Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘D’ Correspondence

(Editors Note: For a possible explanation see )

June 12 2013

Re: Few humble words from Justine

SRID: i see No. 15’s point. we let ourselves be affected by the people surrounding SG [No. 6] (who presented a picture instead of facts). this is quite a shame, because that is not what actualism is about.

RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): You know the reason why only a picture was presented and even then she was made to keep quiet, don’t you?

I could spell it out for you if you don’t. A sock puppet came on to this forum and threatened to post details of what transpired between this lady and Richard which would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair. Because of this, she was choked from speaking out.

CLAUDIU: Could you provide message #s/quotes of the above happening? Or a message # of where to start reading. I don’t remember reading it as-it-happened and I wouldn’t know where to look, exactly. It’s easier to navigate the yahoo group archives if you know where to look (as you seem to).

RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, Just a quick note to advise you what the ‘particular message’ your co-respondent is referring to may very well be.

The following URL will help you ‘to navigate the yahoo group archives’ in that regard:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/11434

The ‘particular message’ your co-respondent is referring to may very well be the email part-quoted immediately after these words (about 3/4 the way through the above post):

‘The following is probably the most blatantly obvious clue to emerge to date ...’.

RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): No, it is not that message but the URL listed above did have the part of the message that I was referring to:

#11325
From: watsonholly51 <no_reply@...>
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:06 pm
G’day Richard, Would you divulge the affair between you and [...].

RICHARD: As Claudiu has already pointed out (in #13943) there is nothing in the full version, of the above message (#11325) you re-present, which fits the (further above) depiction of yours.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: A sock puppet came on to this forum and threatened to post details of what transpired between this lady and Richard which would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair. Because of this, she was choked from speaking out.

Whereas the following partly fits that depiction of yours (but not your ‘threatened to post details’ part of course). Viz.:

#11075
From: [Respondent No. 2]:
Date: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:30 am
Subject: Evidence, was Re: No. 2 and No. 4

• [Respondent No. 2]: The sharer is not sure that the material would not scandalize the sharer itself in the society that the sharer lives in and so would make the sharer’s future life even more troublesome.
The sharer likely has already paid an extremely heavy social cost for the sharer’s misadventure. [...].

Quite frankly, nobody of the ilk you allude to (i.e. ‘sock-puppets of Richard & Associates’) could have ‘threatened to post details’ as there are only two people on this planet who intimately know them and, thus far, I have of course remained as circumspect as possible (so as to spare her feelings as she was, quite evidentially, hurt, hurting and hurtful) in the circumstances.

If I might ask? Just what is it that persuades you to state [quote] ‘would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote]?

My reason for asking is that she wrote to the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust (on Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:30 AM), advising of her academic qualification/ position, and asking for copyright permission – which was readily granted – to quote and provide reference to The Actual Freedom Trust website in blogs and academic writing (conference papers and research papers for publication in journals).

Further to that point: whilst I was in India, in 2010, she formally introduced me to various colleagues/ associates/ acquaintances/ friends – in dinner-party/ supper-party/ dining-out/ home-hosting type settings – where conversations ranged *freely* in regards to life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are.

(Maybe you are not aware that in India – arguably the bed-rock of deep, profound, religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical experience – there is nothing that would ‘scandalize’, be ‘troublesome’, or of an ‘extremely heavy social cost’, such as [quote] ‘would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote], by being associated with me, discussing such matters as this mailing-list forum is set-up for (my reports/ descriptions/ explanations of going beyond nirvana/ samadhi and/or parinirvana/ mahasamadhi), or anything of similar ilk).

Put specifically: you have been sucked in by No. 2’s deliberate and calculated mis-information/ dis-information campaign and are busily perpetuating it for him ... the following is something else you have so obligingly perpetuated, on his behalf, in your above post.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: Some sock puppets had popped out at that time which haven’t posted since, [Respondent No. 00] and [Respondent No. 00L] being the ones that I remember.

And the following is where you obtained that particular bit of mis-information/ dis-information from (the post immediately before that message (#11325) you re-presented).

Viz.:

#11324
From: [Respondent No. 2]:
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:56 pm
Subject: [Respondent No. 00] and watsonholly (and possibly others) sock-puppets of Richard & Associates.

• [Respondent No. 2]: There was a [s...xxx] also, and I don’t know who is [A...r].

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:23 PM, [Respondent No. 2] wrote: Beware.

Now, I know for a fact that [Respondent No. 00] (posting as <email ID withheld>) is not a ‘sock-puppet of Richard & Associates’ as that is both her birth-certificate name and the only email ID she used.

Also, she was quite up-front about having met in-person.

Viz.:

#108xx
From: [Respondent No. 00]
Date: Mon Feb 6, 2012 8:12 am
Subject: A perspective for your consideration

• [Respondent No. 00]: Hello everyone: I’m new to the list, but have been lurking for a couple of months, and have been reading the AF Trust website material for 3 or so years on and off and recently read Richard’s journal and watched the DVDs. I’ve been focusing on HAIETMOBA quite intensively in my daily activities for the past 6 months or so. I have not yet experienced a PCE (that I am aware of) and am still a feeling being. I do, however, have the advantage of having had direct, face-to-face contact with Richard and Vineeto and that has been enormously beneficial. I can vouch for them being safe, sincere, generous, on-to-it, helpful (and fun) to be around. The world will be a much better place when there are more people like them: actually free of the human condition.
And I intend to be one of them. [...].

(Incidentally, she is the woman I referred to, in the post (#10532) wherein my renewal of that ‘blank cheque’ invitation of Dec 14th 2009 (#8218) was made, as having become freed from ever being serious again – she said it was a permanent shift – in a little over 24 hours after landing at the Ballina Airport in late 2011).

So, I would advise taking a second look, and a really good look this time around, at that above post of No. 2’s (#11324) where he was somehow (presciently?) able to warn everyone, at 2:56 pm on the 21st of February, 2012, to beware of a person identifying as [quote] ‘watsonholly (and possibly others)’ [endquote] as being a sock-puppet of ‘Richard & Associates’ a full ten minutes before the person identifying as ‘watsonholly51’ posted their first, and only email ever, to this forum (at 3:06 pm on that 21st day of February, 2012).

Furthermore, have a look at how he is somehow (miraculously?) able to do that in response to a post of his own – with the one-word text ‘Beware’ in its body – which is manifestly time-stamped as having being posted 5 hours and 27 minutes *later* (at 8:23 pm on that quite remarkable 21st day of February, 2012).

Thus, seeing as how No. 2 is somehow complicit, in whatever it was which led to that one-off appearance of ‘watsonholly51’, that quaint ‘Would you divulge ...’ (rather than the regular ‘Will you ...’) provides a pointer to just which particular person of No.2’s intimate acquaintance it might be whom he would thus be privy to the intention, on their part, to post such an email a full ten minutes before they did so.

Ain’t life grand!

Regards, Richard.

June 16 2013

Re: Few humble words from Justine

SRID: i see No. 15’s point. we let ourselves be affected by the people surrounding SG [No. 6] (who presented a picture instead of facts). this is quite a shame, because that is not what actualism is about.

RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): You know the reason why only a picture was presented and even then she was made to keep quiet, don’t you?

I could spell it out for you if you don’t. A sock puppet came on to this forum and threatened to post details of what transpired between this lady and Richard which would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair. Because of this, she was choked from speaking out.

RICHARD: [...]. If I might ask? Just what is it that persuades you to state [quote] ‘would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote]?

My reason for asking is that she wrote to the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust (on Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:30 AM), advising of her academic qualification/ position, and asking for copyright permission – which was readily granted – to quote and provide reference to The Actual Freedom Trust website in blogs and academic writing (conference papers and research papers for publication in journals).

Further to that point: whilst I was in India, in 2010, she formally introduced me to various colleagues/ associates/ acquaintances/ friends – in dinner-party/ supper-party/ dining-out/ home-hosting type settings – where conversations ranged *freely* in regards to life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are.

(Maybe you are not aware that in India – arguably the bed-rock of deep, profound, religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical experience – there is nothing that would ‘scandalize’, be ‘troublesome’, or of an ‘extremely heavy social cost’, such as [quote] ‘would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote], by being associated with me, discussing such matters as this mailing-list forum is set-up for (my reports/ descriptions/ explanations of going beyond nirvana/ samadhi and/or parinirvana/ mahasamadhi), or anything of similar ilk).

RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): Nothing of the above mentioned would scandalize or be troublesome etc. ...

RICHARD: Okay ... as none of the ‘above mentioned’ is what you had in mind, when you told Srid that [quote] ‘a sock puppet came on to this forum and threatened to post details of what transpired between this lady and Richard which would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote], it is not at all surprising just what it is that you did have in mind, then.

Could it, perchance, have been planted in your mind by the way in which that #11325 message you specifically referred to was worded?

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: No, it is not that message but the URL listed above did have the part of the message that I was referring to:

#11325
From: watsonholly51 <no_reply@...>
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:06 pm
G’day Richard, Would you divulge the affair between you and [...].

So as to not beat around the bush here are some examples of what the word affair refers to:

• affair (n.): a sexual relationship between two people who are not married to each other. ~ (Collins Dictionary).

• affair (n.): a usually secretive or illicit sexual relationship. ~ (WordNet 3.0).

• affair (n.): a sexual relationship, esp. a secret one. ~ (Cambridge Dictionary).

• affair (n.): a sexual relationship between two people, especially when one of them is married to someone else. ~ (Macmillan Dictionary).

• affair (n.): a romantic and sexual relationship, sometimes one of brief duration, between two people who are not married to each other. ~ (American Heritage Dictionary).

RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): but being ‘single’ and ...

RICHARD: Please provide the message where she says she is not married.

RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): ... and being ‘mingling’ (including sex) with others would scandalize or be troublesome.

RICHARD: Please provide the message where she says she is [quote] ‘mingling’ (including sex) with others’ [endquote].

Also, I would suggest re-reading what Srid posted a week ago (Sun Jun 9, 2013) before reaching for the keyboard again. (Message 13854)

Take particular note of what he has to say in the fourth paragraph, about the ‘ambience-atmosphere-milieu’ effect, before going on to read the fifth paragraph.

Who knows, it may very well enable you to get your mind out of the gutter that No. 4 and No. 2 put it into with their ... um ... their testosterone-fuelled and/or libido-driven mis-information and dis-information campaign, eh?

RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): If someone is posting from different continents, times can be different on different posts. There is nothing more to it than that. You have been fooling yourself.

RICHARD: The automated time-stamped dating on each numbered message indicates the moment the ‘Yahoo Groups’ software processes each incoming post and, virtually instantaneously, thereby makes them accessible to list-members. It has nothing to do with the varying time-zones of list-members on different continents.

Put differently, the instant you click ‘Send’ is virtually the same instant that fully-automated software processes it regardless of your physical location on the globe.

The so-called ‘time-zones’ are actually a measure of physical distance, longitudinally, from Greenwich, England, as this very moment is the same-same moment for everybody on the planet, the instant it happens, no matter what so-called ‘time’ has been assigned to it via the internationally agreed-upon navigational system of meridians (latitude and longitude) established a few centuries ago.

Regards, Richard.

June 16 2013

Re: Few humble words from Justine

SRID: i see No. 15’s point. we let ourselves be affected by the people surrounding SG [No. 6] (who presented a picture instead of facts). this is quite a shame, because that is not what actualism is about.

RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): You know the reason why only a picture was presented and even then she was made to keep quiet, don’t you?

I could spell it out for you if you don’t. A sock puppet came on to this forum and threatened to post details of what transpired between this lady and Richard which would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair. Because of this, she was choked from speaking out. (#13913)

CLAUDIU: Could you provide message #s/quotes of the above happening? Or a message # of where to start reading. I don’t remember reading it as-it-happened and I wouldn’t know where to look, exactly. It’s easier to navigate the yahoo group archives if you know where to look (as you seem to). (#13914)

RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, Just a quick note to advise you what the ‘particular message’ your co-respondent is referring to may very well be.

The following URL will help you ‘to navigate the yahoo group archives’ in that regard:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/11434

The ‘particular message’ your co-respondent is referring to may very well be the email part-quoted immediately after these words (about 3/4 the way through the above post):

‘The following is probably the most blatantly obvious clue to emerge to date ...’.

RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): No, it is not that message but the URL listed above did have the part of the message that I was referring to:

#11325
From: watsonholly51 <no_reply@...>
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:06 pm
G’day Richard, Would you divulge the affair between you and [...]. (message 11934)

RICHARD: As Claudiu has already pointed out (in #13943) there is nothing in the full version, of the above message (#11325) you re-present, which fits the (further above) depiction of yours.

Viz.:

• [Respondent]: A sock puppet came on to this forum and threatened to post details of what transpired between this lady and Richard which would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair. Because of this, she was choked from speaking out.

Whereas the following partly fits that depiction of yours (but not your ‘threatened to post details’ part of course). Viz.:

#110xx
From: [Respondent No. 2]:
Date: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:30 am
Subject: Evidence, was Re: No. 2 and No. 4

• [Respondent No. 2]: The sharer is not sure that the material would not scandalize the sharer itself in the society that the sharer lives in and so would make the sharer’s future life even more troublesome.
The sharer likely has already paid an extremely heavy social cost for the sharer’s misadventure. [...].

Quite frankly, nobody of the ilk you allude to (i.e. ‘sock-puppets of Richard & Associates’) could have ‘threatened to post details’ as there are only two people on this planet who intimately know them and, thus far, I have of course remained as circumspect as possible (so as to spare her feelings as she was, quite evidentially, hurt, hurting and hurtful) in the circumstances.

If I might ask? Just what is it that persuades you to state [quote] ‘would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote]?

My reason for asking is that she wrote to the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust (on Thursday, May 21, 2009 12:30 AM), advising of her academic qualification/ position, and asking for copyright permission – which was readily granted – to quote and provide reference to The Actual Freedom Trust website in blogs and academic writing (conference papers and research papers for publication in journals).

Further to that point: whilst I was in India, in 2010, she formally introduced me to various colleagues/ associates/ acquaintances/ friends – in dinner-party/ supper-party/ dining-out/ home-hosting type settings – where conversations ranged *freely* in regards to life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are.

(Maybe you are not aware that in India – arguably the bed-rock of deep, profound, religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical experience – there is nothing that would ‘scandalize’, be ‘troublesome’, or of an ‘extremely heavy social cost’, such as [quote] ‘would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote], by being associated with me, discussing such matters as this mailing-list forum is set-up for (my reports/ descriptions/ explanations of going beyond nirvana/ samadhi and/or parinirvana/ mahasamadhi), or anything of similar ilk).

RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): Nothing of the above mentioned would scandalize or be troublesome etc. ...

RICHARD: Okay ... as none of the ‘above mentioned’ is what you had in mind, when you told Srid that [quote] ‘a sock puppet came on to this forum and threatened to post details of what transpired between this lady and Richard which would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote], it is not at all surprising just what it is that you did have in mind, then.

Could it, perchance, have been planted in your mind by the way in which that #11325 message you specifically referred to was worded?

RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): I have read many messages.

RICHARD: Aye, and when Claudiu asked you (in #13914) to provide the message numbers or quotes for what you told Srid (in #13913) – re-presented just above – you said you thought ‘that particular message was deleted because it had the name of the lady’ (in #13915) so I provided Claudiu with a URL (in #13925), wherein that ‘particular message’ may very well be, to which you said (in #13934) that the URL did have the part of the message you were referring to and re-presented that part-message for him.

So, when Claudiu pointed out to you (in #13934) how there is nothing in the full version of that message (i.e. #11325) you had re-presented which fitted the depiction of yours (in #13913) – re-presented just above – I then asked you (in #13958) just what it is which persuades you to state that details made public about what transpired [quote] ‘would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote].

Now, as I know that nothing at all – nothing whatsoever – transpired which would ‘scandalize’, be ‘troublesome’, or of an ‘extremely heavy social cost’, such as [quote] ‘would have tarred her image in the society she happens to be living in beyond repair’ [endquote], it is a very simple matter for me to point out to you just where that ... um ... that libido-driven picture might have been planted in your mind.

However, when I did point that out – via the very word ‘affair’ (in #11325) – and even provided some dictionary definitions so as to not be beating around the bush your reply is a vague [quote] ‘I have read many messages’ [endquote] deflection away from the fact that you had already specified just which message it was (i.e. #11325) which had persuaded you.

RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): There is a girl who thinks that her life got wrecked because of her association with you.

RICHARD: She did indeed say that her life got wrecked (her exact words, in message #10555, are ‘wrecked it’).

RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): Now why does she think that?

RICHARD: In her own words, she said (in #10563) it was because she had [quote] ‘been made to understanding’ [endquote] that an actual freedom from the human condition was not a PCE type experience becoming permanent, and then further said (in #10570) that if [quote] ‘Actual Freedom was the real deal I would have been the happiest person on this earth and would have written and explained and demonstrated unabated about it. You cannot even fathom how much’ [endquote].

RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): Or is there no such girl according to you?

RICHARD: Ha ... whilst I would hardly characterise a 37-year old female as a ‘girl’ it would be simply absurd to suggest there is no such flesh-and-blood woman, alive today, when it is so obvious there is.

RESPONDENT (Sock Puppet ‘I’): Is it all about ‘phantom Richard’.

RICHARD: It is indeed all about a phantom ‘Richard’, of passionate imagination, who gads about, girding his loins, and getting up to all manner of mischief.

Whereas all the while I am right here, where I have been all along, and always will be.

Regards, Richard.

July 8 2013

Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative

RESPONDENT: Nothing you have ever said shows how ‘psychic currents’ can affect people at a longer distance where there can be no sensory clues.

RICHARD: The very fact you say ‘no sensory clues’ (aka cues) indicates that what I have written over the years – and all archived on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website – has been beyond your ken as I have indeed shown how ‘psychic currents’ can affect people who are not physically proximate.

First and foremost, the phrase ‘psychic currents’ (and ‘psychic energies’ as well) is a term which evolved throughout the many discussions between my second wife and myself so as to readily refer to an elementary aspect of animalistic interconnectedness (that we variously referred to as either the ‘psychic web’ or the ‘psychic network’) which had become more and more evident in the latter stages of that 11-year period of my life wherein the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body back then was living that/ being that which, up until the 30th October 1992, was held to be the summum bonum of human experience/ of human history.

The following is the specific sense in which we used the adjective psychic and/or psychical (and its adverbial form, psychically).

Viz.:

• psychic (adj.): of or pertaining to the human mind or psyche. ~ (Oxford Dictionary).

• psychic (adj.): of, relating to, affecting, or influenced by the human mind or psyche. ~ (American Heritage Dictionary).

And the following is both what the word psyche refers to and its etymological derivation.

Viz.:

• psyche (n.): soul, spirit, mind, fr. Latin psyche; Greek psukhe, ‘breath, soul, life’; rel. to psukhein, ‘breathe, blow’. ~ (Oxford Concise Dictionary of English Etymology).

And here is what that word ‘soul’, in the above definition, is referring to:

• soul (n.): the seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature. ~ (Oxford Dictionary).

I chose to use the word soul when I first went public because, as it refers to the innermost affective entity of both those of either a secular or spiritual persuasion (the essential difference being the materialists maintain this emotional/ passional/ intuitive self – aka ‘spirit’ – dies with the body whereas the spiritualists maintain it does not), my presentation of actualism as the third alternative to either materialism or spiritualism speaks to the self-same ‘being’, at root, with differentiation only a connotative matter dependent upon each particular ‘being’s (occasionally changeable) partiality, or leaning, in that regard.

(Incidentally, the reason why the Greek word psukhe (‘breath, soul, life’), from which the Latin word psyche is derived, and the related Greek word psukhein (‘breathe, blow’) refer to breath and to breathing is because, for ancient peoples and/or primitive peoples life began when a newly-born infant drew its first breath and ended with that body’s last breath).

Also, here is what the word affective refers to:

• affective (see affect): of or pertaining to the affections [the emotions, the feelings; esp. feelings as opp. to reason; the passions]; emotional. ~ (Oxford Dictionary).

• affect: (psychol.) an emotion, a mood; (affectless: without emotion, incapable of feeling emotion). ~ (Oxford Dictionary).

• affective: relating to, arising from, or influencing feelings or emotions: emotional [of or relating to emotion]; expressing emotion. ~ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

• affective: (psychology) influenced by or resulting from the emotions; concerned with or arousing feelings [susceptibility to emotional response; sensibilities] or emotions; emotional. ~ (American Heritage Dictionary).

• affective: characterised by emotion; affectional, emotive. ~ (WordNet 2.0).

And here is an explanation about the word vibes:

• [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, Actual Freedom List, No. 41, 3 December 2003, Vibes).

For instance:

• vibe: (slang) transmit in the form of vibrations; affect in a specified way by means of vibrations. ~ (Oxford Dictionary).

• vibe: (slang) an emotional quality believed to be detectable in a person or thing by intuition; vibration; often plural; related word: intuition. ~ (Wordsmyth Dictionary).

• vibe: a distinctive usually emotional atmosphere capable of being sensed – usually used in plural. ~ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

Lastly, I am using the word current (from the Latin currere, ‘to run’) in its ‘something which flows’ Oxford Dictionary meaning purely as a matter of convenience and am in no way suggesting thereby that ‘psychic currents’ (or even ‘psychic energies’) are electrical or electromagnetic in nature ... being affective they are non-physical/ non-material and, thus, have no existence in actuality.

Viz.:

Now, if you have followed all of the above (and if you have not you will be well-advised to re-read it again and again until you do) – including all of the dictionary definitions/ my explanations as to what those key-words refer to – then you will comprehend both ... (a) why ‘being’ to ‘being’ psychic currents/ psychic energies are instantaneous in their effect ... and (b) why physical distance is irrelevant to their propagation/ their reception.

(Hint: as they have no existence in actuality there is no such thing as a physical distance for them to travel).

As I said before (in #14641 & #14651): this is all new to human history/ human knowledge.

RESPONDENT: The following P.S. note also doesn’t throw any light on the source of what is known, in actualism terminology, as psychic currents.

RICHARD: It does indeed throw some light on the source – the psychic force itself in fact – of what is known, in actualism terminology, as psychic currents (aka psychic energies).

Perhaps if I were to put that postscript of mine back into the context you have snipped-off it might become more clear.

Viz.:

RESPONDENT: Experientially going deeper into those affective feelings don’t show how they can act at a distance. It just shows how they are acting out in a person’s head, not at a distance.

RICHARD: How about you were to have said ‘a person’s psyche’ – which, as I have oft-times said before (e.g. #14807), is the human psyche – instead of that (physical) word ‘head’ that you used? And, again for emphasis, the following is both what the word psyche refers to and its etymological derivation.

Viz.:

• psyche (n.): soul, spirit, mind, fr. Latin psyche; Greek psukhe, ‘breath, soul, life’; rel. to psukhein, ‘breathe, blow’. ~ (Oxford Concise Dictionary of English Etymology).

And, also again for emphasis, here is what that word ‘soul’ (aka ‘spirit’) – be it of either a secular or a spiritual connotation – is referring to:

• soul (n.): the seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature. ~ (Oxford Dictionary).

I will leave you with a quote of mine, written and posted over a decade ago (on August the 17th 2002), as a concise reminder of just what this discussion is all about.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘... there is an interconnectedness between all the emotional and passional entities – all emotional and passional entities are connected via a psychic web – a network of invisible vibes and currents.
This interconnectedness in action is a powerful force – colloquially called ‘energy’ or ‘energies’ – wherein one entity can either seek power over another entity or seek communion with another entity by affective and/or psychic influence’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27b, 17 August 2002, Vibes).

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