Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

RESPONDENT: Doesn’t anyone have the same experience as me on this ‘road’ that you ‘push the button’ as Richard puts it (...) Once you’ve pushed the button, there’s no turning back. It’s definitely a one way ticket.

RESPONDENT No 53: (...) Richards metaphorical ‘button’. Or perhaps it is a metaphysical button? Or perhaps a spiritual button? Or perhaps even a material button? I can’t really tell being that, on this button issue, clarity in communication is lacking.

RESPONDENT: Buttons – yeah, I don’t have a clue what the ‘button’ really consists of either, or how one (or who is it?) really ‘pushes’ it.

RICHARD: I am none too sure why you are agreeing that clarity in communication is lacking on [quote] ‘this button issue’ [endquote] as it is writ large all over The Actual Freedom Trust web site that the altruistic instinct (aka altruism) is what initiates the process. For just one example:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... do you think the key for setting it [the process] in motion is will (‘pure intent’?), or an increase in the frequency of apperceptive awareness? Or both? Or something else?
• [Richard]: ‘There is an intrinsic trait common to all sentient beings: self-sacrifice. It manifests in humans in the way that ‘I’ will passionately defend ‘myself’ and ‘my group’ to the death if it is deemed necessary. All of ‘my’ instincts – the instinctive drive for biological survival – come to the fore when psychologically and psychically threatened, for ‘I’ am confused about ‘my’ presence, confounding ‘my’ survival and the body’s survival. Nevertheless, ‘my’ survival being paramount could not be further from the truth, for ‘I’ need play no part any more in perpetuating physical existence (which is the primal purpose of the instinctual animal ‘self’). ‘I’ am no longer necessary at all. In fact, ‘I’ am nowadays a hindrance. With all of ‘my’ beliefs, values, creeds, ethics and other doctrinaire disabilities, ‘I’ am a menace to the body. ‘I’ am ready to die (to allow the body to be killed) for a cause and ‘I’ will willingly sacrifice physical existence for a ‘Noble Ideal’ ... and reap ‘my’ post-mortem reward: immortality.
This is called altruism ... albeit misplaced.
Thus when ‘I’ willingly and irremunerably ‘self’-immolate in toto – both psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for this body and that body and every body ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life.
Now, it is ‘me’ who is responsible for an action that results in ‘my’ own demise – without really doing the expunging itself (and I am not being tricky here) – as it is ‘me’ who is the initiator of bringing about this sacrifice in that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously, and with knowledge aforethought from a pure consciousness experience (PCE), set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise (‘I’ do not really end ‘myself’ in that ‘I’ do not do the deed itself for ‘I’ cannot end ‘myself’). What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and intentionally (cheerfully and blessedly), is press the button which precipitates a, oft-times alarming but always thrilling, momentum which will result in ‘my’ irrevocable ‘self’-immolation in toto. What one does is that one dedicates oneself to the challenge of being just here, right now, as the universe’s experience of itself ... peace-on-earth is the inevitable result because it is already always existing (‘I’ was merely standing in the way of it being apparent).
The act of initiating this ‘process’ is altruism, pure and simple: it is a rather curious decision – a decision the likes of which has never been made before nor will ever be made again – that it is imperative it be ‘me’ who will evince the final and complete condition which will deliver the goods so longed for by humanity for millennia ... whereupon that thrilling momentum takes over and one realises one has embarked already (and once that impetus gets going one cannot ‘un-set’ the pace).
There is no pulling back – which is why most people do not want to set it in motion – because once one has started one cannot stop. It is a one-way trip – that is the thrilling part of it – and with application and diligence and patience and perseverance, born out of the pure intent garnered from the PCE, the exposure of the inner workings of one’s psyche (which is the human psyche) will readily occur in the course of everyday events due to ‘my’ concurrence ... one cannot help but become fascinated for this means the end of the predicament which humankind has been agonising over for aeons.
Any reluctance to become fascinated is because of the ‘no turning back’ aspect.
After fascination comes obsession wherein one cannot leave it alone any more – or rather it does not leave one alone – and that is when that tempo picks ‘me’ up and ‘I’ am borne along on the adventure of a lifetime as it is inevitable that one is to meet one’s destiny ... it being what one is here for.
An eagerness takes over – one feels alive, vital, dynamic – and things happen serendipitously such that ‘I’ can no longer distinguish between ‘me’ doing it and it happening to ‘me’ ... and this is exhilarating for one is fully doing this business of being alive – doing it here on earth in this lifetime as this body – and it is all happening now of its own accord. This moment is happening and all the while one is doing it the doing is happening of itself ... then one is the experiencing of the happening.
And this is wonderful.

RICHARD: ... the human species has been doing its thing for at least 50,000 years or so – no essential difference has been discerned between the Cro-Magnon human and Modern-Day human – and may very well continue to do its thing for, say, another 50,000 years or so ... it matters not, in what has been described as ‘the vast scheme of things’ or ‘the big picture’, and so on, whether none, one or many peoples become actually free from the human condition (this planet, indeed the entire solar system, is going to cease to exist in its current form about 4.5 billion years from now). All these words – yours, mine, and others (all the dictionaries, encyclopaedias, scholarly tomes and so on) – will perish and all the monuments, all the statues, all the tombstones, all the sacred sites, all the carefully conserved/carefully restored memorabilia, will vanish as if they had never existed ... nothing will remain of any human endeavour (including yours truly). Nothing at all ... nil, zero, zilch. Which means that nothing really matters in the long run and, as nothing really does matter (in this ultimate sense) it is simply not possible to take life seriously ... sincerely, yes, but seriously? No way ... life is much too much fun to be serious!

RESPONDENT: Yes, I see your point as I remember instances of original comedy in my life, although in the real-world where I currently reside, it’s a serious and sometimes deadly business, mainly because people take themselves so seriously (survival takes precedent over enjoying).

RICHARD: And therein lies the nub of the issue (in the real-world life is indeed a serious and sometimes deadly business).

RESPONDENT: When the potential for freedom is actualized, there’s no need to build another freedom site or to write a book dedicated to the same subject as it is extensively covered, all the while considering myself a factualist instead of an actualist with all the branding and neo- prefixes. I can simply disappear over the horizon if I so wish when ‘The Game’ is over.

RICHARD: As an actual freedom from the human condition requires an all-inclusive altruism to effect – and altruism wipes away selfism completely – it would be a contradiction, not only in terms, but in effect to not pass on a report, by whatever means, of the discovery of the already always existing peace-on-earth to one’s fellow human beings.

In other words, if for no other reason than simply because of the inherent character of fellowship regard, here in this actual world, were you not to share your experiencing of what life is in actuality – that is, kept it to yourself, for yourself, whilst all about misery and mayhem rages unabated (plus all the branding and neo-prefixing for that matter) – then it would not be an actual freedom from the human condition.

Feeling beings do not have a corner on caring.

RESPONDENT: I wonder how all these astronauts, who have seen the Earth from space, haven’t seen the folly of the humans below or if they have seen it why didn’t they say loud and clear what stupidity is played down here everyday.

RICHARD: Presuming that you are assuming some of them have a PCE – because of the sheer impact of seeing this azure and verdant planet from such a privileged vantage point perchance – then basically you are asking why anyone who is having a PCE is not saying, loud and clear, why all the misery and mayhem being played-out all around the globe is unnecessary.

Speaking personally, that is the very thing I would say, all those years ago whenever the ‘I’ who was inhabiting this body went into abeyance, and anybody I have been with since then, whilst they were having a PCE, has expressed variations on the same theme.

RESPONDENT: How can they re-become so easily ‘normal’ with only a whisper about their experience?

RICHARD: For the same reason why an actual freedom from the human condition is new to human history ... the persistence, and thus dominance, of identity.

RESPONDENT: I was wondering if there will be any need for the 9th factualist to write a report about the actual freedom experience.

RICHARD: Given that a ‘factualist’ seems to be a person who conveniently overlooks/ignores the plight of their fellow human beings, who are similarly living a [quote] ‘serious and sometimes deadly’ [endquote] life, then none whatsoever.

RESPONDENT: What use will be for a report if it describes the same experience?

RICHARD: If nothing else it will provide a contrast to the report of an actualist ... a discerning listener would be able to choose, then, which label describes an experient actually comprehending actuality and which label describes a theoretical understander of what such a comprehension might be like.

RESPONDENT: This understanding of mine about actualism (the facts of life) is partially theoretical and partially experiential.

RICHARD: It would appear (in view of the above) that the theoretical part is dominating, if not obliterating, the experiential part.

RESPONDENT: It is partly so as I haven’t had the opportunity (I remember no instance) of verifying by direct experience (PCE) all the aforementioned facts (the actual world).

RICHARD: In which case the theoretical part is actually a 100% whole.

RESPONDENT: This does not mean that I don’t possess a discerning mind which can make a difference between, let’s say, imaginatia vera and facts.

RICHARD: Aye, I am not bagging a theoretical understanding – far from it – else I would not be writing these explanatory-type e-mails.

RESPONDENT: For example, I know that I like movies because my own affective image projection faculty temporarily ceases to function transferring me into another reality (and as a consequence it’s a temporary relief from the burden of the normal ‘me’). Is this theoretical or practical comprehension?

RICHARD: The transportation of ‘me’ into another realm – symphony concerts, for example, can do the same – has nothing to do with what is under discussion.

*

RESPONDENT: Can’t he [the 9th factualist] simply choose to altruistically catch fish in a lagoon?

RICHARD: I see that I provided the following information to you last February:

• [Richard]: ‘... altruism (in its biological sense) is only the key to the process of ‘self’-immolation – going into blessed oblivion – and *has nothing to do with living everyday life happily and harmlessly* ...’. [emphasis added].

Put simply: there is an over-arching benignity and benevolence here in this actual world which makes altruism look like a mere bagatelle in comparison – although there is no comparison, actually, as altruism has no existence here – and an actual intimacy wherein it is an ‘of course’ one freely shares one’s experience by whatever means. An actual intimacy is where there is no separation whatsoever ... and where there is this absence of segregation it is as if one is talking to oneself.

RESPONDENT: Hmm ... I can’t clearly see the difference between identification and intimacy.

RICHARD: I did say ‘as if’ ... one is not, of course, actually talking to oneself.

RESPONDENT: Altruism has to be a genuine impulse coming from being, not a theoretical construct or a charade (sounds like a good idea to a momentarily bored person). And my hint is that it’s activated in life situations where being gets involved, like rescuing a child from a fire.

RICHARD: The example I like to give is that of a bumble bee: when it stings, to protect the hive, it dies ... and that is altruism, in its biological/zoological sense, pure and simple.

RESPONDENT: By the way, how would you react in a situation like that ...

RICHARD: In a word: intelligently.

RESPONDENT: ... [how would you react in a situation like that] even when definitely knowing that it will cost your life to save the child’s life?

RICHARD: To lose a life to save a life is not intelligent.

RESPONDENT: In my view, altruism is (more often than not) selfism in disguise, becoming ‘a self-defeating argument’.

RICHARD: I am aware that, to more than a few, the word altruism has come to mean unselfish/selfless ... thus I stress that the word is being used in its biological/zoological sense.

RESPONDENT: Can you provide an example of a pure conscious altruistic action without any loss/gain for the one involved?

RICHARD: As there is no altruism here in this actual world there is no such thing as a ‘pure conscious altruistic action’ ... any action which has the appearance of being altruistic, in its unselfish/selfless (virtuous) sense, stems from fellowship regard – like species recognise like species – and is actually selfless in the literal meaning of the word (as in ‘self’-less), as a matter of course, and not virtuously.

A virtuous ‘self’ – an unselfish ‘self’ – is still a ‘self’ nevertheless.

RESPONDENT: In Peter’s example (the death of his son and his ‘why not me?’) I would not call that altruism, but nurture.

RICHARD: As altruism is epitomised by the parental instinct to fight to the death to protect progeny – and, by extension, to defend family-tribe-clan in general – it has more than just a passing similarity to nurture anyway ... altruism is not divorced from the instinctual passions.

Other instinctual impulses also come into play ... territoriality and gregariousness (the herd instinct) for instance.

RESPONDENT: It’s better for me to die than to suffer the loss of my child (same with the loss of my past lover).

RICHARD: What does the avoidance of grief have to do with nurture?

RESPONDENT: The argument being that if it was the neighbour’s son such reaction would not and could not have happened.

RICHARD: Ah, I gain an inkling, now, as to why you said you cannot clearly see the difference between identification and intimacy.

Just for starters ... bonding is not the intimacy I was speaking of.

RESPONDENT: As you have probably gathered I am currently just fact finding and thoroughly enjoying the Actual Freedom web site without having the ‘pure intent’ or indeed the bravery to literally move down the path to actual freedom.

RICHARD: Ahh ... courage (and pusillanimity) is another topic: suffice to say for now that daring comes from caring.

And to dare to care is to care to dare.

RESPONDENT: I’ve read most of your journal, you have a ‘cultic style’ of writing, many times repeating words and ideas.

RICHARD: Oh? As I was trained to be an instructor in the military – plus I am a qualified art teacher – I would have said the repetition is more an instructive style of writing, if anything, as in being mnemonical ... plus I have a penchant for alliterative phrases which roll easily of the tongue anyway.

I like words ... communicating is so much fun.

RESPONDENT: The style is favourable for a cult development, ‘in the name of actualism you are neither a man nor a woman, nor an ego nor a Self, but a flesh-and-blood being’ ;)

RICHARD: When a person gets off their backside, rolls up their sleeves, and actually puts the actualism method into practice they discover that there is no way it can ever be other than a DIY project.

RESPONDENT: That’s why I would never subscribe to the idea of 6 billion people starting to practice actualism.

RICHARD: For as long as you see it as an ‘idea’ – rather than experientially seeing the practical possibility it actually is – then the essential ingredient called altruism will remain forever elusively out of reach ... just as an actual freedom from the human condition will.

It is impossible to be selfishly free.

RESPONDENT: You seem to be too far-away from the real world, as to consider such a possibility ... as global peace-on-earth.

RICHARD: It is the other way around: you are ‘too far-away’ from this actual world, as it were, to see that it is entirely possible ... as any pure consciousness experience (PCE) will verify.

Not that I advocate anybody hold their breath in anticipation.

RESPONDENT: I find myself in the position of this body graciously and gradually turning in the direction you point to, yet at the same time with my head turned the other way around ... eager to understand why and how it was possible to get enlightened.

RICHARD: In a word: gullibility ... in several words: credulity stretched to the max.

RESPONDENT: I have trouble in understanding the difference between the words ‘sense’ and ‘direction’ when comparing the AF method with spiritual ones.

RICHARD: The oft-repeated ‘180 degrees in the other direction’ phrase simply means coming to one’s senses rather than going further away (withdrawing from the senses) from the world as-it-is than one already is ... everyone is already detached and to practise detachment is to be twice-removed from actuality.

RICHARD: ... I was just making the point that, although it is hypothetically correct that the elimination of the instinctual passions would be the elimination of ‘I’/‘me’, it does not work that way in practice (for reasons such as already explained). Not only is it dangerous it is an impossibility ... only altruistic ‘self’-immolation will do the trick.

RESPONDENT: You are making a distinction between ‘I/me’ eliminating itself and it being done altruistically.

RICHARD: No, I am more making the point that only altruism – self-sacrificial humanitarianism – will provide the enormous energy necessary for ‘self’-immolation ... the instinct for individual survival is only exceeded by the instinct for group survival.

It takes a powerful instinct to overcome a powerful instinct.

RESPONDENT: I understand this intellectually but I don’t really feel it. If ‘I’ do it for this body it will help everybody but it feels like I want to do it for selfish reasons. You seem to be saying that it can only be done altruistically and I don’t feel altruistic about it.

RICHARD: Properly speaking the word ‘altruistic’ is not a word for a feeling but a word for behaviour or action that benefits others at the expense of self (altruism is the very antithesis of selfism), such as fighting to the death to protect the young, defend the group or secure the territory, and as such could evoke any number of feelings ... such as fear, thrill, courage, excitement, exhilaration, euphoria and so on.

Although it can be used to mean ‘unselfish’ that is a watering-down of the word.

*

RESPONDENT: I can’t readily see how this can be done altruistically without it still being done by the ‘I/me’.

RICHARD: Indeed not ... it is just that, at root, altruism is a more powerful instinct than narcissism.

RESPONDENT: I hear what you are saying but I am not tuned in to the altruistic instinct.

RICHARD: As it is instinctive it arises as the need arises ... just as its concomitant courage does.

*

RESPONDENT: I can pretend that I am doing it unselfishly but I don’t see how I can truthfully even start the process altruistically.

RICHARD: As it is ‘me’ who desires peace it can hardly be called an unselfish desire ... thus no pretence is necessary.

RESPONDENT: I understand that you are saying that ‘me’ does it for this body and everybody but I am not making the altruistic connection.

RICHARD: No, what I am saying here, in effect, is that as it is ‘me’ who desires peace it is a selfish desire (thus no pretence is necessary).

RESPONDENT: I see that when I do it for me I am doing it for everybody but I don’t feel altruistic about it.

RICHARD: Again, altruism is not a feeling as such.

*

RESPONDENT: Ok, it might be possible by seeing that I am doing it for this body and everybody but I am really doing it for ‘I/me’ at least in the beginning.

RICHARD: When ‘I’ see that ‘I’ am as mad and as bad and as sad as anyone else instinctually driven it is actually impossible to say that ‘I’ am doing it for ‘me’ alone ... the repercussions of such an event are vast beyond belief.

RESPONDENT: I see that we’re all in the same boat in that we all share the same human condition at root. However, something is missing in that I don’t care about doing it for everybody. This altruistic instinct sounds a lot like ‘love’. The only time I recall feeling altruistic was when I felt ‘love’ and I know that is not what you are talking about. I have also called it oneness in the past when I experienced that I was one with everyone.

RICHARD: Start with where one is at now (where one is not yet at will emerge of its own accord as one proceeds): as you say ‘I don’t care about doing it for everybody’ – implying that ‘I’ only care about doing it for ‘me’ – then that is where ‘I’ am at now.

Do ‘I’ feel the feeling of caring about doing it for ‘me’ or not?

*

RESPONDENT: So anyway, you are saying this is done by minimising both the good and bad feelings and maximising the felicitous (happiness, delight, etc.).

RICHARD: That is what one can do in the meanwhile for immediate benefit ... it also has the added advantage of preparing the way.

RESPONDENT: I do understand about minimising both the good and bad feelings as I have been down the road of trying to eliminate the bad while maximising the good. It is clear that I can’t have the good without the bad.

RICHARD: Exactly ... and thus the way is cleared to be launched upon the adventure of a lifetime.

RESPONDENT: Sorry for all the repetition. I was just trying to get at what’s missing. It is obvious now that what is missing is altruism. You said above that altruism is a group instinct and this instinct is just not activated. I can only see altruism in terms of love and compassion and that is not it.

RICHARD: Indeed not – in this context love and compassion lead to ‘self’-surrender not ‘self’-sacrifice – whereas benevolence is the key to altruistic ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body and that body and every body.

And the feeling of caring already mentioned (further above) is the genesis of being benevolent.

*

RESPONDENT: ... I want to do it but there is a sense of hopelessness about it. The sense of hopelessness drowns out any feeling of true caring.

RICHARD: So, as the sense of hopelessness drowns out the feeling of caring, then start with where one is at now (where one is not yet at will emerge of its own accord as one proceeds): as you say ‘I want to do it’ for ‘me’ then that is where ‘I’ am at now. Do ‘I’ feel the feeling of wanting (aka desiring) to do it for ‘me’ or not?

RESPONDENT: A feeling of fear has emerged now. ‘I’ feel cornered. I don’t want to do it for ‘me’ because ‘me’ is in control now and ‘me’ is not having any of ending ‘me’.

RICHARD: As the feeling of being cornered is where one is at now then that is where one starts from: as you say that ‘a feeling of fear’ has emerged this is a vital opportunity to look closely at the fear itself (while it is happening) and it will be seen that there are two aspects to fear ... the frightening aspect and the thrilling aspect.

Usually the frightening aspect dominates and obscures the thrilling aspect: shifting one’s attention to the thrilling aspect (I often said jokingly that it is down at the bottom left-hand side) will increase the thrill and decrease the fright as the energy of fear shifts its focus and changes into a higher gear ... and, as courage is sourced in the thrilling part of fear, the daring to proceed will intensify of its own accord.

But stay with the thrill, by being the thrill, else the fright takes over, daring dissipates, and back out of the corner you come.

*

RESPONDENT: ‘I’ am telling myself that ‘I’ don’t really want to do it because that will be the end of ‘me’.

RICHARD: Ahh ... now to the nub of the issue: have you ever desired oblivion?

RESPONDENT: I have desired oblivion but not now. Fear has taken over and ‘I’ want to hide from this inquiry. ‘I’ feel cornered and want to back out. ‘I’ am looking for a way out so I can stick to the known and keep surviving. ‘I’ am afraid of losing the known.

RICHARD: Other than retreating back into suffering there is no way out but oblivion ... and going into oblivion is not only a blessed release from the known it is ‘my’ moment of accomplishment as well. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ life worth while.

It is not an event to be missed ... ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory.

RESPONDENT: What is happening when I do ‘take care of’ other people and things?

RICHARD: Well, things and other people do get taken care of – it is remarkable what is achieved despite all the hindrances – but it is the motivating factor which muddies the waters and undermines the result.

Also, what is known as ‘compassion fatigue’ can happen as well.

RESPONDENT: Are you saying this only happens in a selfish sort of way? That all feeling caring is selfish – therefore not really caring at all?

RICHARD: I would rather say ‘self’-centred than ‘selfish’ ... when someone is touched by another’s suffering, as in being moved sufficiently to stimulate caring action, it is their own suffering which is being kindled and quickened. Thus feelings are being aroused, which motivate the activity of caring, and taking care of the other works to assuage the aroused feelings (as well as working to help the other of course).

Shall I put it this way? They are missing-out on experiencing the actuality of the caring action, the helpful activity itself, which is taking place.

RESPONDENT: If all ‘I’ can manage is the illusion of caring, how is ‘altruism’ or ‘pure intent’ possible? I don’t understand.

RICHARD: First of all, in its biological sense altruism is an instinctive action – born of the drive to survive – such as in fighting to the death to protect the young, defend the group, or secure the territory, and is not so much a feeling of caring but an involuntary response ... a response which could evoke any number of feelings (such as fear, thrill, courage, excitement, exhilaration, euphoria and so on).

Although it can be used to mean an unselfish feeling, the ‘self’-centred feeling of caring for others, that is a watering-down of the word as, properly speaking, altruism is an instinctive behaviour or deed which benefits others at the expense of self ... of the two survival instincts, individual survival and group survival, the instinct for the survival of the group is usually the stronger instinct.

It takes a powerful instinct (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinct (selfism).

The pure intent to have the already always existing peace-on-earth become apparent is a determination, born of the PCE, and thus is indicative more of a dedication, a strength of purpose, as in the will to freedom, rather than a ‘self’-centred feeling of caring ... one taps in to the over-arching benignity and benevolence of the actual world.

Then one is not on one’s own, in this, the adventure of a lifetime.

*

RESPONDENT: I understand the definition, but must altruism always be ‘at the expense of self’?

RICHARD: No, which is why I specifically said ‘in its biological sense’ (above) so as to distinguish it from its moralistic and/or ethicalistic meaning. Viz.:

• altruism: a term formed by Auguste Comte in 1851, on the Italian adjective altrui, and employed by him to denote the benevolent, as contrasted with the selfish propensities. It was introduced into English by George H. Lewes in 1853 (Comte’s Philosophy of the Sciences, 1, xxi), and popularised thereafter by expounders and advocates of Comte’s philosophy. Though used primarily, in a psychological sense, to designate emotions of a reflective kind, the immediate consequences of which are beneficial to others, its important significance is ethical. As such it defines a theory of conduct by which only actions having for their object the happiness of others possess a moral value. Anticipations of this doctrine are found in Cumberland’s ‘De Legibus Naturae’ (1672), and in Shaftesbury’s ‘Inquiry concerning Virtue and Merit’ (1711). Comte, however, is the founder of the Social Eudaemonism, based on Positivism, to which the name of Altruism is given. Comte’s system is both ethical and religious. Not only is the happiness to be found in living for others the supreme end of conduct, but a disinterested devotion to Humanity as a whole is the highest form of religious service. His ethical theory may be epitomized in the following propositions.

1. The dominion of feeling over thought is the normative principle of human conduct, for it is the affective impulses that govern the individual and the race.
2. Man is under the influence of two affective impulses, the personal or egoistic, and the social or altruistic.
3. A just balance between these two is not possible, one or other must preponderate.
4. The first condition of individual and social well-being is the subordination of self-love to the benevolent impulses.
5. The first principle of morality, therefore, is the regulative supremacy of social sympathy over the self-regarding instincts.

To bring about the reign of altruism Comte invented a religion which substituted for God an abstraction called Humanity ... <SNIP>. (www.newadvent.org/cathen/01369a.htm).

Biologists use the word ‘altruism’ in the instinctive self-sacrificial sense. Viz.:

• altruism: 2. (zoology) instinctive cooperative behaviour that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species. (©The American Heritage® Dictionary).
• altruism: 2: behaviour by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species. (©Merriam-Webster).

This instinctive self-sacrifice is epitomised by the honey-bee: when using its sting to defend the hive it dies.

RESPONDENT: I witness a lot of caring for others that is done probably without any ‘feeling of caring’. In other words, there seem to be a lot of actions that wouldn’t necessarily be ‘empathetic’ or feeling caring or that are not at the expense of self, yet not obviously ‘self-centred’. My son helps take care of the baby sometimes just because he enjoys it – kind of like play – he doesn’t know he is ‘caring’ or ‘altruistic’ – rather he is just enjoying being a part of things. Could this be altruism as well? Or would you put that down as ‘feeling caring’?

This isn’t to say that some actions can’t be pinned down as stemming from feeling or from altruism. I guess you could have feeling caring on one side and altruism on the other – some actions are clearly on one side or the other – while a good deal of ‘taking care of’ falls somewhere in the middle. Anyway, that’s the way it occurs to me to view it – though it would be preferable to know – rather than conjecture.

RICHARD: If you had said there is an ‘underlying’ instinctual passion called nurture which ‘constantly drives our actions’ then you would have my agreement: the much-lauded unselfishness, which the word altruism is most often used for, by and large is sourced in the nurturing instinct ... and most of what you write about above can be sheeted home to blind nature (including the role-playing games that children practise). As far as I can make out you are stripping this genetically endowed caring of its feeling content, renaming it as a dispassionate altruism, and then asking me whether I have rigid or fuzzy lines dividing this stripped-down nurturing from feeling caring.

You say that you witness a lot of caring for others which is ‘probably’ done without any feeling of caring; that there ‘seem’ to be a lot of actions that would ‘not necessarily’ be empathetic or feeling caring or at the expense of self yet ‘not obviously’ self-centred; that you ‘tend to think’ there is more going on than just the feeling caring ... but is everyday human caring, in fact, sans feeling content? Here is a quite typical response (typical of the kind of response I repeatedly receive) on this very topic:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... you say you have no emotion, no love, no feeling, and yet you constantly bring up the plight of 6 billion sentient beings on this earth as if you had concern for them. What is the concern for the plight of the people from a person who has no feeling, no emotion, no caring, no nurturing, no love?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘A person with no feelings surely doesn’t care about anything, let alone ‘best wishes’ for his fellow humans.

I am not at all altruistic – nor unselfish – let alone nurturing ... ‘twas the identity inhabiting the body who was. And the altruism I spoke of (further above) – altruistic ‘self’-immolation – is a once-in-a-lifetime event and not the real-world day-to-day altruism (unselfishness) ... such everyday unselfishness falls under the category of morality or ethicality. Where I use the word altruism in a non-biological sense is where it is synonymic to the magnanimity of benevolence ... for example:

• [Richard]: ‘In order to mutate from the self-centred licentiousness to a self-less sensualism, one must have confidence in the ultimate beneficence of the universe. This confidence – this surety – can be gained from a pure consciousness experience, wherein ‘I’, the psychological entity [and ‘me’, the psychic entity], temporarily ceases to exist. Life is briefly seen to be already perfect and innocent ... it is a life-changing experience. One is physically experiencing first-hand, albeit momentarily, this actual world – a spontaneously benevolent world – that antedates the normal world. The normal world is commonly known as the real world or reality. (...) The experience of purity is a benefaction. Out of this blessing comes pure intent, which will consistently guide one through the travails of daily life, gently ushering in an increasing ease and generosity of character. With this growing magnanimity, one becomes more and more anonymous, more and more self-less. With this expanding altruism one becomes less and less self-centred, less and less egocentric. Eventually the moment comes wherein something definitive happens, physically, inside the brain and ‘I’ am nevermore. ‘Being’ ceases – it was only a psychic apparition anyway – and war is over, forever, in one human being. (pages 124-125: ‘Richard’s Journal’ ©The Actual Freedom Trust 1997).

The growing magnanimity (an increasing generosity of character) referred to as an expanding altruism is a munificent well-wishing ... the etymological root of the word benevolent is the Latin ‘benne velle’ (meaning ‘wish well’). And well-wishing stems from fellowship regard – like species recognise like species throughout the animal world – for we are all fellow human beings and have the capacity for what is called a ‘theory of mind’.

The way to an actual freedom from the human condition is the same as an actual freedom from the human condition – the means to the end are not different from the end – inasmuch that where one is happy and harmless as an on-going modus operandi benevolence operates of its own accord ... you partly indicated this (above) where you commented that people are generally helpful toward each other when feeling happy. Where benevolence is flourishing morals and ethics, as a matter of course, fall redundant by the wayside ... unused, unneeded and unnecessary.

Lastly, as you mentioned Peter talking about altruism, you could access the Library section of The Actual Freedom Trust website and look under the entry for altruism ... you will see that he refers to the ‘quality of altruism’ in actualism as being ‘benevolence in action’ and that this altruism ‘needs to be put under the microscope, examined carefully and fully understood, lest one confuses it with blind instinctual passions and senseless societal values’. Viz.:

*

RESPONDENT: ... as you can see I’m still a bit confused as to where ‘altruism’ fits in. I am getting though that altruism is the key to this whole process – the motivating factor that allows ‘me’ to self-immolate as well as imitate the actual – altruism and pure intent.

RICHARD: Just to set the record straight: altruism (in its biological sense) is only the key to the process of ‘self’-immolation – going into blessed oblivion – and has nothing to do with living everyday life happily and harmlessly ... the appearance of benevolence ensures that all interactions (including with oneself) are benign and beneficial.

Once again I will refer you to your own words (I keep on doing this as they would have more impact than mine):

• [Respondent]: ‘The ‘strongest’ part of the experience probably lasted only about 15 seconds – it seemed like I had been taken into another world, though it was obviously the same world, but yet it was in sharp detail that I hadn’t completely noticed before. *And it did have a benevolence about it*. I remember feeling a bit overwhelmed by the wonder of it all ...’. [emphasis added]. (‘Getting The PCE’; 12 May 2002).

Life is truly this simple: the pure intent to have the already always existing peace-on-earth become apparent, as evidenced in the pure consciousness experience (PCE), is activated with the nourishment of one’s innate naiveté via ‘the wonder of it all’ ... whereupon an intimate connection, a golden thread or clew as it were, is thus established whereby one is sensitive to and receptive of the over-arching benignity and benevolence of the ‘another world’ of the PCE – which is already always just here right now anyway – and one is not on one’s own, in this, the adventure of a lifetime.

And sincerity works to awaken one’s dormant naiveté.

RESPONDENT: I think the confusion stems from the fact that I witness the general helpfulness of human beings – even in contexts where there is no immediate personal gain physically or emotionally – so it seems that altruism is more than just ‘self-sacrificing’ – but more of an instinct towards perpetuating not only the survival, but the flourishing of the species – but not only homo sapiens, but all other things in the universe insofar as one has an effect on them.

RICHARD: Again, what you say here is sourced in blind nature’s nurture – taken to a fantastic extreme when applied to ‘all other things in the universe’ – which instinctual passion is currently the flavour of the month in those ‘save mother earth’ circles.

RESPONDENT: Also, it has dawned on me that I’ve been imitating actually caring for years – not that it had occurred to me that there is an actual world and one could experience it constantly, but rather that if I am going to get along with others on a reasonable basis – then I must ‘take care of’ them by considering ‘what is best for them’ rather than putting my feelings about the matter first.

RICHARD: I am none too sure what caring you have been doing ‘for years’ but, going by the description of it which you provide, ‘imitating actually caring’ it ain’t ... I cannot put it more bluntly than that.

It smacks of a rehash of the ‘tried and true’ ... whereas being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible is what imitating the actual is on about – then ‘putting my feelings about the matter first’ is to be putting happy and harmless feelings into the world at large – and instead of this proactive contribution to peace and harmony on this verdant and azure paradise you are advocating withholding your feelings out of a ‘tried and failed’ consideration for the other ... which more often than not means considering the other’s feelings.

Actualism is not about being guided by, or run by, other people’s feelings ... I mean it when I say that where one is happy and harmless as an on-going modus operandi benevolence operates of its own accord.

RESPONDENT: So that even if I don’t care about someone – or feel like not taking care of them – I would still do so because of the overriding drive to live at relative peace with others. This is not ‘putting others first’ – rather just a realization that my feelings don’t always indicate what is sensible.

RICHARD: Again this is not what ‘imitating actually caring’ looks like in action – going by the ‘even if I don’t care about someone’ and ‘or feel like not taking care of them’ phrasing – because where one is happy and harmless an on-going benevolence operates of its own accord and benevolence already always cares ... the ‘drive to live at relative peace’ is no more. Furthermore, to say that ‘my feelings don’t always indicate what is sensible’ is to say that feeling happy and harmless (which is what ‘imitating actually caring’ is in practice) is not necessarily relevant to peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body ... and if peace-on-earth is not sensible I would like to know what is instead.

This is just a guess, as I can only go on the words you write, but I would venture to suggest that the ‘self image’ you were invested in developing over all those years has resurrected itself in the guise of an (intellectual) caring which is (ostensibly) not a feeling caring. Viz.:

• [Respondent to Richard]: ‘Much of my life has been invested in developing a self image as a loving, caring person – yet you have done the ‘dirty deed’ for me of revealing that one must get underneath all that.

Being a ‘loving, caring person’ is born of the instinctual passion of nurture – as most moralistic/ ethicalistic caring is – and as the instinctual passions are particularly tenacious it may be apposite to enquire into who the grief you mentioned in another e-mail was being felt for. Viz.:

• [Respondent to Richard]: ‘... it seems to me that my reluctance to describe being a ‘being’ as reprehensible had to do with my misunderstanding of that term as severity as well as my ‘moral’ connotations that I apply to that word, but if it is being applied to the whole range of antisocial behaviour, then I have no problem with it. There is an initial shock though – a kind of grief that goes along with seeing it.

‘Tis only a suggestion, mind you.

RESPONDENT: I don’t think so. I think the matter of our misunderstanding is: 1. You empty intelligence of emotions, but then talk of altruism as an solution which is gifted by the intelligent mind. But altruism is an emotion. It’s is not sentimental but a high form of emotion that is the result of the activity of a super-perceptive human-mind.

RICHARD: Altruism is not ‘a high form of emotion’ at all ... self-sacrifice is a basic animal survival passion common to all sentient beings. This trait can be observed in insects such as ants and bees and almost all animals ... mainly with the parental defending of the young to the point of fatal injury leading to death. Defending the group against another group is also simple to observe ... it manifests in humans in the way that one will passionately defend oneself and one’s group to the death if it is deemed necessary. Speaking personally, as a youth this self-sacrificing trait impelled me to go to war for ‘my’ country ... to ‘willingly lay down my life for kith and kin’. It is a very powerful passion indeed ... Christianity, to give just one example, values it very highly: ‘No greater love hath he that lay down his life for another’.

However, all of ‘my’ instincts – the instinctive drive for biological survival – come to the fore when psychologically and psychically threatened, for ‘I’ am confused about ‘my’ presence, confounding ‘my’ survival and the body’s survival. Nevertheless, ‘my’ survival being paramount could not be further from the truth, for ‘I’ need play no part any more in perpetuating physical existence (which is the primal purpose of the instinctual animal ‘self’). ‘I’ am no longer necessary at all. In fact, ‘I’ am nowadays a hindrance. With all of ‘my’ beliefs, values, creeds, ethics and other doctrinaire disabilities, ‘I’ am a menace to the body. ‘I’ am ready to die (to allow the body to be killed) for a cause and ‘I’ will willingly sacrifice physical existence for a ‘Noble Ideal’ ... and reap ‘my’ post-mortem reward of immortality.

Which is ‘self’-surrender (narcissism) ... not ‘self’-sacrifice (altruism).

RESPONDENT: A super perceptive mind does not carry a ‘self’ in the same sense the ordinary mind does. And I think only such emotion of such a super perceptive mind can motivate it to lose itself.

RICHARD: In the human animal, when intelligence is operating unimpeded by any affective feelings whatsoever in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), one sees that ‘I’/‘me’ was standing in the way of this already always existing peace-on-earth being apparent. When one reverts to normal – back to being an affective feeling being – when the PCE is over it is startlingly obvious that the only thing to do to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth into being apparent for the remainder of one’s life is to psychologically and psychically ‘self’-immolate. The question then is: how? Simple: the instinctual survival passions are very powerful passions ... the passion for individual survival is surpassed only by the passion for species survival.

In others words: animal altruism.

RESPONDENT: ... it seems to me that there is an underlying altruism that constantly drives our actions, yet it’s not always easy to say of a particular action whether it was feeling caring – or an altruistic act. This isn’t to say that some actions can’t be pinned down as stemming from feeling or from altruism. I guess you could have feeling caring on one side and altruism on the other – some actions are clearly on one side or the other – while a good deal of ‘taking care of’ falls somewhere in the middle. Anyway, that’s the way it occurs to me to view it – though it would be preferable to know – rather than conjecture.

RICHARD: If you had said there is an ‘underlying’ instinctual passion called nurture which ‘constantly drives our actions’ then you would have my agreement: the much-lauded unselfishness, which the word altruism is most often used for, by and large is sourced in the nurturing instinct ... and most of what you write about above can be sheeted home to blind nature (including the role-playing games that children practise). As far as I can make out you are stripping this genetically endowed caring of its feeling content, renaming it as a dispassionate altruism, and then asking me whether I have rigid or fuzzy lines dividing this stripped-down nurturing from feeling caring.

RESPONDENT: I’m not sure anymore what I was doing. The best I can say is that I was wondering whether there is such a thing as a ‘dispassionate altruism’ since it can seem that a lot of actions could be construed in that way. I don’t mean to postulate something that doesn’t exist – I do now see that you can chalk up every caring action (for an ‘I’) to feeling caring. I guess the idea is that there are many caring actions that I do and that I witness others do that are virtually unthinking – in the sense that there was simply no time to ponder one’s feelings about a particular caring action – they happen so quickly with almost no forethought – that they can seem to be without feeling – yet I can see that easily can be said to stem from feeling caring too – even though there is no obvious feeling of compassion or empathy evident.

RICHARD: Your words ‘I do now see that you can chalk up every caring action (for an ‘I’) to feeling caring’ says it all.

RICHARD: The very best thing that ‘I’ can do for peace-on-earth is to self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – so that this body’s apperceptive awareness can become apparent.

RESPONDENT: As I said before that these words by themselves, in my opinion, wouldn’t help for ‘I’ to self-immolate either.

RICHARD: Yet there is an intrinsic trait common to all sentient beings: self-sacrifice. It manifests in humans in the way that ‘I’ will passionately defend ‘myself’ and ‘my group’ to the death if it is deemed necessary. All of ‘my’ instincts – the instinctive drive for biological survival – come to the fore when psychologically and psychically threatened, for ‘I’ am confused about ‘my’ presence, linking ‘my’ survival with the body’s physical continuation. Nothing could be further from the truth for ‘I’ play no part in perpetuating physical existence: ‘I’ am not necessary at all. In fact, ‘I’ am a hindrance. With all of ‘my’ beliefs, values, creeds, ethics and other doctrinaire disabilities, ‘I’ am a menace to the body. ‘I’ am ready to die for a cause – and ‘I’ will willingly sacrifice physical existence for a Noble Ideal ... and reap ‘my’ post-mortem reward.

This is called altruism ... albeit misplaced. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life. Now, it is ‘I’ that is responsible for an action that results in ‘my’ own demise ... without really doing the expunging itself (and I am not being tricky here). It is ‘I’ that is the cause of bringing about this sacrifice in that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously and with knowledge aforethought set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise. (‘I’ do not really end ‘myself’ in that ‘I’ do not do the deed itself for an ‘I’ cannot end itself). What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and willingly, is to press the button which precipitates an oft-times alarming but always thrilling momentum that will result in ‘my’ inevitable self-immolation. What one does is that one dedicates oneself to the challenge of being here as the universe’s experience of itself. Peace-on-earth is the inevitable result ... because it is already here. ‘I’ was merely standing in the way of this always existing peace-on-earth from becoming apparent.

The act of initiating this ‘process’ is altruism, pure and simple.

RICHARD: When ‘I’ willingly and voluntarily sacrifice ‘myself’ – the psychological or psychic identity residing inside this body – ‘I’ am gladly making ‘my’ most supreme donation, for ‘I’ am what one holds most dear.

RESPONDENT: Is it not what a true surrender is (or should be)? We can ‘laundry’ this old dirty word.

RICHARD: Yet ‘surrender’ to me means the giving up of oneself into the possession or power of another who has or asserts a claim to it; to yield on demand or compulsion to a person or a god ... as in submission to an enemy in resignation as a prisoner. It basically means to give in, to relinquish possession of, give up, deliver up, part with, let go of, yield, submit, capitulate, lay down one’s arms, throw in the towel, throw in the sponge, succumb ... and lose. It smacks of compliance, acquiescence, passivity, docility, meekness, sufferance ... a seeking of clemency, Speaking personally, I have never, ever given in. I do not know how to – thus it has never been an option – and never will know how to. Whereas ‘sacrifice’ to me means to die as an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present; to devote and give over one’s life as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest, a kind-hearted benefaction. A sacrifice is the relinquishment of something valued or desired, especially one’s life, for the sake of something regarded as more important or worthy ... it is the deliberate destruction, abandonment, relinquishment, forfeiture or loss for the sake of something illustrious, brilliant, extraordinary and excellent. It means to forgo, depart from, leave, quit, vacate, discontinue, stop, cease or immolate so that one’s guerdon is to be able to be unrepressed, unconstrained, unselfconscious, spontaneous, free and easy, relaxed, informal, open, candid, outspoken, uninhibited, unrestrained, unrestricted, uncontrolled, uncurbed, unchecked, unbridled ... none of which is implied with ‘surrender’. As I have remarked before, ‘I’ went out in a blaze of glory.

RESPONDENT: In view of this definition, do you think it might be useful to inquire ‘how is this moment being experienced ...’ versus ‘how am I experiencing this moment ...’? Or it does not matter?

RICHARD: It does not matter ... what is vital is to get an on-going enquiry going each moment again. Such a ‘hands-on’ approach – an ‘on the job’ examination instead of ‘armchair philosophising’ – has such potent efficacy that rapid results are the order of the day.

RESPONDENT: In my case, this me, this ‘I’ is very skilful of somehow sneaking in through ‘a back door’.

RICHARD: It is important not to view ‘I’/‘me’ as an enemy – blind nature is the culprit – and to be friends with yourself ... only you live with yourself twenty four hours a day. Coopt any aspect of yourself as an ally in this investigation into the human psyche ... eventually ‘I’ come to realise that the very best thing that ‘I’ can do is altruistically self-immolate for the good of this body and all bodies. Peace-on-earth is the inevitable result when ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory ... unless ‘I’ am seduced by the Glamour and the Glory and the Glitz into becoming the Saviour Of Humankind. It is a risk well worth taking, however.

RESPONDENT: Any activity I might become attracted to seems to define the ‘I’ – as a ‘doer’, but most of all, especially as the watcher.

RICHARD: I will take this opportunity to emphasise Alan’s ‘Seafood Platter’ observations about how to deal with ‘I’ as a ‘doer’.

Becoming free of the human condition is a result of making a curious decision to ‘do it’ – whatever it takes – and once one sets it all in motion a momentum takes over where one realises one has embarked already ... and once one has that impetus going one cannot ‘un-set’ the pace. An alacrity takes over and one finds that one has already been doing it and one has no choice in the matter (fascination is almost like ‘I am not doing this – this is happening to me’). This means one is already committed to finding out – it is not that one makes a commitment as one can always break a commitment after a lot of soul-searching – and this commitment one cannot break. There is no pulling back – which is why most people do not want to start – because once one has started one cannot stop. It is a one-way trip ... that is the thrilling part of it. With application and diligence, born out of pure intent, it will happen ...one cannot help but become fascinated, for this is the predicament that humankind has been agonising over for aeons. Any reluctance to become fascinated is because of the ‘no turning back’ aspect. After fascination comes obsession wherein you cannot leave it alone any more – or rather it does not leave you alone – and that is when that tempo picks you up – an eagerness grips you – and you feel alive, vital, dynamic. Things happen of a serendipitous nature. One can no longer distinguish between me doing it and it happening to me. They happen simultaneously – cause and effect are left behind in the Land of Lament – and it is absolutely thrilling. Then one is fully doing this business of being alive – doing it here on this earth in this lifetime as this body – and it is all happening now. This moment is happening and I am doing it and the doing is happening of itself and I am the experiencing of the happening. Then one is in this propitious state of being able to say: ‘I am the doing of what is happening’.

And this is wonderful.

RESPONDENT: Richard, I would like to ask you a few questions concerning both ‘Richard’ and your former ‘Self’. I haven’t read any satisfactory description of how your Self looked like so I thought your email response might be of help.

RICHARD: Hmm ... in what way is a description of ‘The Absolute’ presenting itself as being feminine – a Radiant Being initially seen to be Pure Love and eventually seen to be Pure Evil as well – not a satisfactory description? Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘... the experience I’ve had was not of my Self, but of another person’s Self, a female. The Self I’ve experienced is a very old archetype, resembling somehow a printing press, a matrix, it looked like a 1000 years old child, very powerful yet very vulnerable. Its being consists of light, thus enabling the Self to be present everywhere and anytime. It’s a wonderful, beautiful Being, impossible to comprehend by pure intellectual reasoning, let alone described by words. It has to be lived in order to be known.
• [Richard]: ‘There was a period during my eleven years of being in the enlightened phase (in my sixth year) whereupon what I called ‘The Absolute’ presented itself as being feminine – a Radiant Being initially seen to be Pure Love – which femininity I would nowadays consider to be a product of me being of masculine gender. Eventually I was able to penetrate into the nature of this ‘Radiant Being’ and was able to see ‘Her’ other face: It was Pure Evil – the Diabolical underpins the Divine – and upon such exposure ‘She’ disappeared forever. (August 06 2002).

RESPONDENT: OK, let’s finish this discussion about the Absolute and its various perceived properties, we both speak of something belonging to the Past. Yet, the essential issue here is that if your aim is peace–on-earth or personal peace, then the Absolute is of no use as would have already been Peace by now.

RICHARD: No, ‘the essential issue here’ is whether The Absolute (by whatever name) is intelligent or not ... let alone an extraordinary intelligence far surpassing human intelligence.

Why there has not been any peace (and harmony) by now on this verdant and azure planet per favour spiritual enlightenment, and why there never will be, is quite simple to comprehend: peace-on-earth is not on the enlightenment agenda ... enlightenment’s peace is an (supposed) after-death peace.

RESPONDENT: One objection: maybe the Obsolete is not the outcome of our sublimated/transformed instinctual passions (a Blind Nature product) but something that exists on its own accord.

RICHARD: Even if (note ‘if’) it did in what way will an after-death peace ever bring an end to all the before-death suffering?

RESPONDENT: Why would have Nature such an escape in its survival program?

RICHARD: Yet ‘Nature’ does not have an after-death peace in its survival programme – nor a timeless and spaceless and formless absolute for that matter – as that is but what certain human beings have made up out of it all (via the triumph of selfism over altruism).

Meaning that it is a totally self-centred survival-at-all-costs after-death peace.

RESPONDENT: For what reason?

RICHARD: As your first question arises out of a baseless ‘maybe’ speculation there is nothing for your follow-up query to answer.

RESPONDENT: Is it some kind of Super-Bonus for those sacrificing for the Species sake?

RICHARD: Your answer to your follow-up query (even though presented as a question) presupposes nature being intelligent when there is no evidence that it is ... hence the term ‘blind’ nature. And all that blind nature is concerned about, so to speak, is the survival of the species – and any species will do as far as blind nature is concerned – thus blind nature does not care two hoots about you or me or him or her ... but I do.

The question is .... do you?

RESPONDENT: Let’s say that Peter did not suggested you to make this site.

RICHARD: You must be referring to this:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘One wonders what would you do without the internet?
• [Richard]: ‘I would be doing what I was doing before I came onto the internet, presumably, which was writing about my experience on a portable typewriter and putting the pages in a loose-leaf folder in a drawer. In fact, if it were not for Peter coming into my life and expressing interest in what was in the loose-leaf folder, and suggesting I put sections of it out on the internet for feedback, it may very well have been that you and I would not be having this discussion today.

RESPONDENT: Then you die and another one rediscover the AF. He claims to be the first because nobody here in Europe for example have ever heard about Richard in Byron Bay.

RICHARD: Then when this (abstract) person goes public it would sooner or later be drawn to their attention that there has been another ... and they would be delighted that Richard had written about his experience as they could then compare notes, as it were, and thus advance human knowledge.

RESPONDENT: So the same situation might happen with someone before you he gained AF but did not made it public. Why is this impossible?

RICHARD: As an actual freedom from the human condition requires an all-inclusive altruism to effect – and altruism wipes away selfism completely – it would be a contradiction, not only in terms, but in effect to not pass on a report of the discovery of the already always existing peace-on-earth to one’s fellow human beings.

Put simply: because of the inherent character of fellowship regard here in this actual world if this (abstract) person ‘gained AF but did not made it public’ – that is, kept it to themselves – it ain’t an actual freedom from the human condition.

There are times I am particularly well-pleased not to be a logician ... and this is one of them.