as is epitomised by such expressive plaints as ‘I didn’t ask to be born’ or ‘It’s all just a sick joke’ or ‘Life’s a bitch with death at the end’ and so on.

Furthermore, for such a sensitive, affective and cognitive human being who is also at all thoughtful about life, the universe and what it is to be living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, any such idea of ‘feeling-good-for-its-own-sake’ ̶ let alone enjoying and appreciating being able to experience that general feeling of well-being (as in, an engaged relishing of feeling good and, thus, intimately approving being alive/ being here, by virtue of that personal delectation of ‘feeling good’ per se) as well – is a betrayal of all what they fervently hold intellectually dear, about the world in general and the human race in particular, as for them life itself is, essentially, a bum rap when all is said and done.

It is pertinent to note, at this point, that the root cause of sorrow – and, hence, malice (e.g., the ‘basic resentment’ above) – is being forever locked-out of paradise.

The ‘unjust punishment’ component (or some such similar ‘unfair’ and/or ‘inequitable’ grievance) stems from an inchoate primeval feeling of having been somehow disenfranchised from a fabulous pre-historic ‘golden age’ (e.g., the ‘Garden of Eden’ theme) posited, via variations of a ‘Status Gratiae’ style supposition, upon a numinous/ pre-sinful ‘innocence’ – or even from similarly fabulated prepubescent ‘golden years’ (e.g., the ‘Glimpses of a Golden Childhood’ theme) posited, via variations of a ‘Tabula Rasa’ style supposition, upon a juvenile/ pre-sexual ‘innocence’ – which presupposes there really is a lost ‘innocence’ to be regained.

Yet innocence as a liveable actuality – an actual innocence (not the pseudo-innocence of those ‘State of Grace’ and ‘Blank Slate’ fabulations above) in other words – is entirely new to human experience/ human history.

Viz.:

November 16 1998

RESPONDENT № 21: (...). You claim that not many have found it [innocence] through religion.

RICHARD: I have claimed that ‘not many’ have found the massive delusion called ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’. There have been .000001 of the population according to a recent estimate. But no one has found innocence ... the ‘state of grace’ is a pseudo-innocence and not an actual innocence. I said that there is no one else, as far as I have been able to ascertain, to have discovered this actual innocence.

RESPONDENT № 21: Neither have many found it your way.

RICHARD: Nobody has found it my way. This is but a scant six years old ... and I only went public last year. (../richard/listbcorrespondence/listb21a.htm#16Nov98).

*

September 05 2004

RESPONDENT № 74: Richard, thanks for your extensive, though terse replies.

RICHARD: If you were to re-read the ‘first and foremost’ part of my response it may become more clear ... here is the crux of it:

• [Richard]: ‘... [in this actual world/ the sensate world] it is impossible to ever be hedonic (aka ‘a pleasure-seeker’) as the affective pleasure/ pain centre in the brain (as in the pleasure/ pain principle [i.e., the hedonic-tone complex] which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate) is null and void’.

To put that another way: the pristine perfection of the peerless purity of this actual world is impeccable (nothing ‘dirty’, so to speak, can get in) ... innocence is entirely new to human history. (../richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf74.htm#05Sep04).

Not surprisingly, the word innocent (as in, ‘harmless’, ‘innoxious’; ‘sinless’, ‘guiltless’; ‘artless’, ‘naive’; ‘simple’, &c.) stems from the same root as the word nocent (as in, ‘harmful’, ‘hurtful’, ‘injurious’; ‘guilty’, ‘criminal’, &c.) does ... namely: the Latin nocēns, nocent-, pres. part. of nocēre, ‘to harm’, ‘hurt’, ‘injure’, with the privative ‘in-‘ affixed as a prefix (i.e., in- + nocent).

Viz.:

• innocent (in′ȱ-sënt), a. and n. [‹ ME. innocent, innosent, ‹ OF. (also F.) innocent = It. innocente, ‹ L. innocen(t-)s, harmless, blameless, upright, disinterested, ‹ in- priv. + nocen(t-)s, ppr. of nocere, harm, hurt: see nocent]. ~ (Century Dictionary and Cyclopaedia).

• nocent (nō′sënt), a. and n. [‹ L. nocen(t-)s, ppr. of nocere, harm, hurt, injure]. I. a. 1. hurtful; mischievous; injurious; doing hurt: as, ‘nocent qualities’. 2. guilty; criminal; nocently (adv.): in a nocent manner; hurtfully; injuriously [rare]. ~ (Century Dictionary and Cyclopaedia).

RESPONDENT: I actually do have an active connection to pure intent ...

RICHARD: A rule-of-the-thumb check as to whether an ‘active connection’ currently manifesting is of the quality of the consummate nature inherent to pure intent, as reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, is by having the capacity at-that-moment to experientially ascertain, thereby, the verity of (for example) the following postscriptum.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: (...). P.S.: Also, briefly, in regards to your ‘armed rebellion’ observations: please be assured that not only will there be a ‘bloodless revolution’ (i.e., non-destructive) but it will be a non-disruptive transition as well – e.g., no food-shortages or fuel-shortages; trains, coaches, planes, ships, and so on, still operating, no loss of creature-comforts, &c., &c. – when the global spread of actual freedom/ actualism eventually takes place’. ~ (Message № 19801).

In other words, it is the consummate nature (i.e., the impeccable quality) of the overarching benevolence and benignity inherent to the utter purity of the pristine perfection welling ever-fresh as the vast and utter stillness of this universe’s spatial, temporal and material infinitude which informs, experientially, that a global spread of this completely original consciousness (a totally new way of being conscious) would, ipso facto, be both a non-destructive and non-disruptive transition.

Furthermore, there would also be the capacity at-that-moment to similarly apprehend, experientially, how it can now be said – as I happened to mention on a couple of occasions during the pre-arranged foregathering here, earlier this year, of half-a-dozen subscribers to this forum – that due to the overarching benevolence and benignity being demonstrably available immanently in human consciousness, nowadays both masculinely and femininely, and thus potentially accessible per favour naïveté regardless of spatial extension, there is no longer any reason why there cannot be a global spread of the already always existing peace-on-earth in our lifetimes. (More on this in those Footnotes № 5 and № 6).

In general, however, the usual way of verifying whether an ‘active connection’ currently manifesting is indeed pure intent as reported/ described/ explained is to find oneself being sincerely naïve, at the very least, if not to be naïveté itself (i.e., naïveté embodied as ‘me’) – and to be naïveté itself is to be the closest one can come to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’ (innocence is where ‘self’ is not) whereby one is both likeable and liking for herewith lies tenderness, sweetness and togetherness, closeness – whereupon one is walking through the world in a state of wide-eyed wonder and amazement, simply marvelling at the magnificence of this physical universe’s absoluteness and delighting in its beneficence, its largesse, as if a child again (guileless, artless, ingenuous, innocuous), with a blitheness and a gaiety yet with adult sensibilities (whereby the distinction betwixt being naïve and being gullible is readily separable), such that the likelihood of the magical fairy-tale-like paradise, which this verdant and azure planet actually is, becoming ever-so-sweetly apparent is almost always imminent.

RESPONDENT: ...(currently manifesting as a greater confidence in the effortless, benign intelligence that the PCE shows to be a genuinely viable alternative way-of-being) ...

RICHARD: Given you are now on record, with your unqualified sanctioning of [quote] ‘the effortless, benign intelligence that the PCE shows to be a genuinely viable alternative way-of-being’ [emphases added] as per the second item of four things you know to be true, is this now highly visible public acknowledgement – that what ‘the PCE shows’ is ipso facto ‘genuinely viable’ thereupon (such as to ‘know to be true’ by yourself, directly, for yourself) – to be taken as an annulment of that entire 30th Oct 2010 ‘Dharma Overground Forum’ thread you entitled ‘Alexithymia: Absence of Feelings or Blindness to Feelings’ wherein you publicly maligned ‘the PCE’ itself, by thereafter associating it with that psychiatric condition officially designated as being symptomatic for chronic psychotic disorders, over a nigh-on thirteen month period (until the 17th Nov 2011)?

Viz.: www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1201014

*

After all, what use is an ‘effortless, benign intelligence’ then – as a ‘genuinely viable alternative way-of-being’ that is – if that intelligence could not determine whether there be either an ‘Absence of Feelings’ or a ‘Blindness to Feelings’ even whilst thus being ...ha... not nocent sans nisus during those pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) you provided a bulleted summary of in that thread?

(Let alone upon an actual freedom from the human condition – where there are not only days, weeks, months and years but decades, even, to determine same in all manner of situations and circumstances, both leisurely and energetic, by both first person and third party means – but that is a topic most fruitfully discussed, of course, by the residents of Terra Actualis).

Otherwise, future titles for similar threads by anyone who felt duped could, for example, read as follows.

Viz.:

• [example only]: ‘Anosognosia: Absence of Ego or Blindness to Ego’ [end example].

• [example only]: ‘Anosognosia: Absence of Soul or Blindness to Soul’ [end example].

• [example only]: ‘Anosognosia: Absence of Identity or Blindness to Identity’ [end example].

Once such a cock-eyed precedent is established as ‘valid’ then the possibilities for maligning virtually anything (or anybody) are well-nigh endless, non?

Viz.:

• [example only]: ‘Anosognosia: Presence of Effortless Benign Intelligence or Blindness to Merciless Malign Intelligence’ [end example].

Of course, in this post-modern age of political correctness, all that focus on the negative (the ‘bad’ feelings) smacks of discrimination; an invocation of the equal opportunities spirit calls the positive (the ‘good’ feelings) into focus as well.

Viz.:

• [example only]: ‘Anosognosia: Absence of Empathy or Blindness to Empathy’ [end example].

• [example only]: ‘Anosognosia: Absence of Sympathy or Blindness to Sympathy’ [end example].

• [example only]: ‘Anosognosia: Absence of Compassion or Blindness to Compassion’ [end example].

• [example only]: ‘Anosognosia: Absence of Love or Blindness to Love’ [end example].

Besides which, the following exchange took place about five weeks before the ‘direct-route’ to the actual world – a direct route to the pristine lifestyle of the sensate world, as the very senses themselves, where flesh-and-blood bodies have been living all this while – was opened in human consciousness and a daring handful of pioneers (taking discerning heed of the second-last paragraph below) gladly took the vitalised opportunity to join me here in Terra Actualis.

Viz.:

November 19 2009
RICHARD:
(...). Look, there is no way that a scientific test (aka an objective experiment) can prove or disprove matters pertaining to consciousness (aka subjective experience). I have written about this before:

RESPONDENT № 66: What exactly has happened will only be revealed by measurement, no?

RICHARD: What exactly has happened is that both an illusion (the psychological self) and a delusion (the psychic self) no longer hold sway in this flesh and blood body ... in what way can objective brain scans reveal the absence of a subjective illusion/ delusion? [emphasis added]. Richard, Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 66, 13 April 2004

And the much-promoted ‘fear response test’ – based solely upon the sound of a gunshot being fired close to the ears (see Message № 6990) – can in no way either prove or disprove that a particular flesh and blood body is living what a PCE evidences to be an actuality for twenty four hours a day/ seven days of the week/ three hundred and sixty five days of the year. At best it could only be inconclusive [as the autonomic ‘startle response’ still operates]: there would then be demands for an aggression response test; then a nurture response test; then a desire response test.

Shall I keep going? For instance:

A love response test.
A hate response test.
A sorrow response test.
A compassion response test.

Want some more? For example:

A happiness response test.
A harmlessness response test.
A peace response test.
A harmony response test.

Shall I continue? For instance:

A depersonalisation response test.
A derealisation response test.
An alexithymia response test.
An anhedonia response test.

I could go on and on, of course, but instead I will leave you with this to consider: the identity in residence all those years ago did not demand objective proof but, with the confidence born of the certainty which PCE’s provide in abundance, just went blithely ahead and gladsomely vanished into oblivion (as in extinction) for the benefit of this body and that body and every body.

Just think about it: were ‘he’ not to have done that, but had instead sat about insisting on some scientific proof, this discussion forum would not exist, this conversation would not be taking place, and both the meaning-of-life and peace-on-earth would still remain yet to be discovered. ~ (Message № 7664).

RESPONDENT:... so I actually have no need to be wary of feeling good for its own sake.

RICHARD: Indeed not ... besides which ‘feeling good for its own sake’ – as in, ‘it feels good to be feeling good’, that is – is conducive to engendering more, and not less, of what is rather plaintively depicted by that ‘a good time was had by all’ catch phrase (popularised in 1937 as the title of a book of poems by Ms. Stevie Smith) ... namely: a communal feeling of well-being (a.k.a., ‘community spirit’).

As in ‘the life and soul of the party’, for instance, there being nothing quite like a glum and/or grumpy party-pooper to cast a pall over festivities.

One of the very first things realised by the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body, all those years ago, was (per favour the indelibly-imprinted four-hour PCE of then-recent memorialisation) that the best thing ‘he’ could do for other people, at all times and in all places, was to cease forthwith being a miserable and malicious blighter, on whatever justifiable occasion it might be, and instead be someone always pleasant and thus engaging to be with, in all situations and circumstances, with the ultimate aim of having the overarching benevolence and benignity of the PCE become apparent, in the everyday/ workaday world, for evermore.

*

A further point to ponder: it must be patently obvious, surely, that there be a vast difference betwixt selfless caring (literally so, actually selfless, actually caring) and the self-centric caring of the real-world – that ubiquitous pathematic caring; that affective, sympathetic, empathetic feeling of caring/ of feeling cared for affectively, sympathetically, empathetically; that endearing feeling-caring of heart-felt solace and commiseration; that deeply-felt comforter and consoler of billions upon billions of feeling-beings – inasmuch as to affectively, sympathetically, empathetically care for and/or be cared for affectively, sympathetically, empathetically is to also be an enabler for, and a perpetuator of, those billions upon billions of feeling-beings, inclusive of your very own ‘being’ of course, to be keeping on, for ever and a day, being hurt, hurting, and hurtful.

Regards,
Richard.

Jul 5 2015

Re: [No. 4]’s Notes 1

RESPONDENT: “(...) In my personal experience: having “feeling good” as an aim -- and then trying to feel good -- sucks. But having an aim that does feel good, and then using “feeling good” as a guide to whether or not one is on track with that aim, doesn’t suck, and makes sense”.
I’ve been considering this distinction, holding it up to closer scrutiny, trying to ascertain whether there’s (still) any real substance to it. I’m finding two things.
The first is relatively trivial. I don’t like to be seen as an uncritical follower -- which in this case would be someone who’s making a religion out of shallow faux-felicity and false gaiety, and/or someone who’s given up his critical faculties to be a happy little sheep in a happy little flock, and/or someone who has betrayed his highest principles for the sake of a personal [whatever]. And since I’ve seen other people that way sometimes, it’s natural that others might well see me that way -- and I don’t like that. And one way to avoid that is to emphasise distinctions, to stand apart somewhat, to avoid common vocabulary, etc. And there’s a more personal affective analog to this social aspect: for someone who’s had a history of animosity toward actualism, to then unreservedly commit to feeling good, without caveat and without putting an individual stamp on it, is to... “give in”. Which is pretty crazy... but then, so am I.

RICHARD: Well, now you draw attention to it, a supportive profiling, as a matter of course, begins to coalesce ... and especially so as there is nothing ‘trivial’ about the above added-in paragraph (nor is it ‘relatively’ so either) as it is, rather, to still be massively maligning those innocent fellow human beings Richard, Vineeto and Peter – whose names you reducted, amalgamated/ homogenised and thus deindividualised as ‘RPV’ (starting with ‘P&V’ nigh on ten years ago), cynically mocked as ‘Ripeeto’ on more than a few occasions, and abstractly positioned as a phantasmagorical central bloc in an anosognosic-alexithymic actualism cult (recently reinvented above as a ‘religion’ comprising ‘a happy little flock’, with each ‘happy little sheep’ willy-nilly an ‘uncritical follower’ feeling a ‘shallow faux-felicity and false gaiety’ who, by having ‘given up his critical faculties’, has ‘betrayed his highest principles’ vis-à-vis ‘other people’ for ‘the sake of a personal [whatever]’ ) – plus Grace, Pamela, and any other similarly manumitted actualist, as well as all aspiratory manumitters (e.g., some of the active subscribers to this forum whom you are corresponding with) who are dedicatorily intent on an eventual global spread of the already always existing peace-on-earth, and yet all this maligning is solely for the sake of putting an animus-based egoistic ‘stamp’ upon what is evidentially a phantasy distinction.

*

RESPONDENT: No, I was not “still massively maligning” anyone with those words.

RICHARD: Au contraire ... the activity you engaged in was indeed to still be massively maligning all those persons, delineated above, “with those words” you typed out in that relatively-trivial-to-you opening paragraph – which relatively-trivial-to-you paragraph you nevertheless considered of such importance as to add it into your initial version half-an-hour later (which act of adding-in makes it particularly adversive) – and posted on a special-purpose forum designated specifically for engaged discussion about the totally new and utterly radical paradigm known as actualism (solely to distinguish it as the third alternative to both materialism and spiritualism) and which paradigm, you had pointedly reminded every forum participant only two days prior, was nothing other than [quote] “Richardism” [endquote] in your “only kidding” email to [No. 15].

There are no ‘ifs or buts’ about it: in that paragraph you distinctly wrote [quote] “which in this case” [endquote] and thereby left no doubt whatsoever as to whom those words – such as “religion” and “a happy little flock” for example – were referring as the words “in this case” refer to the ‘feeling good’ aspect of an actualist’s practice (i.e., the method) on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition (i.e., the goal).

Put differently, the words “in this case” clearly do not refer to your latest plan of having a feel-good aim (i.e., goal), instead, and of using ‘feeling good’ as a guide (i.e., the method) to whether or not you are on track, to that idiosyncratic aim (i.e., goal) of yours, via any means other than the actualism method (i.e., an actualist’s practice).

RESPONDENT: I was looking into my own impressions of what an always-happy person is like ...

RICHARD: In which case your own impressions are “massively maligning” impressions, then (i.e., quite in line with your “massively maligning” words), of those innocent fellow human beings Richard, Vineeto, Peter, Grace, Pamela, and any other similarly manumitted actualist, as nobody else fits that description (viz.: an “always-happy” person).

RESPONDENT: ...[I was] looking into my own feelings surrounding that, and ...

RICHARD: In which case your own feelings are “massively maligning” feelings, then (i.e., quite in line with your “massively maligning” impressions and your “massively maligning” words), which you feel about those innocent fellow human beings Richard, Vineeto, Peter, Grace, Pamela, and any other similarly manumitted actualist, as nobody else fits that description (viz.: an “always-happy” person).

RESPONDENT: ... and trying to understand my long-standing aversion to the idea of unconditional happiness ...

RICHARD: In which case your long-standing aversion is a “massively maligning” long-standing aversion, then (i.e., quite in line with your “massively maligning” feelings, your “massively maligning” impressions and your “massively maligning” words), to the “massively maligning” idea you have about how those innocent fellow human beings Richard, Vineeto, Peter, Grace, Pamela, and any other similarly manumitted actualist, live their lives as nobody else fits that description (viz.: an “always-happy” person).

RESPONDENT: ... because it has clearly been an obstacle to me even wanting to be, let alone succeeding in being, unconditionally happy myself (while remaining a self).

RICHARD: Well now, that is what comes of tenaciously holding-on to that “massively maligning” aversion to being an “always-happy” person (which long-standing aversion is quite in line with your “massively maligning” feelings, your “massively maligning” impressions and your “massively maligning” words), eh?

(Incidentally, the reason why ‘virtual freedom’ has its 99% distinguisher is because it is impossible to be an “always-happy” person whilst remaining a self).

And this holding-on is not something recent – the very kinds of aversions, feelings, impressions and thoughts (e.g., words), such as these are, go back over a decade now – as you first wrote to an actualism/ actual freedom forum in November 2003.

You have not all-of-sudden forgotten that “history of animosity toward actualism” you wrote about in that opening paragraph, have you?

RESPONDENT: Notice that I wrote “I have seen other people that way”.

RICHARD: Aye, I noticed that you wrote [quote] “And since I’ve seen other people that way sometimes, it’s natural that others might well see me that way -- and I don’t like that” [underlining added] wherein the words “I’ve seen...” are past tense, the words “others might well see...” are (potential) present tense and the words “I don’t like...” are (active) present tense.

It has got me beat how you can say “I don’t like that” – being seen as “a happy little sheep in a happy little flock” for instance – and yet assume that the subscribers to this forum do like being designated thataway (unless, of course, you are blind to the implications and ramifications your words have on others; i.e., anosognosic).

RESPONDENT: Note the tense. In no way is this recent attempt to explore my own impressions and feelings surrounding this issue a case of me “still” “massively maligning” any of the people you’ve mentioned.

RICHARD: It is almost beyond credibility that being held to account, for massively maligning all those peoples delineated further above, has reduced you to seizing onto and isolating the word ‘still’ so as to justify your recent massive malignment of them as being not a case of you still doing that very thing you are notorious for but is, instead, somehow a stand-alone incidence of same.

RESPONDENT: I’ll wait for a response from you on this before I even touch the rest ...

RICHARD: As you are labouring under the misapprehension I would be party to a long drawn-out (and, not to forget, factless) discussion with someone whose first reaction to being held to account, for massively maligning all those peoples delineated further above, is to seize upon and isolate one particular word, I herewith advise you to think again.

RESPONDENT: ... because I’d like to ascertain whether there’s a chance of resolving the simple and straightforward things first.

RICHARD: There is nothing “simple and straightforward” about seizing onto and isolating one particular word – such mind-games are, rather, ‘complex and bent’ things to do – because nowhere in any of your publicly-available words (at least those seen by me), since the last time you came a-trolling on this ‘Yahoo Groups’ forum, have you even mentioned any repudiation/ renunciation of that maligning and/or smearing, that defaming and/or vilifying, that ‘Bash Richard/ Trash Actualism’ modus operandi you are notorious for.

You do not come to this forum as a clean-skin – that “history of animosity toward actualism” you wrote about in your opening paragraph emphatically precludes that – and the days of me giving you the benefit-of-doubt are long gone.

Golly, I even advised you personally in writing (05 Sep 2006) how you had “used-up the last of your credibility”.

Viz.:

• [Richard to Respondent]: “(...). P.S.: You used-up the last of your credibility the previous time you were subscribed to this list and I, for one, am no longer going to pander to your tantrums (your word)”. (../richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf60j.htm#01Sep06).

So as to provide an open-for-all-time opportunity to regain credibility I will draw your attention to the following.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: “Furthermore, you even have other people believing in your sibling’s vacuous absurdities – most notably, S.U.R.B.H.I., of course:

For example:

> #10570
> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:58:11 -0000
> To: actualfreedom@yahoogroups.com
> From: [Respondent No. 6 Sockpuppet ‘MJ’]
> Subject: Re: setting the record straight
>> [Respondent No. 6 Sockpuppet ‘MJ’] wrote:
>> [...]
>> If ASC-cum-Actual Freedom was the real deal *I would have
>> been the happiest person on this earth* and would have
>> written and explained and demonstrated unabated about it.
>> *You cannot even fathom how much*. [emphases added].
>> [...]
>>

If I might ask? Are you planning on informing her that actual freedom is indeed “the real deal” – so that she can, finally, begin taking the first of the necessary steps towards becoming that “happiest person on this earth” she speaks of there – and thus begin undoing at least some of the damage you have done as per that “history of animosity toward actualism” you freely acknowledged earlier when expressing your “more personal affective analog” in your opening paragraph”? (Message 19928).

As you have had nigh-on twelve years (since November 2003 at least) to suss out whether or not an actual freedom from the human condition – as reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust web site – is “the real deal” it is not at all an unreasonable question to ask (and neither is its implied request to do so).

Besides which, were it to be otherwise for you then your recent advent on this special-purpose forum amounts to having slipped past the gate-keeper with honeyed words.

So, is it “the real deal” or not, No. 4?

Regards,
Richard.


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