Richard’s Selected Correspondence
On Body and Health
RESPONDENT: [...] And I had made some experiments during my actualism practice and I would appreciate to read your comments regard some facts I discovered in this adventure:
1. My health improve to much after some months of practice. But my body lost that sensibility to some foods and drinks. Today, if I eat only one piece of bread I’m feel a little dizzy. Before I had great tolerance to gluten. Now I need GF foods!
RICHARD: Whilst a general improvement to physical health, after some months of practice, may have correlation with less stress/more ease (for instance) it would be imprudent of me to endorse the practice of actualism in terms pertaining more properly to the medical health profession.
Similarly with you currently having less tolerance to gluten: as correlation is not causation – even though many anti-tobacco activists (for instance) have made a packet out of creating the public impression it is – it would be more productive to seek a cause-effect explanation.
RESPONDENT: Richard, you wrote:
RICHARD: Yes, I replied thusly on the understanding (a) that ‘regular exercise’ referred to a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) ... and (b) that, given the general thrust of the entire e-mail, it was a personal question (relating to what life is like after the extirpation, in toto, of the progenitor of stress).
Speaking of which: that stressor – the word stress is aphetised from the word distress – has, of course, a vested interest in deflecting attention away from itself.
RESPONDENT: Sorry ... What do you mean?
RICHARD: Just by way of example: that progenitor of stress – the stressor within – has persuaded an otherwise intelligent person to downplay the debilitating effect of stress and champion the remedial effect of regular exercise (along with good nutrition) by glossing over the former with the word can – ‘may possibly’ (Oxford Dictionary) – and lending legitimacy to the latter with the word is (‘have place in the realm of fact/be the case or the fact’). Vis.:
Moreover, the debilitating effect of stress was further negated by it merely being something read somewhere whilst the remedial effect of regular exercise was further legitimised by the presentation of it as being the general agreement among health experts across the globe.
In case that is still not clear: by making the body partake in a regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) the stressor has successfully eluded attention ... once again.
RESPONDENT: I have read that stress can be bad for the body, in that it can have a very negative effect on one’s immune system and thus make the body subject to many kinds of illnesses and problems. But the general agreement among health experts across the globe is that regular exercise (along with good nutrition) is the best thing to promote a healthy body.
RICHARD: Hmm ... have you ever considered a career in penning propaganda?
RESPONDENT: Nope I haven’t. I don’t think there’s enough money to be made there.
RICHARD: Golly, there are literally billions of dollars made available annually all around the world, both in government grants and commercial funding, for persons with little more than a facility for fine-sounding phrases and some letters after their name ... by way of a neat little primer into the whole pseudo-science industry I will refer you to the following booklet: www.junkscience.com/sws.html
RESPONDENT: What evidence do you have that says that regular exercise isn’t good for the body?
RICHARD: Ha ... if your above paragraph is an example of what constitutes evidence in your neck of the woods then the following should be more than sufficient: [example only]: ‘I have read that regular exercise (along with good nutrition) can be good for the body, in that it can have a very positive effect on one’s immune system and thus make the body less subject to many kinds of illnesses and problems. But the general agreement among health experts across the globe is that stress reduction is the best thing to promote a healthy body’. [end example].
RESPONDENT: Nope, not sufficient.
RICHARD: Oh? Yet all I did was write the obverse of what you wrote.
RESPONDENT: How about some articles and quotes from credible sources? That’s the good stuff.
RICHARD: As far as I have been able to ascertain there is no such good stuff – there have been no articles from credible sources relating to what life is like after the extirpation, in toto, of the progenitor of stress – to quote from.
RESPONDENT: I’m curious to see where you got that information.
RICHARD: Out of nothing more than idle curiosity I have just now typed <stress number one killer> into an internet search-engine ... the Time Magazine (for example) ran a cover story, on June 6, 1983, in which it was stated that [quote] ‘In the past 30 years, doctors and health officials have come to realize how heavy a toll stress is taking on the nation’s well being. According to the American Academy of Family Physicians, two-thirds of office visits to family doctors are prompted by stress-related symptoms. At the same time, leaders of industry have become alarmed by the huge cost of such symptoms in absenteeism, company medical expenses and lost productivity. Based on national samples, these costs have been estimated at $50 billion to $75 billion a year, more than $750 for every U.S. worker. Stress is now known to be a major contributor, either directly or indirectly, to coronary heart disease, cancer, lung ailments, accidental injuries, cirrhosis of the liver and suicide – six of the leading causes of death in the U.S. Stress also plays a role in aggravating such diverse conditions as multiple sclerosis, diabetes, genital herpes and even trench mouth. It is a sorry sign of the times that the three bestselling drugs in the country are an ulcer medication (Tagamet), a hypertension drug (Inderal) and a tranquilizer (Valium)’. [endquote]. That was, of course, the prevailing wisdom in the ‘eighties ... the current flavour-of-the-month (this decade’s wisdom) is depression.
RESPONDENT: Yeah. I found when I typed <importance of exercise> into the search engine of Google one of the links that came up was to an article from Pharmabiz.com (which describes itself as ‘India’s most comprehensive pharma portal’). The article states ‘Medical researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities, who studied the habits and health of 17,000 middle aged and older men, reported the first scientific evidence that even modest exercise helps prolong life. Dr. Ralph S. Paffenbarger, the visiting professor of epidemiology ...’
RESPONDENT: ‘... at the Harvard School of Public Health, who is the principal author of the report said, ‘we have found a direct relationship between the level of physical activity and the length of life in the college men we have studied’. He added, ‘This is the first good evidence that people who are active and fit have a longer life span than those who are not’. A strong connection between hard work and healthy heart has also been convincingly demonstrated in the same study. The study showed that the less active persons ran a three times higher risk of suffering a fatal heart attack than did those who worked the hardest. Review of fatal heart attacks revealed that the less active men were also three times more likely to die unexpectedly and rapidly within an hour after the attack. Exercise increases calories output. The body fat can be reduced by regular exercise. It is therefore, useful for weight reduction in conjunction with restricted food intake. According to a study by Dr. Peter Wood of Stanford University Medical School ...’
RICHARD: It only took about three minutes to locate the following list of epidemiological studies he participated in (he has a doctoral degree in science):
RESPONDENT: ‘... [According to a study by Dr. Peter Wood of Stanford University Medical School], author of ‘California Diet and Exercise Programme’, very active people eat about 600 more calories daily than their sedentary counterparts but weigh about 20 percent less. Up to 15 hours after vigorous exercise, the body continues to burn calories at a higher rate than it should have without exercise. Moderate physical exercise has been found to be accompanied by less obesity and lower cholesterol levels’. [endquote]. Sounds like they are saying that regular exercise IS good in promoting a healthy body.
RICHARD: Of course it sounds like that ... after all, that is the whole point of the exercise (pun intended).
RESPONDENT: Why is it you say that it isn’t?
RICHARD: Because there is no stressor whatsoever parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body there is no need for a remedial regimen of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity).
CO-RESPONDENT: Richard, you wrote:
RESPONDENT No. 74: Just so that we are clear, No. 75 is asking: Is R.E. good for the body?
RESPONDENT: I can’t speak for a control group trial or a statistical epidemiological trial but I can speak for my own experiential evidence. I have walked 2.5 miles per day above my normal daily activity for almost three months and I have lost 15 lbs.
RICHARD: What you are really saying, by speaking for your own experiential evidence, is that it is good for the body to be fifteen pounds lighter, is it not?
RESPONDENT: Yes, I am saying it is good for my body to be fifteen pounds lighter than it was.
RICHARD: Thank you for your confirmation.
RICHARD: If so, and given that the same result can be attained simply by not eating so much in the first place, suppose someone on a mailing list set-up for another purpose were to ask you, having read somewhere that you walk to the CBD (because you are retired and on a pension and cannot afford a motor vehicle), whether it is good for the body to engage in regular exercise and you were to answer pithily, ‘No, what is good for the body is an absence of edacity’, then what are the odds that a couple of years after that some other person might miss the point and champion remedial regimens of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity) instead?
RESPONDENT: I don’t think I get your point here Richard.
RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way: an absence of esurience would render any remedial regimen of artificial activity null and void.
RESPONDENT: Yes, I agree that if I would have had an absence of esurience there would be no need for artificial activity.
RICHARD: Yet instead of attending to what is not good for the body you would rather sanction that bandaid solution (by your very endorsement of same)?
RESPONDENT: I was speaking of my own experience in which I was already overweight and my normal everyday activity is low.
RICHARD: I was speaking of my own experience in which there is a total absence of stress and my normal everyday activity is completely carefree.
RESPONDENT: Yes, I was aware that you were speaking of your experience without a stressor which is different than my experience.
RICHARD: Yet even so you presented your experience as an alternate proof and/or evidence that bandaid solutions are good for the body.
RESPONDENT: Also, I can’t speak about being without a feeler which effects my bodily condition.
RICHARD: Whereas I can ... and did (whereupon another person missed that point and championed remedial regimens of artificial activity, over and above normal everyday activity, instead).
RESPONDENT: Right, I didn’t miss your point which was why I was only speaking of my own experience.
RESPONDENT: This is hard to admit but just yesterday and today I am dealing with another crisis situation with my mother and have become depressed and tried to make myself feel better by eating more and so I have gained back some of the weight I lost.
RICHARD: Might I suggest you undertake a remedial weight-lifting regimen, three times a week for ten weeks, as a (supposedly) scientific treatment of your depression? Vis.: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9143068&dopt=Abstract. That way you could speak from your own experiential evidence (about what those sixteen geriatrics had to say).
RESPONDENT: I do get your point because if I had no stressor (depressor) there would be no need. However ...
RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on with your modifier)? The point I am making here is that you are subjecting that body you are inhabiting to a regimen of artificial activity when, surely, even Blind Freddie could see that were you to attend to the issues you have with one of your biological progenitors there would be (a) no depression ... and thus (b) no eating so much in the first place ... and therefore (c) no need to punish your body for something it did not do.
Given that the last three months (January-February-March) encompass winter-autumn, in the northern hemisphere, you would rather make your body walk through mist/ rain/ hail/ sleet/ snow, on occasion, than do something substantial about your (recurring) psychological/ emotional issues?
RESPONDENT: ... [However], as a middle-aged human who has not lived with an ‘absence of esurience’ I am saying it is beneficial for this body to walk an extra 2.5 miles per day to offset what has already been done.
RICHARD: Hmm ... and, quite possibly, those credulous geriatrics might also say it is beneficial for their bodies to undertake a remedial weight-lifting regimen, three times a week for ten weeks, as a (supposedly) scientific treatment of their depression, eh?
RESPONDENT: In summary let me say that I do get your point completely that if one has no stressor/ depressor and one lives a lifestyle with normal activity then there would be no need for any extra activity.
RICHARD: Do you also get the point completely that by not eating so much in the first place there would be no need for extra activity?
RESPONDENT: Also, I agree that exercise is not a replacement for dealing with ones psychological issues.
RICHARD: Do you also agree that exercise is not a replacement for dealing with eating so much in the first place?
RESPONDENT: However, in my own situation walking an extra 2.5 miles per day is very beneficial to my physical well being.
RICHARD: Being fifteen pounds lighter is really what is very beneficial to your physical well being, is it not?
If so, and given that the same result can be attained simply by not eating so much in the first place, suppose someone on a mailing list set-up for another purpose were to persist in sanctioning a palliative regime of artificial activity (over and above normal everyday activity), by their continued endorsement of same from their own experiential evidence, would it be a fair comment to say they have completely missed the point ... albeit all the while claiming they get the point completely?
Perhaps if I were to paraphrase the pithy question-and-answer sequence which prompted this entire thread? For example:
RESPONDENT: There would be no need for extra activity if one’s normal activity is sufficient.
RICHARD: I am only too happy to modify my query so as to take your proviso into account: do you also get the point completely that by not eating so much (such as to render one’s normal activity insufficient) in the first place there would be no need for extra activity?
RESPONDENT: Not really because one needs sufficient normal activity even if one has not eaten too much. For example, one’s muscles would atrophy without sufficient normal activity.
RICHARD: Unless a person is physically immobilised (such as being bedridden or quadriplegic for instance) then their normal everyday activity (such as getting out of bed/ making the bed, walking to the bathroom/ performing the necessary ablutions, walking to the kitchen/ preparing breakfast, sitting down and eating/ standing up and clearing away, washing the dishes/ drying the dishes, sweeping the floors/ dusting the furniture and/or going to and from and doing paid work/ remunerative service, and so on, and so forth) is entirely sufficient for the prevention of muscular atrophy.
Therefore, and before I further modify my already modified query so as to accommodate your latest proviso, I will ask you this: are you physically immobilised?
If not, then do you get the point completely that by you not eating so much (such as to render your normal everyday activity insufficient) in the first place there would be no need for you to engage in a remedial regimen of artificial activity?
RESPONDENT: Richard, I got it. While eating as I was driving along in my auto this evening it dawned on me that if I did not eat so much in the first place there would be no need for extra activity.
Over the years when I was working for a living – such as when running my own business and working 12-14 hour days 6-7 days a week – I ate three large meals a day (often with second helpings) ... and then some.
Now that I am retired and on a pension – with a lifestyle so far past being sedentary as to be best described as indolent – I eat only one meal a day (with maybe a handful of nuts or a few crackers with a little cheese for supper) ... and sometimes even skip a day.
I would have to be pretty silly to spend my declining years engaged in remedial regimens of artificial activity, day in and day out, just so that I could continue eating the prodigious amounts I consumed in my workaday life ... plus I have far, far better things to do than living a pigging-out/ working-out lifestyle.
RESPONDENT: Richard, what would be the cause for over-eating and obesity in your experience?
RICHARD: As the cause of obesity is (obviously) over-eating then what you are really asking is why eat so much in the first place, is it not? If so, and as you have specifically asked about my experience, I will first draw your attention to the following word:
Then to this:
RESPONDENT: And why this all-mighty trend to tackle the effects and not the causes when dealing with various problems?
RICHARD: To paraphrase my initial response in the original thread: the progenitor of compulsive eating – the glutton – has, of course, a vested interest in deflecting attention away from itself.
RESPONDENT: Is it because it is easier, they are more obvious or maybe because you’re left with no choice when the unpleasant effects arise?
RESPONDENT: Richard, I was wondering if you have experientially noticed whether or not your body responds more favourably towards certain foods. It would seem common sense to me that if one is serious about becoming free one would want all the vitality possible in order to fuel this pursuit.
RICHARD: I have indeed noticed whether or not I respond more favourably towards certain foods (in terms of being able to have all the vitality possible in order to become actually free from the human condition) .... else I would never have written the following:
I expressly mentioned what provides all the vitality possible (‘energises’ = ‘vitalises’) only the day before you posted this e-mail I am responding to:
And the following has been re-posted twice this week by others (‘vivacity’ = ‘vitality’):
RESPONDENT: One thing that I have found is it is indeed ‘pure intent’ that makes the difference between ‘stunning success’ and ‘so-so success’ in my practice of the actualism method.
RICHARD: The pure intent to ... to what?
RESPONDENT: Sometimes my intent is a bit grey.
RICHARD: Why is your intent sometimes a bit grey ... is it because of having lapsed from a [quote] ‘whole foods’ [endquote] diet into eating processed meat and pasteurised/homogenised dairy products (for instance) or is it because it has waned-declined and/or flagged-deteriorated and/or faded-degenerated and/or decayed-disappeared through the lack of having that ‘magic elixir’ (one’s destiny) inexorably drawing one on, like a moth to a candle, in the first place?
RESPONDENT: I am surprised that your body seemingly is equally vital, no matter what you ingest (that is what I gather from your above requotes).
RICHARD: I never said that I was equally vital (seemingly or otherwise) no matter what I ingest ... I was speaking in terms of an identity having [quote] ‘all the vitality possible’ [endquote], in order for an actual freedom from the human condition to come about, as I was answering your query to that very effect.
To explain: the identity in residence all those years ago had me ingest all manner of different diets (such as vegetarianism, veganism, and fruitarianism, for instance), in place of the common or garden variety of omnivorism prevalent in mainstream western societies, and it made absolutely no difference – none whatsoever – in regards to ‘him’ having [quote] ‘all the vitality possible’ [endquote] so as to bring about an actual freedom from the human condition for me.
In other words, ‘he’ could have put me on a bread-and-water diet (as in solitary confinement in some insalubrious penitentiary) and yet, because there was that ‘magic elixir’ energising the means, ‘he’ would still have had all the vitality necessary – bucket-loads of it in fact – in order for an actual freedom from the human condition to come about for me
Put simply: ‘you’ are not the body ‘you’ are inhabiting – never have been and never will be – despite any and all attempts to identify as same.
P.S.: Just so that there is no misunderstanding:
RICHARD: (...) it is impossible to either imagine or form images where there is no identity (the affective faculty in its entirety – which includes its imaginative/intuitive facility – has no existence whatsoever in this flesh and blood body).
RESPONDENT: This is what I don’t understand: What does imagination have to do with intuition or affective feelings?
RICHARD: First of all, where I say ‘imaginative’ I am not meaning conceptive and where I say ‘intuitive’ I am not meaning insightful ... plus where I say ‘the affective faculty’ I am not referring to only the affective feelings but all of it in its entirety (complete with its epiphenomenal psychic ability).
Indeed, by ‘the affective faculty in its entirety’ I am referring, all-inclusively, to the human psyche itself.
Here in this actual world, where there is no psyche, the ability to imagine/envision/hallucinate is non-existent (the difference between imagination and hallucination is a difference in degree and not of kind) ... just as the facility of believing, of being delusional, is not extant either.
RESPONDENT No. 94: Do you experience hunger?
RICHARD: No (all appetitive desires are null and void).
RESPONDENT: If you don’t eat for a day or two, there would be certain sensations in your body which are usually classified as hunger by normal humans.
RICHARD: The bodily sensation of an empty stomach is not what is usually classified as hunger by normal humans – and it does not take a day or two of not eating anyway but only a few hours – as what is usually classified by normal humans as hunger is a feeling of being hungry which arises from that sensation ... which feeling desists (in normal humans) when replaced by a feeling of satiety which arises from the sensation of a full stomach after having eaten.
RESPONDENT: This is certainly new to me.
RICHARD: Laboratory tests have shown that stimulation of the lateral nucleus of the hypothalamus (known as the ‘feeding centre’) activates feeding in animals – whereas lesions of the lateral nucleus abolish all desire to eat (aphagia) – and that stimulation of the ventromedial nucleus of the hypothalamus (aka the ‘satiety centre’) inhibits feeding ... whereas lesions of the ventromedial nucleus can lead to compulsive eating (hyperphagia).
Incidentally, it has been found that opiates also stimulate the ventromedial nucleus (hence the use of amphetamine for control of obesity).
RICHARD: I have quite often gone without food for twenty four hours or more yet have never, ever, experienced hunger.
RESPONDENT: Okay, what did you experience?
RESPONDENT: If your blood sugar level goes down due to a 24 hour (or more) long fast, would you not feel (or experience) weakness ...
RICHARD: On those occasions where I have gone without food for twenty four hours or more, without ever experiencing hunger, I have not experienced weakness.
RESPONDENT: ... some kind of nausea ...
RICHARD: On those occasions where I have gone without food for twenty four hours or more, without ever experiencing hunger, I have not experienced some kind of nausea.
RESPONDENT: ... certain sensations in the gut which indicate an emptiness ...
RICHARD: The bodily sensation of an empty stomach occurs within a few hours.
RESPONDENT: ... certain acidity which indicates non-use of the digestive secretions etc.?
RICHARD: Having no pleasure/pain centre to be triggered no complex mechanism involving glucose, fats, amino acids, and so on, in plasma has been able to induce a feeling of hunger via the lateral nucleus of this brain’s hypothalamus (nor satiation via the ventromedial nucleus either).
RESPONDENT: Why classify only the affective feeling of hunger as hunger?
RICHARD: Mainly because the bodily sensation of an empty stomach is not what is usually classified as hunger by normal humans – what is usually classified by normal humans as hunger is a feeling of being hungry which arises from that sensation – which feeling desists (in normal humans) when replaced by a feeling of satiety which arises from the sensation of a full stomach after having eaten.
RESPONDENT: Appetitive desires are something different.
RICHARD: On the contrary, hunger *is* an appetitive desire.
RESPONDENT: I’m not at all sure.
RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say about the word ‘appetitive’:
As my co-respondent asked me about experiencing hunger immediately after enquiring about sexual libido (from the Latin meaning ‘desire’, ‘lust’) there was no reason to assume they were wanting to know if this flesh and blood body still experienced the bodily sensation of an empty stomach.
RESPONDENT (to Vineeto): I have written this in my diary this morning and was wondering if you could show it to Richard to see if his interpretation of AF is the same: ‘... there are 3 things that I can be compared with a computer in terms of my functioning:  When I am asleep, my senses are on HIBERNATE and take a longer time to come online.  When I am awake and not thinking then my senses are on STANDBY.  When I am functioning and doing a task because of discomfort of the body, or out of necessity, then my senses are ON. And my hypothesis is when my senses are off – either they are not functioning (e.g. to be blind) or I am dead. The only thing is that to get from STANDBY to ON is only necessary when I need something’.
RICHARD: Your analogy, of a computer’s power-saving modes, is not all that much assistance in conveying how you are currently functioning as the only essential difference between ‘off’ and ‘hibernate’ (for a computer) is what transpires after the computer is manually switched back on – to either the default desk-top or to the desk-top as it was (with previously selected programmes running) – and the only difference between ‘on’ and ‘standby’ is that some devices (such as monitors and hard disks) are switched off, by the absence of key-stokes/mouse-movements, until being switched back on by a key-stoke/ mouse-movement.
Furthermore, whether awake or asleep, thinking or not thinking, the senses are functioning anyway – all it takes to bring this flesh and blood body into wakefulness, when asleep, is an unexpected/ unusual touch (the cutaneal sense), or smell (the olfactory sense), or sound (the aural sense), or light (the ocular sense), or taste (the gustatory sense), or posture (the proprioceptive senses) – so it does not follow that the senses can be hibernating, standing-by, or switching-on ... they are always on, so to speak, for as long as a body is alive and not dead.
Thus it would appear that what you are referring to, via your computer analogy (it is not entirely unhelpful), is the processing of sensation – be it either cutaneous, ocular, aural, olfactory, gustatory, or proprioceptive sensation – in terms of such processing being deliberated evaluation (for whatever reason) ... and (1) while asleep such an appraisal is in suspension and, for you at least, takes longer to be mobilised than (2) when awake but inactive and thoughtless (where such purposeful assessment is also in suspension) ... whereas (3) when you are active (as in performing a task) and thoughtful (as distinct from thoughtless activity), it is, of course, concurrently in action.
I have read through the remainder of your e-mail, which Vineeto forwarded to me, and in regards to where you asked if I would sit, with eyes closed, touching a porcelain cup without thought operating (so as to provide a comparison with what occurred when you did likewise) I can provide the following information:
Although all there is to go by is what you chose to write, and given you did report that you could not tell [quote] ‘that there were sensations’ [endquote] and that [quote] ‘there was no experience’ [endquote], there is sufficient indication that dissociation *was* taking place and, moreover, as you also report you felt that you were not different from anything in the whole universe – not in terms of material but in terms of something indescribable – it is more than likely that some trance-like affective state of being was occurring.
It is not, therefore, at all surprising that you then go on to write about how you are not sure that Richard saying he is the body is actually it.
Whereas, where any affective being whatsoever is absent – either in abeyance in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) or extinct upon an actual freedom from the human condition – it is patently obvious that what one is (‘what’ not ‘who’) is the flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware ... whether thought is operating or not.
And, as a flesh and blood body is not separate from that which it forms itself with, one is the infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself apperceptively ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.
RESPONDENT: What interests me most about this ‘condition’ is how life is actually experienced. In your case, you have expressed some hints about the bodily functioning. You say that you have no libido, yet you can engage in sex. The obvious question arises: Do you become ‘aroused’ without any mental component (i.e. do you find yourself with an erection when a partner expresses some desire to engage in sex) or what?
RICHARD: Here in this actual world it is impossible to ever be hedonic as the affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain – as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate – is null and void.
You may find the following self-explanatory:
RESPONDENT: Do the sensations of sexual congress have a different quality than previously in the entity state?
RICHARD: As sensations are physical they are no different than when an identity inhabited this flesh and blood body all those years ago ... the experience of same, being direct, is vastly different.
RESPONDENT: Would the idea of masturbation ever arise?
RICHARD: Having lived with a female companion since 1992 there has been no occasion where, being but a substitute for the real thing, it would ... there is (presumably) no reason why it would not, though, were the situation to be different.
RESPONDENT: Do you experience hunger?
RICHARD: No (all appetitive desires are null and void).
RESPONDENT: When you eat do you have preferences in food?
RICHARD: If there be a choice ... yes.
RESPONDENT: When it is time to go to sleep do you ‘feel’ sleepy?
RICHARD: No ... sleepiness as an actuality indicates that it be time for sleep.
RESPONDENT: Or do you experience sleeping as a restful but ‘awake’ state (i.e. awareness never sleeps)?
RICHARD: No ... to sleep is to be unconscious.
RESPONDENT: Do you dream?
RICHARD: No (there is only unconsciousness).
RESPONDENT: Do sights and smells have an intensity greater than in the self state?
RICHARD: As sights and smells are physical they are no different than when an identity inhabited this flesh and blood body all those years ago ... the experience of same, being direct, is vastly different.
RESPONDENT: Do certain smells ever ‘remind’ you of a past experience?
RICHARD: Yes ... this flesh and blood body has a lifetime of physical memories.
RESPONDENT: Do you ever experience any revulsion with either taste, smell or other sensory experience (i.e. does dog shit stink)?
RESPONDENT: Richard, you have said that caffeinated coffee sets off a psychotropic experience for you. Can you elaborate please?
RICHARD: As I understand it, and I am not a pharmacologist, caffeine is a chemical cousin to cocaine (having never ingested the latter I cannot provide an experiential comparison) in that its chemical sum formula is similar:
A psychiatrist (who, unlike a psychologist, has a medical degree) once explained to me that my on-going day-to-day experience is because of an excess of dopamine in the post-synaptic receptors – similar to the effect cocaine or amphetamine or lysergic acid diethylamide produce – hence my understanding is that to ingest caffeine on top of this moment-to-moment experiencing is somewhat similar to overdosing on those substances ... primarily the main symptom is a saturated sensuosity of such brilliance and vividity (as in psychedelic), which satiation can be likened to a television set receiving 4 or 5 channels all at once (inasmuch thought, and thus speech, is unable to keep up with the resultant cacophonic ‘white noise’), that the brain cells themselves undergo a non-volitional (chemical) excitation of such a magnitude as to be almost impossible for awareness to sustain itself (as in too much to bear).
It is altogether unpleasant, to say the least.
Some peoples I have spoken to about this have initially been rather envious (given that having a cup or two of strong java, then, is the equivalent of dropping a tab of acid (or snorting a line of coke) until I explain that to OD on LSD (aka ‘have a bad trip’) on maybe a thrice-daily basis is not a particularly pleasant way of living a life.
As I have not taken either amphetamine nor methamphetamine, which are also classified as central nervous system (CNS) stimulants, I cannot make an experiential comparison there either but I have read, for example, that methylphenidate (such as ‘Ritalin’) – also a CNS stimulant – is a dopamine reuptake inhibitor ... which means that it increases the level of the dopamine neurotransmitter in the brain by partially blocking the transporters that remove it from the synapses. Consequently I have found the following to be of interest as I am also hypersensitive to adrenaline:
Here is an example of what dopamine can do in a normal person:
As there are no emotions/passions operating in this flesh and blood body – no affective faculty at all – there is no ‘pleasure centre’ (which should read ‘pleasure/pain centre’) for dopamine to act upon hedonistically ... thus there is no craving whatsoever such as to occasion addiction.
RESPONDENT: Is this true for all humans?
RICHARD: Not that I am cognisant of ... the normal symptoms of caffeine intoxication are restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushed face, diuresis, gastrointestinal complaints, muscle twitching, rambling flow of thought and speech, cardiac arrhythmia, and psychomotor agitation.
Some years ago, whilst undergoing caffeine intoxication, I attended an out-patients clinic and had all the vital signs tested – blood pressure, pulse rate, and so on – all of which were found to be normal and nor were there any palpitations, agitations, and so on, either ... let alone anxiety and/or panic.
Caffeine, of course, is also present in brewed tea (2.5-3.5mg per ounce), cocoa/hot chocolate (0.5mg per ounce), caffeinated soft drinks (3-8mg per ounce), Guarana, (2.5mg per ounce), Yerba Mate (280-425mg per ounce), sports/energy drinks (10mg per ounce), and chocolate (25mg per ounce) ... and, as a matter of interest only, chocolate is very mildly psychoactive since, as well as caffeine, it contains theobromine, tryptophan, and small quantities of anandamide (arachidonylethanolamine), an endogenous cannabinoid compound found in the brain of mammals (the name anandamide is taken from the Sanskrit word ananda, which means ‘bliss’).
RESPONDENT: Richard, regarding the cerebral agitation you experienced after waking up from enlightenment: Was it caused by excess dopamine ...
RICHARD: Yes (although I do not describe it as waking up).
RESPONDENT: ... or was it caused by not knowing how to interpret what had happened to ‘you’?
RESPONDENT: Did the elevated dopamine subside to a more manageable level over 2 years ...
RESPONDENT: ... or did the agitation quickly subside when you were able to make sense of what had happened?
RESPONDENT: I remember(?) reading that you experienced something like this in 1981, but it was only a passing reference. Have you written about it in detail?
RESPONDENT: If so, where can I read about it?
RICHARD: Here is one instance:
Before the incident with the caffeine overdose here is an example of how I described the 1993-94 experience:
And before the incident with the caffeine overdose here is an example of how I described the 1981 experience:
I see that I expanded upon this list in an e-mail to you last month:
Given the part dopamine plays in the chemistry of felicitous feelings you may find the following to be of related interest:
RESPONDENT: Richard, I recall you having mentioned once that you were in need of very little sleep. After a certain point you said that at times you were just ‘dozing off’ with the remote control still in your hand. As you also mentioned that usually a ‘sleeping break’ would last not longer then some 5-6 hours, it seems to be correct to conclude that you have a not so conventional so to speak ‘biorhythm’. I.e. you might fall asleep at 3 ‘clock in the afternoon to wake up at say 8’ clock in the evening to next ‘doze off’ 1 o’clock at night and then wake up again at 6/7 o’clock in the early morning next day and so on. Is this a more or less accurate description of how you ‘cycle’ throughout the week/month/year?
RICHARD: No ... I have previously said I sleep 3-4 hours per night: if I were to fall asleep at 3.00 PM and wake at 8.00 PM, as in your example, then that would be it for the next twenty four hours or so ... I would still be awake, not only at 1.00 AM and through to 6.00 AM, but for the remainder of that day (sleep being a circadian rhythm).
As for dozing off in front of the television: apart from it being typical, as one gets older, to nap during the day dozing off during a non-interactive event has been a feature throughout my life ... I would fall asleep during an educational movie as a child at school; I would nod off at the movies as a youth (I had to watch ‘Lawrence Of Arabia’ five times to see all of it for example); I would drop off during an art film as a young adult in college; I would sleep through many a television programme in my thirties and forties.
It is an idiosyncrasy of this flesh and blood body ... and it is for reasons such as this that I would like to read about/hear about another flesh and blood body (not some hypothetical/fictitious entity) that is also free from the human condition so as to compare notes and more reliably determine what is common to the species at large.
RESPONDENT: I’m asking this because as I understand it is commonly understood that sleep is a means to re-vitalize the body such as that it is enabled to get to work in order to sustain the flesh and blood body (aka supplying it the necessary nutrients and liquids; as it appears to be fairly dependent on those).
RICHARD: My experience – with nightly sleep being the average 8 hours or so per day back when both normal and abnormal – shows that the emotional/passional identity consumes an inordinate amount of calorific energy ... so much so that only 3-4 hours (sometimes 4-5 hours) of sleep are needed for revitalisation these days.
RESPONDENT: Lately I have considered: what if – though this ‘waking-state’ is assumed to in someway a person to provide the <reason/ meaning/ goal> for life it is not. And thus that perhaps <reason/ meaning/ goal> for life actually may only become apparent while sleeping.
RICHARD: As sleep is indistinguishable from unconsciousness for me (I once had a general anaesthesia as a youth so I can compare) then the ‘<reason/ meaning/ goal> for life’ could only be oblivion under your proposition.
RESPONDENT: I wonder if in your case actualism is a form of ‘sleeping’ with both eyes open, while dreaming you have a ball behind the key-board? Naturally this dreaming is a 180 degree opposite of what is generally considered to be such activity.
RICHARD: Ha ... you mean I am going to wake-up one day, in an abandoned cow-paddock 10 kilometres northwest of here, and find I am still enlightened and have been dreaming, for this last eleven years, that it is possible to be actually free from the human condition? If so, why not have it that I am going to wake-up, in an old farm house 2,000 kilometres to the south of here, and find that I am still normal and that it was all a dream?
RESPONDENT: [Would you have claimed to be] free from concepts, illusions and delusions [during this 20+ months]?
RICHARD: Free from illusion and delusion ... yes; concepts are another matter, however, as many of them were fed in from an early age (the sun, for instance, being a giant ball of nuclear fusion ... or, for another example, tobacco use being the cause of various illnesses).
RESPONDENT: You took time to evaluate these concepts in that duration then?
RICHARD: No ... it did not occur to me it was a concept, and not a fact, that the sun was a giant ball of nuclear fusion until about five years ago; it did not occur to me it was a concept, and not a fact, that tobacco use was the cause of various illnesses until about two years ago (which is why I said that concepts are another matter).
RESPONDENT: And if done, though they [MRI or relevant brain scans] haven’t located the self, would you think you will be aiding the research?
RICHARD: In what way would a brain scan be an aid ... and an aid to what? For example: what do you mean by ‘relevant’ and what do you mean by ‘the research’ (as in relevant to what specific research)? I only ask because, as far as I have been able to ascertain, nobody has ever contemplated – let alone conducted research – on there even being a possibility of becoming actually free from the human condition ... it is a blank area in human consideration (let alone in human experience/human history).
RESPONDENT: Maybe measure the amygdala activity?
RICHARD: Presuming there is any such activity to measure ... in what way would that be an aid (and an aid to what research)?
RESPONDENT: As a supplement to the conjecture that the amygdala (the reptilian brain or the limbic system) is the source of the psychic self?
RICHARD: As no researchers, for all of their RI scans (Radio Isotope), CAT scans (Computerised Axial Tomography), CT scans (Computed Tomography), NMR scans (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), PET scans (Positron Emission Tomography), MRA scans (Magnetic Resonance Angiography), MRI scans (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), and fMRI scans (functioning Magnetic Resonance Imaging), have been able to locate either ‘I’ as ego (the psychological self) or ‘me’ as soul (the psychic self) in what way will any such scans of the amygdalae in a person sans both the psychological self and the psychic self be a supplement to any such conjecture?
In other words: as no self has been located with such scans how will those same scans determine the absence of a self?
RESPONDENT: And an actual freedom from the human condition results in a reduced amygdala activity or even ends it?
RICHARD: If I may ask? Why the focus upon the amygdalae (two almond-shaped organs in from and just to the back of and below the ears) when I specifically report that the pressure-pain happened in the base of the brain/nape of the neck?
RESPONDENT: I don’t know much about the scans, but I thought since you are a singular case, some such measurements can provide some pointers to those (just like the brain circuitry examples in the writings).
RICHARD: Presuming there is any such measurement-pointers to those (presumed) activities ... in what way would that be an aid (and an aid to what research)?
RESPONDENT: Furthering the neuroscientific basis for the actual freedom and the diagnosis of the ills of the humankind?
RICHARD: Presuming there is any such measurement-pointers to those (presumed) activities of the amygdala: in what way would that (a) further what neuro-scientific basis for an actual freedom from the human condition ... and (b) further the diagnosis of the ills of the humankind?
I only ask because, as far as I have been able to ascertain, nobody has ever contemplated – let alone conducted neuro-scientific research – on there even being a possibility of becoming actually free from the human condition ... it is a blank area in human consideration (let alone in human experience/human history).
RESPONDENT: Do you think comparing scans of normal being like myself with yours reveal useful information?
RICHARD: Again ... in what way would such a comparison reveal useful information? Or, to put that another way, what is it that you know about ‘MRI or relevant brain scans’ which prompts you to ask these questions? What I have found, when people ask this question/suggest this course of action (including the professional already mentioned), is that they know very little about what brain scans can or cannot reveal ... if anything at all.
RESPONDENT: I am not sure of what use they might be ... just thought that as a supplement to the DSM IV, maybe.
RICHARD: The DSM-IV (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders – fourth edition – the diagnostic criteria used by all psychiatrists and psychologists around the world for diagnosing mental disorders) is only about illness, not wellness.
RESPONDENT: Yes, viewed from the normalcy, it appears to be an illness; but the scans are objective data which can show an objective difference between a ‘normal’ brain and a brain that has transformed itself radically.
RICHARD: And just what ‘objective difference’ would that be you are referring to? Or, to put that another way, what is it that you know about brain scans which prompts you to make such a statement?
What I have found, when people make these statements/suggest these courses of action (including the professional already mentioned), is that they know very little about what brain scans can or cannot reveal ... if anything at all.
RESPONDENT: Just to take a snapshot with all those parameters alpha, beta etc. Maybe in the future there might be enough understanding to make sense of the data.
RICHARD: Make some sense of the (presumed) data for what purpose, though?
RESPONDENT: At this stage, it is simply curiosity.
RICHARD: I see ... I am to have all manner of brain scans so as to satisfy the curiosity of someone writing to me on the internet, eh?
RESPONDENT: The purpose to make sense of the data is what exactly has happened to Richard’s brain using the neuroscientific knowledge we have now.
RICHARD: I will ask it again for emphasis: as no self has been located with any brain scan how will such brain scans determine the absence of a self?
RESPONDENT: As such, only your subjective experience of the pain which tells you that something happened in the brain.
RICHARD: Not in the brain ... in the brain-stem (situated at the base of the brain/nape of the neck).
RESPONDENT: What exactly has happened will only be revealed by measurement, no?
RICHARD: What exactly has happened is that both an illusion (the psychological self) and a delusion (the psychic self) no longer hold sway in this flesh and blood body ... in what way can objective brain scans reveal the absence of a subjective illusion/delusion?
RESPONDENT: What has changed subjectively since then, we have your report.
RICHARD: Aye ... and a very detailed report it is: it is so detailed that anybody actively recalling a pure consciousness experience (PCE) knows ... um ... exactly what it is that I am reporting.
RESPONDENT: Just probing ... with curiosity.
RICHARD: Let me sketch out a scenario for you: I make an appointment with a local doctor (called a GP in Australia) in this seaside village I currently reside in and when the GP asks how they can help me I explain that someone writing to me on the internet wants me to have various brain scans done, which they neither not know much about nor are sure what use they will be, so as to satisfy their curiosity ... and when the GP asks me what the person writing to me on the internet is curious about, and I say that person wants objective proof of my report that both the illusory psychological self and the delusory psychic self no longer hold sway in this flesh and blood body, do you really think the GP is going to refer me to a specialist so that all manner of expensive brain scans can be made for you to look at and somehow (as yet unexplained) make sense of all the (supposed) data?
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.