Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘D’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’

with Correspondent No. 38

January 16 2013

Re: Introversion, feelings and AF

RESPONDENT: Hello, Richard, I’ve been practicing the actualism method since July 2011, with pretty good results. However, there is a challenge for me: I have difficulties to be with other people. A little background history: before knowing actualism, my relationship to people was always chiaroscuro, ambivalent, that is: part of me wanted to be alone and part of me wanted anxiously to seek social activity in order to have/to consolidate friends/a girlfriend. Clearly, it was in part due to passions: fear to people vs. fear to be alone, or: the security of being alone vs the anxiety of needing to go out and expose myself.

Also, I’ve always been pretty introverted, with its usual symptoms such as aversion to small talk, time alone to recharge, preference of small and quite places, hanging with fewer people, etc. Now, after practice, I’m more ok than ever with the idea of being alone and embrace that introversion. I don’t feel the same attraction to people; I don’t feel the need to actively seek them, but, at the same time, I wonder if that is causing the effect of me retreating from the world as it is, with people as they are. I wonder how much of it is about autonomy and how much about fear and conformism.

So, I’ve been doing a lot of investigation about my fear and my aggression towards people. Those parts of ‘me’ are indeed pretty cunning: for instance, the line between social anxiety and introversion seems pretty diffuse. But those investigations are never enough when ‘I’ am pretty present and the time of meeting people or go to work with people comes. At those times I feel a lot of tension and resentment with the pure idea of having to do that in the immediate future.

My questions are (speaking of idiosyncratic vs species’ instincts, as in your last message to [No. 36]): What role does it play in this scenario the fact that I’m very introverted? How is my introversion playing in this preference of being alone / feeling strange when meeting people? How much it’s introversion and how much the instinctual passions? What happens with introversion when one is actually free? Do you suggest a specific line of investigation to solve these issues?


Now that the group is more peaceful, I hope you can answer the original post of this thread. I’ve been investigating those aspects and understanding a lot of things lately, but I want to know if I’m missing some point. The reasons of why this is important to me are...

1. As an introvert, I’m prone to live in my ‘interior world’ more than the ‘exterior’. Introversion tends to lead to mind wandering, daydreaming or plain mindless perception, at least in my case. Now, this can be beneficial because this introspection helps me to analyze better my feelings and beliefs, but, at the same time, it occasionally complicates the delighting and perception with senses only.

2. I’m more happy and harmless than ever, but there is a difficult to project that to the external world. I don’t know if that is because of the inexpressive quality of the introverted or because {I often suspect} of a powerful shadow identity that I acquired in my more cynical and bitter past.

3. I don’t know if the introversion indirectly aggravates my tendency or preference of being alone by adding feelings as resentment, anxiety, etc.

I would appreciate your or anyone else’s insight here.

RICHARD: G’day No. 38, Although I never thought of myself and/or described myself as being ‘introverted’ whilst a child, a youngster, a youth and a young man, I was most definitely not an extrovert (or any such word of that ilk) by any way of defining it.

On the contrary, up until around 26 years of age I was beset by a rather debilitating shyness – a total cure was effected, within about 30 seconds flat circa mid-1973, by virtue of having taken on a job involving public speaking (on a passenger cruise-ship, amongst the islands and coral reefs off the north-eastern seaboard of Australia) – which was exacerbated in my early days by a pre-teen lisp.

You may find the following to be of interest in regards your ‘introversion’ queries (and other, perhaps related, issues). Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: My questions here are mostly about the identity ‘Richard’. [...]. In any case, I am extremely curious about ‘him’ – about the ‘good’ as well as ‘bad’ (in general – if it is not personal like shame, shyness, fear, guilt, sorrow, grief) aspects of ‘him’ – I know that you burnt most of your writings – unlike Krishnamurti’s earlier writings which he could not get rid of though he ceased to allude or speak about them mostly (on occasions, he would speak about that ‘boy’).

• [Richard]: The only reason I burned those writings – about 80,000 words in the same 3-paragraph section/ 3-page article format as ‘Richard’s Journal’ is – on the day after being actually freed was because they would have only added confusion to the clarity and purity of the actual via the mish-mash of the very mysticality/ actuality they were composed of.
(Essentially they were descriptive/ explanatory articles of the many PCE’s which the spiritually enlightened/ mystically awakened identity had in the latter years; as such the peerless physicality was tainted by the metaphysicality which was the normality which prevailed when abeyance ended; my second wife who, having a command of grammar via being conversant of five languages, edited all my early writing, often observed that this tainture lay in me not permanently living what was therein described/ explained).

• [Co-Respondent]: You have mentioned that you do not have any inhibition about speaking any of today’s aspects, but if you have such an attitude about your past as well, I would like to hear about it. Maybe if you think it may not be central to this list, would like to ask if you have any interest in pursuing this autobiographical line in your blogs or independent writings – is there a web site other than where your writings are there now?

• [Richard]: There is a website other than that one – as a subdomain it has an unique URL – but, being barely begun, it is far from ready for publication; I do not have a blog (it was because I was writing on a secular blog that I registered as a blogger so as to be less anonymous) and probably never will as I have complete technical control (as well as authorial and editorial control) over every aspect of the sub-domain.
I am none-too-sure what you are looking for – I was a normal infant, child, youth, teenager, young man and adult (albeit with a predilection for female company and a disinclination about typically manly pursuits) – but as I have nothing to hide, and am circumspect only where it involves readily identifiable people still alive, there is no reason not to write of matters worthy of note.
Being indignant – fairness/ unfairness or justice/ injustice – featured quite prominently; there was a debilitating shyness, exacerbated by a pre-teen lisp, which prevailed through to adulthood; cowardice played a major role (as in giving rise to appeasement/ pacification); terror, particularly nightmares, was a common occurrence; day-dreaming was a consistent modus operandi; by nature romantic artistic endeavours were an obvious career path; by being particularly sensitive flights of fancy took the form of becoming a beachcomber instead (tropical isles, turquoise lagoons, coral sands and swaying palms); as sex and sexuality were on overdrive 24/7 naked and nubile females have been a dominant theme; and what was wanted more than anything else was to play for fun (rather than for keeps), to use the jargon of marble games, with those who would join me.
How is that for starters? List D, No. 19, 30 November 2009

I am happy to expand on what little I have already written – if you consider some aspect being fleshed-out will assist in answering your queries – but what I am making clear is, in effect, that if that sensitive/ shy/ day-dreaming/ cowardly/ appeasing/ prone-to-terror/ always pacifying/ romantic/ hyper-sexual feeling-being can become actually free of the human condition then anyone can.

Oh, and ‘I’ was also a softie (as in, an easy touch), and not ‘hard-edged’ as another recently ascribed to ‘me’, and always optimistic (and, thus, not ‘cynical’ as was also erroneously attributed) regardless of whatever set-backs occurred.

Ha ... my second wife (Devika/Irene) oft-times characterised me as ‘super-optimistic’ – but, then again, she was pessimistic by nature – and often marvelled at the resilience she observed during that 30+ month period wherein the brain-cells of this flesh-and-blood body were (organically) reconfiguring themselves.

Regards, Richard

May 31 2015

Re: Moral cap and Authority

RICHARD: (...), the better example is indeed ‘before civilisation’ as to ‘stake out a territory and start farming it’ marks the shift from a ‘free-range’ life-style to the ‘property-rights’ way of life (and, thereby, to the arising of a ‘peasant-mentality’).

To explain: for a hunter-gatherer, the free-range life-style was epitomised by, basically, just helping oneself to whatever was available. With the advent of the property-rights way of life, however, any such ‘helping oneself’ transmogrified into being theft, larceny, stealing, despoliation, direption, and etcetera. Millennia later, all of this results in feeling-beings atavistically harbouring a deep, primordial *feeling* of being somehow disfranchised – the instinctual passions, being primeval, are still ‘wired’ for hunter-gathering – from some ancient ‘golden age’, wherein life was in some ill-defined way ‘free’ (e.g., ‘The Garden of Eden’), such as to affectively underpin all the class-wars (between the ‘haves and have-nots’) down through the ages.

Unless this rudimentary *feeling* of disfranchisement – of *feeling* somehow deprived of a fundamental franchise (franchise = the territory or limits within which immunity, privileges, rights, powers, etcetera may be exercised) – is primarily understood (to the point of being viscerally felt, even) any explanation of ‘peasant-mentality’ will be of superficial use only.

A footnote appended to a 2005 online response of mine is as good a place to start as any. Viz.: [...snip query...].

• [Richard]: (...) one does need to put food/ water into the belly, and a roof over the head/ clothes on the back (if the weather be inclement), and in this day and age[1] the main way of obtaining the necessary wherewithal is through the covert slavery euphemistically known as ‘earning a living’.

[1]Footnote: As one emerges, at birth, into a world where more than a few of the peoples born earlier have staked-out claims/ inherited prior claims – gained and maintained at the point of a spear/ a gun – on most of the arable land/ fecund water it soon becomes obvious that as, by and large, the era of the hunter-gatherer is over one is going to have to give of one’s time and labour (to the claimants) so as to be given in return (by the claimants) a portion of what one has produced (for the claimants) ... the term ‘wage-slave’ is not a misnomer and the word ‘salary’ is but a fancy way of referring to the wage slaved for by the middle and upper-middle ... um ... socio-economic careerists.

Or, as Mr. John Lennon (a person who got his snout into the trough big-time) put it, in the lyrics of ‘Working Class Hero’: [quote] ‘When they’ve tortured and scared you for twenty-odd years ... Then they expect you to pick a career ... When you can’t really function you’re so full of fear. (...). Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV ... And you think you are so clever and classless and free ... But you are still fucking peasants as far as I can see’. (.../richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf83.htm#07Feb05).

The following day another respondent queried me on my above response; in my clarification I referred to the term ‘wage-slave’ as being, perhaps more correctly, ‘modern-day serfdom’. Viz.: [...snip text...]. Although, for persons taking out a house-mortgage – typically, these days, over a 30-35 year period (whereafter they find they have paid for three-four houses, whilst only being allocated one, per favour usurious banking guilds having usurped, several centuries ago[†], the sovereign power of a nation-state to emit debt-free monies) – the term ‘indentured servitude’ may be even more appropriate. [†]Footnote: [...snip footnote...].

Even more to the point: the fact that modern-day women demanded the legal right to enter into such ‘indentured servitude’ alongside the traditional male ‘bread-winner’ – most family-households these days are double-income households (hence necessitating publicly-subsidised childcare facilities) – and thus further enriching that already obscenely-rich ‘class of usurers’ amply demonstrates how the ‘peasant-mentality’ is not a male-only trait.

[...snip remainder of post...]. (.../richard/listdcorrespondence/listdclaudiu3.htm#18May15).

RESPONDENT: Hello, Richard, thanks for your post. It really helps me to understand the radical changes I’ve been through these years. What specifically comes to mind is the need for the peasant to derive from work not only food, clothing and shelter but also a secondary, but very powerful, layers of meaning, both as in individual and as a member of society.

RICHARD: G’day No. 38,

Yes, back in the 1970’s it took quite a while for ‘me’ as soul/ spirit – as in (according to the Oxford Dictionary), the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of the emotions, or sentiments, and character – to intuitively come to terms with what ‘I’ as ego had been thoughtfully contemplating for a number of years before finally intuiting, viscerally, that vocational/ occupational meaning or purpose (be it paid employment or voluntary work) had no such intrinsic value as ascribed, either personally or communally, and that any and all sentiments or judgements of that nature had been passed-on, affectively and psychically, from generation-to-generation over millennia.

In other words, long-dead ‘beings’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) from long-ago eras were dictating, affectively and psychically, how peoples alive today were to derive meaning and/or purpose despite the fact that the mechanisation/ robotisation/ computerisation of productive work demonstrated conclusively that no such intrinsic value could possibly subsist therein.

(The day when machines, robots and computers derive meaning and/or purpose – as in, dignity and redemption through a *feeling* of self-worth/ self-value/ self-esteem/ and etcetera/ ad nauseam – from their prodigious output of productive work is the day when the age of the porcine aviators must surely be upon us).

RESPONDENT: I’ll try to explain my past and current experience: The reason why I decided to study a humanities career is because the ‘rebel’ in me wanted to understand reality and break free from all their implicit chains. Therefore, once I got more conscious about the whole historical process and caught by the Marxist and anarchist fashions in college, the ideas of work, authority and the like become frowned upon. Indeed, me and my colleagues look resentfully at the millionaire and business crowd, only to acquire the belief that social change was the way to work against inequality.

With other, more traditional, friends and relatives, one takes said mentality aboard and put the meaning in ‘working hard to earn an honest life’. In other words, the meritocratic idea that the exit to the ‘peasant Matrix’ is dependent on oneself and one’s effort only, by reaching the higher levels of the hierarchy.

These and other ideas mean the bout of perpetuation and resentment of the idea of work, with the secondary layers as support/ result: the deeply felt necessity of being creative, of giving something to the world, of being of use, of being a good citizen, of being a good Christian, etc., but also of feeling special for the contrary: of being a rebel, of fighting for the rights of the vulnerable classes, of rearranging the world to return to the supposedly virginal and peaceful state of the world, etc.

The implicit error here is thinking that doing and changing something for society is actually doing something for its best interest, while it actually just means playing along within the same box, of pushing and pulling the strings of the same system.

Speaking again from a solutions perspective, I think that the most insidious influence of marxism/ postmodernism/ feminism is that everything is relative and comes only from social constructs. This influence just gives the illusion of change by activism and armchair philosophizing, when, in reality, it’s the same ol’ fight of the opposites (male vs. female, proletariat vs. bourgeois, and so on) ...

RICHARD: Speaking of ‘the illusion of change by activism’: what I have noticed, whilst pottering around the world-wide-web, is that those of a sinistral statist ideology (such as your ‘marxism/ postmodernism/ feminism’ wording is suggestive of) are apparently extracting meaning and/or purpose from busying themselves in the redressment of systemic cultural ‘wrongs’, via the heavy hand of state compulsion, through retaining tight control of ‘the public narrative’ – having long-ago seized the high moral ground of minority-group injustice (as per your ‘fighting for the rights of the vulnerable classes’ words) – on a yet-to-be-demonstrated premiss that an equitable society can be legislated into existence (i.e., imposed on all citizens at the point of state-owned/ state-controlled guns), in a ‘majority-rules’ society, on a ‘minorities-rule’ basis.

RESPONDENT: ... and being oblivious of the real solution, which is the releasing of the affective weapons and shields in the first place, and thus solving the problem of the human condition.

Returning to my personal point, nowadays it feels very different: I have a more individualistic approach to life; I have less attachment and, at the same time, less resentment towards the idea of work, I don’t think of it as special of meaningful or fulfilling; in fact, it shocks me when people tell me that they want to work practically forever, otherwise they would be bored.

RICHARD: Ha ... having lived through the 1960’s era, when a significant number of that generation were questioning and/or eschewing the entire ‘work ethic’ mentality, it is a particularly remarkable oddity how all the public discourse back then, about the increasing need for meaningful leisure-time activities in the then-foreseeable future (due to the mechanisation/ robotisation/ computerisation of productive work), has not only come to naught but how double-income households have become the new norm instead.

It is as if the succeeding generations lost the plot completely, in their rush to be ‘upwardly mobile’ – viz.: ‘advancing or likely to advance in economic and social standing’ (American Heritage Dictionary); ‘moving or aspiring to move to a higher social class or to a position of increased status or power’(Collins Dictionary) – so as to accrue evermore flashier lifestyles of ostentatious wealth consumption, to the point of condemning their forebears for (purportedly) being a burden on the economy.

By way of illustrating that latter point: in this country the worker-funded old-age pension – payments for which have been compulsorily deducted from worker’s pay-packets, at the rate of 7.5% of gross income, since the 1st of January 1946 – has all-of-a-sudden been arbitrarily declared ‘welfare payments’ and, under the catch-cry of ‘The Age of Entitlement is Over’, is no longer to be paid-out at age 65, as per that ... um ... that ‘social contract’ of 1946, and has been reset, by governmental fiat, to age 67 (on a graduated increase to age 70) along with a clearly-signalled intent to have it erode in monetary value, over time, via inflation.

Meanwhile, in other news, the number of known billionaires this country’s economy is supporting – in the midst of a much-publicised ‘global financial crisis’ such as to (supposedly) necessitate governmental ‘belt-tightening’ measures as above – has increased to 25-26 and counting.


‘Tis a laugh-a-minute observing all this sanity in action, world-wide, on my computer-screen.

RESPONDENT: My current preference and aspiration is to simply use work to exit the rat race by becoming financially independent and living a modest life, sooner rather than later. I guess that if these ideas are so controversial and appalling (to both the worried capitalist resented at you for not indulging in materialism and not feeding the economy, and the worried liberal resented for your egotism, your conformity to the economical status quo and your lack of social activism and care) is a good sign of progress and salubrity, haha.

RICHARD: This is an apt place to make it crystal-clear that I am apolitical – I have no position anywhere at all on the conservative-progressive political spectrum (such as your ‘worried capitalist’ and ‘worried liberal’ terms indicate) – as there are only a few brief references in this regard on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site.

For instance:

March 29 2000

• [Richard]: About a quarter of a century ago, when I learned that the Australian National Parliament was being broadcast on AM Radio whilst it was sitting, I tuned in for the first time in my life (being somewhat apolitical as I was). I was amazed, shocked and alarmed, as the dawning realisation came over me whilst I listened, riveted, that these squabbling, bickering, arguing, point-scoring, duck-shoving, backstabbing and bootlicking human beings were authorised by the populace to run this country. They had the power (backed by the officially sanctioned guns) to make major life-or-death decisions regarding the subject citizens (bearing in mind I had just recently finished six years of voluntarily serving in the military) ... and this was staggering to contemplate. What a fool I had been to believe (...). (../richard/listbcorrespondence/listb42.htm#29Mar00).


March 28 1998

• [Co-Respondent]: Do you live a moral life? If so, why?

• [Richard]: Being free from malice and sorrow, I am automatically happy and harmless. Thus I have no need for morals whatsoever. Morals are designed to control the wayward self.

• [Co-Respondent]: Would you lie, cheat and steal?

• [Richard]: If the situation calls for it, yes indeed. Whilst some semblance of social order prevails, such actions as stealing are not necessary. The government bureaucracy however, being adversarial by nature, occasionally calls for some creative massaging of the truth regarding my life-style.

• [Co-Respondent]: Which morals are your own and which are seen to exist already?

• [Richard]: Whilst not having any morals of my own, living in this particular country and benefiting from human ingenuity and inventiveness as I do, I am more than happy to comply with the legal laws and follow the established social protocols ... except for those that are too trifling to conform to and that I cannot be bothered observing anyway.

For example: I do not vote ... even though voting is compulsory in this country. The unelected public servants actually run the country, so I could not care less which political party struts the stage. Mostly, their policies are knee-jerk reactions to public opinion polls anyway (...). (../richard/listbcorrespondence/listb21.htm#28Mar98).


March 21 2003

• [Richard]: I do not seek to advise anybody on what to do, or not do, and I have stated the reason why on many an occasion ... for example:

• [Richard]: ‘I have oft-times said that I have no solutions for life in the real-world ... the only solution is dissolution.

Which means I have no solutions for governments either ... as all human beings are driven by instinctual passions war is an essential facility for obtaining/ maintaining an imitation of peace – an uneasy truce called ‘law and order’ – at the point of a gun. Just as a police force is a necessary facility for obtaining/ maintaining an imitation of peace within a country so too is a military force necessary for obtaining/ maintaining an imitation of peace between countries ... and this will continue to be the situation for as long as peoples continue to nurse malice and sorrow to their bosom.

It does not make war any less ghastly ... but it is a fact that whilst humans are as they are, then war is here to stay.. (../richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf18b.htm#21Mar03).

The reason for clarifying how completely apolitical I am is because the very process of discussing this subject matter – the ‘peasant-mentality’ – entails a degree of ‘social comment’ on my part which, as past experience has shown, some peoples can take to be indicative of a particular political leaning (which has no existence outside their skulls) such as to occasion them to be dismissive of the facts and actuality being pointed out.

RESPONDENT: Gotta put more thought and attention into the ‘peasant mentality’ aspects that remain unseen in ‘me’, which are many, I suspect.

RICHARD: Sure ... something [No. 32] recently posted is worth bearing in mind whilst you do so.


• [Respondent No. 32 ]: ‘The cherry on the top came yesterday – whilst watching television and having these thoughts running at the back of my head, all of a sudden it struck me, that not only is this earth a ‘free-range’ place in actuality but the entire universe is like this – that there is in actuality no *ownership* of anyone/ anything over anyone/ anything else – everything in this universe is literally free – as in, has no ownership..all ownership exists in the head in the ‘real’ world’. (Message № 195xx).

Although I will be commenting more fully when I respond to that email, in its chronological order, suffice is it to say for now that when the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body circa 1978-79 entered into a mortgage agreement for the purchase of a property – an ex-farmhouse on a couple of acres of land in the rural south-east of Australia – the question of ownership of the very earth beneath ‘his’ feet engaged ‘his’ attention to such a degree as to dynamically effect resolution somewhat along the above lines.

What ‘he’ had really purchased, ‘he’ realised, via that state-sanctioned organ called a ‘mortgage’, was the state-ordained right to exclusive use (within certain state-defined parameters) of that state-controlled land – specifically the legal right to call upon state-remunerated armed guards (state-trained personnel with state-issued guns on their hips) to enforce the state-determined ‘no trespassing’ law which applies to such state-issued ‘fee simple’ (a.k.a. ‘freehold’) titles – and that no land anywhere on earth was, or could ever be, owned by anyone at all.

Least of all by a ‘state’ (a legal fiction masquerading as a ‘body’).


Nov 19 2015

Re: Moral cap and Authority

RESPONDENT: Hi, Richard.

I want to revive an old request from Claudiu, as his were exactly my doubts when I read your last post some months ago. I hope you can clarify.

CLAUDIU wrote to you last time:

[quote]: So the question is: how can a feeling-being use a ‘primarily affective or intuitional activity’ – one with ‘instinctual-subliminal-visceral-intuitive characteristics’ — to recall/ remember/ rememorate something ‘sans any affective content whatsoever’ – something that ‘cannot be stored in the affective memory banks’? Is it truly the (non-affective) ‘ambience/ flavour/ appeal’ of the PCE that is being (affectively) rememorated or is it something else (e.g. perhaps the affective experiencing right as the PCE is wearing off)? [endquote].

At the time, I tried to play a little with it by recalling indelible memories which are very attached to my mind both from traumatic/ romantic critical events and from PCE events. They both have in common that I can get back to ‘relive’ them by especific fragments, mostly a couple of static photos from those scenes.

The interesting part comes with how things go from there: when recalling those traumatic/ romantic, I tend to get absorbed via strong feelings and thoughts and start from there into a journey of stream of consciousness, first going fully into the scene and experiencing those strong feelings, which later begin to mutate and extrapolate into other aspects of my life via thoughts (‘oh, man, you surely are stupid’, ‘I need to have sex’, etc.) In other words, I guess that mode of recalling strong experiences is the way we commonly start that progression from a very specific feeling to a very general mood. Indeed, it’s like living and amplifying in a whole different dimension.

On the other hand, remembrance of PCEs produces a quite unique effect: it interrupts the flow of passions and its chain reaction; produces a sensation of clearance and centerlessness in the mind; triggers funny sensations below the navel; brings a organic smile to the face; overall, it feels like suddenly changing from a lane full of traffic and neurotic drivers to a lane in the middle of nowhere in which everything seems static, with feet closer to the road as an end, and not closer to those feelings that put you in a hurry to get to a certain place.

Anyway, I think Claudiu’s question is a very important one as it seems, at first glance, that it could be a contradiction here. If the act of recalling/ remembering/ rememorating produces such different results... Is it because we access different aspects of memory with a similar recalling exercise? Or is it because the exercise itself is different?

Or both are the same and what I experience is but with the difference of experiencieng felicitous/ innocuous/ naive feelings instead of the (most common) good/ bad ones? If this is the case, is it possible that all the actualist process is the equivalent of, say, a PTSD kind of phenomenon but with felicitous/ innocuous causes/ results? That is: instead of having ever lasting traumatic effects after experiencing something dramatic, could it be that what one experiences is an inevitable everlasting felicitous/innocuous effect (pure intent) after experiencing/ identifying a PCE?

Interesting stuff! (Message 211xx, 16 Nov 2015)


RICHARD: G’day No. 38,

A quick note whilst I am currently reading the ‘Yahoo Groups’ message-board online: the post you quote from is Message № 20129.


That email from Claudiu, posted on Sat, 18 Jul 2015, was in response to the first part of my Message № 20095 (posted on Wed, 15 Jul 2015).


The relevant section of that July 15th email of mine is contained in its 7th paragraph.


• [Richard]: Thus, in conjunction with those ‘making present’ words [i.e., ‘presentiate’, ‘presentially’, and etcetera], I now have the linguistic means to vividly communicate how feeling-being ‘Richard’ (...) utilised that rememorative-presentiation process to imbue/ suffuse ‘his’ day-to-day life with the ambience/ the flavour/ the appeal of the PCE and thus invigorate and vitalise ‘his’ moment-to-moment experiencing as well. (Although, due to the total lack of precedence, ‘he’ increasingly infused it with the grandeur/ the glory / the allure of the ASC as well). [endquote].

As I do not know why Claudiu interposed the word ‘non-affective’ – albeit in parenthesis – into my [quote] ‘the ambience/ the flavour/ the appeal of the PCE’ [endquote] words, when formulating his question, you might be better off addressing your revival of that ‘old request’ to him.




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