Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘D’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’

with Correspondent No. 25


Continued from Mailing List ‘AF’: No. 27

June 21 2013

Re: Just who is toying with his fellow humans?

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

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

RESPONDENT No. 3 to No. 5: 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.

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.

RESPONDENT No. 4: This is just a quick one, mainly for Srid, who I gather has been thinking a lot lately about power, dominance, libido, etc, and the relationship between them. What I’ve realised lately is that the elephant in the room, when it comes to power and influence – which has hardly been discussed at all in this forum – is: control of the narrative. Think about this for a while. Think about what it entails. Power isn’t just about physical domination. It isn’t just feelings, or about ‘psychic’ presence, psychic influence, affective emanations.

Those things are all important. But a HUGELY important aspect of who gets to wield the most influence in a given social group is the degree to which their narrative, and the assumptions underlying it, prevail in the group’s thinking.

I’ll have much more to say about this later, but if you start observing this now, I think you’ll find it a very interesting way to look into the nature of power and its effects.... not as a substitute for your studies of affect/ instinct, but certainly as an adjunct/ complement to it.

RESPONDENT: No. 4, I understand exactly what you mean by ‘control of the narrative,’ although I do think that often people find themselves at an impasse regarding what is ‘narrative’ and what is fact. The very framing of the narrative of ‘narrative’ implies subjectivity of perspective, which would not be accepted by someone ‘stating the facts.’ Strange how this impasse is reached in communication so many different ways. Unless speakers and listeners presume they are on common ground, they will never find any. Sort of a Catch-22. If you think about it, this is a gap that can never be bridged unless the speaker and listener grant each other common ground. One example of this is that some people presume that ‘facts are facts’, (I am thinking of Richard here) while others presume that ‘facts are ‘facts’.’ (Prevailing winds of perspectivism / subjectivism shared by many people in the ‘post-modern’ world.) I suppose what I am saying here boils down [to] your implication that Richard and others are battling for the ‘narrative.

I don’t think that Richard, for example, would accept that his is a ‘narrative’ at all, nonetheless a ‘battle.’

RICHARD: G’day No. 25, Just popping in here briefly to draw your attention to something so outrageously mendacious it is no surprise it has passed everyone by without even a comment. I invite you to scroll upward and re-read what your co-respondent had to say to his co-respondent further above (I have included the entire sequence for the sake of convenience). Please re-read that exchange before continuing on with the rest of this email.

Immediately below I have copy-pasted four excerpts from various posts in this forum’s archives for your consideration.

Vis.:

#109xx
From: Respondent No. 4
Date: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [No. 2] and [No. 4]

• [Respondent No. 5]: Thank you No. 4, you visited, reported your first impressions, summoned all the innate objectivity and consideration you could muster (with less prejudice than most of us put together) returned and set the record straight. Well done.
• [Respondent No. 4]: [...]. Thanks again.
Those are kind words; thank you. I’ve wondered at times if I’ve made a colossal mistake. [...]. The fact is, we (everyone involved) were sincerely intent on attaining actual freedom, until the ‘star witness’ happened to learn too much about how its ‘genitor’ really operates, and shared some information with us (discreetly, separately, over time, for our own benefit – which I greatly appreciate). [...].

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

#110xx
From: Respondent No. 4
Date: Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:30 pm
Subject: Re: [No. 2] and [No. 4]

• [Respondent No. 00]: [...]. In the absence of being able to read your direct reports, what sort of progress towards actual freedom from the human condition did you make on that visit? And subsequently?
• [Respondent No. 4]: [...]. On the last day of my last visit in mid-February 2010, I entered into a PCE that didn’t end.... until several days later [...]. I lived as naivete (punctuated by full-on PCEs) right up until October 2010, when it became no longer feasible for me.
• [Respondent No. 00]: [...]. I note that earlier in the email you say: ‘Either Richard isn’t actually free, or actual freedom isn’t what he said it was.’ And then you guess that it is the latter. May I ask what data you have for either proposition? [...].
• [Respondent No. 4]: I have/had more than one independent source of information, unknown to each other, entirely consistent with each other, and entirely consistent with what little documentary evidence has been ‘leaked’ (eg. [‘VET-NET-AUSTRALIA’] documents, photographs). I’m satisfied that I’ve been told the truth, and the implications of it are no longer in doubt.
• [Respondent No. 00]: You seem to refer to the ‘star witness’ (whoever that is) as the main source of your disillusionment. Have I interpreted correctly?
• [Respondent No. 4]: Main source, but not only source. Yes. [...].

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

#126xx
From: Respondent No. 4
Date: Tue Jan 8, 2013 1:53 pm
Subject: Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest

[Respondent No. 4]: Dear list members, After much consideration I have decided that I am not prepared to leave this matter unresolved. I believe it is too important to be glossed over or brushed aside. [...]. I believe the public interest justifies posting the two documents below. I received these documents on Friday, October 15, 2010 from a person who was trying to do me a favour, and to whom I’m grateful. They were found on a USB drive inadvertently left by Richard in India. [...].
[Richard]: [...]. Where you say you received that text (which you have chosen to make public) on Friday, October 15, 2010 – from a person who was trying to do you a favour and to whom you are, for some as yet unfathomable reason, still currently grateful – you also say ‘they were found on a USB drive inadvertently left by Richard in India’. Is that ‘USB drive’ the same ‘memory stick’ referred to by ... um ... Someone Undeniably Recognisable By Her Indiscretions, in the following post? Vis.: [...].
Moreover, is that person who was trying to do you a favour, and to whom you are, for some as yet inexplicable reason, currently still grateful, the same person you referred to as the ‘star witness’, in two of your posts on the 13th of February, 2012, on this forum? Vis.: [...].
The reason for asking is that the first piece of text which you have chosen to make public – the ‘VETNET’ text – is, quite unmistakably, virtually identical to the same text posted by ... um ... by Someone Undeservedly Renowned By Her Impersonation, at 5:06 pm on Monday, January 02, 2012, on a forum explicitly set-up to entice more indiscretions from ill-meaning recreants. Vis.: [...].
[Respondent No. 4]: G’day Richard, I’m going to drop all the personae and speak to you frankly [...]. The person you’re asking about has had enough of this whole ‘charade’, for now at least. She doesn’t want to be dragged into any more online rancour, and I shouldn’t have exposed her to it again by posting those documents. She wants to be left in peace; neither giving nor receiving any grief. [...].

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

#128xx
From: Respondent No. 4
Date: Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:04 pm
Subject: Re: New direction for the list

[Respondent No. 25]: Do you still understand Richard as deceitful and duplicitous where his accounts differ from yours?
[Respondent No. 4]: I don’t see that they *do* differ from mine, really. Do you have something specific in mind here?
[Respondent No. 25]: Yes. Specifically that this [including yours, and your Indian source’s, reports] has all just been a smear campaign and lies. Along with this, are you saying that you and your source have been lying?
[Respondent No. 4]: No. This is where specifics are important. For obvious reasons when one person doesn’t want to participate, there’s no point in me being involved in any of this beyond what I did and witnessed myself.
But no, of course I’m not saying that person was lying. I’m saying I wasn’t there. And I want that person to be happy and well, and left to enjoy life without having all this stuff recur.
[Addendum #128xx] And, No. 25, one other thing: anyone who really engages with Richard, and with what he’s on about, will sooner or later find themselves in the same murky territory that I’ve been in, that my Indian friend has been in, and that anyone who’s had any intense and protracted involvement with Richard has been in. It’s not a denial of that, but rather a recognition of it, that’s making me say these things now.
Cheers

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

Surely, it is abundantly clear that *most* of what he has had to say, be it either unaccountably (pseudonymous posts) or clandestinely (by private emails), about ‘actualism or actualists or anything associated with it’ has indeed ‘come either directly or indirectly’ from ... um ... Someone Unequivocally Recognisable By Her Inveracities, non?

Here, again, is the essence of that further above exchange.

Vis.:

#14170
From: Respondent No. 4
Date: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:42 am
Subject: Re: Popcorn anyone? :D

[Respondent No. 3]: 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, ...
[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 Harman. As for [No 25], same story, but he’ll speak for himself.
Cheers, No. 4.

Just who is toying with his fellow humans (#109xx), eh?

Regards, Richard.

June 21 2013

Re: Just who is toying with his fellow humans?

RICHARD: Just who is toying with his fellow humans (#109xx), eh?

RESPONDENT: Just why I overlooked that salient point, I don’t know. Most likely, I glossed over it because I skimmed it quickly and focused on the ‘narrative’ portion of the email.

RICHARD: G’day No. 25, Most likely indeed ... just as this current focus on ‘narrative’ itself, a topic introduced all-of-a-sudden immediately afterwards (in his ‘P.S’), is achieving its aim in getting more than a few list-members to overlook just what the discussions had been about up until then ... namely: exposing those ‘narratives’ for the crock they always are (by virtue of being ‘narratives’).

It would appear those exposes were getting too close to the point where the entire charade collapses because, as I said in my reply to ... um ... to Someone Uniquely Recognisable By Her Inglish, it has largely been by my participation in [quote] ‘how and why narrative gets made up’ [endquote] that these issues have been, and are being, resolved smoothly and accurately (#14186).

RESPONDENT: Point taken. He can’t have it both ways.

RICHARD: It does seem that in ‘Jack’s World’ (to borrow from a movie title) he can ‘have it both ways’ because he has pulled this kind of stunt before – albeit not on such a large scale – such as what I spelled-out for another list-member, in Message No. 12561, in January this year.

It was when he chose to brazen it out with me, back then in 2005 when I queried him on it, that it became apparent to me that such things are possible in ‘Jack’s World’.

Regards, Richard.

June 27 2013

Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative

RESPONDENT No. 15: Being mistaken about typing the wrong word is hardly the same as admitting a wild accusation was way off the mark ...

RICHARD to 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. (#14400)

CLAUDIU: G’day Richard, Ah I stand corrected in thinking that you no longer thought [No. 4] was lying in #141xx.

RICHARD: First of all, my response to [No. 15] was to set the record straight about an assumption he had made (i.e. ‘accusation’) as what I drew [No. 25’s attention to (in #14225) was quite matter-of-fact ... inasmuch pointing out that a spade is a spade, for example, is neither an ‘accusation’ (let alone a ‘wild’ one) nor ‘way off the mark’ but, rather, making a statement of fact. Second, if you re-read what I wrote to [No. 25] (in #14225) you will see that I never said those specific words (‘[No. 4] was lying’) – although such could readily be inferred of course – but, rather, drew [No. 25]’s attention to [quote] ‘something so *outrageously* mendacious it is no surprise it has passed everyone by without even a comment’ [emphasis added] and invited him to scroll upward and re-read, in the context of the entire sequence, the words in that particular response/ the way that particular response was worded.

The following is the entirety of my words in that message (#14225) with only the quotes snipped for ease of reading what I actually said. Vis.:

#14225
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Fri Jun 21, 2013 5:21 am
Subject: Re: Just who is toying with his fellow humans?

• [Richard]: Just popping in here briefly to draw your attention to something so outrageously mendacious it is no surprise it has passed every one by without even a comment.  [...snip...].
Just who is toying with his fellow humans (#109xx), eh?

It is always fascinating to have feedback on what many and various self-centric feeling-beings make of my words/ my wording. To explain: words, being referent as they are, refer to some thing, some body (some one), some event (some episode) or some occasion (some time) and, in the above situation, the operative words posted by both parties – namely, [No. 3] and [No. 4] – referred not only to a some one but to a specific someone ... and just who it is being referred to is critical to comprehension.

With [No. 4]’s text it is dead easy to detect just who it was his words referred to ... to wit: [quote] ‘the person you’re suspecting’ [endquote].

So, all that is left is to discern just who it was [No. 3]’s words referred to and the matter is settled, over and done with, finished.

And, given that ‘the bullet is through the church(see #14083) for [No. 3], on this issue (i.e. ‘soapy’, ‘soap-opera’, ‘melodrama’), then his operative words are readily apparent as they provide a unique identifier (a phrase used both exclusively and extensively, by me, to refer to a specific female) ... namely: [quote] ‘when she made up all that stuff’ [endquote].

‘Tis all so simple, eh? (#14510)

RESPONDENT: This really explains a lot. It makes it clear that you deal strictly with the meaning of the words someone types out and do not get involved in the ‘guessing games’ that may occur in trying to figure out intention. What can be perceived or made out to be ‘willful and malicious ignorance’ (on your part) of a person’s intent, or further, an inability to understand the difference between speaker meaning and word meaning (on your part) is actually a practical decision to only concern yourself with word meaning, since at least that can typically be ‘nailed down’ in a factual manner, unlike speaker intent.

RICHARD: G’day No. 25, It is not a ‘decision’ on my part (be it ‘practical’ or otherwise) to not ‘read the intention’ and/or not ‘read between the lines’ and/or not ‘see the picture not the pixels’ and/or not (whatever description) but of being, of course, incapable of what Claudiu so eloquently described as [quote] ‘automatically ascrib[ing] the feeling-tones that the person intended to convey’ [endquote] in his very pertinent post of Jun 12, 2013. (Message 13996)

It is well-worth a re-read ... for instance:

• [Claudiu]: ‘... not all humans now have that feeling-being doing the talking for them (so to speak). Yet so intrinsic to writing is the generation of feeling-tones over it/the reading-into it of affect coming from the other side that of course we continue to do this even when communicating with someone who no longer is a feeling-being (e.g. Richard)’. (#13996).

Of course, Claudiu has yet to extend his thesis so as to account for what he described as [quote] ‘an amorphous blob of whatever (for lack of a better word)’ [endquote] in his earlier but certainly related post of Jun 7, 2013. (Message 13787)

Vis.:

• [Claudiu]: ‘It actually does seem like a really simple thing that did get massively overblown. It seems like there’s an amorphous blob of whatever (for lack of a better word) surrounding this whole situation, such that whenever it comes up, us feeling-beings get massively worked up over it’. (#13787).

He is, of course, referring to the psychic currents – which the (further above) ‘generation of feeling-tones over it/the reading-into it of affect coming from the other side’ automatically attunes to – whereby all feeling-beings are interconnected (in the human psyche) via an ethereal network.

Vis.:

• [Richard]: It is not just the emotional/ passional ‘vibes’ which constitute the ethereal network but, more insidiously, the psychic currents – a network of intuitive/ affective energies that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’ (aka ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’) – which stem from ‘being’ itself (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) regardless of conscious intent. There are some peoples, of course, who cultivate these psychic currents such that they do become conscious intent (as in psychic powers). [...].
• [Richard]: The colloquialism ‘vibes’ does not refer to body-language but to the affective feelings and gained currency in the ‘sixties (as in ‘I can feel your pain’ or ‘I can feel your anger’ and so on) – even the military are well aware of this as I had it impressed upon me, prior to going to war in my youth, that fear is contagious and can spread like wildfire if unchecked – and another example is being in the presence of an enlightened being (known as ‘Darshan’ in the Indian tradition) so as to be bathed in the overwhelming love and compassion such a being radiates.
Yet behind the feelings lie the psychic energies/ currents which emanate from being itself. [...].
• [Richard]: It has no existence outside of the psyche – which includes the imaginative/ intuitive faculty of course – and whilst the psyche is in situ the psychic currents reign supreme ... albeit behind the scenes, as it were, and most often overlooked/ unnoticed.
Hence my observation regarding them being the most effective power plays. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 41, Vibes).

*

• [Richard]: Humans are all connected via a psychic web – a network of invisible ‘vibes’ – that leads to incredible power-trips between competing members of society. A person may be nice to your face, for example, but the intuitive feeling is that they hate your guts ... this is the interconnectedness in action.

It is a powerful force – an ‘energy’ – that seeks to control by psychic manipulation and leads to the most horrific consequences ... as has been the sorry demonstration of history. The elimination of the psychic entity – ‘I’ the self as an ego and a soul – is the ending of interconnectedness. One is then, for the first time, a free individual beholden to no one ... and free from both being controlled and being a controller. In other words, one is happy and harmless ... by having extirpated malice and sorrow completely.

The enlightened people merely transcend malice and sorrow – they sit above it in a cocoon of love and compassion – and never eliminate them. And so the wars go on ... and on and on. (List A, 16, Vibes).

*

• [Richard]: No, emotional ‘vibes’ are fairly obvious as in you can feel another’s fear, anger, love and so on when in physical proximity. Whereas psychic ‘currents’ span distance instantly.
This is where the power play really happens between sentient beings ... vibe violence and verbal abuse and physical aggression are the outcome of psychic power-tripping and not the source.
The same applies to the ‘good’ side ... loving vibes and affectionate words and physical caresses are control measures – power-play – and originate in the psyche as psychic currents.
• [Alan]: While not 100% convinced, my view is that these do not exist, other than in the form of subtle body language.
• [Richard]: Body language plays a part, yes, and tone of voice and so on ... but there is an undercurrent as is evidenced when sitting in silence with another whilst not facing each other. There is an ‘atmosphere’ as is expressed in ‘the air was so thick that you could cut it with a knife’. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, Alan-a, Vibes).

*

• [Richard]: All sentient beings, to a greater or lesser extent, are connected via a psychic web ... a network of energies or currents that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’. Feeling threatened or intimidated can result from the obvious cues – the offering of physical violence and/or verbal violence – or from the less obvious ... ‘vibe’ violence (to use a ‘60’s term) and/or psychic violence.
Similarly, feeling accepted can occur via the same signals or intimations. Power trips – coercion or manipulation of any kind – whether for ‘good’ or ‘bad’ purposes, are all psychic at root ... the psychic currents are the most effective power plays for they are the most insidious (charisma, for example).
Generally speaking, the word psychic or psychical in virtually any context refers to anything of or pertaining to the energies of the psyche or being itself – the soul, the spirit or the self parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body – any non-material, incorporeal, other-worldly, unworldly, unearthly, non-human or inhuman currents or emanations. Any energy flow which is ethereal, ephemeral, intangible, cryptic, inexplicable, enigmatic, unfathomable and which is instinctual, intuitive prescient, telekinetic, telepathic or clairvoyant ... anything extrasensory.
It can refer to anything occult, arcane, esoteric or ghostly – anything to do with witchcraft, sorcery or wizardry (be it either white magic or black magic) – everything supernatural, super-normal, preternatural, preternormal, transcendental or numinous ... anything religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical. The metaphysical includes the hallowed, consecrated, sanctified, deified, beatific, holy, divine, heavenly and sacred – including anything saintly, cherubic or angelic – and the sinful, black-hearted, damnable, sinister, fiendish, infernal, diabolical ... anything demonic, devilish, hellish, satanic and evil.
Terror and respect – awe and dread – are the ultimate rule in the human world. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 12c, Energies).

*

• [Richard]: When empathy works to resolve another’s suffering an empathetic caring occurs – this is not under dispute – but it is occurring as a feeling activity ... in the form of affective vibes and/or psychic currents. However, it is only occurring in the real world – there is no empathetic caring here in this actual world – which is a salutary point few comprehend. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 27d, Vibes).

*

• [Richard]: Speaking personally, I have no connectedness – actual or otherwise – as there is no ‘me’ to be connected. Connection is affective ... which is why ‘vibes’ can be picked up by another similarly afflicted. I cannot receive – or transmit – any ‘vibes’ at all ... hence people rarely ever offer physical harm.
Verbal abuse very rarely happens (in face to face interactions) and when it does it falls flat on the floor for want of a receiver.
The other then stops doing it in puzzlement ... to be followed by a growing delight in finding a fellow human being free of any of the nonsense that epitomises the normal human interaction called ‘relationship’. (List B, 12b, Vibes).

Ain’t life grand!

Regards, Richard.

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

P.S.: To obviate misconstrual (for those who came in late) the following should be self-explanatory.

Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: (...). It’s just difficult for me to get a grasp on what you mean here though. Apparently 6.0 billion people are ‘imbeciles’ and ‘absurdity in motion’? Ain’t life grand?
• [Richard]: (...) I often use the phrase ‘ain’t life grand!’ (great, pre-eminent, principal; from Latin ‘grandis’: full-grown, abundant) but only where something very significant about life’s beneficence has been demonstrated ... for example: [...snip...].
I was exclaiming that life is grand in that it provided you with your own experience to be guided by rather than just my words ... here is another occasion: [...snip...].
Here I was not only praising life, inasmuch as there is nothing paradoxical here in this actual world, but also that no human being sets the criteria for peace-on-earth ... therefore it is faultless.
I have never used the phrase ‘ain’t life grand?’ in the cynical way you make out that I do. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 27e, 5 April 2003).

June 29 2013

Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative

RESPONDENT to No. 4: [No. 4], I agree the appearance of what has occurred can seem quite bizarre, although I think you are going too far to suggest that Richard is accusing you of putting out malicious psychic currents (at least in a paranormal way) when you had simply misunderstood who [No. 3] was referring to.

RICHARD: G’day no. 25, You have packed four points worthy of comment into one sentence.

1. Richard is not ‘accusing’ anyone, in regards to what is known as ‘psychic currents’ in actualism terminology, because ... (a) they are only detectable by feeling-beings ... and (b) to do so would similarly be as fraught with problems as me trying to divine intent by regular means (trying to ‘read’ between the lines, seeing ‘the picture not the pixels’, and etcetera).

2. Please stop conflating what is called ‘psychic currents’, in actualism terminology, with all that paranormal psychism such as attracts the attention of peoples of the ‘James Randi Organisation’ ilk as we have already had that conversation, on more than a few occasions, in the past.

3. Any affective vibes and/or psychic currents [No. 4] may or may not be *automatically* generating (in the current email exchanges) would carry an overarching quality of earnestness – as previously indicated with those ‘no matter how earnestly presented’ words of mine to [No. 15] on Jun 24, 2013 (in #14400) – coupled with, *perhaps*, a flavour of righteous indignation and/or traces of institutionalised victimisation (as in ‘underdog’, ‘being treated badly from on high’, ‘sticking up for the downtrodden’ and so forth) as the very name ‘<snip Irish last name>’, in that ‘[No. 4] <snip Irish last name>’ moniker, bespeaks the Irish/ English divide of yore.

4. To say ‘when you had simply misunderstood ...’ is to give the benefit-of-doubt to a person with a (demonstrable) track-record of, literally, hundreds of instances of presenting made-up stuff – be it either mindlessly regurgitating (i.e. not even any basic fact-checking for veracity) made-up stuff from an un-named but (demonstrably) deceitful/ lying person or made-up stuff personally formulated but so earnestly believed to be true that it by-passes internal fact-checking – and an openly declared (in #136xx) agenda to [quote] ‘warn a few friends’ [endquote] that they are [quote] ‘part of a deluded cult’ [end quote].

RESPONDENT to No. 4: And yes, I do understand that you may still not think it was clear to whom [No. 3] was referring. I am not at all sure that [No. 3] has been entirely clear in that regard.

Anyway, I think Richard’s reference to psychic currents, the psychic web, etc in this context was directed at answering my inquiry... not necessarily directly related to what is occurring with you and your understanding then or now to whom [No. 3] was referring.

RICHARD: It most certainly pertained to both your inquiry and what is currently occurring.

RESPONDENT to No. 4: I am still trying to put all of the pieces in place, as I do not personally believe in a ‘psychic web’ ...

RICHARD: Please, whatever else you do, do not ‘believe’ (be it either ‘personally’ or otherwise) in a ‘psychic web’ ... else you will remain oblivious to the real network of affective vibes and psychic currents *automatically* generated, within the human psyche, by virtue of being feeling-beings.

RESPONDENT to No. 4: ... in precisely the same manner as Richard presents it ( the paranormal aspects being suspect for me), although I cannot completely rule such a thing out entirely. Having said that, I do think that Richard’s reports stem from his experience, whether correctly or incorrectly evaluated on his part.

RICHARD: Again, there is that ‘paranormal aspects’ furphy you keep perpetuating – long after it has been exposed as being just that (a furphy promoted by the ... um ... the ‘Tricky Trio’ for obvious propaganda purposes) – only this time coupled with vague allusion to experiential reports being questionable, by virtue of being experiential, and an even vaguer allusion to my evaluative skills being suspect ... despite me being totally and utterly free from the very affective/ psychic network itself.

May I ask? Why are you spending the time, energy and money to fly half-way around the world, and back, for the second time when you entertain such doubts about my competence in these matters?

Maybe, just maybe, you would be better-off cutting your losses and cancelling the flight forthwith (incurring a cancellation fee) than wasting both your time and mine – not to mention Vineeto, Peter, et al. – or, conversely, arrange instead to spend the month of July with [No. 4] so as to not only absorb his wisdom first-hand but to see just how well it works in practice in his day-to-day lifestyle/his living arrangements.

Oh, incidentally, if you were ever to do something like that it would be in your interests to learn to differentiate betwixt being earnest and being sincere (between earnestness and sincerity).

RESPONDENT to No. 4: It seems to me the reason I got the answer I did was due to how I asked the question. There was more to my email to which Richard did not respond...

RICHARD: The reason I did not respond to the next part of your (#145xx). email is because it was superfluous to what I had clearly spelled-out with my ‘... and the matter is settled, over and done with, finished’ explication, in the post you responded to (#14510), and my postscript therein about ‘trying to divine intention’ (how trying to ‘read’ anybody’s intention is fraught with problems).

Here is your next paragraph (where you summarised what you had made of my clear exposition to Claudiu).

Vis:

• [Respondent]: ‘So, in summary... You do understand that [No. 4]’s stated intent (from later emails) was not to lie regarding the influence of WFAC [No. 6] on him, but that what he wrote regarding the influence of WFAC [No. 6] on his view of actualism, regardless of his intent, was, and still is, ‘outrageously mendacious.’
Is that correct?’ (#145xx).

No, because you insist on bringing ‘intent’ back into a matter which is ‘settled, over and done with, finished’ (via not ‘trying to divine intention’) that is not correct ... how could it be?

RESPONDENT to No. 4: ... what I would really like to know is whether he [Richard] understands, now that you [No. 4] have stated that you intended to refer to [No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)] in that original post, that you were not lying?

RICHARD: Ha ... do you really consider that, simply because [No. 4] has now [quote] ‘stated’ [endquote] what he intended, it would be thus understood by me that he was not lying?

I can best answer what you would ‘really like to know’ by the straightforward expedient of providing some examples of what else [No. 4] has [quote] ‘stated’ [endquote].

• [No. 4] has stated (in #11349) ‘I was there when it happened’ (i.e. when ‘Tom withdrew the sponsorship’) even though no such event happened.

• [No. 4] has stated (in #11349) ‘Tom told me his reasons’ (i.e. why ‘Tom withdrew the sponsorship’) even though no such event happened.

• [No. 4] has stated (in #11349) that I was ‘actively trying to woo another woman’ even though what I had actually done was apprise my third wife (de facto) of the good news about the non-nuclear couple association/ the non-nuclear household ‘Floating Convivium Project’ finally going ahead.

• [No. 4] has stated (in #11349) that it was ‘In February 2010’ that I was ‘actively trying to woo another woman’ despite me having apprised my third wife (de facto) of that good news in December 2009.

• [No. 4] has stated (in #11349) that I was ‘actively trying to woo another woman back into ...’ a prior association/ arrangement (i.e. the nuclear couple association/ the nuclear house-hold living arrangement which had been the situation for my third wife (de facto) ever since the ménage à trois association/ living arrangement with Devika had ended).

• [No. 4] has stated (in #11349) that this prior association/ arrangement (that nuclear couple association/ that nuclear house-hold living arrangement) had been suspended because my third wife (de facto) was ‘trying to decide her future’ even though it had already been made public that it was because of an experience, of immaculate perfection, being so wonderful it was frightening – frightening to the nth degree – such as to result in weird and bizarre behaviour.

• [No. 4] has stated (in #11349) that this prior association/ arrangement (that nuclear couple association/ that nuclear house-hold living arrangement) was ‘a full-time sexual relationship’ even though it was also a matter of public knowledge that our live-in association at that time was initiated by, and primarily based upon, an actual intimacy ... and not sex and sexuality.

• [No. 4] has stated (in #11349) that I was ‘the genitor of actual freedom’ despite it being clearly stated that this flesh-and-blood body is, rather, not only a genitor of a completely new consciousness (a totally original way of being conscious), for all humankind to avail themselves of, but is no longer the *sole* genitor of same since Oct 19, 2010.

Shall I go on? Do you still consider that, simply because [No. 4] has now [quote] ‘stated’ [endquote] what he intended, it will be thus understood by me that he was not lying?

The reason I ask is because he has a (demonstrable) track-record of having [quote] ‘stated’ [endquote] something which is the direct opposite of something he has previously [quote] ‘stated’ [endquote] ... inasmuch a feature of ‘Jack’s World’ (see #14239) is that it appears he can indeed ‘have it both ways’ (wherein two diametrically opposed statements are simultaneously both true).

• [No. 4] has stated (in #11928) that ‘I hereby unconditionally withdraw everything I’ve ever written about ‘an actual freedom from the human condition’ and everyone associated with it’ when it is to state the bleeding obvious that he has done no such thing.

• [No. 4] has stated (in #128xx) that he had been using something – i.e. the ‘VETNET-AUSTRALIA’ material he made public whilst in ‘kamikaze mode’ (aka ‘angry and vindictive’ and/or ‘fuelled by righteous indignation’, see #126xx) – against me for political purposes, the substance of which I had in no way concealed from him on the 2nd day of his 1st visit, plus further stating how he was sorry for doing so as he had turned what could have been a true inspiration to people into a hatchet job ... yet on Jun 28, 2013 (in #145xx & #146xx) that ‘VETNET-AUSTRALIA’ material is again being pressed into service by him (and *not* for reasons of it being ‘a true inspiration to people’).

• [No. 4] has stated (in many of his 170+ emails on ‘Dharma Overground’) that PCE’s are not a reliable basis upon which to make life-changing decisions (linking them, via ‘alexithymia’, with his bro’s [quote] ‘simple reasoning’ [endquote], in his Oct 05 2004 post to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, about there being a pathological/ neurological basis to an actual freedom from the human condition) ... yet in January this year (e.g. in #128xx and #129xx and #129xx and #129xx and #129xx) the opposite is true.

Shall I go on (I can keep this up for, literally, hundreds of instances) or do you no longer consider that, simply because [No. 4] has now [quote] ‘stated’ [endquote] what he intended, it will be thus understood by me that he was not lying?

Regards, Richard.

June 29 2013

Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative

RESPONDENT: G’Day, Richard, Due to the fact that my plane is scheduled to leave in less than 24 hrs and my tickets are non-refundable, I would like to address the most pressing part of your email.

RICHARD: G’day No. 25, As you say you would like to address the most pressing part of my email I have re-inserted the oh-so-vital context you snipped out so that what you are addressing has some substance to it ... rather than vague generalisations about ‘... still outstanding confusions or misunderstandings’ and perhaps being able to state your ‘reservations clearly and the reasons for such reservations ...’ and so on.

Vis.:

• [Respondent]: [...]. I am still trying to put all of the pieces in place, as I do not personally believe in a ‘psychic web’ ...

• [Richard]: Please, whatever else you do, do not ‘believe’ (be it either ‘personally’ or otherwise) in a ‘psychic web’ ... else you will remain oblivious to the real network of affective vibes and psychic currents *automatically* generated, within the human psyche, by virtue of being feeling-beings.

• [Respondent]: ... in precisely the same manner as Richard presents it ( the paranormal aspects being suspect for me), although I cannot completely rule such a thing out entirely. Having said that, I do think that Richard’s reports stem from his experience, whether correctly or incorrectly evaluated on his part.

• [Richard]: Again, there is that ‘paranormal aspects’ furphy you keep perpetuating – long after it has been exposed as being just that (a furphy promoted by the ... um ... the ‘Tricky Trio’ for obvious propaganda purposes) – only this time coupled with vague allusion to experiential reports being questionable, by virtue of being experiential, and an even vaguer allusion to my evaluative skills being suspect ... despite me being totally and utterly free from the very affective/ psychic network itself.
May I ask? Why are you spending the time, energy and money to fly half-way around the world, and back, for the second time when you entertain such doubts about my competence in these matters?

RESPONDENT: I would like to discuss this in person as I would like the opportunity to clear up any of my still outstanding confusions or misunderstandings.

RICHARD: And just what ‘outstanding confusions or misunderstandings’ about the affective vibes/ psychic currents network (operating within the human psyche by virtue of being feeling-beings) do you still have despite all the conversations we have already had on more than a few occasions in the past?

For instance (more recent occasions):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/10897

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/10968

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/10993

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/11018

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/11128

(Because the above #10968 has been deleted, censored, by this forum’s busybody partisan moderator – who parked an edited copy of it in an obscure forum virtually nobody knows about – access the following URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom_privacydeletedposts/message/45).

RESPONDENT: Perhaps if I am able to state my reservations clearly and the reasons for such reservations, there may be an opportunity for clarification.

RICHARD: Okay ... given you said your plane is ‘scheduled to leave in less than 24 hrs’, when you posted this email I am now responding to, it would appear you have around 17-18 hours left in which to state those reservations clearly and the reasons for such so as to obtain clarification.

(More on this further below).

*

RICHARD: Maybe, just maybe, you would be better-off cutting your losses and cancelling the flight forthwith (incurring a cancellation fee) than wasting both your time and mine – not to mention Vineeto, Peter, et al. – or, conversely, arrange instead to spend the month of July with [No. 4] so as to not only absorb his wisdom first-hand but to see just how well it works in practice in his day-to-day lifestyle/ living arrangements.

RESPONDENT: I do not intend to waste your time, Vineeto’s, Peter’s, et al., or my own time in coming to visit you.

RICHARD: Given that you entertain doubts about my competence in regards affective vibes/ psychic currents (via vague allusion to experiential reports being questionable, by virtue of being experiential, and an even vaguer allusion to my evaluative skills being suspect) it does indeed appear, at this stage at least, that you do intend to do just that.

RESPONDENT: I am willing to continue to listen and process in a sincere manner. I am not traveling all that distance to visit [No.4]; rather, I am still attempting to do my best to sincerely understand, while at the same time keeping my own counsel rather than being a mere ‘believer.’

RICHARD: Given that [No. 4] knows diddly-squat about affective vibes/ psychic currents (see #145xx for instance) it is just as well you are not seeking him out for elucidation on the matter.

RESPONDENT: If I am to understand your question and phrasing of ‘maybe, just maybe [I] would be better of cancelling the flight forthwith...’ as a closure of your openness to have me come for a second visit as planned, please let me know very soon so that I do not get on the plane if you do not want me to come.

RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way: on your first visit you frittered away the first 3 days/ first 4 evenings going on and on, over and again, about all that made-up stuff – endeavouring to extract private and personal information out of me (that which has not been made public knowledge due to me being circumspect when it comes to talking about others) – so as to allay all the verbal/ written doubts which had been affectively/ psychically augmented/ reinforced in you, via the affective vibe/ psychic current network connecting all feeling-beings ... but to no avail as verbal/ written refutations/ rebuttals cannot compete, in an *undiscerning listener/ reader*, unless they are similarly augmented/ reinforced affectively/ psychically by the speaker/ writer.

RESPONDENT: My preference is to continue as planned in order to move things forward toward freedom as far as possible in my life; however, it does seem that there is obviously further discussion to be had regarding these issues for me to be completely clear in my understanding of them.

RICHARD: Do you realise that there are only two human beings on this planet who have expertise/ competence in regards the affective vibe/ psychic current network connecting all feeling-beings by virtue of being totally and utterly free from the very affective/ psychic network itself?

In other words, this is all new to human history/ human knowledge.

*

So, if you will type-out those ‘outstanding confusions or misunderstandings’, regarding my evaluative skills/ my competence in regards the affective vibe/ psychic current network, by return mail I will then address them forthwith.

(Even though it is approaching midnight here I am willing to stay awake so as to provide the clarification you seek).

Regards, Richard.

June 30 2013

Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative

RICHARD: [...]. Do you realise that there are only two human beings on this planet who have expertise/ competence in regards the affective vibe/ psychic current network connecting all feeling-beings by virtue of being totally and utterly free from the very affective/ psychic network itself?

In other words, this is all new to human history/ human knowledge.

*

So, if you will type-out those ‘outstanding confusions or misunderstandings’, regarding my evaluative skills/ my competence in regards the affective vibe/psychic current network, by return mail I will then address them forthwith.

(Even though it is approaching midnight here I am willing to stay awake so as to provide the clarification you seek).

RESPONDENT: Hello Richard, Your email just arrived in my inbox about 20 minutes ago – 7:30am Mountain Time. It is now 7:51am, so I have less than 12 hours prior to my planned departure. Please let me clarify – I do not doubt the existence of a psychic web in terms of vibes and the mutual affective nature of the psyche and the influence of such a web amongst individual psyches. I am just not certain regarding the paranormal aspects of what you and Vineeto have related to me as part of the psychic web in the real world. For example, you talked about the ability of feeling beings to read minds [...snip...].

RICHARD: G’day No. 25, Please stop conflating what is called psychic currents, in *actualism terminology*, with all that paranormal psychism such as attracts the attention of peoples of the ‘James Randi Organisation’ ilk as we have already had that conversation, on more than a few occasions in the past, inasmuch all that parapsychology/ occult stuff, such as telepathy, clairvoyance/ cryptaesthesia, psychokinesis/ telekinesis, clairaudience and psychometry, and so on and so forth, is most certainly not what the *actualism term* psychic currents refers to.

Did you not read my further above words – i.e. ‘this is all new to human history/human knowledge’ – before reaching for the keyboard?

RESPONDENT: Since I did not experience those things and personally have no framework to put such experiences – that is why I have reservations about the psychic web as a packaged whole (specifically the paranormal being suspect, uncertain, etc.)

RICHARD: I am *not* talking of ‘the psychic web as a packaged whole’ (whatever that means) as I have made it quite clear that what I am talking of is that which has virtually the same effect as affective vibes do (albeit not constrained by the physical proximity they require) only more primal/ much stronger/ more powerful ... hence my oft-repeated refrain that this is where the real power-play takes place.

RESPONDENT: [...snip...] let me just summarize by saying that I am not closed to the paranormal as a legitimate aspect of the psychic web (in other words, I do not know whether the paranormal operates in the real world – but I suspect that much of what has been reported as paranormal may have other causal explanations).

RICHARD: As that ‘much of what has been reported as paranormal’, about the *actualism term* psychic currents, comes solely from me and nobody else – i.e. ‘this is all new to human history/ human knowledge’ – the very fact that you suspect it [quote] ‘may have other causal explanations’ [endquote] indicates loudly and clearly that you will indeed be wasting both your time and mine (not to mention Vineeto, Peter, et al.) flying half-way around the world, and back, unless you start reading with both eyes what my words on this very subject actually say.

Here they are again:

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘On your first visit you frittered away the first 3 days/first 4 evenings going on and on, over and again, about all that made-up stuff – endeavouring to extract private and personal information out of me (that which has not been made public knowledge due to me being circumspect when it comes to talking about others) – so as to allay all the verbal/ written doubts which had been affectively/psychically augmented/ reinforced in you, via the affective vibe/ psychic current network connecting all feeling-beings ... but to no avail as verbal/ written refutations/ rebuttals cannot compete, in an *undiscerning listener/ reader*, unless they are similarly augmented/ reinforced affectively/ psychically by the speaker/writer’.

Put differently, as I have no affective vibes/ psychic currents to over-ride those which were implanted affectively/ psychically into you (in conjunction with the verbal/ written doubts conveyed to you vocally/ literarily), such as to convince you they came from a [quote] ‘reliable source’ (see #123xx), all you are going to get from me, in-person, is words only ... the same-same as appear here on your computer screen.

RESPONDENT: Your point about me conflating psychic currents with the ilk of experiences challenged by James Randi and the like indicates as well that I must still not completely understand what you mean by psychic currents as opposed to vibes.

RICHARD: Indeed you do not.

RESPONDENT: Vibes I understand and experience. Currents, I thought were more related to psychic influences that related to the paranormal, but maybe I am wrong about that?

RICHARD: You are indeed wrong about that.

RESPONDENT: Richard, I do not intend to ‘fritter away’ my time in Australia – I just want sincerely to understand and my goal is freedom.

RICHARD: Good ... and in which case here is something to ruminate on during your long flight:

Do you realise that there are only two human beings on this planet who have expertise/ competence in regards the affective vibe/ psychic current network connecting all feeling-beings by virtue of being totally and utterly free from the very affective/ psychic network itself?

In other words, this is all new to human history/ human knowledge.

Regards, Richard.

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

P.S.: No more from me for now (it is after 3.30 AM here).

June 30 2013

Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative

RESPONDENT: [...snip...] let me just summarize by saying that I am not closed to the paranormal as a legitimate aspect of the psychic web (in other words, I do not know whether the paranormal operates in the real world – but I suspect that much of what has been reported as paranormal may have other causal explanations).

RICHARD: As that ‘much of what has been reported as paranormal’, about the *actualism term* psychic currents, comes solely from me and nobody else – i.e. ‘this is all new to human history/human knowledge’ – the very fact that you suspect it [quote] ‘may have other causal explanations’ [endquote] indicates loudly and clearly that you will indeed be wasting both your time and mine (not to mention Vineeto, Peter, et al.) flying half-way around the world, and back, unless you start reading with both eyes what my words on this very subject actually say.

RESPONDENT: G’Day Richard, Thank-you for responding to my email in the middle of the night in Ballina.

Based on the fact that you stated that my suspicion that the paranormal component of the *actualist term* ‘psychic currents’ may be explained by other causal factors (other than the paranormal), I suppose that I have not yet understood what you really mean by the term.

As a result, you state that I would indeed be wasting your time, mine, Peter’s, Vineeto’s, et al., if I do not begin reading with both eyes what your words actually say on this subject. I have attempted to ‘read with both eyes’ what you have stated on this subject, but I will endeavor to try again.

RICHARD: G’day No. 25, As you have snipped-off those very words of mine which (as you rightly observe) I have ‘stated on this subject’, in order to type-out your above reply, I am only too happy to re-insert them in sequence so as to assist you in your endeavour to try again.

Vis.:

• [Richard]: ... unless you start reading with both eyes what my words on this very subject actually say.

Here they are again:

• [Richard]: ‘On your first visit you frittered away the first 3 days/first 4 evenings going on and on, over and again, about all that made-up stuff – endeavouring to extract private and personal information out of me (that which has not been made public knowledge due to me being circumspect when it comes to talking about others) – so as to allay all the verbal/written doubts which had been affectively/ psychically augmented/ reinforced in you, via the affective vibe/psychic current network connecting all feeling-beings ... but to no avail as verbal/written refutations/ rebuttals cannot compete, in an *undiscerning listener/ reader*, unless they are similarly augmented/ reinforced affectively/ psychically by the speaker/writer’.

Put differently, as I have no affective vibes/ psychic currents to over-ride those which were implanted affectively/ psychically into you (in conjunction with the verbal/ written doubts conveyed to you vocally/ literarily), such as to convince you [viscerally, non-cognitively] they came from a [quote] ‘reliable source’ (see #123xx), all you are going to get from me, in-person, is words only ... the same-same as appear here on your computer screen. (square-bracketed words added).

Incidentally, I am using that (added) word viscerally in the following sense.

Vis.:

• visceral (adj.): relating to deep inward feelings rather than to the intellect; [e.g.]: ‘the voters’ visceral fear of change’; (adv): viscerally. (Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: At this point, I do not want to waste anyone’s time, so I will take your suggestion to ‘cut my losses.’ I will not be on the flight out this evening.

RICHARD: A wise decision, No. 25, given that this totally new way of being conscious (a completely original consciousness) can only have a global spread, in our life-times, if it be implemented via happy and harmless (affective) ‘vibes’ and felicitous and innocuous (psychic) ‘currents’, eh?

Vis.:

05 January 2010:
• [Co-Respondent]: ... the way is open for the consciousness mutation to be implemented on a global level.
• [Richard]: Indeed so ... via happy and harmless (affective) ‘vibes’ and felicitous and innocuous (psychic) ‘currents’. (I have oft-times said that is where the real power-play occurs). (Announcement 1).

Ain’t life grand!

Regards, Richard.

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

P.S.: The following will throw some light on the source (the psychic force itself) of what is known, in actualism terminology, as psychic currents.

Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: These analogies [‘a whirlpool or an eddy of water or air’] are illustrative but not clarifying.

• [Richard]: I will put it this way, then: do you comprehend that an identity’s anger, for instance, can be affectively felt by another identity from a near-distance and, as such, can have an effect (and, quite often, the desired effect) despite the intervening physical space ... and that the same applies to love (for another instance) or virtually any other strongly-felt feeling?

If so, then by experientially going deeper into those affective feelings it can be found that they swirl around, as it were, forming a whirlpool or an eddy and thus creating a centre (a vortex) which is the very stuff of the swirling as the one is not distinct from the other ... ‘you’ are ‘your’ feelings and ‘your’ feelings are ‘you’.

It is that vortex – which is essentially ‘you’ at the core of ‘your’ being – that is the (affective) force known as a psychic force ... it is not for nothing that I say psychic currents are the most effective power plays. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 74e, 10 August 2005).


RESPONDENT NO. 25 (Part Four)

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