Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘D’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’

with Correspondent No. 15


Continued from Mailing List ‘AF’ 16:

November 12 2009

Re: Peculiar Information # 5

RESPONDENT No.  14: I find some gaps in your Richards Résumé regard this.

RICHARD: Sure ... ‘tis only a résumé (a summary, an epitome) after all.

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).

RESPONDENT: Hi Richard. Thanks for posting this. It is great to see new writing from you. I’m not sure what your plans are to offer new writing ...

RICHARD: G’day No. 15,

It is a sub-domain (third-level) of the (second-level) domain name already registered for exclusive use by The Actual Freedom Trust. As such no additional registration fees are incurred (nor any extra hosting charges).

RESPONDENT: ... but something you may wish to consider is a fairly recent web development called ‘patronage’ or ‘micro patronage’ where readers can support the ongoing contributions to sites they’re interested in via one time or ongoing donations. openenlightenment.org uses PayPal and BuddhistGeeks uses InspirePay.com for this function.

RICHARD: Back in mid-1980, during the four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) which initiated the process resulting in an actual freedom (which indubitably informed such freedom to be entirely new to human experience), it was strikingly clear to me that the words and writings advising of and explicating this freedom would be, as befits its very nature, also actually free.

(Both an actual and virtual freedom from the human condition are priceless discoveries). Consequently, it pleases me immensely that the millions of words on The Actual Freedom Trust web site are available totally free of charge.

RESPONDENT: I would be happy to take part in such an actualist patronage program.

RICHARD: Whilst I appreciate your offer to take part in some actualist patronage programme I would, of course, prefer a more direct engagement in the actualist process itself.

*

RESPONDENT No. 6: If you will indulge my question: is it possible still to have actual intimacy, even if the partner (man/woman) is evidently inhibited by self and survival instincts?

RICHARD: Actual intimacy – no separation (no separative self whatsoever) cannot wax and wane/ come and go/ switch on and off here in this actual world (the world of the senses). Upon an actual freedom from the human condition an actual intimacy is the norm with every body and every thing regardless of whatever their or its current situation and circumstances might be.

(Some peoples have looked at me blankly upon being informed there is an actual intimacy with, say, an ashtray or a polystyrene cup or a pebble or whatever).

In terms of human sexuality, and due to its utter proximity, sexual congress sans identity/ affections is the exquisite experience of two flesh and blood bodies sensuously delighting in being sensually and sexually aroused.

(As there are no identities in actuality I actually interact only with flesh and blood bodies; at times this can be quite disconcerting, to say the least, for any identity feeling itself to be other than illusory).

RESPONDENT: Your comment about ‘As there are no identities in actuality I actually interact only with flesh and blood bodies’ – was extremely useful in detecting some slippery and subtle identification in my interactions with others.

RICHARD: Good ... (as I am never annoyed there is never any need for giving vent). Another poster offered their experience on it recently (Message X) when observing how an intuitive resistance to non-recognition as ‘me’ is even more powerful than the fear of engulfment.

My second wife would oft-times say to others how it was not always easy to live with me as ‘she’ was totally ignored (in ‘her’ view) by me. (Please note it is an impossibility to ignore anything at all which has no existence in actuality and how I do pay lip-service, just as I am now, to the apparent existence of any identity feeling itself to be real). What my second wife was really referring to is the total absence of any supportive identity rapport/ affective connection.

As this was amply corroborated by my third wife, it is a primary consideration when contemplating any potential man-woman type of association which comes into my purview (in my experience the ménage a trois provided what a ménage a deux cannot).

*

RICHARD to No. 6: Because it can take an incredible amount of willpower for a pulled-back or turned-away or closed-off or shut-down identity to override (psychosomatically) its bodily arousal, its body’s natural sexuality, the body’s sensual delight, that exquisite experience can continue until such over-riding succeeds in its quite perverse anti-intimacy aim and arousal diminishes, sexuality declines and sensual delight falls away to nought.

In short: although reciprocity is never needed there is, of course, a preference for sexual enjoyment and appreciation be mutual.

RESPONDENT: I was wondering about your use of these words ‘Because it can take an incredible amount of willpower for a pulled-back or turned-away or closed-off or shut-down identity ...’. I’m assuming you were referring to yourself?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: I’m curious about what subtleties these new phrases might mean – are there aspects to your experience that have changed recently ...

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: ... or have you found these new formulations offer a more clear or nuanced description?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: Also – and this question is a bit out of left field – do you experience any flickering or flashing or shimmering in the visual field while gazing at an otherwise still scene?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: I’ve only really been noticing this since I started paying attention to impermanence.

RICHARD: As there is no impermanence in actuality then it would be to your advantage to take a second look at whatever it is you are paying attention to.

RESPONDENT: It seems to me that this vibrational aspect of sensations comes and goes in a cyclic fashion. Sometimes I notice that everything is solid and marvellous and clear and the world seems buoyant and peaceful – and wonder if this is what my most solid memory of a PCE is based on.

RICHARD: As a PCE – the direct (unmediated) experience of actuality – is the immediate apprehension of infinitude (infinite space; eternal time; perdurable matter) and, thus, the absolute and utter permanence of the universe then it would also be to your advantage to take a second look at whatever it is your most solid memory is based upon.

RESPONDENT: However, if I pay attention to anything for too long the flashing/ flickering appears. Is that anything you’re familiar with?

RICHARD: Only in the months prior to the eleven years of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment (and, on occasion, during that period).

RESPONDENT: In case you’re wondering if there is a medical basis to it, I have explained it to an optometrist, had an eye exam and got the all clear.

RICHARD: Yes ... manifestations of that nature are more a feature of the affective faculty’s epiphenomenal psychic facility than anything else.

For instance I had flashing lights ‘zapping’ in front of my eyes; electrical bolts of lightning dazzling on the eyeballs; rushes of energy surging up through my diaphragm; pressure-pains in the base of the neck; intense tingling sensations on the surface of my skin; liquid sounds ‘gurgling’ through my brain; convulsive twitching of limbs; surges of power travelling up the spine and up over the back and the top of the head down to the forehead; a vivid blue light, an internal blue of rapturous bliss, behind the eyebrows; singing in my ears; an all-knowing cyclopean eye in the sky watching my every move and many, many other weird things.

I have been telepathic; I have been telemetric; I have accessed the ‘Akashic Record’; I have ... the list goes on and on.

They all amount to nothing in the end.

Regards Richard.

December 03 2009

Re: It is impossible to locate and destroy ‘I’

RESPONDENT: [...] Hi Richard I am really enjoying the unique learning opportunity your return to posting provides. Thanks for your earlier reply to me, it was very useful to confirm that impermanence is not part of actual experience.

RICHARD: Good ... it is one of the incongruities of life that the very permanence which peoples of a buddhistic persuasion have been seeking has been right under their noses – indeed closer than they can look – just here in space right now in time as form (matter as mass/ energy) all the while they sought it in a timeless and spaceless and formless realm.

I cannot remember precisely when first becoming cognisant of this but can recall often speaking of it, with many a chuckle, in late 1987/early 1988 at an outdoor table on my large balcony, under a gay umbrella, where I was prone to be holding court in those spiritually enlightened/ mystically awakened days.

(The cause for that merriment was the prodigious fact that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s greatest insight, that all existence sucks big-time and being born is the pits, made him blind to what lay under his very nose/ closer than he could look).

*

RESPONDENT No. 11: [...] I cannot seem to find any irregularities on a daily basis. Or even a weekly basis for that matter.

RICHARD: [...] P.S.: For what it is worth: only a person having had a frontal leucotome/a transorbital lobotomy could have no irregularities in mood on a daily basis/a weekly basis (and even then that would be questionable).

RESPONDENT: I had not previously considered irregularity of mood as a possibility sans the affective faculty.

RICHARD: A frontal leucotome/a transorbital lobotomy does not remove the affective faculty; it severs the nerve fibres connecting the frontal lobes to the thalamus and has a dulling/ dampening effect on mood; in some the effect of the severance was pronounced enough as to have a new word coined – alexithymia – so as to refer to the fact that, although the person concerned could not feel their affections, the affective faculty was still intact.

(Just like the words depersonalisation, derealisation and anhedonia, the word alexithymia is the only way in which the psychiatric profession can come to terms with what is actually beyond psychiatry; an actual freedom from the human condition, being outside of or beyond human nature, cannot be properly fitted under any classification anywhere along the entire sanity-insanity range as it is the third alternative to either sanity or insanity).

RESPONDENT: I had figured mood was entirely fuelled by the affective faculty.

RICHARD: Oh, it is indeed – a belief, for example, is an emotionally-backed thought/a passionally-held truth – and although faith/ hope, for instance, can provide for a buoyancy of mood a lack thereof can evince the obverse ranging from a flatness of mood (acceptance/ resignation) to the melancholic/ depressive moods (despair/ desolation).

RESPONDENT: I can see that mental energy is a separate thing. Working in a very cognitively demanding role I am accustomed to being mentally drained. Perhaps this is related?

RICHARD: A mental workout taken to an extreme can, just like its muscular counterpart, result in a weariness such as to be commonly called mentally drained.

RESPONDENT: Fluctuation in mood for me evokes an axis of irritable at one end and cheerful at the other.

RICHARD: Another axis can have, as already mentioned, melancholy at one end and buoyancy at the other. Feeling irritable, a mild form of anger, is more likely to be counterpoised by nonchalance – which can, in turn, give rise to the type of insouciance you report – as anger implies engagement (as in involvement/ entanglement).

Generally speaking, mood can be loosely categorised in three broad categories: the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings (such as love/ compassion and malice/ sorrow) and the happy/ harmless feelings (felicitous/ innocuous); as to be insouciant is to be carefree (and, thus, cheerful) the happy/ harmless feelings can be viewed, by the serious/ the pious, as being frivolous (and, thus, unconcerned/ uncaring).

It takes great daring to be happy/ harmless, at all times/ in all situations/ in every circumstance, in the face of entrenched societal disapproval.

However, as to dare to care is to care to dare then that great daring is thus fuelled by genuine concern for peace-on-earth as a living actuality.

RESPONDENT: Cheerfulness seems to be natural and spontaneous as long as there is energy.

Now that I am writing about 12 hours after I started this message, in pain with a sore shoulder the result of carrying a bulky Christmas tree home from a bus stop, I can see that my mood is flat without irritation or resentment, suggesting a separate axis for mood after all. Irritation is waiting in the wings but not assured. How does mood fluctuation manifest for you?

RICHARD: As moods, being affective in nature, have no existence in actuality there is nothing to be fluctuating/ have fluctuations.

It is all so simple here.

Regards, Richard.

Continued on Direct Route: No. 9

Continued from Direct Route: No. 9

February 16 2012

Re: Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 4

RESPONDENT No. 2: Richard says: I have no ego, self, or Self. I say: Richard has an ego, and a massive one at that. He also exhibits symptoms of PTSD, paranoia, grandiosity, hallucinations, bizarre rationalizations, a wild imagination, sociopathic and trying-to-hoodwink-the-laws behaviour, etc. and denial of all these, which are symptomatic of mental illness. And he exhibits normal symptoms of anger, gratitude, sexual desire, agony and tears, authority, etc. which are symptomatic of a functioning psyche.

RESPONDENT to No. 2: Thanks for openly stating your concerns. As a very interested observer in all this I appreciate all the information I can get at this point. I also think the community needs as much information in the open as possible. The secrecy surrounding actualism since its inception ...

RICHARD: G’day No. 15, As there is no such ‘secrecy surrounding actualism since its inception’ I am stepping in here, mid-sentence, so as to nip this notion of yours in the bud before it, too, becomes a factoid.

I will first draw your attention to a quote I copy-pasted into an email of mine posted several days ago which touches on what actually took place in the years immediately following upon the inception of actualism in late 1992. Vis.:

[Richard]: ‘Besides immediately knowing via direct apprehension, that this condition is both irrevocable and immutable, more than twelve years have elapsed, now, with nary a whiff of a hint of even a trace of a suggestion it could or would ever be or have been otherwise ... and I have been most relentless in my examination of myself. After all, I am going public with an outstanding, and outrageous, report that could – and should – set the squalid complacency of the religious, spiritual, mystical and metaphysical communities on their ears ... and after eleven years in the enlightened/awakened state I was determined to be ‘squeaky-clean’ before doing so. Five years without a single hitch satisfied me beyond any doubt whatsoever – not just beyond reasonable doubt – that this is that which is the answer to all the ills of humankind ... and I started publishing my experience’. (../richard/ listafcorrespondence/listaf25h.htm#05Jan05a).

As you will see, upon a re-read of that quote, that what you characterise as ‘the secrecy surrounding actualism since its inception’ is nothing more and nothing less than my relentless determination to be ‘squeaky-clean’ before going public (in 1997) with my experience.

Put simply: I had no interest whatsoever in leading my fellow human being astray by making public something so radical as actualism is without ensuring it faultlessly stood the ‘test of time’ first.

And, as I say in that quote, five years without a single hitch satisfied me beyond any doubt whatsoever – not just beyond reasonable doubt – that actualism is the answer to all the ills of humankind.

Incidentally, during that 5 years I did not even speak privately about it to anyone – other than to my second wife (Devika), of course, who had been intimately involved all throughout anyway, and my third wife (Grace) but even then only after 3 years had elapsed – for that exact-same reason as not speaking publicly about it.

And even when I did go public (on the world-wide-web in 1997) there was no such secrecy even then about actualism. There was a ‘feed-back facility’ included in that embryonic web-page and I responded to each and every email which came in.

At the same time I also subscribed to an online forum (‘Mailing List A’) as I was wanting to gather material for a second book – the first edition of ‘Richard’s Journal’ was already available when the webpage first went online – and gaining feed-back from an oppositional source, such as on that forum, was the optimum way of having myself write about aspects of actualism which would not otherwise occur to me to write about.

RESPONDENT to No. 2: ... and [the secrecy] now surrounding these accusations feels so much like this whole damned enterprise is a cult.

RICHARD: Given that the only secrecy is that with which those hearsay tales, about a phantom ‘Richard’ of passionate imagination, have been so clandestinely (privately) and unaccountably (pseudonymously) spread around does that feeling – of a ‘damned enterprise’ and of ‘a cult’ – still persist?

If so, then from whence its origin (as it is obviously not coming from actualism itself)?

RESPONDENT to No. 2: Personally I’m weighing 11 years of actualism practice and knowing that it works to a degree, against a slowly dawning realisation of the possibility (based on what I can observe alone) of much of what you say.

RICHARD: Again, from whence the source (of that ‘slowly dawning realisation’)?

And, from whence the source (of that ‘possibility’ of much of what Respondent No. 2 says)?

RESPONDENT to No. 2: So hard to know for sure though. I’ve been agonising over these doubts for days now.

RICHARD: Again, from whence the source (of that ‘agonising’)?

And, from whence the source (of those ‘doubts’)?

RESPONDENT to No. 2: So again, thanks for making this public knowledge so it can be addressed openly and properly.

RICHARD: Here is a question for you: why was it not addressed ‘openly and properly’ in the first place?

Do you realise it would still be clandestine (private) and unaccountable (pseudonymous) to this very day had I not flushed them out into the open?

RESPONDENT to No. 2: Cults are secretive ...

RICHARD: If I may ask? Is that where your notion of ‘the secrecy surrounding actualism since its inception’ came from?

(As in, the feeling you refer to above, about the secrecy ‘surrounding these accusations’, giving rise to that notion).

RESPONDENT to No. 2: ... and accusations are made in hushed whispers behind closed doors, responded to with threats and ostracism. Let’s see what comes of this.

RICHARD: Here is another question for you: what do you reckon would have ‘come of this’ had I not temporarily come out of my retirement from writing and flushed all three of them out into the open?

‘Tis an intriguing thought, non?

*

Now, as I am not inclined to keep on coming out of my retirement from writing, each and every time someone circulates some made-up stuff, there is a way to examine such stuff for yourself.

The following is an instance out of what you thanked No. 2 for (at the top of this email). Vis.:

[Respondent No. 2]: ‘And he exhibits normal symptoms of anger, gratitude, sexual desire, agony and tears (...)’. [endquote].

Now, as No. 2 has never met me in person his only reliable source of information about me is via my written word – be it either on The Actual Freedom Trust website or in my emails (such as this one) – just as is the situation for you. Therefore, as you read my written words/ remember having read my written words, ask yourself whether you, too, could emphatically state those things about me ... as a known fact.

Here they are, one at a time:

1. Can you emphatically state, as a known fact, that Richard ‘exhibits normal symptoms of anger’ via his written word?

2. Can you emphatically state, as a known fact, that Richard ‘exhibits normal symptoms of gratitude’ via his written word?

3. Can you emphatically state, as a known fact, that Richard ‘exhibits normal symptoms of sexual desire’ via his written word?

4. Can you emphatically state, as a known fact, that Richard ‘exhibits normal symptoms of agony’ via his written word?

5. Can you emphatically state, as a known fact, that Richard ‘exhibits normal symptoms of tears’ via his written word?

Do you see it for yourself (it is especially obvious in No. 5)?

So, whence the origin of No. 2’s emphatically stated ‘facts’, then?

Could it be those hearsay tales I have referred to on several occasions now?

*

How do you think a couple of grown men – mature adults – could be duped into (uncritically) passing-on such hearsay tales as being facts they personally *know* about Richard?

And I mean really think about it ... because they have both staked their reputation as critical thinkers upon this.

*

Lastly, that ‘agonising’ you have been putting yourself through ‘for days now’. Vis.:

[Respondent]: ‘So hard to know for sure though. I’ve been agonising over these doubts for days now.

[Richard]: ‘Again, from whence the source (of that ‘agonising’)?

And, from whence the source (of those ‘doubts’)?

Do you feel somewhat foolish now that you know what the source of your ‘agonising’, the source of your ‘doubts’, is (as in, nothing but hearsay tales)?

If so, then from whence their source (those hearsay tales)?

*

‘Tis such a simple matter, non?

Regards, Richard.

February 16 2012

Re: Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 4

G’day No. 15, As you live only a couple of hours drive away from where I am currently residing how about we meet up – you have already met both Vineeto and Grace previously – and share all your concerns in person?

This coming weekend would work fine for me; preferably Saturday (the 18th) as my Sunday afternoon is already booked.

Regards, Richard.

June 1 2013

Re: Few humble words from Justine

JUSTINE: Dear All, My respects to you All.

Auspiciousness and Peace to All.

1) This is Justine, whom Mr. Richard announced as actually free. [...snip...]

CO-RESPONDENT: Well done Justine, clearing away illusions is the way forward.

RICHARD: G’day No. 41, Your (unsolicited) congratulatory counsel/ guidance/ advice to Justine, stemming as it evidentially does from your publicly-expressed concern about his well-being in Message No. 13562, caught my eye whilst scrolling through the latest posts. (...) It was your [quote] ‘clearing away illusions’ [endquote] phrasing which particularly gained my attention as the impression conveyed by Justine’s above points numbered 1-to-12 is, rather, of illusions being added.

Starting with Point No. 1 above (‘This is Justine, whom Mr. Richard announced as actually free’): the following three publicly-posted emails from Justine – his first three emails to the Direct Route mail-out list (which he sent at 11:34 AM and 2:54 PM and 6:24 PM on Wednesday the 13th of January 2010) – whereby he announced he became actually free at 3:30 AM on the 4th of January, 2010, will indubitably demonstrate this ‘illusions being added’ observation. [...snip...].

*

Please note he explicitly equates what had happened for him, nine days prior, with the reports both Vineeto and Peter had recently provided for publication. Quite obviously, then, it was Justine who announced himself as actually free and not Richard. And, just to drive that point home here is a follow-up email, also posted to the Direct Route mail-out list, which he sent the next day:

From: J. Koperumcholan
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 9:33 PM
To: Direct Route to Actual Freedom
Subject: Re:

[Justine]: [...] I will be glad to represent AF, on your behalf in this part of Asia, with your kind permission, guidance, and goodwill. [...].

Incidentally, that was the moment – the moment of reading that sentence – when I knew (without any decision having to be made) I would be going to India in the near future. [...snip...].

RESPONDENT: Hi Richard As your email arrived, I was in the process of composing an email to Justine asking if he was recanting that he experienced actual freedom on an ongoing basis, as it had always struck me as rather strange that he was struggling so while repeating time and time again that you had pronounced him actually free.

Thanks for setting the record straight that he pronounced himself actually free. That explains quite a bit. I had noted previously that the books he prepared made liberal use of your own words, so it’s of no surprise that he paraphrased Vineeto’s realisation [‘I have all the time in the world’] as you highlighted. [now snipped]

You mentioned recently that you can only confirm if someone is actually free in person. Having spent time with Justine in person, was it your impression that he was actually free, newly free or otherwise? Or did you perhaps reserve judgement and merely take his word at face value?

RICHARD: G’day No. 15, Unless I am actively involved, at the pivotal event/ the definitive moment of becoming (newly) free, not only can I only confirm somebody when in person, my being physically present also needs to be over an extended period and in as many different everyday settings and day-to-day situations/ circumstances as possible.

Even so, I do indeed take another’s word at face value as what lasting benefit could possibly be gained by fooling me when, in the final analysis, they would really only be befooling themself?

I wrote quite extensively about this in February last year. As that portion comes in the midst of a rather long email the crux of the relevant section is probably worth re-presenting here.

Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘You will find the following (written in December 2000 regarding any acknowledgement of another person’s assessment and/or claim of a virtual freedom) to be so self-evident it requires no further explanation. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘As I have already said, any acknowledgement is entirely up to that person (I decline to be a probity policeman) and if it be an inaccurate assessment – or a false claim – publicly made then such a fooling of others only makes a fool out of oneself (one’s suffering still goes on privately). Only a fool would fool oneself by trying to fool others ... ‘tis a fail-safe system’. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 18, 20 Dec 2000).

[endquote]. (Message 10949)

Plus, it would not be possible, surely, to consistently fake a total absence of ego-centricity/ self-centricity/ auto-centricity (i.e.: no ego/no self; no soul/no spirit; no guardian/no social identity) – let alone a total absence of affective feelings (no emotions/ passions/ affections at all), a total absence of pathetic temperament (no moods/ humors/ sentiments whatsoever), a total absence of hedonic-tone (no hedonistic pleasure or displeasure) and a total absence of flattened affect even – and yet also present complete contentment/ absolute fulfilment/ total satisfaction along with an utterly intimate disposition showing a generally cheerful character readily displaying a keen sense of humour, about life itself, twenty-four hours a day, day in and day out, for the remainder of one’s life.

(No need to mention being purity personified, of course, as all of the aforementioned are already of sufficient impossibility for a feeling-being to fake).

*

As you specifically enquire of my in-person impression of Justine I will direct you to what I wrote at the time (while in India) on the Direct Route mail-out list: (Direct Route, No. 4, 28 March 2010)

(Please bear in mind this is all new to human experience/human history (no precedent to go by) – hence my question(s) to him in Message No. 13623 – and the wealth of information being gleaned from the pioneers who dare adds to human knowledge).

Ha ... ‘tis the dawning of the age of actuality!

Regards, Richard.

June 24 2013

Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative

CLAUDIU to No. 4: FWIW I also thought [No. 3] was referring to the Surbhmeister. Even after reading your post about not having had offline communication with [No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)], I still thought your initial post was referring to the Surbhmeister. So after reading Richard’s post it did seem you were trying to pull a fast one. Then it turns out you were talking about [No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)] – ok, no problem. What this seems to show is that if there is a mistaken judgement it is quickly corrected. Of course if nobody were to have corrected it then it would remain... uncorrected. But that’s how it goes with anything. The matter of [No. 2]’s from-the-future post was also quickly corrected as soon as people engaged with it, for another example. (Message #14282)

RESPONDENT: Claudiu when you say that ‘when there is an error in judgement it is quickly corrected’ are you talking about an error in Richards judgement? Do you get the idea that Richard considers himself corrected? I can’t think of a single instance where Richard has backed down from a position he has taken.

CLAUDIU: Well he seemed to readily agree that there was a rational explanation for [No. 2]’s post with a later time stamp, for example. (see)

RESPONDENT: [No. 4], on the other hand, is open to correction and happily seems to admit when he is mistaken about a thing.

CLAUDIU: I agree it’s more pleasant to interact w/ someone who explicitly admits to being mistaken. Some examples of Richard doing so:

• [Richard]: [...].
• [Respondent]: [...].
• [Richard]: My mistake too [...]. [.../richard/listbcorrespondence/listb49.htm].

*

• [Richard]: [...].
• [Respondent]: [...].
• [Richard]: My mistake: [...]. [.../richard/listbcorrespondence/listb12r.htm].

*

• [Richard]: [...].
• [Respondent]: [...].
• [Richard]: My mistake [...]. [.../sundry/commonobjections/CRO06a.htm].

(Message #14297)

RESPONDENT to Claudiu: Being mistaken about typing the wrong word is hardly the same as admitting a wild accusation was way off the mark ...

RICHARD: G’day No. 15, As I neither made a ‘wild accusation’ nor was ‘way off the mark’ there is nothing of that nature for me to be ‘admitting’ to.

What follows is the sequence, in full, with message headers for easy reference. You will see that in Andrew’s response to [No. 5] he made particular reference to the ‘open mouthed smiley face in the thread title’ which [No. 5] had placed there previously.

Following on from this you will see that in [No. 3]’s response to Andrew he, in a similar fashion, made particular reference to the ‘suggestive header ‘popcorn anyone’’ which [No. 5] had titled the thread with.

You will also see that, in his first paragraph, [No. 3] provided a clear warning to ‘gullible readers, who may be left with the impression that s/he is just merely watching somekind of freak show (aka fun soapy)’ so as to alert them to the fact that there is a real-life drama unfolding on the computer screens (and not some TV ‘soapy’).

Indeed, that is the very reason for my ‘just a quick note’ to [No. 3] (#14174) wherein I made it abundantly clear that it was indeed a real-life drama (aka melodrama) and provided textual evidence which demonstrates the primary reasons as to why it is all taking place before our eyes as we all type out our respective words ... namely: love and its failure to deliver the goods (with its resultant blaming of the ‘love-object’, in lieu of facing the fact that love itself failed, along with its attendant resentment/ hatred and/or jealousy/ envy and/or bitterness/ vindictiveness and so on and so forth).

You will also see that, in his second paragraph, [No. 3] then assures Andrew that, when [No. 2], [No. 4] and [No. 25] come to find out how they have ‘been used’ by the ... um ... the lead actress in this real-life melodrama, she may get ‘first hand experience’ of what it is like to be in a position such as she put me into with ‘all kind of baseless allegations’.

Given that it is this second paragraph which [No. 4] responded to it is well worth taking a really good look at just whom it is that [No. 4] referred to, anonymously, as ‘the person you’re suspecting’ – that is, of having put me into that position ‘when she made up all that stuff’/ with ‘all kind of baseless allegations’ about my private life – instead of typing-out the name of that very person (which he would normally do had it been someone other than the person whose name must not be spoken).

Vis.:

#141xx
From: Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:06 am
Subject: Re: Popcorn anyone? :D

• [Respondent No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: [...]. STILL lost the plot i see. so much for your actualism hehehe

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

#141xx
From: Andrew
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:53 pm
Subject: Re: Popcorn anyone? :D

• Andrew: What plot? I’m just living my life and enjoying it.

Lovely stuff this awesome universe – seems to be running itself. Fancy that. You haven’t proven to be any sort of diversion at all, it’s been an excellent few days, been on the edge of something quite new.

Re-engaged the warp-drives and feeling quite free.

Decided to play in whatever way appeals to me; your a consenting adult bunyip, so it’s a fair deal yeah? so anyway, Humanbeingadickhead, (Your name is a proper noun so I’ve capitalised it see?) I hope you are enjoying yourself, I know I am. I only wish you had something intelligent or funny to say; it’s not that I’m ungrateful for what you come up with, it’s just hard to believe you aren’t sitting there with a frown on your face writing it. It’s pretty sad.

Hence me thinking you must be pretty sad. But hey, I’m probably just projecting that from the poor quality of the prose and wit; there is a open mouthed smiley face in the thread title after all.. who would lie about there only moment of being alive? You must really be, like, so happy. Good for you, pumkin. :D

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

#141xx
From: Respondent No. 3
Date: Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:11 pm
Subject: Re: Popcorn anyone? :D

• [Respondent No. 3]: Don’t be deluded by this seemingly soooo suggestive header ‘popcorn anyone’ such as to draw the attention of gullible readers, who may be left with the impression that s/he is just merely watching somekind of freak show (aka fun soapy).

I can assure you when [No. 2], [No. 4] and [No. 25] come to find out how they have been used (to be actors in this [quote: ‘fun soapy’], that she may get first hand experience of what it is like to be in a position, the like Richard found himself when all kind of baseless allegations were made with regard to the way he conducts his private life.

And...frankly i’m looking forward to material that indeed will disclose the malicious intentions that this women (who obviously operates from a long kept grudge to Richard) had in mind when she made up all that stuff.

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

#141xx
From: Respondent No. 4
Date: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:42 am
Subject: Re: Popcorn anyone? :D

• [Respondent No. 4]: G’day No. 3. Not sure what you’ve got in mind here, but I can tell you for sure, you’re barking up the wrong tree with this one. None of what I’ve had to say about actualism or actualists or anything associated with it has come either directly or indirectly from the person you’re suspecting. I can pretty confidently state the same about [No. 2]. As for [No. 25], same story, but he’ll speak for himself.

PS. Something I’ve been realising over the last week or so is that much of the controversy that surrounds actualism and Richard is a battle of control for the narrative, rather than control of the facts. There are indeed some cases where the facts themselves are in dispute, but very often it’s more a case of what they mean, what significance they have, and that varies widely according to who’s telling the story and why. More on that later.

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

Do you now see, for yourself with your own eyes, that I neither made a ‘wild accusation’ nor was ‘way off the mark’?

Please re-read my June 21, 2013, 8:25 am email to [No. 25] (#14239), before responding (if you do respond, that is, as there is no need to), and be sure to follow-up the link provided there after having carefully considered *all* my words. (Message 14239)

RESPONDENT to Claudiu: ... but I guess its something, and in fairness none of Richard’s detractors other than Jack have ever admitted being wrong about their wild accusations either (that I can recall).

RICHARD: Ha ... in view of the difficulty [No. 4] currently has in regards to happily acknowledging the summary numbered 2, of my prior demonstration numbered 1-6 from a couple of weeks ago (so that he at least makes a start on doing what he said he would do) you may want to revise that, perhaps hasty, assessment of yours.

RESPONDENT to Claudiu: So clearly I’m holding Richard to a much higher standard than [No. 37 (Sock-Puppet ‘A’)], [No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)], [No. 6], [No. 11], [No. 12 (Actual Freedom List) etc. Whether that’s reasonable to do I’m not entirely sure, to be honest.

RICHARD: I have oft-times said that the only occasions I am ever circumspect (other than normal privacy matters, regarding personal security and physical safety, of course) is when speaking publicly about other people. Otherwise, I am always up-front and out-in-the-open with my words and writing – I say what I mean and mean what I say – such that nobody has to read between the lines/ look for any hidden agenda and can thereby take my words, literally, at face value.

Given this, it is obvious, surely, that were I to make a mistake/to be in error it is in my interests to acknowledge such/rectify such so that my fellow human beings can continue to take my words and writings at face value, eh?

As compared to this (for instance):

#142xx
From: Respondent No. 4
Date: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:47 am
Subject: Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative

• [Rick]: [...]. Her testimony wouldn’t be worth a lick in a courtroom.

• [Respondent No. 4]: Yeah, but life isn’t a courtroom... and I don’t subscribe to the black and white legalistic notion ‘falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus’ or whatever it is. [...].

The Latin phrase ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (lit. ‘false in one, false in all’) refers to a legal principle whereby a witness who wilfully falsifies one matter is not credible on any matter without corroboration.

Given that [No. 4], in his own words, does not subscribe to that then why would you take his word for anything (no matter how earnestly presented) without corroboration?

Speaking personally, I always provide quotes, links, URLs, &c., so as to corroborate what I say, in order that nobody has to take my word for anything.

Regards, Richard.

Aug 5, 2013

Re: affective vibes are real

SRID: i thought i’d write a post on this [affective vibes] especially as there have recently been a discussion on vibes in this list. during the evening of day 8 (some days ago), i informed richard that i don’t experientially see how feelings can travel from one body to another without involving cues (e.g.: body language). richard was understandably stern in explaining psychic [correction: ‘affective’] vibes and questioning my understanding, as the whole milieu effect depends on it.

yesterday i had a first-hand experiential understanding of psychic [correction: ‘affective’] vibes as i could acknowledge it while it was happening. if you have been following Jon’s report, you should already know that yesterday afternoon he went through a period of disillusionment following a lunch conversation with richard/peter/vineeto. we both had decided to stroll back to the lodge and meet again for coffee about an hour later. Jon’s room is within a few walking steps from mine.

i was sitting in my room, researching ‘windows mobile phones’ on my computer (that afternoon, richard and i were talking about phones) and all of sudden i began to experience the feeling of embarrasment ... specifically, embarrassed in front of the yahoo list members. for the first minute i glossed over this feeling, while being busy doing the online research, but then it caught my full attention and i remember thinking something along the lines of ‘wait, why am i feeling this embarrassment when i had not done anything to lead to it; in fact, i wasn’t even thinking/feeling anything related to it, just doing some online research’. as there was no preceding trigger to that feeling, and it wasn’t pertaining to my experiences, it became obvious that it must be coming from someone else.

i noted down the time, about 4:30pm. Jon knocked on my door at about 5:10pm and we were planning to go out for a cup of coffee. i asked him what he was feeling at around 4:30pm ... and, as he was trying to recall it, i asked him ‘was it fear?’ and waited only a second to ask again specifically ‘was it embarrassment?’. he answered yes (to that effect). as we were walking to a coffee shop, i remember becoming fascinated at the whole subject of psychic [correction: ‘affective’] vibes (how the brain does it, etc.). while having a chat about Jon’s issue over coffee, i asked what the embarrassment was about (i.e., who was involved). as i sensed Jon was getting comfortable talking about the issue, i directly asked him if the embarrassment involved list members. he said yes.

so not only were i feeling the feeling (embarrassment), but also the contents of it (list members)! psychic [correction: ‘affective’] vibes are indeed real, and they are quite an interesting topic in itself. (vibes also relate to altruism and ‘doing it for the benefit this body, that body, every body’, but that is a topic for another day).(#14983)

RESPONDENT: Srid, Are you 100% certain that you hadn’t thought once about the yahoo list at all after strolling back to the lodge with Jon? What did you speak about on the way to the lodge? Never thought of something you’ve done that you were embarrassed about after the days learnings and events with the company you kept?

You’ve written to the list over a long period of time... there’s a lot of material in your mind that you could have been embarrassed about. It seems quite reasonable that you may have remembered something you have done, some pattern you’ve engaged in or opinion you’ve presented yourself in the past on the list that you had been given an opportunity to reflect on after your discussions with Richard and Vineeto. Was it really all about Jon that day? Surely you’re looking at your own life, your own behaviour, your own opinions as you spend time with Richard and Vineeto. Typically a feeling of embarrassment can go on in the background without any conscious awareness of why or how it’s happening until one applies concentration and diligently figures out how it arose. What beliefs were triggered etc, first at a surface level and then a deeper belief that was the trigger of the feeling.

I think you do yourself a disservice by taking the conclusion that your feelings are not your own. It’s dangerous territory, projection. Taken as a new pattern for behaviour, you’ll start looking for psychic [correction: ‘affective’] vibes everywhere ... this is called magical thinking. Next time please take a bit more time and look back at what could have possibly triggered such a feeling during the past few hours. When a feeling is going on that you can’t explain, it’s not because it’s from someone else. It’s because it happened a while ago and the conscious thoughts associated with triggering the feeling have passed from your mind, and are forgotten for the moment. You need to trace back to remember them. The feeling just keeps going. It has its own momentum. It doesn’t need the original thought to keep going. It can pass away complete for a while and then come back at full strength at the slightest prompt. So had you felt any embarrassment earlier in the day?

SRID: hi No. 15, if you were to read what i wrote – ‘there was no preceding trigger to that feeling, and it wasn’t pertaining to my experiences’ – you would already know the answer to all of your i-know-what-you-experienced-better-than-you-do type of questions above. to spell it out further,

* there was no preceding trigger to that feeling, be it in the last hour or that entire day.

* the feeling wasn’t pertaining to my (triggered or recalled) experiences that day.

* the feeling arouse ‘out of the blue’ while i was fully engaged in doing something totally irrelevant.

also note that it does not matter whether i had sussed out the possibility of [Jonathan] experiencing embarrassment earlier or not, as the out-of-the-blue feeling was experienced (at 4:30pm) as if i was feeling embarrassed ... even though i never recalled, let alone relived/felt, my past incidents of embarrassment. let me ask you directly: do you deny the existence of affective vibes? if not, why go into such bizarre length as to claim to know better of what another person actually experienced? (#14955)

RESPONDENT: Science does not recognise what you are attributing that feeling to.

RICHARD: G’day No. 15, That is such a waste of a sentence – given the very raison d’être of this forum – and especially so on account of a post of mine, earlier in the month, specifically worded so as to ‘nip in the bud’ and/or ‘head off at the pass’ that very meme you have resorted to in a pathetic attempt to remain in situ as a ‘being’ (currently via practising some form of a 20th century version of a sectarian buddhistic lineage known for its theravadin aspirations).

Vis.:

#14733
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Tue Jul 2, 2013 10:25 am
Subject: Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative

• [Richard to No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: [...] And, whilst at it, I may as well nip in the bud an as yet nascent meme, currently peeking coyly out from where it presently lies buried, amidst a whole mess of pottage, but surely about to soon burst forth into full bloom in follow-up posts of similar ilk.

Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) what I share with my fellow human, being experiential, is not at all scientifical ...’. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 74f, 11 February 2006).

• [Richard]: ‘This is an apt place to point out, right up-front and out-in-the open, that what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential and not scientifical’. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 116, 13 May 2006).

• [Richard]: ‘Moreover, as I am an actualist, and not a scientist, my reports/ descriptions/ explanations are experiential, not scientifical ...’. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 78a, 12 December 2004).

• [Richard]: ‘Oh? Yet another person insisting I be a laboratory guinea-pig for them (even though I say again and again that actualism is experiential and not scientifical), eh?’ (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 78b, 5 January 2005a).

• [Richard]: ‘I mention this because actualism, being experiential, is not a matter for science ... nor are my reports/ descriptions/ explanations scientifical’. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 89c, 10 September 2005).

Now, having headed that off at the pass ... back to the latest of your ever-changing theses (per favour either ‘YouTube’ or the ‘BBC’) on how to preserve the status-quo. [...]. (List D, No. 5, 2 July 2013)

The colloquialism ‘vibes’ gained currency in the nineteen-sixties – as in ‘I can feel your pain’ (i.e., emotional pain) or ‘I can feel your anger’ and so on – and has thus had at least fifty years of usage all around the globe.

RESPONDENT: And not for lack of testing either.

RICHARD: You do realise, do you not, that unless you cite some peer-reviewed scientific articles, wherein said ‘testing’ of affective vibes has been duly published for the edification of the scientific community, those words of yours will just continue to sit there bearing a remarkable resemblance to empty rhetoric?

RESPONDENT: The burden of proof, therefore, is upon you.

RICHARD: As colloquial usage of the word ‘vibration’ has been recorded as far back as 114 years ago – thus having acceptance over more than a few generations of peoples – any such ‘burden of proof’ would fall, rather, on those who are in denial of a feeling-being’s intuitive ability to (affectively) feel another feeling-being’s affections.

RESPONDENT: But hey, if you’d rather take the easy path and assume your own feelings originate from others and not yourself, ultimately it’s your business. This fellow traveller is just advising differently in my experience is all.

RICHARD: As your experience is that of being a family man – with a spouse and children – it is quite mind-boggling to comprehend how you are hereby publicly claiming to have never felt either your spouse’s love for you (especially obvious during the courting/ honeymoon period) or your children’s love for their father.

It is as if you are living in some sort of (affective) equivalent of an astronaut’s/ cosmonaut’s full-body spacesuit ... hermetically sealed, so to speak, and isolated from any and all other feeling-being’s affections.

‘Tis for reasons such as this women can get so frustrated and/or exasperated, at times, by the male of the species.

RESPONDENT: The suggestion has been given. Do with it as you wish. On the plus side if you’re right James Randi has a million bucks waiting for you.

RICHARD: The intuitive ability of any (non-insensitive) feeling-being to affectively feel another feeling-being’s affections does not fall under the purview of either the James Randi Education Foundation or any other organisation of similar ilk as their interest lies in debunking [quote] ‘psychics, medical frauds, televangelists and others’ [endquote] via offering a million dollar reward for proof of [quote] ‘occult, psychic or supernatural powers’ [endquote].

RESPONDENT: Re: denying affective vibes I don’t deny aliens either... Just haven’t seen any evidence for them yet.

RICHARD: Ha ... what you are ‘just advising’ fellow travellers (further above) reminds me of the ‘Simon and Garfunkel’ hit of the 1960’s ‘I am a rock’. Apart from being damn’ good music, with exquisite lyrical over-tones, the lyrics speak well of more than just a few human being’s experience such as you describe.

For instance:

‘I am shielded in my armour;

Hiding in my room,

Safe within my womb,

I touch no one;

And no one touches me ...

I am a rock,

I am an island ...

And a rock feels no pain;

And an island never cries’.

Regards, Richard.

October 28 2013

Re: affective vibes are real

SRID: i thought i’d write a post on this [affective vibes] especially as there have recently been a discussion on vibes in this list. [...snip...]. if you have been following jon’s report, you should already know that yesterday afternoon he went through a period of disillusionment following a lunch conversation with richard/peter/vineeto. we both had decided to stroll back to the lodge and meet again for coffee about an hour later. jon’s room is within a few walking steps from mine.

i was sitting in my room, researching ‘windows mobile phones’ on my computer (that afternoon, richard and i were talking about phones) and all of sudden i began to experience the feeling of embarrasment ... specifically, embarrassed in front of the yahoo list members. for the first minute i glossed over this feeling, while being busy doing the online research, but then it caught my full attention and i remember thinking something along the lines of ‘wait, why am i feeling this embarrass- ment when i had not done anything to lead to it; in fact, i wasn’t even thinking/feeling anything related to it, just doing some online research’. as there was no preceding trigger to that feeling, and it wasn’t pertaining to my experiences, it became obvious that it must be coming from someone else.

i noted down the time, about 4:30pm.

Jon knocked on my door at about 5:10pm and we were planning to go out for a cup of coffee. i asked him what he was feeling at around 4:30pm ... and, as he was trying to recall it, i asked him ‘was it fear?’ and waited only a second to ask again specifically ‘was it embarrassment?’. he answered yes (to that effect). [...snip...]. (Message 14955)

RESPONDENT: Srid, Are you 100% certain that you hadn’t thought once about the yahoo list at all after strolling back to the lodge with Jon? What did you speak about on the way to the lodge? Never thought of something you’ve done that you were embarrassed about after the days learnings and events with the company you kept? [...snip...].

Next time please take a bit more time and look back at what could have possibly triggered such a feeling during the past few hours. When a feeling is going on that you can’t explain, it’s not because it’s from someone else. It’s because it happened a while ago and the conscious thoughts associated with triggering the feeling have passed from your mind, and are forgotten for the moment.

You need to trace back to remember them. The feeling just keeps going. It has its own momentum. It doesn’t need the original thought to keep going. It can pass away complete for a while and then come back at full strength at the slightest prompt.

So had you felt any embarrassment earlier in the day?

SRID: hi No. 15, if you were to read what i wrote – ‘there was no preceding trigger to that feeling, and it wasn’t pertaining to my experiences’ – you would already know the answer to all of your i-know-what-you-experienced-better-than-you-do type of questions above. [...snip...].

let me ask you directly: do you deny the existence of affective vibes? if not, why go into such bizarre length as to claim to know better of what another person actually experienced? (Message 14983)

RESPONDENT: Science does not recognise what you are attributing that feeling to.

RICHARD: G’day No. 15, That is such a waste of a sentence – given the very raison d’être of this forum – and especially so on account of a post of mine, earlier in the month, specifically worded so as to ‘nip in the bud’ and/or ‘head off at the pass’ that very meme [i.e., the invoking of ‘science’ in regards to experiential matters] you have resorted to in a pathetic attempt to remain in situ as a ‘being’ (currently via practising some form of a 20th century version of a sectarian buddhistic lineage known for its theravadin aspirations). (Message 15048)

RESPONDENT: Hi Richard Apologies for taking so long to reply. I was ill for a protracted period and am finally returning to a semblance of good health.

On top of that, I’ve gone down the rabbit hole with my investigations lately as a result of an enthusiasm to compare and contrast everything that was available to me. From the ‘direct path’ of awareness/ nondualism, to emptiness, to various flavours of buddhism, to actualism, to faux actualism and the faux PCE (i.e. AFfer practices). My view of reality has been on rotation every couple of days. That makes replying to emails a bit difficult. By the time I am ready to reply, I have been seeing the world through a different lens. Hahaha. It’s been good from an insight perspective, but it’s hard to comment on views outside the one currently taken when doing this type of thing.

Back to your email, I got the feeling we weren’t talking about the same thing here.

RICHARD: G’day No. 15, Regardless of that feeling you got we are indeed talking about the same thing ... to wit: science (specifically, the invoking of that ‘science does not recognise ...’ meme in regards to experiential matters) and affective vibes.

I have written about science vis-a-vis matters experiential on many occasions over the years ... and on this forum, too.

For instance (also re-posted, in part, in #14817):

#11018
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:26 am
Subject: Re: [...] about two types of Actual Freedom

[Respondent No. 2]: [...].
[Richard]: G’day No. 2, I have snipped-out your above attempts to comprehend how things operate in actuality as it is all quite simple here, where flesh-and-blood bodies are already living, when contrasted to what feeling-beings make of it. For instance: [...snip...].
As I said at the beginning, it is all quite simple, in actuality.

1. Feeling-beings have no existence in actuality.
2. Emotions and passions have no existence in actuality.
3. Affective vibes have no existence in actuality.
4. Psychic currents have no existence in actuality.
5. The ‘psychic network’ has no existence in actuality.
6. The psyche itself has no existence in actuality.
7. All of the above is an illusion.
8. Hence no scientific evidence for any of the above.
9. Paying lip-service to illusions is just that (lip-service).

Regards, Richard.

I really do not see any way to be more clear ... how can ‘science’ – no matter what way you define it – detect and/or measure illusions (i.e., that which ‘has no existence in actuality’)?

On a related matter ... here is a useful word to remember:

• scientism (n.): [...]; 2. excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques; (adj.): scientistic. (Oxford Dictionary).

• scientism (n.): [...]; 2. the belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry; (adj.): scientistic. (American Heritage Dictionary).

• scientism (n.): [...]; 2. the uncritical application of scientific or quasi-scientific methods to inappropriate fields of study or investigation; (adj.): scientistic. (Collins Dictionary).

• scientism (n.): [...]; 2. the belief that the principles and methods of the physical and biological sciences should be applied to other disciplines; 3. [...]; (adj.): scientistic. [1875-80]. (Webster’s College Dictionary).

• scientism (n.): [...]; 2. the belief that the assumptions and methods of the natural sciences are appropriate and essential to all other disciplines, including the humanities and the social sciences; 3. [...]; (adj.): scientistic. (The -Ologies & -Isms Dictionary).

• scientism (n.): [...]; 2. an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities); (adj.): scientistic. [1st known use: 1870]. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: I was referring to ‘extra sensory perception’, not just vibes.

RICHARD: As vibes, being affective by nature, are extrasensory (i.e., not of or pertaining to the senses) we are indeed talking about the same thing.

Vis.:

• extrasensory (adj.): derived by means other than the known senses. (Oxford Dictionary).

• extrasensory (adj.): being outside the normal range or bounds of the senses. (American Heritage Dictionary).

• extrasensory (adj.): of or relating to extrasensory perception [without the use of normal sensory channels]. (Collins Dictionary).

• extrasensory (adj.): [1930-35] outside one’s normal sense perception. (Webster’s College Dictionary).

• extrasensory (adj.): [1934] residing beyond or outside the ordinary senses. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

• extrasensory (adj.): without the use of hearing, seeing, touch, taste, and smell. (Cambridge Dictionary).

Furthermore, Srid made it unambiguously clear in that initial report of his (in #14955), which you first replied to, that he felt the affective vibe in question – namely, embarrassment – as per that Cambridge Dictionary definition (i.e., ‘without the use of hearing, seeing, touch, taste and smell’).

Vis.:

• [Srid]: ‘jon’s room is within a few walking steps from mine’ .

What we are *not* talking about is the ‘extra sensory perception’ (ESP) of psychics, mediums, occultists, and so forth, inasmuch all that preternatural/ supernatural stuff, such as telepathy, clairvoyance/ cryptaesthesia, psychokinesis/ telekinesis, clairaudience, psychometry, and so on and so forth, is most certainly not what the colloquialism ‘vibes’ – as made popular in the 1960’s – refers to.

RESPONDENT: My understanding of vibes is that they are only ever transmitted face to face.

RICHARD: Oh? Yet I made public the following description 14 years ago (in 1999) of a typical example of feeling another’s affective vibes when not in a face-to-face situation.

Vis.:

• [Alan]: We have also discussed the ‘vibes’ (...). I presume you consider these to fall within the realm of psychic powers?
• [Richard]: No, emotional ‘vibes’ are fairly obvious as in you can feel another’s fear, anger, love and so on when in physical proximity. (...).
• [Alan]: It would be easy to prove, or disprove, by setting up an experiment with one person blindfolded, not able to hear and not able to smell (as pheromones could be involved) and introducing others radiating love, anger etc into their presence.
I am not aware of any research which has been done on ‘vibes’ – are you?
• [Richard]: I have not looked for any research as it has been so obvious from personal experience and in discussing with others.
For example: returning from a walk abroad one is in good spirits ... yet as one goes to open the front door to one’s house a feeling of unease, of disquietude may be felt. Upon entering the supposed safety and sanctity of one’s own home one finds one’s husband and/or wife and/or mother and/or father and/or brother and/or sister fuming and ready and willing to give one a serve for either deserved or undeserved wrongs that one may or may not have committed.
One felt it through a closed door. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, Alan a, 25 February 1999).

Although I couched that response of mine in generic terms it was drawn from a real-life situation (circa 1980-81) for the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago when ‘he’ was returning home from a pleasant stroll over the meadows and through some forest-land near ‘his’ ex-farmhouse (and made all the more obvious to ‘him’ as ‘his’ wife had been in a good mood when ‘he’ had set-off for ‘his’ walk several hours earlier).

RESPONDENT: When not face to face, I own my own feelings rather than project them onto others ...

RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body circa 1980-81 was projecting ‘his’ feelings, through the closed door of ‘his’ ex-farmhouse, then ‘he’ would have felt a feeling of joie de vivre, just prior to opening the front door of ‘his’ home, despite the at-that-moment-unknown presence of a fuming wife on the other side (pacing up and down, in the front room, ready and willing to give ‘him’ an unwarranted serve for imagined slights she generated as her earlier good mood spiralled into negativity in ‘his’ absence).

It was by virtue of being observant thataway, above, that ‘he’ was then able, over the ensuing years, to become aware not only of many more instances of similar ilk but of the far-deeper, longer-ranging and more-powerful ‘psychic currents’/ psychic energies’ (which we have not even mentioned in this exchange) that lie underneath/beyond the affective vibes.

For instance:

• [Richard]: I went to a semi-final football match once in Melbourne, Australia, in my early twenties, just for the experience and sat amongst 80,000+ peoples: although I did not know which team was which, and was not at all concerned one way or the other which won the game, I was able to *feel* the intensity of ‘the roar of the crowd’ coming in waves and thus can recall the attraction to such events. [emphasis added].
The last occasion I was ever to *feel* such an intensity of emotion was in New Delhi, India, at the funeral procession of the recently deceased political leader Ms. Indira Gandhi: after waiting for ages amongst a dense crowd of peoples for the motorcade to drive by I was able to ascertain, long before visually sighting it over the heads of others, its imminent arrival by a rising wave of *passion* in the crowds lining the motorway way to my right as it approached, reaching a crescendo as it passed by to the immediate front, and ebbing away as it passed on to my left. [emphases added].
It was only then that I was finally able to fully understand how mob violence can so easily take over in otherwise decent, intelligent human beings. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 68c, 31 May 2005).

I could provide more examples but maybe that will do for now.

RESPONDENT: ... so it is impossible of me to conceive of experiencing a feeling and then ascribing that to someone else in any kind of direct ‘that was their feeling’ sense.

RICHARD: Nobody is asking you to [quote] ‘conceive’ [endquote] of anything because vibes, being affective, are experiential and, thus, not conceptive (i.e., cognitive) in their nature.

In other words (affective) vibes are something you (affectively) feel – as in, intuitively, viscerally – emanating extrasensorially from another feeling-being.

(Incidentally, a feeling-being’s feelings – the emotions, passions and calentures which make-up their very ‘being’ – are extrasensorial in and of themselves ... as in, not of or pertaining to hearing, seeing, touching, tasting and smelling).

RESPONDENT: I have replied further below.

RICHARD: As this email is already quite lengthy I will leave any response I may make, to those further replies of yours, for another post.

*

However, I will take this opportunity to stress just how vital this matter of affective vibes is, in regards to successful actualism practice, as it is central to the ‘feeling harmless’ aspect of such practice (as in the phrase ‘happy and harmless’ that is) inasmuch the whole point is the minimisation – and the ultimate cessation via extirpation of ‘being’ itself – of any malicious feelings and, thus, their resultant transmission as affective vibes throughout the human psyche.

I have, of course, written of this before ... for instance:

• [Respondent No. 39]: I do understand about minimising both the good and bad feelings as I have been down the road of trying to eliminate the bad while maximising the good. It is clear that I can’t have the good without the bad.
• [Richard]: Exactly ... and thus the way is cleared to be launched upon the adventure of a lifetime.
• [Respondent]: (...). A wise person sits on the shore and watches the ebb and flow of these waves.
• [Richard]: Yet, as ‘a wise person’ is a being residing inside the body, irregardless of whether the being persuades the body to physically act or not, the being involuntarily transmits ‘these waves’ – these emotional and passional vibes (to use a 60’s term) – into the human world in particular and the animal world in general: therefore the being is not harmless even when the being refrains from inducing the body into physical action ... which is why pacifism (non-violence) is not a viable solution.
There is nothing that can stop other beings picking up these vibes (...). (List B, No. 33j, 2 Nov 2002a).

Here is another instance:

• [Respondent]: What was the most harmful action you did to other human beings when being a ‘Richard’? What was the most harmful action you did to other human beings when being a Self? I’m referring to an actual harm and not to a potential for harmful action (be it psychological or physical).
• [Richard]: The most harmful action in both cases (both being ‘human’ and being ‘divine’) operated twenty-four hours of the day: involuntarily radiating affective vibes and transmitting psychic currents ... and the divine vibes and currents, being so powerful, are the most insalubrious and reprehensible. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 25b., 24 June 2003).

Now, if it were to really be the case – as you maintain – that no other ‘being’ can feel your (affective) feelings then why put the actualism method into practice? Why not just fake the requisite facial-expression/ tone-of-voice/ body-language and carry on as you were born?

*

It has got me beat how anyone can spend years and years reading and writing, to forums such as this, about actualism practice (and its aims or goals) yet all the while be ignorant of or ignoring the central feature of such practice ... to wit: the transmission and the reception of the many and various affective feelings which make-up a feeling-being.

And speaking of ‘reception’: all feeling-beings are operating and functioning in a virtual sea of affective vibes (not to mention the far-deeper, longer-ranging and more-powerful ‘psychic currents’/ ‘psychic energies’), swirling around and coming at them from all directions, influencing them affectively/ psychically, pushing and pulling them into involuntarily making all manner of decisions which they might otherwise not make (and later regret).

Claudiu recently referred to theses vibes as [quote] ‘completely permeating the space around us’ [endquote], in a post to this forum, and how [quote] ‘each person was like a little dot in that vibespace, somehow picking it up & affecting it’ [endquote].

Vis.:

#15648
From: Claudiu
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 23:39:37
Subject: Re: Knack at seeing silliness

[Jonathan]: [...snip...].
[Claudiu]: [...] feelings & beliefs don’t affect the actual world at all.
I remember sitting at the airport on my way back with Richard & Vineeto. By that point I had been in a vibeless space for so long that I grew very sensitive to perceiving vibes. There were tons of people in the airport, and there were vibes just completely permeating the space around us, everything at all. And each person was like a little dot in that vibespace, somehow picking it up & affecting it.
Yet when I looked at Richard he was just sitting, completely at ease, and completely oblivious to the vibes around us.
They were just passing right through him as if he wasn’t there. Trippy shit yo.
The only effect they have on the actual world is in what they get the feeling-beings inhabiting various actual bodies to do in terms of controlling their bodies to do this or that, which actions then actually happen. But they do affect other feeling-beings directly, obviously.

As already referred to further above, in regards to how mob violence can so easily take over in otherwise decent, intelligent human beings, I happened to be in New Delhi in October 1984 when Sikh bodyguards assassinated India’s Hindu Prime Minister Ms. Indira Gandhi after the assault by the Indian army on the Harimandir of Amritsar, the Sikhs’ holiest shrine. This set off a rampage of terror and violence that closed down the city for three days; the normally ubiquitous police were nowhere to be seen for the entire period. I was there – with a nine year old daughter – and saw with my own eyes what happened: it was out-and-out internecine conflict; after three days of unrestricted rioting and slaughter (with at least 3,000 persons massacred) the military came in with helicopters, planes, tanks, armoured vehicles, machine guns, and so on, and eventually law and order was restored by sheer brute force. The affective/psychic atmosphere – and the wanton destructiveness I personally witnessed – was identical to my experience in a war-torn foreign country in 1966 when I was a serving soldier in a declared war-zone.

*

Quite frankly, a head-in-the-sand attitude towards the evidential reality of affective vibes (and the far more insidious ‘psychic currents’/ ‘psychic energies’ where the real power-play resides) is going to get you nowhere fast.

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