Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘D’
Re: Permission to use my first Name on the Actual Freedom Trust website.
ANDREW: Hello, Directors of the Actual Freedom Trust!
As much as I like the designation “No. 42”, (being a fan of Douglas Adam's choice of this ‘ordinary and inconspicuous’ number as his answer to the “meaning of life”),
I am happy to retire it and be called by my first name on the Actual Freedom Trust website.
MARTIN: No. 47 here, on mailing list D.
I’m also happy to be known by my first name. It’s more ingenuous somehow.
Re: [No. 4]’s Notes 1 – Part Two
RICHARD: (...). Yet innocence as a liveable actuality – an actual innocence (not the pseudo-innocence of those ‘State of Grace’ and ‘Blank Slate’ fabulations) in other words – is entirely new to human experience/ human history. [...]. Not surprisingly, the word innocent (as in, ‘harmless’, ‘innoxious’; ‘sinless’, ‘guiltless’; ‘artless’, ‘naive’; ‘simple’, &c.) stems from the same root as the word nocent (as in, ‘harmful’, ‘hurtful’, ‘injurious’; ‘guilty’, ‘criminal’, &c.) does ... namely: the Latin nocēns, nocent-, pres. part. of nocēre, ‘to harm’, ‘hurt’, ‘injure’, with the privative ‘in-’ affixed as a prefix (i.e., in- + nocent). Viz.:
RESPONDENT № 4: I actually do have an active connection to pure intent ...
RICHARD: A rule-of-the-thumb check as to whether an ‘active connection’ currently manifesting is of the quality of the consummate nature inherent to pure intent, as reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, is by having the capacity at-that-moment to experientially ascertain, thereby, the verity of (for example) the following postscriptum.
In other words, it is the consummate nature (i.e., the impeccable quality) of the overarching benevolence and benignity inherent to the utter purity of the pristine perfection welling ever-fresh as the vast and utter stillness of this universe’s spatial, temporal and material infinitude which informs, experientially, that a global spread of this completely original consciousness (a totally new way of being conscious) would, ipso facto, be both a non-destructive and non-disruptive transition.
Furthermore, there would also be the capacity at-that-moment to similarly apprehend, experientially, how it can now be said – as I happened to mention on a couple of occasions during the pre-arranged foregathering here, earlier this year, of half-a-dozen subscribers to this forum – that due to the overarching benevolence and benignity being demonstrably available immanently in human consciousness, nowadays both masculinely and femininely, and thus potentially accessible per favour naïveté regardless of spatial extension, there is no longer any reason why there cannot be a global spread of the already always existing peace-on-earth in our lifetimes. (More on this in those Footnotes № 5 and № 6).
In general, however, the usual way of verifying whether an ‘active connection’ currently manifesting is indeed pure intent as reported/ described/ explained is to find oneself being sincerely naïve, at the very least, if not to be naïveté itself (i.e., naïveté embodied as ‘me’) – and to be naïveté itself is to be the closest one can come to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’ (innocence is where ‘self’ is not) whereby one is both likeable and liking for herewith lies tenderness, sweetness and togetherness, closeness – whereupon one is walking through the world in a state of wide-eyed wonder and amazement, simply marvelling at the magnificence of this physical universe’s absoluteness and delighting in its beneficence, its largesse, as if a child again (guileless, artless, ingenuous, innocuous), with a blitheness and a gaiety yet with adult sensibilities (whereby the distinction betwixt being naïve and being gullible is readily separable), such that the likelihood of the magical fairy-tale-like paradise, which this verdant and azure planet actually is, becoming ever-so-sweetly apparent is almost always imminent.
[...remainder of email elided...].
the pure intent reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust web site: Viz.:
being demonstrably available immanently in human consciousness, nowadays both masculinely and femininely. Viz.:
I find it particularly interesting that with more recent experiences of becoming free, for example Peter, Vineeto, and others you’ve related – there was no wall of fear or dread. The process was ‘matter of fact,’ ‘simple,’ ‘easy.’
RICHARD: That is because they all became (newly) free via the well-publicised *epoch-changing opening in human consciousness* designated as the ‘direct route’ on the “A Long-Awaited Public Announcement” web page on The Actual Freedom Trust website. [emphasis added].
Here are the very first words on that web page:
RESPONDENT № 25: How can current actualists bypass such acute experiences of dread [as the awakened/ enlightened ‘Richard’ had] on the ‘path’ to freedom?
RICHARD: By tapping into pure intent – nowadays also personified in its feminine aspect (its masculine aspect became personified 30+ months after 1992) – hitherto only accessible via a PCE. (Richard, List D, No. 25a, 25 May 2013).
Which means that, these days, when that “palpable sweetness” (for instance) is experienced it is that ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’ being experienced, by virtue of that immaculate perfection having *become manifest in the everyday world* as a flesh-and-blood body only, as they are both one and the same thing in essence. [emphases added].
MARTIN: Hi Richard, from what I understand, pure intent is the over-arching benevolence and benignity which can be experienced temporarily in a PCE, and is still experienced by an actually free person but now on an ongoing basis (and that benevolence and benignity inheres to the purity and perfection of the vast stillness of the infinitude of the universe - that vast stillness being the stillness / non-movement of time). Naivete can result in a benediction (which acts as a connection with the purity and perfection mentioned above), but which can result in an immanent manifestation / variation of this pure intent as a “palpable sweetness” an “infinite tenderness” or “being bathed in intimacy”.
RICHARD: G’day Martin,
The first half of your second sentence obviously refers to the 1998 extract in Footnote № 4 further above – in regards to bringing about a benediction from the perfection and purity as experienced during a PCE – and the latter part is referring to the 2012 extract, in Footnote № 5 just above, about nowadays being able to experience that same benedictive/ liberative perfection and purity (which prior to late 2009/ early 2010 was available/ accessible only during a PCE) by virtue of it having become personified/ having become manifest in the everyday world and, thus, having become available immanently/ having become accessible in human consciousness.
Inadvertently running the two differing experiences together, with your “but which...” second half, is what has confused the issue somewhat.
MARTIN: I’m curious what made you equate these two experiences (the two forms of pure intent) as being “both one and the same thing in essence”?
RICHARD: The short answer: as that which each particular *then-existent identity* was experiencing (i.e., that immaculate perfection and purity personified) via those differing ways each feeling-being has of experiencing it, whilst interacting intensively in late 2009/ early 2010, is identical (as in, “one and the same thing in essence”, that is) to that very-same immaculate perfection and purity which was previously experienceable only in a PCE – albeit then directly experienceable as-it-is due to *identity being in abeyance* – then no such equating is needed.
Also, it is inherent to the benedictive/ liberative nature itself, of that immaculate perfection and purity personified which they were having those differing experiences of, that it be the one and the same thing, in essence, as that immaculate perfection and purity which was previously experienceable, albeit directly, only in a PCE.
It is, of course, primarily by virtue of this apperceptive flesh-and-blood body typing these words being the personification, the manifestation in the everyday world, of that immaculate perfection and purity which they were experiencing in those differing ways, that it is intimately knowable/ intrinsically ascertainable that it be identical, in essence, to that immaculate perfection and purity which the identity in residence all those years ago formed an active connection with, per favour numerous PCE’s, and which ‘he’ named pure intent.
(I have couched my central involvement in those events in that long-winded way – as in, “this apperceptive flesh-and-blood body typing these words”, that is – so as to pre-empt an involuntary automorphism operating due to my words and writings unavoidably being heard or read in a self-centric manner).
I will take this opportunity to clarify some ambiguity which may have accrued to this most important term due to varying ways I have referred to it, over the years, in different contexts and in response to different co-respondent’s world-views.
(I notice, during a computer-search of every word of mine publicly available, how my usage developed a certain looseness, over the years, due to my being too accommodating in differing contexts and/or to another’s ability to comprehend).
In regards to understanding the term’s agency aspect – the word intent (from Latin intendere: lit. to stretch (out); extend; direct toward) implies an agent with both the capacity to form an objective and the means to effect same as well – it will be helpful to first draw to notice an earlier section, in this email you are responding to, where I referred to pure intent thisaway:
And because an actual innocence is entirely new to human experience/ human history, as reported at the top of this page, then the following text (wherein I also liken that “intimate connection” to a metaphorical ‘golden thread’ or ‘clew’) from 2009 is worth reviewing for some background information.
In this context, then, as the term ‘pure intent’ refers to an intimate connection betwixt the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté and the pristine-purity of that actual innocence which is inherent to living life as a flesh-and-blood body only (i.e., sans identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty) then the benedictive/ liberative impetus, or agency as such, stems from and/or flows from that which is totally other than ‘me’/ completely outside of ‘me’ (this factor is very important as it is vital that such impetus, such agency, be not of ‘me’ or ‘my’ doings) and literally invisible to ‘me’ ... namely: that flesh-and-blood body only being thus apperceptively conscious (i.e., apperceptively sentient).
Now, as a flesh-and-blood body is the same-same stuff as the very stuff of the universe itself – inasmuch each and every one of its constituent elements, all of which are as old as the universe is as matter itself is neither created nor destroyed, come out of the ground in the form of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is digested, in conjunction with the air inhaled and the water swallowed and the sunlight absorbed – then what one is, as an apperceptive flesh-and-blood body, is the universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being; as such this ‘perpetuus mobilis’ universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.
And this is truly wonderful.
This intimate experiencing of an immaculate perfection and purity welling ever-fresh as the vast and utter stillness of this universe’s spatial, temporal and material infinitude is of a distinctive quality in that an impeccable benevolence and benignity (intrinsic to those properties as in pertaining to the very nature of absoluteness as qualitative values) is all-pervading.
Around a decade ago I laid-out the properties, qualities and values inherent to the universe in a vaguely technical manner.
Hence my short answer, rearranged and enhanced somewhat, should now make more sense: being the personification, or the manifestation in the everyday world, of this universe’s absoluteness/ of its infinitude itself, it is intimately knowable/ intrinsically ascertainable that it is implicit to the benedictive/ liberative nature, of what my fellow human beings experienced whilst interacting intensively in late 2009/ early 2010, that those differing experiences be of the one and the same thing, in essence, as was previously experienceable only in a PCE.
MARTIN: Do other actually free people experience benevolence and benignity on an ongoing basis?
RICHARD: Upon a full actual freedom from the human condition, where one is that very benevolence and benignity personified, it is part-and-parcel of being aware/ of being conscious; with a basic actual freedom – such as my first 30+ months and Vineeto’s first 9+ months – there is that awareness/ that consciousness, of literally being benevolence and benignity, on occasion. One of the handful of daring pioneers living the basic actual freedom, for instance, has expressively referred to such occasions as being “the universe on steroids” (if that conveys something of its magical quality).
MARTIN: Has that replaced the experiences of palpable sweetness?
RICHARD: Upon a full actual freedom ... yes (essentially); living a basic actual freedom ... no.
I say “essentially” as there are occasions, when interacting intensively with fellow residents of Terra Actualis, where a particularly exquisite form of that ambrosial intimacy (sweetness, tenderness, togetherness, gentleness, softness, and so on) – with the nature of being utterly precious and first referred to by Grace as a ‘preciousness’ beyond compare – is most wondrously dynamic. These particularly marvellous occasions, being situational and not developmental, are part-and-parcel of life here in the fairytale-like magical paradise this verdant and azure planet actually is.
MARTIN: Or do temporary experiences of a palpable sweetness still arise (and if so is this in the absence of an ongoing experience of benevolence and benignity)?
RICHARD: This is where inadvertently running those two differing experiences together (with that “but which...” latter half of your second sentence much further above) has confused the issue; these “temporary experiences of a palpable sweetness”, in those Footnote № 5 emails, are specifically about the experiences which those particular feeling-beings had of personified purity and perfection – (i.e., an active pure intent was established per favour the (masculine) personification of that which was previously available/ accessible only in a PCE when identity is in abeyance) – all the while still remaining existent as resident identities.
Hence them having the “palpable sweetness”, the “infinite tenderness” the “being bathed in intimacy” type of experiences – rather than the “over-arching benevolence and benignity” experience of a PCE – as identity is in abeyance, during a PCE, whereas to be naïveté itself is when naïveté is embodied as ‘me’.
It is quite a remarkable state of affairs ... and totally unexpected.
MARTIN: Also, is there any relation in your opinion between these forms of pure intent and what you call “the quickening”?. Thanks. [Richard]: “...it is of a quality of such fineness that a fine-champagne-bubbles type of word my second wife (de jure) made up all those years ago – ‘tintling’ – seems to be most apt”. [endquote].
RICHARD: Indeed so ... thus far that calorific energy/ electrochemical potency, which feeling-being ‘Grace’ dubbed “the quickening” when ‘she’ arrived back from New Zealand in late 2009 and similarly initiated its activation, to full effect whilst intensively interacting, has been a feature peculiar to me, in its active operation, although there is no reason why a similar activation would not occur with regards Vineeto were a similarly motivated fellow human being to interact in a like manner.
In fact it would be odd if it did not (I am no fan of ‘freak of nature’ hypotheses).
Although the data-pool is way too small (a handful of cases), to reliably draw information from, there are enough indications already to suggest that the suitably motivated feeling-being – having become so vitally interested in and oriented solely towards the sensate world/ the actual world as to be naïveté itself (essentially, being out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being, with all of that embodied ‘being’ on board) and thus having a 100% exclusive focus on that one thing (i.e., their destiny) and that one thing alone – will thereby be psychosomatically exciting the ‘action potentials’, of virtually every excitable cell constituting the physical body unwittingly embodying that ‘being’, which excited cells generate an electrical field such as to innervate its activation in the corresponding excitable cells of this flesh-and-blood body, by that or as that very intensity of interacting.
I have declined to speculate any more than this quite spare skeleton of an hypothesis – my knowledge of electromotive force, for instance, is too meagre to proceed further anyway – but after nigh-on 23 years of being sans identity in toto/ sans the entire affective faculty (which includes, of course, its epiphenomenal psychic facility) I can categorically rule out any operant affective vibe and/or psychic current whatsoever.
Re: What Near-Actual Intimacy Means Practically
RICHARD to Claudiu: In the same way that excellence experiences (EE’s) were a notable feature of feeling-being ‘Richard’s virtual freedom experiencing circa March-September 1981, although of course not named as such back then, so too did intimacy experiences (IE’s) play a similarly significant role even though increasingly overshadowed by the insistent emergence of love – and, especially, Love Agapé – in the later months due to a marked lack of precedence and, thus, of any praxeological publications (nowadays made freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site) on the distinction betwixt the near-innocent intimacy of naïveté and the affectional intimacy of romance lore and legend.
Just as the term ‘excellence experience’ came from feeling-being ‘Grace’ – who was exacting in evaluating ‘her’ differing ways of being a ‘self’ so as to not illude herself that ‘she’ was more progressive than was really the case – so too did the expression ‘different-way-of-being’. What gradually became more and more apparent was that a prevailing feature of ‘her’ differing ways of being was the degree of intimacy involved.
The gradations of ‘her’ scale were, basically, good, very good, great, excellent, and
The term ‘intimacy experience’ became part of the actualism lingo after a particularly instructive event in late spring, 2007, when at anchor upriver whilst exhorting feeling-being ‘Grace’ to no longer reserve that specific ‘way-of-being’ for those memorable occasions when ‘she’ was alone with me and to extend such intimacy to also include ‘her’ potential shipmates in order to dynamically enable the then-tentative plans for a floating convivium – which were on an indefinite hold at that time – to move ahead expeditiously (this was in the heady context of feeling-being ‘Pamela’ having already entered into an on-going PCE a scant five days beforehand due to ‘her’ specifically expressed concerns to me over the lack of intimacy between actualists).
At some stage during this intensive interaction feeling-being ‘Vineeto’, who had been intently following every nuance, every twist and turn of the interplay, had what ‘she’ described as a “shift” taking place in ‘her’ whereupon the very intimacy being thus exigently importuned came about for ‘her’ instead.
To say ‘she’ was astounded with the degree of intimacy having ensued is to put it mildly as ‘her’ first descriptive words were about how ‘she’ would never have considered it possible to be as intimate as this particular way of being – an intimacy of such near-innocence as to have previously only ever been possible privately with ‘her’ sexual partner in very special moments – when in a social setting as one of a number of persons partaking of coffee and snacks in a sitting room situation.
Intuitively seizing the vital opportunity such intimate experiencing offered ‘she’ took over from me and commenced interacting intensively in my stead – notably now a one-on-one feeling-being interchange – and within a relatively short while feeling-being ‘Grace’ was experiencing life in the same, or very similar, manner as feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ (hence that 4th of December 2009 report of mine about how these intimacy experiences are potentially contagious, so to speak, for other sincere actualists as the atmosphere generated affectively-psychically can propagate a flow-on effect).
As for your query regarding how the intimacy experience (IE) differs from an excellence experience (EE): qualitively they are much the same, or similar, insofar as with both experiences there is a near-absence of agency – the beer rather than the doer is the operant – whereupon naïveté has come to the fore, such as to effect the marked diminishment of separation, and the main distinction is that the IE is more people-oriented, while the EE tends to be environmental in its scope.
In other words, with an EE the ‘aesthetic experience’ feature, for instance, or its ‘nature experience’ aspect, for example, tends to be more prominent, whilst with an IE the ‘fellowship experience’ characteristic, for instance, or its ‘convivial experience’ quality, for example, comes to the fore. In either type of near-PCE – wherein the experiencing is of ‘my’ life living itself, with a surprising sumptuosity, rather than ‘me’ living ‘my’ life, quite frugally by comparison, and where this moment is living ‘me’ (instead of ‘me’ trying to live ‘in the moment’) – the diminishment of separation is so astonishing as to be as-if incomprehensible/ unbelievable yet it is the imminence of a fellow human’s immanence which, in and of itself, emphasises the distinction the most.
For instance, the degree of intimacy experienced with minera, flora and fauna upon strolling through some botanical gardens with either near-PCE occurring – as in, with rocks, trees and birds, for example – is to the same gradation as when in a social setting such as a typical sitting room situation (as in, with ashtrays, flowers and humans, for instance) yet it is the ‘fellow human being’ element which exemplifies the already astounding diminishment of separation which ensues upon the blessed onset of this near-innocent intimacy of naïveté.
And that latter point – the felicitous advent of naïve intimacy – is another way the IE differs from the EE inasmuch if a near-PCE is initiated via intensive interaction with a fellow human being/ with fellow human beings it takes on the properties of an intimacy experience (IE) whereas if the near-PCE is triggered via interacting intensively with the world at large (as in, an aesthetic experience, a nature experience, a contemplative experience, for example) it takes on the properties of an excellence experience (EE).
The role they play in an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom (entitled ‘The Dynamic, Destinal Virtual Freedom’ on that web page to distinguish it from the still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom entitled ‘The Pragmatic, Methodological Virtual Freedom’) is, essentially, in enabling the actualism process to take over.
In effect, the actualism process is what ensues when one gets out from being under control, via having given oneself prior permission to have one’s life live itself (i.e., sans the controlling doer), and a different way of being comes about (i.e., where the beer is the operant) – whereupon a thrilling out-from-control momentum takes over and an inevitability sets in – whereafter there is no pulling back (hence the reluctance in having it set in motion) as once begun it is nigh-on unstoppable.
RICHARD to № 46: [...eight paragraphs elided...]. As the word ‘intimacy’ refers to the state or condition of being intimate – a word which comes from Latin intimātus, past participle of intimāre, ‘to make familiar with’ from Latin intimāre, intimāt-, ‘to make known’, from Latin intimus, ‘innermost, deepest’; from intus, ‘within’ – perhaps a more extensive dictionary entry than those quick ones will throw some light upon what it is you are wanting to know about intimacy per se and the intimacy of love. Viz.: [...elided...]. What is immediately noticeable is how the listings in the various dictionaries do not feature the near-innocent intimacy of naïveté. This is because there is a marked lack of information on the distinction between the intimacy of love and that naïve intimacy (as pointed out in the latter part of the first paragraph of my Message № 21835). Viz.:.
I also detailed how feeling-being ‘Grace’, who was exacting in evaluating ‘her’ differing ways of being a ‘self’,
had gradations of scale in regards to intimacy (togetherness: → closeness: → sweetness: → richness: →
(Incidentally, and purely as a matter of historical note, I first detailed the above gradations publicly on Tue Nov 10, 2009,
in Message № 7476 which – along
with 30+ other posts of mine – was deliberately censored via being deleted from this forum’s archives and thus potentially stricken from view forever, as part of a concerted effort to stop the
global spread of peace-on-earth dead in its tracks, along with several proposals to prevent me from publishing copies of my ‘Yahoo Groups’
correspondence on The Actual Freedom Trust web site).
What did not get included in those second and third paragraphs, regarding feeling-being ‘Grace’ and her rigorous gradations, was ‘her’ oft-repeated observation – regarding the onset of the third stage, on that range of naïveness, where ‘her’ gradation of ‘great’ related to sweetness – about a bifurcation manifesting where the instinctual tendency/ temptation was to veer off in the direction of love and its affectuous intimacy (due to a self-centric attractiveness towards feeling affectionate) as contrasted to a conscious choice being required so as to somehow have that sweetness then segue into a naïve intimacy via what ‘she’ described as ‘richness’ and graded as ‘excellent’.
MARTIN:> What does that mean practically then Richard?
RICHARD: G’day Martin,
Essentially, what “that” meant practically for feeling-being ‘Grace’ was how ‘she’ needed to be fully alert, upon the emergence of (if not prior to) that third-stage ‘sweetness’, to the attractiveness of the feeling of affection/ of ‘self’-centrically being affectionate – so as to not instinctually veer off into the intimacy of love – and thereby remain steadfast with delighting in the physical proximity of the flesh-and-blood body typing these words (i.e., “the other”, in the nomenclature of the third paragraph from the top of this page, that ‘she’ conventionally referred to as “my partner”, when living what ‘she’ laconically termed “my other life”, during ‘her’ interactions on weekdays with female colleagues, friends, acquaintances, &c., in a neighbouring village).
The reason for drawing attention to this instinctual tendency/ temptation – (i.e., to become loving and, consequently, feel even closer to another ‘being’ because of its affectuous intimacy) – in the above Footnote № 1 is two-fold:
• It is the natural and normal (instinctual and default) course of action: see Message № 20312 for an extensive, fully referenced, elaboration.
(By the way: this natural and normal course of action, this instinctual and default tendency and/or temptation, must surely feature majorly in any plausible hypothesis as to why an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history).
MARTIN: Obviously I have to start with an affective intimacy rather than the actual intimacy you describe (as I’m currently a feeling being). If I’m with a women should I let myself like them rather than love them, so there’s an experience of closeness / intimacy based on liking rather than affection?
RICHARD: Because “an experience of closeness / intimacy” is already happening before the onset of the third stage depicted in that footnote, as per feeling-being ‘Grace’s gradations of scale regarding intimacy (good:→ very good:→ great:→ excellent:→ perfect), which correlates to the range of naïveness from being sincere to becoming naïve and all the way through being naïveté itself to an actual innocence (togetherness:→ closeness:→ sweetness:→ richness:→ magicality), your query has prompted me to pull together my scattered references to those gradations, bring them up-to-date (upon spotting a misnamed term in the original 10th of November 2009 post), and lay them out sequentially as an aide-mémoire.
So, bearing in mind the distinction betwixt the near-innocent intimacy of naïveté and the affectional intimacy of romance lore and legend, as clearly demarcated in the two preceding email exchanges, plus the footnoted account regarding feeling-being ‘Grace’s oft-repeated observation (about a bifurcation manifesting upon the onset of the third stage), then ... yes, steadfastly being as true to an imitation of the actual as is feasible (i.e., staying as faithful as is imitatively doable to actuality) and thus unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human creature/ one’s fellow human creatures – despite that instinctual urge, drive, impulse, or any other similarly blind appetitive craving/ longing/ desiring for an affective-psychic coupling or bonding form of consummation (i.e., merging, blending, fusing, uniting, or any other state of integration, unification, oneness, nonduality, and etcetera) – is a significant feature in the enabling of the IE’s delineated in the first of the two preceding email exchanges.
MARTIN: Is it as simple as that?
RICHARD: As your nominative pronoun “it” draws its referencing function from the way in which intimacy experiences (IE’s) come about as per feeling-being ‘Grace’s gradations of scale regarding the range of naïveness from being sincere to becoming naïve and all the way through being naïveté itself to an actual innocence – (this syntactically precise exegesis of the referent whence your query derives relevance is purely for the sake of clarity in communication) – then ... no, “it” is not “as simple as that” (in your case liking women rather than loving them; in ‘her’ case liking men rather than loving them) as some considerable finesse of focus is called for in order to discern this which is as entirely new to human experience/ human history as an actual freedom from the human condition is.
Perhaps if I were to put it this way: untold billions of peoples down through the ages and across cultures have liked, rather than loved, another and/or others relationally, familially and societally – and yet even so the near-innocent intimacy of naïveté does not appear in the dictionary listings – to the point that it speaks volumes regarding the all-dominating puissance of blind nature’s rough-and-ready instinctual survival passions which, whilst self-evidently successful in its proliferative perpetuation of the species, nevertheless blindly dictate that no other course of action, vis-à-vis being intimate, than love’s affectuous intimacy will ever instinctually come about.
Put succinctly: as all what blind nature is concerned about (so to speak) is the survival of the species – and even then any species will do as far as blind nature is concerned – then it is patent that blind nature cares not a whit about any such finesse of focus being articulated here.
MARTIN: Also, I have a tendency to hide away / shut down my feelings, do you have any advice on overcoming that?
RICHARD: My stock-standard response to advice-seeking reports of some personal or idiosyncratic tendency/ propensity/ predilection/ etcetera which only the person concerned is properly equipped to deal with – I cannot possibly know another person’s every thought, every feeling, every instinctual impulse; nor the nuances of their ethnic background, the intimate details of their familial upbringing, the subtleties of their peer-group coercions, and so on – is to suggest watching/ reading news bulletins ... for example:
MARTIN: One way you describe sincerity is ingenuousness, are you referring to not hiding away?
RICHARD: A computerised search of all my publicly available words for <ingenuousness> returns only one hit – where it is utilised in relation to being pure innocence personified in actuality – and wherever the word ingenuous is used to “describe sincerity” it generally appears linked to and/or synonymous with ‘straightforward’ as follows:
Other than that, the word ingenuous usually appears in a list of synonyms for either naïve or naïveté – as in my recent ‘brief note’ Message № 22277 as per my [quote] “...‘the visceral wiliness of the wild’...is the direct opposite of naïveté (naïve = guileless, artless, ingenuous, unsophisticated, open, aboveboard, direct, frank, straightforward, child-like, simple &c.)” [end quote] wording for example – which, in that context, reads as being representative of ‘nothing to hide’ rather than your “not hiding away” suggestion.
As a matter of related interest, most dictionaries have ‘ingenuous’ as generally referring to being free from reserve, restraint, dissimulation, and so forth, such as to be lacking in cunning, guile, sophistication, worldliness, and etcetera, although ‘Princeton’s WordNet 3.0’, curiously enough, has [quote] “characterised by an inability to mask your feelings” [endquote] as its primary definition of the word.
MARTIN: I have to make a conscious effort to not pull back, and to allow myself to have a feeling of liking for others and show this feeling (as opposed to introverting), but is this the same as expressing the feeling which you warn against?
RICHARD: Hmm ... I write of the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago neither suppressing nor expressing either the ‘good’ or the ‘bad’ feelings – and provide a personal example of (full-blown) anger being thusly put into a bind, such as to occasion the third alternative to magically hove into view, whereafter (full-blown) anger played no active part in ‘his’ life ever again – and more than a few take this to be a general ‘rule of thumb’ applicable to all the affective feelings inclusive of the felicitous and innocuous affections (an unendorsed/ unsanctioned unilateral pursuit I have previously referred to, when talking face-to-face with some of those so inclined, as a suave-and-sophisticated “faux-actualism practice” being studiously observed, for its urbane effect, by its resultant “buttoned-down pseudo-actualist” practician).
Look, the whole point of minimising both the malicious/ sorrowful feelings (the ‘bad’ feelings) and their antidotal loving/ compassionate feelings (the ‘good’ feelings) whilst maximising the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (the ‘congenial’ feelings) is to make for a potent combination when this untrammelled conviviality operates in conjunction with a naïve sensuosity – whereby one is both likeable and liking – such that the benevolence and benignity of pure intent may increasingly become dynamically enabled for one purpose and one purpose alone ... to wit: for the already always existing peace-on-earth to become apparent, in this lifetime, as this flesh-and-blood body.
As your proposed making of a conscious effort to not pull back – and to allow yourself “to have a feeling of liking for others and show this feeling” (which is indeed “the same as expressing the feeling” of course) – is on track with “maximising the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (the ‘congenial’ feelings)” then here is an example of what that untrammelled conviviality could look like when translated into action.
MARTIN: I sometimes feel exposed though and this can prevent a relaxed intimacy.
RICHARD: First of all, the raison d’être of being intimate – and the word itself, coming as it does from the Latin intimātus, past participle of intimāre, ‘to make familiar with’ from Latin intimāre, intimāt-, ‘to make known’, from Latin intimus, ‘innermost, deepest’; from intus, ‘within’, clearly reflects this – is to be fully exposed, with nothing hidden, and thus able to be yourself, as-you-are, with no pretence.
Obviously, for any such intimacy to be “a relaxed intimacy” then any and all pretence at being anyone other than who you really are – as-you-are in reality, that is, and not a societal entity, in ideality, as per acculturation and acclimation – will be given short shrift/ will fall by the wayside.
As pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) unequivocally evidence who you really are (as-you-are in reality), as distinct from what you actually are (as-you-are in actuality), as being nothing but the instinctual survival passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof – just like all the other 7.0+ billion pretenders busily pretending to be anyone other than who they really are, as-they-are, in reality – then the concomitant realisation that it is not your fault and how, like all the other 7.0+ billion feeling-beings, you were born thataway (per favour blind nature’s rough and ready survival passions), releases you from any shame/ embarrassment, and etcetera, for being who you really are, as-you-are, in reality.
Furthermore, as who you really are (as-you-are in reality) has no existence whatsoever or howsoever either anywhere or anywhen in actuality – has no actual substance wheresoever or whensoever (i.e., is not only not actually extant but never was nor ever will be) – it is a lot of fun to be sincerely playing the game of finding out just what makes you tick (i.e., how you operate and function both in public and in private).
MARTIN: Is the idea that if I’m sincere (as an guileless) that I have nothing to hide, and I can give up my hiding place?
RICHARD: No ... “the idea” (as you put it) about being sincere – and the root meaning of sincerity is to be in accord with the fact/ to be aligned with factuality/ to stay true to facticity (i.e., being authentic/ guileless, genuine/ artless, straightforward/ ingenuous) – regarding aspirations for actuality is to be in accord with/ be aligned with the actual, per favour the PCE, as in, staying true to (a.k.a. remaining faithful to) actuality as experientially evidenced.
The realisation that you are, essentially, the same as all the other 7.0+ billion feeling-beings parasitically inhabiting their host bodies – inasmuch you were all born thataway per favour blind nature’s rough and ready survival passions – means there is nothing unique about you, at the core of your being, which necessitates having “to hide” anything.
Put differently, as your “hiding place” is the same-same “hiding place” as each and every other feeling-being’s “hiding place” (all 7.0+ billion of them) just who do you reckon you are really fooling, other than yourself, by remaining hidden not only from others but from yourself as well?
In other words, how will you get to know yourself, intimately, unless you reveal yourself as-you-are in reality?
Speaking personally, the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body circa 1980-1981 first began finding out just who ‘he’ was, as-he-was in reality, via the guise of being ‘an eccentric artist’ (a socially-acceptable way of being a bit of an oddball) due to the total lack of any precedent and, therefore, of any praxeological publications.
(The first of the subsequent millions of words nowadays freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site had no public existence prior to 1997).
It was such fun! And the more eccentric ‘he’ became – as more and more oddball facets of who ‘he’ really was, as-he-was in reality, emerged into play – the more ‘the others’ lapped it up! Talk about being encouraged by one’s peers to “just be yourself”, eh?
Ha! What a hoot it all was – and quite the ‘Drama Queen’ on occasion as well – especially that ‘Latest and Greatest Saviour of Humankind’ part ... it would take some doing to top that (in the ‘oddball’ stakes) no matter what else you have hidden away there.
MARTIN: And then I can be liking / naive?
RICHARD: The way to be both likeable and liking – to be as near to innocence as is possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – is to retrieve and resurrect your long-lost naïveté (locked away in childhood, per favour the scorn, ridicule and derision poured forth upon it by the worldly-wise cynics and sophisticates, due to an infantile/ juvenile inability to separate out being naïve from being gullible), nowadays made readily possible by virtue of your adult sensibilities, and operate and function in the world at large by being naïveté itself (thus by-passing/ over-riding that instinctually/ viscerally felt core-of-being centre of ‘self’).
MARTIN: Also, relevant to this is how as a body only (or when you were liking rather than loving as a feeling being) do you form an association with a woman?
RICHARD: The following should be self-explanatory inasmuch it demonstrates, via a well-known instance being melodramatically played-out a couple of years afterwards on this very forum, how more than just a few women (who generally tend to place more emphasis on intimacy than men and who, despite their much-talked about fear of intimacy, have difficulty overlooking the man with precisely that on offer) find the opportunity to be intimate well-nigh irresistible.
Incidentally, and lest an erroneous impression again be obtained from both the above and its well-known melodramatic aftermath, it is vital to comprehension that it be read in conjunction with the following understanding:
MARTIN: You have to demonstrate interest or nothing will develop (I assume), but how does this come about without affectionately touching her on the arm for example?
RICHARD: To cut to the chase: as I have been gratuitously informed by more than just one female that my physical touch – even a caressive stroking of their bared back for example – is tangibly a non-possessive and actually caring touch (i.e., a literally selfless touching) please be assured that nothing of value will be lost upon the extinction of the masculinist capacity to be “affectionately touching” the female of the species.
MARTIN: In other words how does intimacy develop without an affectionate connection?
RICHARD: The short answer is: it develops quite magically, of course, sans any such “affectionate connection” as you depict.
Howsoever, here is a sample of how feeling-being ‘Peter’ went about putting into practice ‘his’ version of what ‘he’ had been reading/ hearing when ‘he’ first came into contact with actualism/ actual freedom words and writings.
MARTIN: Also, there is a (perhaps absurd) fear that if I’m sincere / intimate with everyone as a feeling being (and if that naturally develops to further intimacy), that I may be put in awkward situations where I have to turn down women sexually that I am not personally attracted to.
RICHARD: Well now ... welcome to the ‘world of womankind’, then, for whom turning-down unwanted advances, politely or otherwise, is part-and-parcel of the ‘job-description’ (so to speak) of being the female of the species.
MARTIN: There is a fear that I will send out the wrong signals, or not be able to make choices if I don’t hold / hide some part of me back.
RICHARD: Again, variations on this “send out the wrong signals” theme are par-for-the-course for the female of the species.
MARTIN: Bearing in mind I’m not in a relationship and so can’t give that as a reason, can I be fully sincere / intimate and still say ‘no’?
RICHARD: The approach which spontaneously came about during my itinerant and homeless years – which turned out to also be my single and celibate years – was to never say ‘no’ but, rather, to embrace the proposals enthusiastically (there were 20+ propositions of that nature with several being of the ménage à trois variety) with the fundamental proviso that the proposer be 100% committed to going all the way, inclusive of the then-current lifestyle and livelihood, unto the superlative best.
MARTIN: What would you recommend saying in these situations, as the usual reasons like ‘I don’t have romantic feelings for you’ are somewhat disingenuous / insincere as I am not looking for romantic feelings with anyone! Thanks.
RICHARD: You could, of course, try telling them just what it is you are looking for (in explicit detail).
Going by the experience of the egoless feeling-being already mentioned, the last ‘he’ would ever hear from those egoistical proposers in respect to their ill-thought-out proposal – those whose spiritualised ‘self’-centeredness could see but a glamorous and glorious sex-object to use for their ‘self’-justifying delectation and scorecard enhancement – was the rapidly fading sound of their pitter-pattering footsteps as they scampered for the hills.
Re: Near Actual Caring
RICHARD: (...) the topic is essentially about being self-centred – with especial attention upon that term referring to each and every ‘self’ being both ego-centric and soul-centric – in respect to the religio-spiritual practice of countering selfishness, which religio-spiritualists generally equate to self-centredness, via putting each and every other ‘self’ before one’s own ‘self’ (a.k.a. being an unselfish ‘self’).
Now, the incident to which Claudiu responded thusly was when feeling-being ‘Alan’ placed the affective happiness of feeling-being ‘Joan’ before the actual happiness of flesh-and-blood Alan (otherwise depicted as “giving myself 100% to another” in Message № 23179) being apparent 24/7 by forgoing ‘his’ second attempt at ‘self’-immolation, there-and-then, due in the main to feeling-being ‘Alan’ already being about an hour late for their prearranged rendezvous.
In other words, feeling-being ‘Alan’ prioritised the (potential) affective happiness of feeling-being ‘Joan’ – a conditioned happiness, dependent upon the situation and circumstances, and of a temporary nature – over the (potential) actual happiness of flesh-and-blood Alan – an unconditioned happiness, due solely to being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only, and of a permanent nature – which happiness also has the priceless advantage of having no trace of any malice whatsoever to later supplant it. (Richard, List D, No. 45, 28 July 2016)
MARTIN: Hello Richard. Isn’t there a combination of conditional / caused happiness and unconditional / non-contingent happiness?
As a caused, or conditional, happiness has a beginning and an end – it is dependent upon situations and circumstances – and an uncaused, or unconditional, happiness is perpetual, aeonian (beginningless and endless) it is self-evident they are categorically distinct; as such, there obviously cannot be “a combination” of the two.
Here is what a dictionary has to say:
Put simply: doing something pleasant and/or beneficial – or something pleasurable and/or beneficent happening – is a bonus on top of the sheer delight of being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only.
MARTIN: For example, even when one’s enjoyment and appreciation is solely to being alive / being here, that may involve enjoyable activities that have a beginning and an end, for example eating something tasty. Shouldn’t one enjoy those activities?
RICHARD: Where enjoyment and appreciation are due solely to being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only (neither ego-centric nor soul-centric; i.e., no self-centredness whatsoever) – which is what ensues either in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) or upon an actual freedom from the human condition – there is the added bonus of pleasurable activities and events to enjoy and appreciate (along with the distinct advantage that unpleasant activities and events do not detract one whit from that sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only).
For instance (in regards to that latter, parenthesised, observation):
In other words, an apperceptive awareness of an actual happiness/ felicity is not dependent upon experiencing sensate (bodily) pleasure; an apperceptive awareness of an actual happiness/ felicity occurs all the while sensate (bodily) pain is happening as well.
MARTIN: But what exactly is the perspective in doing so that maintains an unconditional happiness as being paramount?
RICHARD: The very fact of being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only – sans both identity in toto/the entire affective faculty – is what maintains (to use your terminology) the paramountcy of an unconditional/ uncaused happiness.
Put differently: a non-contingent happiness – a felicity not dependent upon either the situation or the circumstances – is the default condition of the very fact of being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only (i.e., sans both the instinctual passions and the feeling-being formed thereof).
There is a lengthy email exchange on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site, starting on May 11 2006, which goes into this ‘happiness is the default condition’ topic in extensive detail. It all began when I reported that happiness is inherent to perfection.
As the resultant email exchange extends over 16-17 posts, all told, it will take a while to follow it all the way through.
MARTIN: Doesn’t one have to almost focus on the unconditional happiness to the exclusion – or rather not giving much weight to – the various experiences, which may be good or bad?
RICHARD: As an unconditional/ uncaused happiness automatically ensues where no self-centredness prevails – either in a PCE (where both ego and soul are abeyant) or upon an actual freedom (where both ego and soul are extinct) – no focus whatsoever is required.
Even the relatively unconditional happiness of a virtual freedom – remaining virtually sorrow-free despite the normal vicissitudes of life – requires no such focus as pure intent is what keeps one on track with regards to both the immediate and the ultimate goal.
(As a virtual freedom involves remaining as happy and as harmless (as free from sorrow and malice) as is humanly possible, come-what-may, it is thus not dependent upon the situation and the circumstances. In that sense, then, the virtually sorrow-free felicity of a virtual freedom can also qualify as an unconditional happiness but as it is neither permanent nor totally sorrow-free it is relatively, and not absolutely, unconditional).
MARTIN: Are they two separate things which co-exist, or does an unconditional happiness encapsulate the caused happiness – I’m asking because you gave the example of delighting in eating a hamburger on the website which is a conditional happiness:
It’s almost as though it doesn’t matter that you’re eating the delicious hamburger (which is a conditional happiness with a beginning and an end), and yet you’re completely delighting in it – this is what I’m struggling to wrap my head around – the way that what is conditional is experienced unconditionally if you like. Sorry if this sounds stupid you’ve probably explained it in that link with the eternal time stuff, but can you put it any more simply?
RICHARD: First of all, that part-quote you provided there is an ‘as requested’ response to my co-respondent (№ 15 on Mailing List ‘A’) asking me “How do I do this while eating a hamburger?” by way of a rejoinder to my previous explanation of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of apperception (‘the mind’s perception of itself’) as being what happens when the ‘self’ ceases to function as a perceiver and perception happens of itself.
So I took him step-by-step through the “nuts and bolts”, as asked, of having perception happen of itself whilst he was eating his hamburger (couched in the first person active voice, rather than the second or third person, so he could read it as if it were himself actively engaged in doing it) via advising him to appreciate how this moment – this moment he is biting into his hamburger – is the only moment he is actually alive and to also be aware that, out of all the hamburgers he has ever eaten or will ever eat, only this one he is currently eating actually exists.
Of course, were he to have actually put into action those “nuts and bolts” he asked for – the “nuts and bolts” of having perception happen of itself while eating his hamburger – he would have then experientially known what the word ‘apperception’ refers to as per the actualism lingo.
Howsoever, his follow-up email readily demonstrated that he was not really interested in the “nuts and bolts”, of having perception happen of itself while eating his hamburger, after all.
I have gone into some detail regarding the reason why this passage you part-quoted from was written, and why it was written in that particularised manner, because your immediately following words – [quote] “It’s almost as though it doesn’t matter that you’re eating the delicious hamburger...” [endquote] – convey an impression that those “nuts and bolts” of having perception happen of itself, whilst eating something delicious, were somehow overlooked when you selected that particular section to quote.
In other words, were you to receive a report from me about how the unconditional/ uncaused felicity of being alive/ being here does not “encapsulate” the conditional/ caused felicity which gratuitously occurs as a bonus on top of that sheer delight (upon engaging in activities and events of a pleasant and/or beneficial nature) it would probably add very little to your comprehension.
What I can do, however, in regards to your [quote] “the way that what is conditional is experienced unconditionally if you like” [endquote] words, is to draw your attention to the following exchange:
I have emphasised the vital parts of that exchange as more than a few persons have seized on the “scale of 1-10” portion as being meaningful in itself – and thus miss the true import of what is being reported there – as I am none too sure how I can [quote] “put it any more simply” [endquote] than that.
(Here is the key to comprehension: by virtue of being this flesh-and-blood body only every last little bit of me is the very stuff of infinitude itself).
MARTIN: Do you experience life as a combination of caused and uncaused happinesses, and so still head towards pleasurable activities and experiences?
RICHARD: As I would have to be pretty silly to head towards displeasurable activities and experiences – especially when pleasurable activities and experiences are available by the bucket-load (as a bonus on top of the utter delight of simply being this flesh and blood body only) – then drawing your attention to the following passages should be self-explanatory.
MARTIN: Does harmlessness have nothing to do with ‘others’?
RICHARD: The etymology of the word harmless (harm + less) is rather instructive as it comes, via Middle English, from the Anglo-Saxon word hearm, meaning ‘grief’, from the Old Norse harmr, meaning ‘grief, sorrow’ (plus there is the German Harm, also meaning ‘grief’; the Swedish harm, meaning ‘grief, anger’; and the Danish harme, meaning ‘wrath’).
Thus, although the word harm nowadays refers to physical injury/ damage as well – the American Heritage Dictionary lists it as meaning “physical or psychological injury or damage” and the Collins English Dictionary has it meaning “physical or mental injury or damage” – its affective-only origins are also attested by the legal term “grievous bodily harm” (rather than just the words ‘grievous harm’).
I have touched upon this before ... for instance (in 2004):
Thus to be harmless as per actualism lingo (being free of malice) is beneficial both to oneself – plus it feels unpleasant (hedonically) to feel malicious (affectively) anyway – as well to others due to being unable to induce suffering either in oneself or another, via affective vibes and psychic currents, and vice versa.
MARTIN: ‘I’ can only think in terms of ‘self’ and ‘other’, where ‘I’ am either selfish or virtuously selfless (which I experience as simply being a re-direction of that narcissistic energy). I don’t think I’ve really understood what harmless means, as I can’t help but either put ‘myself’ or ‘others’ first (as a kind of denial of ‘self’) when I think of being harmless. When I think of “for that body and every body” I can’t help thinking of and instinctually feeling “for that ‘self’ and every ‘self’”! ‘Harmlessness’ feels like something you *do* to another human being – or an effect you have on them – but do you simply mean it as an absence of malice and sorrow?
RICHARD: The word harmless, in actualism lingo, refers to the innocuity which ensues in the absence of malice (just as the word happiness refers to the felicity which ensues in the absence of sorrow).
And it is only in either a PCE (where the feeling-being is abeyant) or upon an actual freedom (where the feeling-being is extinct) that there is a total absence of malice and sorrow.
In the meanwhile, of course, both malice and sorrow (the ‘bad’ feelings) can be deliberately minimised – along with their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion (the ‘good’ feelings) – so as to consciously maximise those happy and harmless feelings (the ‘congenial’ feelings) and with all of that affective energy, which was otherwise frittered away on those wasteful ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings, now freed-up and channelled into felicity and innocuity a potent combination is forged when such untrammelled conviviality operates in conjunction with a naïve sensuosity.
Do you see how almost all of that paragraph you wrote as a lead-up to your query about being harmless – as in “but do you simply mean it as an absence of malice and sorrow?” that is – stems from or revolves around that hoary religio-spiritual practice of putting each and every other ‘self’ before one’s own ‘self’ (a.k.a. being an unselfish ‘self’) so as to counter selfishness?
Yet the topic on the web page which Claudiu linked to is essentially about being self-centred – with especial attention upon that term referring to each and every ‘self’ being both ego-centric and soul-centric – and not about being selfish.
As being harmless does not feature in religio-spiritual practice – peace-on-earth is not on the religio-spiritual agenda – then the sooner that nonsense about being an unselfish ‘self’ is abandoned the better.
Here is another reason why:
MARTIN: What is harmlessness in an unconditional sense? Obviously it can’t be dependent on others at all.
RICHARD: As to be actually harmless – which is surely what “harmlessness in an unconditional sense” means – is to be actually free of malice (as distinct from being virtually malice-free) then any listing of what it “can’t be dependent on” is irrelevant, as all what being actually harmless is dependent upon is being actually free of malice.
Incidentally, as malice can be (and often is) self-directed – feeling-beings are notorious for self-harm – then to focus solely on others for your “Obviously...” conclusion is to be ignoring half the picture.
MARTIN: How does intimacy come about without putting the “(potential) affective happiness of [a] feeling-being” to some extent before ‘oneself’?
RICHARD: Have you never heard of mutual happiness?
MARTIN: ‘I’ am fundamentally selfish and unless I temper this to some extent there’s no chance of being close to someone or liked as ‘my’ resentful urges are unrestrained (and affect my mood / disposition even if I don’t act out on them). Is becoming actually free a combination of becoming unselfish in a normal sense, and being harmless in an unconditional sense?
RICHARD: First of all, each and every identity is “fundamentally selfish” by nature – which is why it takes a powerful instinctive impulse (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinctive impulse (selfism) – insofar as blind nature endows each and every human being with the selfish instinct for individual survival and the clannish instinct for group survival (be it the familial group, the tribal group, or the national group).
(Hence the religio-spiritual practice of countering selfishness – as per the unliveable ideal of each and every ‘self’ being an unselfish ‘self’ via the nonsensical edict of each and every ‘self’ putting each and every ‘self’ before one’s own ‘self’ – is basically an institutionalised elaboration of the most primal of blind nature’s instinctual drives, urges, and impulses and, as such, is not at all intelligent).
Second, as “being harmless in an unconditional sense” is to be actually free it makes no sense to ask if becoming actually free is a combination of being that and becoming an unselfish ‘self’.
Third, rather than having to restrain your “resentful urges” forever and a day – so as to have a chance of “being close to someone or liked” as exemplified by intimacy experiences (IE’s) – why not find out why there is resentment in the first place?
Speaking personally, the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago first located the root source of all ‘his’ anger – the basic resentment at being alive (as expressed in the “I didn’t ask to be born” type of plaint) – and was thus able to rid ‘himself’ of (full-blown) anger within three weeks.
MARTIN: Where is the line between the two?
RICHARD: There is no line between the two: being an unselfish ‘self’ is a religio-spiritual practice and becoming actually free is unique to actualism.
The former is instinctually-based and the latter is the product of intelligence.
MARTIN: If I try to be happy at simply being alive, I feel as though others potentially threaten that ‘unconditional’ happiness and I get a fear response (any happiness I generate is unstable and thus not unconditional). It’s as though I can only enjoy just being alive if I’m undisturbed, or if there’s nothing in the environment that will kick-start the instinctual passions back into action. I can’t see how to separate out the conditional from the unconditional, as events change and have various degrees of good/ bad, pleasant/ unpleasant, peaceful/ potential-to-disturb. The fact that this is the only moment I’m ever alive doesn’t change the fact that events change with varying degrees of good/bad etc. – I am not immune to this just because it’s the same moment (maybe I’m only seeing this intellectually or not getting what you mean by eternal moment). And yes, this particular moment is the only moment I’m actually alive, but that doesn’t change the fact that there will be a next moment (unless I die of course).
RICHARD: First, as nowhere on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is it suggested that you “try to be happy at simply being alive” you would be well-advised to set feeling good (a general feeling of well-being) as a bottom-line of experiencing until it becomes ‘second-nature’ to feel good each moment again come-what-may.
Second, as there is no “unconditional” for a feeling-being to separate out the “conditional” from it is no wonder you cannot see how to do so.
Third, seeing the fact that this is the only moment you are ever actually alive is not meant to change the fact that events change – here in this actual world events are forever changing (it is the way in which life is always fresh, novel, ever-new, never boring) – as the whole point of the exercise is to realise you are wasting the only moment you are ever actually alive by feeling bad (a general feeling of ill-being) when you can be feeling good instead.
Fourth, these ever-changing events are not the issue – the issue is how one (affectively) reacts or responds to them – as one cannot change the weather to ensure a sunny day in the park or on the beach (for instance).
Lastly, to blame events for how you feel is to make yourself a victim of your own feelings (as if of forces beyond your control) when it is your choice, and your choice alone, as to how you feel, each moment again, as the events change.
MARTIN: What about the issue of self-protection? When someone cuts in front of me in line I feel slightly humiliated / embarassed / annoyed.
RICHARD: Why do you choose to feel “slightly humiliated / embarrassed / annoyed” when someone cuts in front of you in line when you could choose to feel good (a general feeling of well-being) instead?
Put differently: why waste this only moment you are ever actually alive by choosing to not feel good?
Moreover, and given that certain persons are prone to cutting in front of others in line, why set yourself up to feel “slightly humiliated / embarrassed / annoyed” for the rest of your life each time that happens?
Even more to the point: do you have a vested interest in making yourself a victim?
MARTIN: Another example: Perhaps a manager makes a decision at work of how I should do things that will lead to a lot of unecessary extra work. Or perhaps I am expected to work longer hours at work thus potentially losing free time. Or I no longer have the same level of access to pleasant activities / conditions / experiences.
RICHARD: Again, given that certain managers are prone to making such decisions/ expecting you to work longer hours/ preventing you from have the same level of access/ and so on and so forth, why set yourself up to no longer feel good (a general feeling of well-being) as such events occur when it is your choice, and your choice alone, as to how you feel, each moment again, while these events are happening.
MARTIN: An unconditional happiness has to encompass all of these issues / ups and downs that would affect my wellbeing in a conventional sense... with no defensiveness or self-pity at losing out. I know a non-contingent happiness would have to work whether one is in a nice environment or in solitary confinement, but I personally can’t help be at least somewhat affected by the viscittudes.
RICHARD: Aye, an unconditional happiness does indeed encompass all those events – including events which have an effect on physical well-being (senescence alone, in my case, has increasingly engendered such effects of late) – yet experience shows that certain feeling-beings have, personally, indeed been able to help themselves to not be at least somewhat affected by the vicissitudes.
MARTIN: I can see how the human condition is geared towards seeking conditional happinesses, and that actualism is about making a radical shift – almost like moving to a different dimension – to a non-contingent happiness, and I’m trying to figure out how to do this (bearing in mind billions of people have not been able to discover what you did Richard).
RICHARD: Good ... in the meanwhile, until you do figure out how, why not set feeling good (a general feeling of well-being) as a bottom-line of experiencing so it can become ‘second-nature’ to feel good, each moment again come-what-may, sooner rather than later?
MARTIN: If I try to be happy now, my instinctual energy wants some stimulation as it operates with a sense of going somewhere. I sort of think ‘well I could be happy now, but what then – just sit here like a lemon?’ (that ‘wanting something more’ or ‘there must be more to life than this’ comes into play even in regards to the actualism method itself!).
RICHARD: Well, of course ... after all, the ultimate aim of the actualism method is to uncover, for oneself, the ‘secret to life’, or the ‘riddle of existence’, or the ‘purpose of the universe’, or the ‘meaning of life’, or whatever one’s quest may be called.
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.