Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘D’ Correspondence

Continued from Direct Route No. 19

June 19 2012

RESPONDENT: Re: a nice way of framing haietmoba

By [No. 28] At <snipped link>

G’day [No. 29], The way you titled this thread has caught my eye.

You are, presumably, cognisant of how that string of letters – [quote] ‘haietmoba’ [endquote] – is the manner in which quite a few persons refer to the actualism method?

If not, it features prominently on this web page: (This Moment of Being Alive)

I am curious as to why you characterise the way in which No. 28 has hijacked it, by making out it points to nibbana, as being [quote] ‘a nice way of framing’ [endquote] the actualism method?

Regards, Richard.

January 10 2013

Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest

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

RESPONDENT: Hi Richard, Appreciate the response. You say that that you have suffered two major nervous breakdowns. The first one led to enlightement.

RICHARD: G’day No. 29, First, a technical point: a breakdown does not lead to something; a breakdown is the onset of something – as per that ‘with sudden onset’ wording above – and that ‘something’, a mental disorder of some sort, can be either mild or severe and either acute (of short duration) or chronic (long-lasting) and either curable or incurable (inasmuch palliative care is prescribed to help manage the symptoms).

So, the first major breakdown was the onset of a very severe psychotic disorder – so severe, in fact, as to entail massive delusions of grandeur and megalomania, such as being the ‘Parousia’ and the next ‘Maitreya’, for instance, with acute dissociative and solipsistic thought patterns plus major reality impairment (object estrangement, space dislocation and time distortion) – which persisted, night and day, for eleven years.

Now, at the time I did not know that it was a mental disorder – let alone a very severe psychotic disorder – even though there was something suss about it all; it was only in that 30+ month period afterwards it gradually became clear to me that spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment was insanity ... albeit an institutionalised insanity. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: There is one important point that hit me in your response:

• [Richard]: ‘After my break-through into actual freedom I went through thirty months of mental anguish thinking that I had lost the plot completely (although physically everything was perfect). No one could help me as nobody had traversed this territory before’ [endquote].

How did you experience the mental anguish from the perspective of actual freedom?

• [Richard]: As a severe cerebral agitation ... it all happened only in the brain cells. There was perfect sensate experiencing: the direct, startlingly intimate sensuousness of the eyes seeing, the ears hearing, the skin feeling, the nose smelling and the tongue tasting all of their own accord (deliciously unfettered by a ‘me’ or an ‘I’) yet the cognitive faculty was face-to-face with the stark fact that it had been living a deluded dissociative state for eleven years and that religion – fuelled by its spirituality and mysticism – was nothing short of institutionalised insanity. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 7, 14 June 2000).

In fact, at the time of the onset of that very severe psychotic disorder, I did not even know that it was spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment as I had never even heard of those terms let alone what they referred to. Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 45 (List B)]: By which way the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/’I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’)?

• [Richard]: As a generalisation it has been traditionally held that there are three ways: 1. Jnani (cognitive realisation as epitomised by the ‘neti-neti’ or ‘not this; not this’ approach). 2. Bhakti (affective realisation as epitomised by devotional worship and surrender of will). 3. Yoga (bodily realisation as epitomised by the raising of ‘kundalini’ and the opening of ‘chakras’).

• [Co-Respondent]: I’ve been following this discussion with interest and have a couple of questions for you: Which of the 3 ways did you use to achieve spiritual enlightenment in 1981?

• [Richard]: Well, none of those 3 ways, actually; I inadvertently ‘discovered’ another way: ignorance. I was aiming for the pure consciousness experience (PCE) and landed short of my goal ... and it took another 11 years to get here.
To explain: I have never followed anyone; I have never been part of any religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical group; I have never done any disciplines, practices or exercises at all; I have never done any meditation, any yoga, any chanting of mantras, any tai chi, any breathing exercises, any praying, any fasting, any flagellations, any ... any of those ‘Tried and True’ inanities; nor did I endlessly analyse my childhood for ever and a day; nor did I do never-ending therapies wherein one expresses oneself again and again ... and again and again. By being born and raised in the West I was not steeped in the mystical religious tradition of the East and was thus able to escape the trap of centuries of eastern spiritual conditioning.
I had never heard the words ‘Enlightenment’ or ‘Nirvana’ and so on until 1982 when talking to a man about my breakthrough, into what I called an ‘Absolute Freedom’ via the death of ‘my-self’, in September 1981. He listened – he questioned me rigorously until well after midnight – and then declared me to be ‘Enlightened’. I had to ask him what that was, such was my ignorance of all things spiritual. He – being a nine-year spiritual seeker fresh from his latest trip to India – gave me a book to read by someone called Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. That was to be the beginning of what was to become a long learning curve of all things religious, spiritual, mystical and metaphysical for me.
I studied all this because I sought to understand what other peoples had made of such spontaneous experiences and to find out where human endeavour had been going wrong.
I found out where I had been going wrong for eleven years ... self-aggrandisement is so seductive. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 16, 8 January 2001).

RESPONDENT: The second to AF.

RICHARD: As I am an actualist, and not an affer, your query indicates a double confusion (stemming from both text popping-up hither and thither on the internet and claims of aff posted to various buddhistic forums) which would not have come about had you utilised what is freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust website as your guaranteed-to-be-accurate source material.

I have written to this forum before about how vital it is that there be this guaranteed-to-be-accurate repository, of authentic reports/ descriptions/ explanations of an actual freedom from the human condition, so as to obviate any such confusion as peoples are nowadays subject to (and thus necessitating me coming out of my retirement from writing in order to clarify what others have muddied). Vis.:

#5388
From: S[...snip...].x@...>
Date: Sun May 10, 2009 7:53 am
Subject: Re: Richard

• [Respondent No. 6]: Thank you, Richard for sharing your experiences and discovery on the AF site.

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

• [Respondent No. 6]: I understand it fully. And protection of accuracy is of utmost importance as much of the person behind it. And i speak out of personal experience that radical departure from conformity is persecuted as a rule rather than an exception.

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

• [Respondent No. 6]: And that even an innocuous attempt to change it/or style can lead to compromising of the entire enterprise.
and lucky, [No. 4]!! ( i am already jealous!) :-) [...]. (see)

Having clarified that: the second major breakdown was the onset of what has been officially diagnosed as a chronic psychotic disorder entailing depersonalisation, derealisation, alexithymia and anhedonia – which began with a 30+ month period of a macabre and gruesome ‘mental anguish’ that both psychiatrists and psychologists were baffled by – and which has persisted for 20+ years.

Now, lest there be any confusion generated by my own words I will take this opportunity to add that I have oft-times stated how I do find it cute that peace-on-earth, in this life-time and as this flesh-and-body, be considered, by sane peoples, to be insanity. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: It is just my impression that you’re a neurotic, semi-insane fake.

• [Richard]: I have been examined by two accredited psychiatrists and officially diagnosed as genuinely psychotic (not just ‘neurotic’) and genuinely insane (not just ‘semi-insane’) ... only in these days of political correctness the words ‘mental disorder’ are used instead of the word ‘insane’. There is nothing ‘fake’ about it ... is an official record, duly stamped and notarised and so on.
Having clarified that point ... did you notice that your words ‘a neurotic, semi-insane fake’ amount to more or less the same thing that Mr. William James said at the end of the quote I posted previously? Vis.: [quote]: ‘... the practically real world for each one of us, the effective world of the individual, is the compound world, the physical facts and emotional values in indistinguishable combination. Withdraw or pervert either factor of this complex resultant, and the kind of experience we call pathological ensues’. (William James, ‘The Varieties of Religious Experience’; New York: The Modern Library, 1929; page 147).
Hmm ... ‘pathological’, eh? I do find it cute that the enabling of the already existing peace-on-earth, via an actual freedom from the human condition, is considered to this very day to be a severe and incurable psychotic disorder.

• [Co-Respondent]: I can’t substantiate that, and certainly have no proofs or bibliography to back it up – it’s just a feeling I have. Apologies if I’m wrong.

• [Richard]: There is no need to apologise as I am incapable of taking offence ... ‘twould be far better to invest such regretful energy into examining what necessitated the need for an apology in the first place, non? (List B, No. 54, 17 May 2001a).

Even more to that point is that those same sane peoples, who consider me insane, consider insanity (albeit institutionalised) to be the solution for all the ills of humankind – as in, all the ills of sanity – and deliberately leave it out of the DSM IV because of ‘religious sensitivities’.

So as to clarify the entire sanity-insanity issue I will draw your attention to the following quotes. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘I have not been sane for many, many years now’. (List B, No. 10e, 18 April 2003).

• [Richard]: ‘When ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) becomes extinct all its states of being, ranging from sanity through to insanity, also cease to be ... there is no ‘presence’ whatsoever here in this actual world to be either sane or insane’. (List B, No. 19 l, 18 April 2003).

Furthermore, I characterise that third alternative, to either sanity or insanity, as salubrity (and the third alternative, to either being sane or being insane, as being salubrious).

• ‘salubrity: the quality of being salubrious, healthiness, wholesomeness [conducive to general well-being]’. (Oxford Dictionary).

• ‘salubrious: favourable to health; healthy [salutary in effect], health-giving; esp. of surroundings, a place, etc.: pleasant, agreeable’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Here are some examples. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘I can understand your point of view: ‘if this is sanity, let me be insane ... let me go out of my mind’.
• [Richard]: ‘No, that is not what I have been saying at all: what I have been asking is whether it is possible for you to see sanity so completely that you will cease being sane ... end of story. Here in this actual world all is salubrious and irreprehensible ...’. (List B, No. 19 l, 18 April 2003).

• [Richard]: ‘(...) the salubrity and irreprehensibility of life in this actual world is pristine ..’. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 43, 25 April 2003).

• [Richard]: ‘Apperceptiveness makes possible salubrity and sagacity’. (Richard, Articles, Attentiveness, Sensuousness, Apperceptiveness).

Moreover, as I clearly state that it is sanity which is the problem (and that insanity is not the solution), the entire email exchange starting at ... (List B, No. 19 l, 12 April 2003) ... and going on for 9-10 emails is well worth a read.

Here are a few excerpts. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Are you telling me that when I see bombs dropping and people with their limbs blown off that what I am seeing is sane ...

• [Richard]: ‘Yes ... the bombs dropping, and people with their limbs blown off, is nothing other than sanity in action. And sanity prevails all over the world: for instance an estimated 2.5 million [currently 5.0 million] sane peoples have been killed in the civil war in the Congo (aka Zaire) by their sane fellow human beings ... perhaps it is because it is not being displayed 24/7 on television screens there seems to be very little outrage. Or maybe it is because without the good ol’ US of A to yet again mercilessly whip around the block there is no outlet for the outrage?
It is sanity which is the problem world-wide ... it is what you are seeing when observing the world (peoples in general) and yourself’. (List B, No. 19 l, 13 April 2003b)

• [Richard]: ‘(...) you classified what you see, when observing the world (peoples in general) and yourself, as being [quote] ‘insanity’ [endquote] and all I did was point out that what was really going on was sanity in action (and, further to the point, that sanity sucks big-time)’. (List B, No. 19 l, 18 April 2003)

• [Richard]: ‘(...) Speaking personally, for the first 34 years of my life I was sane (the ordinary, normal, common, or everyday sanity of people in general all over the world) and peace-on-earth was nowhere to be found; for the next 11 years I was in a transformed state of being (which I gradually came to realise was an institutionalised insanity) called The Absolute or Truth, God, Being, Presence, Self, and so on, which was exemplified by (...) a timeless, spaceless, formless immortal otherness which was a peace that passeth all understanding ... yet all the while peace-on-earth was still nowhere to be found. By ‘institutionalised’ I mean altered states of consciousness that have become institutions over the aeons: instituted as being states of consciousness which are universally accepted as the summum bonum of human existence ... a model to either live by, aspire to, become, or be. (...)’. (List B, No. 19 l, 18 April 2003).

• [Richard]: ‘When ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) becomes extinct all its states of being, ranging from sanity through to insanity, also cease to be ... there is no ‘presence’ whatsoever here in this actual world to be either sane or insane. I just find it cute that the solution to all the ills of humankind be considered insanity by sane people (most of whom live by, or aspire to become, the model provided by the insanity of the altered states of consciousness which have become institutionalised over the aeons by being universally accepted as the summum bonum of human existence anyway).’ (List B, No. 19 l, 18 April 2003)

• [Richard]: (...). Here in this actual world all is salubrious and irreprehensible ... just consider, for a moment if you will, that it is only a sanity-based analysis which would determine that permanent happiness and harmlessness be insanity (it speaks volumes about the nature of sanity that it does so). I know I have said it many times before but I will say it again for emphasis: I do find it cute that peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, be considered a chronic and incurable psychotic mental disorder’. (List B, No. 19 l, 18 April 2003). [end excerpts].

RESPONDENT: So they aren’t quite a deliberate process of a guy to get into enlightement ...

RICHARD: The identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago was not engaged in a process to ‘get into enlightenment’ at all (as already mentioned ‘he’ knew naught of enlightenment) as what ‘he’ was actively involved in was enabling the peerless purity and pristine perfection which had been indelibly imprinted in ‘his’ (non-affective) memory banks during a 4-hour PCE six months previously.

RESPONDENT: ... and later, AF, but outcomes out of those two major breakdowns?

RICHARD: If I might suggest? Try reading at least some of what is freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, first, before asking me what has the appearance of being un-researched and/ or ill-informed questions.

Before doing so, however, please read Message No. 10915.

Regards, Richard.

January 11 2013

Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest

RESPONDENT No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)]: are you seriously suggesting pushing this PTSD issue didn’t warrant the energy?

RESPONDENT No. 4: It’s a good example. What came of it, loud and clear, after defusing all the passionate attack/ defense stuff is:

1) Richard isn’t going to be put in the position of either confirming or denying any unauthorised content, for reasons he explained.

2) But, he’s also not going to withhold content that’s relevant to people’s lives, as in his forthright admission that the mental disorders he suffered after the war went *way* beyond PTSD.

RESPONDENT: Apart from past what about your other allegations abt Richard crying.. Stuff that hap in India and all the rest of the stuff that you said and heard.. Are you now sayin all of them were lies?

Or they are still valid but you have decided to push those discrepancies under the rug?

This is an serious enquiry from my part. It would help me formulate my own thoughts about the whole enterprise.

Was it all just a smear campaign and lies?

RICHARD: G’day No. 29, Yes, it was indeed ‘all just a smear campaign and lies’.

The term ‘made-up stuff’ is but a milder way of saying that it is all a pack of lies ... lies and deceit.

Regards, Richard.

January 11 2013

Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest

RICHARD: [...]. If I might suggest? Try reading at least some of what is freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, first, before asking me what has the appearance of being unresearched and/or ill-informed questions.

Before doing so, however, please read Message No. 10915.

RESPONDENT: [...]. You haven’t responded to the rest of my mail about all the allegations and you have already stated before that you won’t be. So that’s that. It will be upto me to take a call though on the authencity of those reports. Of course, there is no way I can make a proper call! If i trust them, it will be on faith that those who made them were true and If I don’t trust them, I am making it on faith they were lying or mistaken. either way it’s a subjective guess work on my part. Hmmm...

RICHARD: G’day No. 29, I did not respond to the rest of your email ‘about all the allegations’ partly for the reason my response was way too long already but mainly because to have done so would have detracted from the far, far more important central theme ... to wit: that it is sanity which is the problem (and that insanity is not the solution).

Look, here is the essence of what you are referring to as ‘the allegations’ in the rest of your email. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘[...]. The first and two points leads someone like to me doubt whether Actualism is a worth pursuit.
Then one reads all those stuff; allegations about the events in India. Did you commit a fraud there? Why were there investigators who took your memory stick?
There are reports of you dragging someone and sitting on their neck, of you even crying, regretting about getting old and other stuff like that. So all of this racks up on top of each other and creates a big cloud of doubt. [...]. You are the guy who has lived in actual freedom the longest. And if there is something disturbing in your acts, then it makes one think about that freedom itself.
Does it make a guy incapable of seeing that he himself is suffering (showing signs of) bad behaviour even? So as one gets all these doubts, one wants to debate them. It can either lead to clearing of those doubts or make one decide that actualism isn’t something worthful to pursue.
That’s all I am doing currently on this forum. (Message No. 12xxx)

I will now demonstrate something via the very first question you asked me ... namely:

• [Respondent]: Then one reads all those stuff; allegations about the events in India. Did you commit a fraud there? [endquote].

First, I will draw your attention to what I wrote on Wednesday the 2nd of January 2013, at 3:04 am, in Message No. 12293. Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 3]: Hi Richard. As far as i am aware this issue has not been (properly) addressed yet. as to: [I say clandestine because the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust have been aware for quite some time of emails being privately circulated containing all manner of made-up stuff about ‘Richard & his associates’]. Since you seem to have inside information with regard to the existance of particulary ‘made up stuff’ about ‘Richard & his associates’. Can and will you please provide any of the content of that material such as for perusal as to what kind of [emails being privately circulated containing all manner of made-up stuff about ‘Richard & his associates’] have been intercepted by the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust?

• [Richard]: G’day No. 3, What the directors were aware of was that emails were being privately circulated (clandestinely) and not the contents ... a person on another forum, for instance, publicly reported he had received one (and an entire thread was started on that very topic).

• [Respondent No. 3]: Particulary an expression the like ‘all manner made-up stuff ‘ i find somewhat at odds with your usually accurately providing references to material, such as that a reader can make up s/his own opinion on the matter at hand.

• [Richard]: The person – or even persons – who was/who were ‘as yet unknown’ did not have/has not had the common decency and/or extend the common courtesy of Cc-ing either me or the directors a copy/copies.
Hence my vague ‘all manner of made-up stuff’.
In short: I have been/am being asked to rebut/refute many and various things I was not/have not been informed of by the person – or even persons – who was/who were ‘as yet unknown’.
Hence also my usage of ‘poltroons’. [...]. (Richard to No. 3, 2 January 2013)

Now, back to that very first question of yours. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: Then one reads all those stuff; allegations about the events in India. Did you commit a fraud there? [endquote].

The key words are [quote] ‘one reads all those stuff’ [endquote], right?

Now, I have read every word that the ... um ... the ‘star witness’ has posted to this forum, since she commenced her vindictive smear campaign, all of her own accord, at 1:45 pm on Thursday the 15th of September, 2011, and nowhere do I recall any mention of her phantom ‘Richard’ having committed a fraud in India.

If you will provide the relevant message number – of the original post and not someone’s compilation – so that I can read just what it is you are referring to it might throw some light upon the matter.

What I can say, in the meanwhile, is that nobody from the Indian Police or the Indian Government – be they State or Federal – has contacted me, since my departure from India over two years ago, in regards to any matter at all (let alone any such fraud (purportedly) having been committed whilst in India).

Indeed, there was no hold-up at all during the departure process at Trivandrum Airport, just prior to flying out on 02/09/2010, and the Immigration & Customs officials are the first to be notified in regards detaining suspect visitors.

Regards, Richard.

January 11 2013

Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest

RICHARD: [...].

RESPONDENT: [...]. Then one reads all those stuff; allegations about the events in India. Did you commit a fraud there? Why were there investigators who took your memory stick? There are reports of you dragging someone and sitting on their neck ...

RICHARD: G’day No. 29, ‘Tis fascinating to see that your phantom ‘Richard’ is ‘sitting on their neck’ (i.e. the neck of a phantom ‘someone’).

Whereas, for instance, [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)] has his phantom ‘Richard’ sitting on a terrified phantom woman’s chest (as well as horrifying his phantom visitors by squeezing her phantom throat till she is ‘breathless’). (Message No. 11xxx).

As the ... um ... the ‘star witness’ has her phantom ‘Richard’ sitting on his phantom partner’s chest – and holding her down with both his phantom hands on her phantom neck (Message No. 10570) – it would surely be worth your while to ask the person she got her hearsay account from just what the truth of the matter is, would it not? Vis.:

#12xxx
From: [No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘AA’)]
Date: Fri Jan 4, 2013 11:45 pm
Subject: calling Richard’s bluff

• [No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘AA’)]: Hi No. 19, [List Owner]
Looks like Richard is intent on having his dirty linen be washed in a web forum, that’s why my expressed request about not been dragged into mud slinging has gone past his head. He is not only mixing me up again with many persons who have been writing in this forum, but is intent upon maligning me yet again. I have written in this forum via the pen name [No. 6 (Sock Puppet ‘A’)] ( and since my mail account was breached several times, I have deleted it since).
Prior to that I wrote by another name, which I changed due to privacy reasons. I have used no other name/ alias/ pen name to write in this forum. [...].
the account I gave in the post of an AF partner perpetrating violence against a non - AF partner is what [...name deleted...] has personally told me.

Now, I have deliberately removed the name she gave because, somewhere along the line, all you people regurgitating all this made-up stuff do need to look – with your own eyes – at what was actually written, in the original text, because it is demonstrably evident that imagination is stitching together some disparate ‘data’-points – all of which are also imaginary, – so as to make something other than what actually happened a (feeling-fed) ‘reality’.

I have written to this forum about this much-lauded aspect of being a feeling-being (i.e. the imaginative facility) only recently. Vis.:

• [Richard to Claudiu]: ‘Of course, for the person concerned, in situations like this (and there have been more than a few face-to-face instances for me over the years), it is not a charade but a passionate truth as imagination stitches together a multiplicity of otherwise disparate ‘data’-points, most of which are also imaginary, into a (seemingly) seamless whole. (Message No. 12303).

Note well how I provided [No. 5 (Sock Puppet ‘H’)] with a one-off opportunity to produce his so-called ‘reports’, of [quote] ‘perverted woman bashing’ [endquote], and yet he failed to do so. (That way he can keep on making assertions, such as ‘its about time something was done before it gets even more out of hand and YOU physically hurt someone AGAIN!’ in Message No. 12xxx via avoidance of having been brought face-to-face with what his so-called ‘reports’ actually say).

So, it is up to you, now.

Regards, Richard.

January 11 2013

Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest

RICHARD: [...]. I did not respond to the rest of your email ‘about all the allegations’ partly for the reason my response was way too long already but mainly because to have done so would have detracted from the far, far more important central theme ... to wit: that it is sanity which is the problem (and that insanity is not the solution).

RESPONDENT: Okay. My concern was you arrived at actual freedom from a position of insanity. And further that insanity itself arrived from a severe psychotic disorder. So whether the enterprise is conducive for normal people like me. I use normal here to talk about guys without any breakdown and disorders. And sane. You have pointed out that sanity is the problem. I wonder whether the mutations that is entailed in actualism process can be done by normal people. The likes of vineeto peter and few others have shown that it can be done.

Let me digest all of this.

RICHARD: G’day No. 29, Sure ... just a couple of minor points, in regards to your reply above, to aid the digestive process.

First, I did indeed arrive at an actual freedom from the human condition from ‘a position of insanity’ (aka fully-fledged spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment).

However, to say further that ‘insanity itself arrived from a severe psychotic disorder’ is to confuse terminology within itself as the word insanity is but another word for the (politically correct) term ‘severe psychotic disorder’. (Otherwise, what you are saying, in effect, is ‘and further that insanity itself arrived from insanity’).

Second, regarding whether the enterprise is conducive for normal people like yourself (people without any breakdown, disorders and sane): nobody, absolutely nobody, has to and/or needs to – or even can nowadays (if they were silly enough to want to) – follow in my footsteps.

The direct-route to an actual freedom – a down-to-earth manumission hitherto only available dangerously via spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment – obviates going through (institutionalised) insanity to get to the other side.

Regards, Richard.

January 12 2013

Re: Privacy vs. Public Interest

RICHARD: [...] regarding whether the enterprise is conducive for normal people like yourself (people without any breakdown, disorders and sane): nobody, absolutely nobody, has to and/or needs to – or even can nowadays (if they were silly enough to want to) – follow in my footsteps.

The direct-route to an actual freedom – a down-to-earth manumission hitherto only available dangerously via spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment – obviates going through (institutionalised) insanity to get to the other side.

RESPONDENT: Curious about the usage of manumission. It refers to the act of the slave owner freeing his slaves. Why are you using it in this context? Any particular reason?

RICHARD: G’day No. 29, Yes, it is a particularly apt word I specifically selected when I first started to put together ‘Richard’s Personal Web Page’ – a more biographical account, with many snapshots taken at various stages of my life going back to childhood, of my discovery presented in a secular way (and 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) – so as to quite graphically convey just what a vital role it is ‘I’ have to play in setting free the flesh-and-blood body that is ‘my’ unwitting host.

To set the context I will first draw your attention to what feeling-being ‘Peter’ wrote (for example) at the very beginning of ‘his’ opus ‘Introducing Actual Freedom’ presentation. Vis.:

‘For thousands of years, human beings have searched in vain for genuine freedom, peace and happiness. Now, for the first time, a proven method has been devised to eliminate the genetically-encoded instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire, the very passions that are the root cause of *human bondage*, malice and sorrow (...)’. [emphasis added]. Introduction to Actual Freedom, Index

That second sentence conveys the information that the genetically-encoded instinctual passions (fear, aggression, nurture and desire) are the root cause of ‘human bondage’ – the slavery/ servitude of the flesh and blood body to its master/ its overlord who is called, in actualism terminology, the identity within – plus the malice and sorrow which arises out of those passions/ that identity.

To explain that latter point first: both malice and sorrow are not instinctual passions per se but arise in the human animal because of its unique-amongst-animals ability to be aware of being conscious/ of being sentient, which thereby automatically forms an affective identity/a feeling being who is those very passions in action – as in ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ – and that affective identity/ that feeling being is malicious and sorrowful (and, compensatingly, loving and compassionate) as a result of thus being conscious/ being aware of its innate ‘good and bad’ dichotomous nature, popularly known as ‘the human condition’, and all the misery and mayhem it brings about by its very presence/ the very passions it is).

Now, the slavery which the word bondage refers to is also expressed via the word thralldom at the bottom of every web-page, on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site, as well as being situated at the top of my homepage. Vis.:

• bondage: serfdom, slavery; (hist.) tenure in villeinage, services due from a tenant to a proprietor. (Oxford Dictionary).

• thralldom: the state or condition of being a thrall [a person in bondage to a lord or master; a villein, a serf, a slave]. (Oxford Dictionary).

At the risk of belabouring the point: that tenant/ person/ villein/ serf/ slave is, as it were, the flesh and blood body and that proprietor/ lord/ master is, so to speak, the identity within (who persuades and/or dictates or in any other way forces the body to act or behave in a reprehensible or insalubrious manner).

Hence my usage of manumission (and/or manumit, manumited); also, because it is an unusual word/a word not in common usage, there is the likely possibility a reader/listener will take note of it – look it up if they truly want to know what is being referred to – and remember it, later, if only because of its quaintness. Vis.:

• manumission (from Latin manumittere, lit. ‘send out from one’s hand’): release from slavery; release from bondage or servitude; set free. (Oxford Dictionary).

(I have a predilection for utilising little-known words/obsolete words – such as psittacisms, those mechanical repetitions of previously received ideas or images reflecting neither apperception nor autonomous reasoning, instead of, say, clichés – for this very reason).

I will take this opportunity to add that an as-fully-informed-as-possible identity is vital to the whole process as only an identity, and no-one else, can set its host free.

For instance:

• [Richard]: ‘... you have a vital role to play, not only in regards peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as that flesh and blood body, but in enabling the already always existing meaning of life (or ‘the purpose of the universe’ or ‘the reason for existence’ or however one’s quest may be described) into becoming apparent.
In short: your freedom, or lack thereof, is in your hands and your hands alone’. Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 80, 28 December 2004

Another way of putting it is that identity has a job to do. Vis.:

• [Gary]: ‘Is it correct to say that ‘I’ am in abeyance during the PCE?
• [Richard]: ‘That was the word that occurred to me to describe the experience ... ‘suspended’, maybe (as in ‘the operation has been suspended until further notice’)?
• [Gary]: ‘Or is it more accurate to say that ‘I’ have vacated the scene completely and totally?
• [Richard]: ‘Oh, yes, there is a marked absence of ‘me’ during the experience ... perhaps it is more correct to say that it is after the experience, when ‘I’ reappear, that in hindsight it becomes obvious that ‘I’ was in abeyance?
• [Gary]: ‘What causes ‘me’ to return?
• [Richard]: ‘Because ‘I’ have a job to do: ‘I’ am going to make the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for this body and that body and every body ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worthwhile. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life’. Actual Freedom Mailing List, Gary, 15 August 2000

Regards, Richard.

June 9 2013

Re: Few humble words from Justine

RICHARD to No. 4: [...] And it is not correct because what you had actually said, in that post being referred to, was in relation to a woman who back then was in New Zealand (which, as you rightly noted in your previous email, is not ‘another continent’).

CLAUDIU: G’day Richard, For what it’s worth, I appreciate the clarification here. I didn’t look back at [No.4]’s #11349 when he first replied to [No. 37], but based just on that message to [No. 37] + #11349, I would have assumed that ‘he was actively trying to woo another woman back into a full-time sexual relationship with him (which she had suspended while trying to decide her future)’ referred to that ‘woman on another continent’.

It actually does seem like a really simple thing that did get massively overblown.

RICHARD to Claudiu: Thank you for your feedback; especially so as I was beginning to wonder whether it was worth my while to continue writing about any topic/any issue if none of the peoples active on this forum could comprehend something which – to me anyway – was such an obvious thing I even hesitated writing in to point it out in the first place.

RESPONDENT: Hi Richard This is what I got from this latest interactions between you and [No. 4].

RICHARD: G’day No. 29, Thank you for your feedback; especially so as it is of much assistance in regards to what areas of [No. 4]’s self-proclaimed ‘on-site observation’ and ‘reliable ... observation’ still need to be addressed and exposed for the self-evident deceit they are.

Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 4]: ‘To the best of my knowledge, it’s neither illegal nor immoral to write truthfully about these matters (from *on-site observation* and direct testimony) – otherwise I wouldn’t be doing it’.

• [Respondent No. 4]: ‘... I’ll throw in my two cents here because it’s informed by *reliable* testimony and *observation* ...’. [emphases added]. (Message 11349)

RESPONDENT: 1)In his original post, [No. 4] had referred to your ex wife.

RICHARD: Yes, clearly and unambiguously: his words ‘back into’ are distinctly different to ‘recruiting another’ inasmuch the former refers to a prior situation (purportedly) being re-established and the latter to a (purportedly) yet-to-be established situation.

Is it clear to you, from my recent posts, that neither his ‘back into’ words nor his ‘recruiting another’ words are a product of either ‘on-site observation’ or ‘reliable ... observation’? If not, read on (immediately below).

RESPONDENT: 2) The interpretation sustained by not correcting [No. 37]’s ‘remembrance’ replaces ‘ex wife’ with the other lady, who, these days, owns a negative belief about you and who has quit the forum, after alleging a lot of dramatic stuff about you, which led to doubts about you, and actualism, in many people’s mind.

RICHARD: Yes, and the self-evident deceit in this situation is the fact that he (No. 4) prefaces his ‘recruiting another’ words with both the word ‘actively’ and the date ‘February 2010’.

Vis.:

#11349
From: [Respondent
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:55 pm
Subject: Re: Richard writes mysticism

• [Respondent No. 4]: [...]
• [Respondent No. 6 (Sock-Puppet ‘W’)]: [...].
• [Respondent No. 4]: [...]. In February 2010 the genitor of actual freedom [...] was in the process of actively recruiting another woman to be his full-time, live-in sex partner, along with his other partners. [...].

Not only had the woman he refers to recruited herself (to use his phraseology) but the fact she did so in December 2009 makes it self-evident that his ‘recruiting another’ words are not a product of either ‘on-site observation’ or ‘reliable ... observation’.

RESPONDENT: So, as an aside, can one then infer that you never tried to enter into a relationship with this lady (not your ex wife) and her fears of you were about whole lot of different issues (which I would like to clarify in this manner but not sure whether you are ready to go with me on that ride; if not, you can perhaps give a reason for not wanting. If you can talk about that issue, then we can start it later to sort out the intrpretations of her allegations) ?

RICHARD: There is no need to infer as I have been up-front and out-in-the-open about my part in what actually transpired.

Vis.:

#13675
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Tue Jun 4, 2013 6:01 pm
Subject: Re: Few humble words from Justine

• [Richard]: [...].
• [Respondent No. 4]: [...].
• [Richard]: Incidentally, when someone informs me (upon me having carefully questioned them whether they had meant ‘meet’, and not ‘join’, in a previous email) that they intend to join me – and the other actualists – on the MSV Actualis itself there is simply no way I can understand this, by any stretch of the language, as being rightfully characterised as [quote] ‘the genitor ... in the process of actively recruiting’ [end quote] that person.

And:

#13780
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Fri Jun 7, 2013 9:26 am
Subject: Re: Few humble words from Justine

• [Richard]: [...].
• [Respondent No. 4]: [...].
• [Richard]: [...] it is impossible to sustain the allegation of ‘recruiting another’ when it becomes evident that she had already recruited herself (and that all Richard had done was to delightedly acquiesce and whole-heartedly support). [...].

As for [quote] ‘her fears of you’ [endquote] the following, straight from the horse’s mouth, should suffice for the nonce. Vis.:

#136xx
From: [Respondent No. 4]
Date: Wed Jun 5, 2013 1:06 am
Subject: Re: Okay, let’s do this...

• [Respondent No. 4]: [...]. The reason I didn’t contact Richard back in late 2010 was because I felt like I’d been duped, that the whole actual freedom thing was a giant delusion, and Richard was about the last person I’d want to be associated with in any way. (If you suddenly learn things that make you think you’ve been part of a deluded cult, you generally don’t go to the cult leader to talk about your concerns; you get the fuck out of there and you warn a few friends). [...].

Plus what I posted 17 months earlier. Vis.:

#10780
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:40 am
Subject: Re: [...] two types of Actual Freedom

• [Richard]: [...].
• [Respondent No. 24]: [...].
• [Richard]: [...]. Perhaps if I were to spell it out graphically: there is a person, as yet unknown – or even persons, maybe, also as yet unknown – who are frightening her, scaring her out of her wits, almost, by the look of it, so as to advance their own agenda ... namely: their crusade to rid the planet of actualism/ actual freedom.
For she is their ‘Star Witness’ (so to speak) in their clandestine campaign to discredit and/or destroy ‘Richard’.
And I say clandestine because the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust have been aware for quite some time of emails being privately circulated containing all manner of made-up stuff about ‘Richard & his associates’. [...].

Please note that his ‘warn a few friends’ actions stemmed from feelings and not facts ... as expressed explicitly in his preceding [quote] ‘because I felt like I’d been duped’ [endquote] words.

RESPONDENT: 3) There have been clarifications about [No. 4]’s original post itself. That wooing ( and words of that ilk) is not the correct word to be used as there was no such thing done by you.

RICHARD: Exactly.

RESPONDENT: That it was your wife who was interested in the communal-lifestyle and wanted to get back-into. Also, she had taken a break from the relationship because she got frightened of perfection (which clarified yet another [No. 4]’s perspective).

Hmm ...

1) your wife wanted to come back after being frightened of perfection, and you just encouraged it. There was no active recruiting.

2) You never wooed the other lady or tried to actively recruit her either.

RICHARD: The following – heavily edited for reasons of space – will show that the words ‘back into’ (a nuclear couple association/a nuclear household living arrangement) do not adequately convey what was planned for ‘The Floating Convivium Project’. Vis.:

#8684
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Thu Jan 7, 2010 7:34 am
Subject: Re: A Long-Awaited Public Announcement

• [Richard]: [...].
• [Respondent No. 12]: [...].
• [Richard]: [...] the name convivialist – for a person living convivially in a convivium – will serve to distinguish them from those isolated nuclear couples living in separative nuclear households/ lifestyles [...].
It thus became obvious that by continuing to keep myself locked away, so to speak, in an exclusive nuclear couple/ nuclear family type of living arrangement there would continue to be a denial of access, to my fellow human beings at large, for any such potentially potent interactions. [...].
There is more to both an actual and a virtual freedom from the human condition than nuclear couples living in separate homes; the overall aim is to provide the genesis of peoples living peacefully and harmoniously together on a community-wide basis. [...].
So as to provide some idea of what is planned: the MSV Actualis has eight cabins – in four suites each with a common washroom (with basin/ shower/ toilet) plus common tea-and coffee-making facilities à la motels, betwixt each – with wall-to-wall beds (king-size beds in popular parlance) with one cabin for each (nominal) crew-member and at least one cabin always reserved for guests ... a guest cabin, in other words.
Put simplistically: no married couples; only single people living intimately as one big happy (and harmless) convivium. [...].

Personally, if I were the one to have written what became known as ‘[No. 4]’s Historical Statement’ I would have used words such as ‘move forward into’, rather than ‘back into’, but, then again, I am not a feeling-being who had [quote] ‘felt like I’d been duped’ [endquote] at the time of writing.

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)