Richard’s Selected Correspondence
On The Dynamic, Destinal Virtual Freedom
Re: Discussion about ‘Actual freedom is highly possible’
CO-RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘This is an exciting period to live in. For the first time in human history, it is possible for anyone who applies themselves with sufficient application and diligence – guided by pure intent – to become virtually free, virtually pure, virtually perfect. It is then highly possible that this person can actualise the ultimate as being the immediate.’ Richard, Selected Writings, Instincts
1: Why exactly ‘For the first time in human history, it is possible for anyone who applies themselves with sufficient application and diligence – guided by pure intent – to become virtually free, virtually pure, virtually perfect.’? Why definitely ‘For the first time in human history’? It must mean that once it was impossible, not it is possible. Why? Where does this conclusion come from?
2: Why and based on what fact or reasoning is this sentence written?: ‘It is then highly possible that this person can actualise the ultimate as being the immediate.’ Why it is possible for anyone who applies vs. it is then highly possible? It can only leave a room to some fate or genetic impotence as to what decides if one achieves AF or not. Because, if not it must be ‘possible to anyone’ and not just ‘highly possible’. Any thoughts?
RICHARD: The key-word is ‘history’.
I scoured the books, to no avail, for many, many years looking for information about what is nowadays known as an actual freedom from the human condition.
RICK: So, what makes it ‘highly possible’ to be actually free (in this quoted section), is not the information or knowledge you gathered, but a virtual freedom.
For clarity and accuracy sake, ‘So, what makes it ‘highly possible’ to be actually free (in this quoted section), is not the information or knowledge [concerning an actual freedom from the human condition that you made to the public], but a virtual freedom.
RICHARD: The information or knowledge made publicly available is in regards to both an actual and a virtual freedom from the human condition.
Neither freedom has any historical reference (as far as can be ascertained).
That particular quote, located online in ‘Selected Writings’, is an extract from ‘Richard’s Journal’ wherein it goes on to say (five sentences later) that a virtual freedom is the essential precursor to the ultimate condition.
The virtual freedom being referred to in ‘Richard’s Journal’ is, of course, the full-blown experiencing of it: an out-from-being-under-control and, thus, different way of being nowadays known as an ongoing excellence experience.
(This ongoing excellence experience is what the methodological aspect of a virtual freedom – a persistent and diligent application of the actualism method – can morph into whenever that current-time awareness method has been applied to a sufficiency for that to occur/ have happen).
This penultimate out-from-under-control/ different-way-of-being is barely distinguishable from a pure consciousness experience.
(It was from this ongoing excellence experiencing that pure consciousness experiences occurred on a near-daily basis – sometimes two-three times a day – for the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago).
Re: Different Way Of Being
RICHARD: (...) The virtual freedom being referred to in ‘Richard’s Journal’ is, of course, the full-blown experiencing of it: an out-from-being-under-control and, thus, different way of being nowadays known as an ongoing excellence experience.
(This ongoing excellence experience is what the methodological aspect of a virtual freedom – a persistent and diligent application of the actualism method – can morph into whenever that current-time awareness method has been applied to a sufficiency for that to occur/ have happen).
This penultimate out-from-under-control/ different-way-of-being is barely distinguishable from a pure consciousness experience. (It was from this ongoing excellence experiencing that pure consciousness experiences occurred on a near-daily basis – sometimes two-three times a day – for the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago).
RESPONDENT: If I had read about this at age 19, I would have been in, boots and all. Although at the time I didn’t carefully distinguish between PCEs, ‘excellence experiences’ and various other different-ways-of-being, I did take risks and go to considerable lengths to seek out these experiences. I knew (and of course am still convinced of it) this world could be experienced as a magical place, if only the state of mind-body (as I saw it then) were receptive to it. (That for me was always the prime motivation for drug use – as opposed to merely ‘getting out of it’ – hence the interest in psychedelics). Now with the approach of early middle-age I realise how relatively timid I’ve become ... clinging to human sorrow and its soothing / beautiful compensatory feelings, instead of trying all-out for something better. I’m inspired to give this another try. If I can approach it with the same intensity and optimism that I had back then, this time armed with the information/ knowledge/ sensibility that makes it actually viable, who knows? I’m willing to find out.
RICHARD: For what it is worth, then, somebody of late middle-age, known to me personally, added another aspect to virtual freedom last year via an ongoing pure consciousness experience of 4 months and 28 days duration. (Prior to that the longest known so far had been one of 3 weeks duration).
Re: Peculiar Information # 5
RICHARD: As I finally received a long-expected phone call yesterday advising me of the death of my second wife (de jure), from a terminal illness first diagnosed in February this year, my reports will no longer have to be quite so circumscribed in regards her interactions with me.
RESPONDENT: I much appreciate that you have decided to share this information with us ... personally, it helps shine a different light on ‘my’ sense of importance and continuity. I didn’t expect it. I wish those that were in her life all the best.
RICHARD: G’day No. 7, Although that information was solely in the context of my reports being circumscribed, by the fact that the persons concerned were both readily identifiable and still alive, it did not elude me that the death of the very first practicing actualist was a salutary reminder that everybody is but a missed heat-beat or two away from death each and every day of their life.
(I also expanded upon just why my third wife was currently out of the country for added emphasis).
The very fact of the propinquity of death became a pivotal element in taking the first step on the wide and wondrous path, back in 1981, when a neighbouring farmer’s fourteen-year old son was killed in a car crash. A woman from another farm, whilst telling me all about it, bemoaned the fact that his future as a potential concert-pianist was tragically cut short (quite a normal observation).
What struck me rigid for the nonce was the more valid fact that this boy had virtually missed-out on a normal childhood through being forced, by well-meaning parents of course, into endless hours of piano-practice while his siblings and peers were outside playing games (as children are wont to do). And now he was dead – it had all been for naught – and he would never, ever be able to come out and play.
From that moment on death was my constant companion; an ever- present reminder that to die without having ever lived fully – as in totally fulfilled, completely satisfied, utterly content – was such a waste of a life.
I would say to people, then, that were I to live that which the PCE’s had made apparent – as in an irrevocable permanency – for only five minutes I would then happily die.
Re: Peculiar Information # 5
RESPONDENT: Hi Richard, You write:
Can you elaborate on the ‘stage fright’ aspect, as this seems to have been the push-off point for your ex-wife. What do /you/ think happened? Was it that she was not ready to be publicly associated with actual freedom? A ‘stage fright’ would mean nervousness about preservation of one’s social persona. Was she concerned about how others would perceive her and would, thus, would consider her, erm, fallen?
RICHARD: G’day No. 2, Ha ... that word is quite apt (as in ‘fallen back to normal’).
To explain: from November 1995 to December 1996 she was in an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being condition I chose to call a virtual freedom (not to be confused with a still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom).
In that condition inducing PCE’s is a lot simpler: once one has the knack they can be brought about on an almost daily basis; sometimes two-three times a day (in my experience). In the latter months of that 95-96 virtual freedom period my second wife obtained that knack: she could induce a PCE just by looking at those ‘Magic Eye’ pictures (those pictures where a two-dimensional image becomes three-dimensional simply by looking at them as if looking-through the picture) for instance.
To say I was pleased is to understate it: here was a living, breathing, walking, talking example of what is possible per favour my reports/ descriptions/ explanations (words are words be they spoken or written).
Then in the December of 1996 she all-of-a-sudden brought it to an abrupt halt; I can clearly remember when she told me of her decision; we were sitting at an out-door table of a coffee shop (known as the DOCS Café actually), under the shade of a large umbrella, when she informed me she was no longer going to be doing it my way, as it was too much hard work, and henceforth she would be doing it her way.
As this made no sense whatsoever – being out from control, and in a different way of being, having PCE’s on an almost daily basis (sometimes two-three times a day), cannot by any stretch of the words be characterised as ‘too much hard work’, I just sat there looking at her quizzically. (What was going through my mind, if that quizzical alertness were to have been in the form of words, was something in the nature of ‘Uh-oh, so it’s all over, eh’?).
She could not meet my eyes; she could not explain; she could not come up with anything other than to repeat ‘I’m going to do it my way’.
As I have had this kind of behaviour with many a person before (where they would be initially interested, in what I was saying, only to all-of-a-sudden swing to the opposite upon have realised the full impact of what is involved and/or having had an utterly frightening experience as to just what it entails) I simply shrugged my shoulders and replied ‘Sure, what is your way, then?’
As she was no longer out from control, nor in a different way of being, her way could be best summarised as the ‘group-therapy’ way and her first step in that direction would be for her to expand our ménage a deux into being a ménage a trois. She explained that she had come as far as she could in the one-on-one male-female dynamic and that a new dynamic, especially the female-female aspect, could bring up issues in her, for her to look at, which her being solely with me would never arise.
So as to keep this as succinct as possible: fast-forward to her seeing her readily identifiable words in print, and her name in pixels, a scant six months later. Her out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom is but a distant memory (having fallen back to a still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom); all manner of issues have surged forth due to the two-women-one-man dynamic; more and more people are coming into her living room to meet Richard; she is unable to live up to what she wrote in ‘Richard’s Journal’; and the inefficacy of her group-dynamic/ group-therapy way is exposed for all to see.
Hence what she called ‘stage fright’ (and others can verify she said those exact words) yet it was not the common or garden variety of stage fright but the frightening to the nth degree type, which is a fear so vast as to be best be called dread, as the only way to stand beside Richard in front of all these peoples is to be out from control and in a different way of being.
A way of being at the inevitable end of which lies only extinction.
P.S.: Please note that she could be any woman – it is nothing peculiar to her – as the example of my third wife evidences (not to mention my first wife in regards to an imminent ego-death). This is not a matter of gossip or airing dirty linen in public but vital knowledge, for anyone contemplating going all the way, to be as fully informed of in advance as is possible.
And were I to have been born female I would be saying ‘Please note that he could be any man – it is nothing peculiar to him – as the example of my third husband evidences (not to mention my first husband in regards to an imminent ego-death)’.
RICHARD: As the mailing list format had reached its use-by date more than a few years ago (having out-lived its usefulness), and as already signalled, it is more than likely that the personal way of knowing about me will become available, albeit selectively, some time in the new year; although it is way too early to publicly say more, at this stage, plans are afoot (subject to the funding being finalised) to not only facilitate this direct access but enable an informal inter-action with several other actualists as well.
RESPONDENT: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_experience: ‘Recent Developments: Prof. Gad Yair from The Hebrew University has developed a line of research on Key Experiences, especially relating to educational events. [...] Richard, is this your intention?
RICHARD: No, not educational as such as all the reports/ descriptions/ explanations freely available online are already of a sufficiently informative nature as to render any further instructive material superfluous to requirements. (Items for sale are optional extras – luxury items as it were – and are not at all necessary in order to be fully-informed of just what is involved in becoming either actually or virtually free).
As to my intention in regards not only facilitating direct access to me but also enabling an informal interaction with some other actualists as well: being sans identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty (plus its epiphenomenal psychic facility) any residence or venue of mine is marked by an absence of both affective vibes and psychic currents ... a pristine ambience made all the more marked, for many a person, upon returning from the ‘real-world’ environs after a previous visit.
(For instance, my second wife would say, upon her return after an outing on her own into town, that it was like coming back in to a sanctuary. Even a stranger, a real-estate agent (known as a realtor in some places), after showing some potential clients around the duplex I was at the time renting, took me aside and told me how fresh and clean the ambience was; I said it must be because of no children, no cats or dogs, no wild parties, etc., but she looked straight into my eyes and said, ‘no, it’s you; it’s you who makes the ambience clean and fresh’).
Now, this pristine ambience is conducive to a sincere actualist activating their potential – albeit temporarily – as in some form of an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being (to whatever degree of intimacy they be comfortable with at the time). Furthermore, experience has shown that these intimacy experiences can be contagious, so to speak, for other sincere actualists also present as the atmosphere generated affectively/ psychically by the first to be out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being can propagate a flow-on effect, on occasion.
In short: a felicitous and innocuous atmosphere, begotten in an ever-fresh affectless/ selfless ambience, fosters a milieu where happiness and harmlessness can be the norm rather than the exception.
As I have already provided one of the reasons why I finally agreed to a personal-meeting request earlier on this year (in March 2009) and another one only a couple of months ago (for January 2010) – after declining each and every such request for twelve years – it is apropos to mention that the pivotal factor in my turnabout was the incontrovertible fact that a fellow human being had a 5-month PCE which was triggered solely by, and during, a personal conversation with me in a casual setting.
There was no way I could deny it/ ignore it/ dismiss it and/or brush it aside – even if I had wanted to – as she was quite clear to others that, were it not for this interaction, it would never have happened.
It thus became obvious that by continuing to keep myself locked away, so to speak, in an exclusive nuclear couple/ nuclear family type of living arrangement there would continue to be a denial of access, to my fellow human beings at large, for any such potentially potent interactions. (Please note that nothing is guaranteed, however, as anything of such a nature is entirely dependent upon where the other is currently at, where they are coming from, and what their overall intent is).
RESPONDENT: Did your third wife discontinue the actualism process?
RICHARD: She informs me that she is just as interested in an actual freedom as before and cannot conceive ever not being so.
The primary reason why we are both residing in our own abodes is because to have remained living under the same roof – with all of what is implied in that – would have been detrimental to her continued progress.
RESPONDENT: Hmmm ... another case of the bird needing to leave the nest, eh?
RICHARD: No, on the contrary (‘needing to leave the nest’ was an analogy for my second wife going her own way) there is no flying away at all as she informs me that she is just as interested in an actual freedom as before and cannot conceive ever not being so.
Residing in our own abodes, whilst still maintaining our association (albeit platonic) by having regular weekly contact, at the very least, plus telephonic communication in between, is primarily to do with breaking an impasse brought about by the very intimacy implied by living under the same roof/ eating at a communal table/ sharing the marital bed.
All what is required to be living communally with me is to have an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom as a status quo (rather than a still-in-control/ same-way-of-being modus operandi).
She is totally in accord with this determination (she came up with that ‘same way of being’ phrase herself) as she has had umpteen experiences which demonstrate how the issue is all about being still-in-control/ the same-way-of-being (aka the known, the habitual, the familiar and, thus, safe way of being).
My favourite description of this comes from her where, very early on in our association in one outstanding PCE (and as soon at it became apparent) I was quick to ask her: ‘what happened to that concerned woman sitting on the couch who I was talking to just a minute ago?’ ‘Oh, her’, quoth she, without batting an eyelid, ‘she’s full of problems!’ The day proceeded famously from then on.
RESPONDENT: I appreciate the fascinating glimpse into the interaction between you and your third wife. I can relate to her last line ‘she’s full of problems!’ as I have said/wrote similar things about ‘[Respondent]’ to my ex-wife and a friend when having a very pure peak experience. I said ‘While ‘[Respondent]’ could talk about your present lover with you, it would be painful to ‘him’ where for me it is experienced as two individuals just talking about life without the felt sense of all the past history between ‘us’.’ Even to this day, my capacity of talking to her about her lover (the man she left me for) is an excellent marking stick for whether or not I’m on the wide and wondrous path.
RICHARD: Ahh ... that is quite familiar.
Over the years I have oft-times discussed my third wife’s marriage (de facto) with her husband as two individuals just talking about whatever issue she was currently engaged by as there is no other person – psychiatrist, psychologist, therapist, counsellor, whatever – she could have a useful discussion with. (As I have discussed domestic issues on many an occasion with peoples from various walks of life it is essentially no different for me to be like that).
‘Twas the same with my second wife: she would sometimes say there was no one she could turn to in order to facilitate an understanding of how a marriage (de jure) with a man like no other person living or dead (as far as can be ascertained) could be lived in an optimum manner. (The optimum manner when still in the human condition is an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom, of course, but there was no counsellor of any description who could advise her of that).
RICHARD: No, I do not intend to tape/ chronicle/ publish/ disseminate these forthcoming sessions ... just as the personal conversations which are currently taking place with an outstanding fellow human being, well-known to this forum, are not being recorded either.
RESPONDENT No. 2: Nevertheless, I (and perhaps most others on this list) look forward to your and the well-known correspondent’s reports/reminiscences on the meeting, if and when either of you is inclined to share them.
RICHARD to Respondent No. 2: G’day No. 2, Of course ... the well-known correspondent is free to say whatever he deems appropriate about me – other than any thing of a personal security/ physical privacy nature – but I will remain circumspect as always.
Suffice is it to say, for the nonce, that I had the pleasure of spending five and half hours, yesterday afternoon, in the company of a remarkably sincere fellow human being (who was visibly moved to be the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’) strolling around the CBD of a provincial city, sitting together upon a park- bench in the shade of a tree, at the table of an outdoor café, and the such-like. Today we will be going boating on the nearby river – I have in mind a picnic-style luncheon at the confluence of two tributaries some distance upstream (an isolated and very picturesque lagoon thus formed completely enclosed by dense rainforest trees) – and tomorrow the two of us will be travelling some distance by bus to spend the day with Peter and Vineeto in differently picturesque surroundings.
The itinerary for the few remaining days thereafter remains open as yet but may very well include meeting some other actualists (fellow travellers). It does bode well in regards to what I had characterised as being [quote] ‘all experimental at this stage’ and next year may very well usher in a new era in my life.
RESPONDENT: G’day Richard, Thanks for the fascinating glimpse into the encounter. The ‘heckle and jeckle’ part was quite amusing as well. I got a good chuckle from that. :) I will be interested in hearing whether or not the encounters are ‘life changing’ for No. 4 and particularly No. 2 (as someone who appears to have already reaped great benefit by the actualism process). Looking forward to No. 4’s ‘take’ on the experience if he so chooses to share. A rather fascinating (and unforseen) development!
PS. The addition of meeting two people in the ‘deep waters’/end of the pool of a virtual freedom from the human condition is about the best bonus I could imagine. Beats going snorkelling hands down! :)
RICHARD: G’day No. 12, Yes, the best bonus made all the more bester due to Vineeto being out-from-control/in a different-way-of-being such as to affectively/ psychically generate a felicitous and innocuous atmosphere – begotten in an ever-fresh affectless/ selfless ambience – which fostered a milieu where happiness and harmlessness could be the norm rather than the exception. Vis.:
This fostering was convincingly made apparent when the well- known correspondent gratuitously (unsolicited) reported how the intimacy of the first meeting – due to being the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’ (as per the brief allusion much further above) – was the prevailing atmosphere for him with both Vineeto and Peter as well. (So much so that he advised, on the following day, how he had both endeavoured and succeeded to take that atmosphere with him later that evening whilst taking a stroll in the sunset to his motel-accommodation).
As a direct result I spontaneously stayed overnight in Peter’s and Vineeto’s residence as that next day had been arranged in such a way so as to have the woman of the 5-month PCE and her spouse join the festivities; the ambience/ atmosphere/ milieu soon had her also out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being (or affirmed/ confirmed how she already was as she tends to not rate her experiencing in actualist terminology). It was at this point there was much pleasure in me being able to point out the bleeding obvious ... to wit: that (excluding myself) there were five people present and it was the two women who were generating the atmosphere/ fostering the milieu in which happiness and harmlessness was the norm rather than the exception.
(Today, being the last day of the well-known correspondent’s series of meetings, is being spent solely in the company of Vineeto and Peter as they have a lot to discuss; for me a report of how the day eventuates will be a matter of keen interest due to not being present to establish an ambience).
Thank you for your obvious interest also ... I have in mind to respond to your post about letting go of the controls next as there is a major point in it which needs my clarification before you or your co-respondent proceed (otherwise an excellent email sequence).
RESPONDENT No. 15: Letting go of the controls is a skill that needs to be developed in response to discovering the persistent gripping of the controls. The mechanism of gripping starts out as an unconscious behaviour. Once the gripping of the controls is seen for what it is, letting go is as simple as loosening the grip of our hand.
RESPONDENT: Maybe we are getting a little lost in the metaphor. In my experience the very act of being attentive and seeing the silliness renders any conscious/ intentional ‘letting go’ unnecessary. Plus, the phrase ‘letting go’ has quite the spiritualist history and there are even spiritualist methods that are almost exclusively based on this (i.e. the Sedona Method/ The Release Technique). Plus ‘letting go’ of the controls only happens virtually fully in the out from control virtual freedom and not as much in the in control virtual freedom. I do not have much time spent in this ‘out from control’ stage save for peak experiences. The in-control-virtual freedom where one is happy and harmless 99% of the time, but attentiveness must be ‘guarded’ and still slips, is what I have experienced for prolonged periods of time.
RESPONDENT No. 15: Feeling good is only available to me once the controls are let go of.
RESPONDENT: Feeling good to me is a relatively simple and easy state to achieve. It takes nothing more then dropping seriousness for carefreeness. Feeling good is not a state where the controls are let go of. Feeling good is much more like what I recommended to No. 21, when I said ‘I can see the benefit of having a more loose grip on them thar controls.’ Did you happen to miss that?
RESPONDENT No. 15: Hence it is a prerequisite to practice. Now I must make the habit stick and go from good to great etc.
RESPONDENT: Perhaps this goes some way into why I don’t see ‘letting go of the controls’ as a prerequisite to the practice of actualism. Actually having let go of the controls is to be having a peak experience and while that is a important thing, it doesn’t necessarily involve any conscious/ intentional letting go and is not the main task of a fledgling actualist. The main tasks for a beginning actualist is to get attentiveness up and running and to investigate all of one’s beliefs, seeing the silliness of prolonging suffering (for any reason). To put much emphasis on ‘letting go of the controls’ in the beginning of the practice of actualism may very well lead to one practicing something other than the actualism method (as the Sedona Method/the Release Technique is very much similar to buddhism, it would seem this could be yet another way that spiritualism slips into actualist practice). This may intellectually sound subtle, kind of like the difference between ‘choiceless awareness’/ passive awareness/ awareness watching awareness versus actualist attentiveness/ awareness but it is a noticeably different on a experiential level. I’m not sure if I have succeeded in clarifying this, but I gave it a go.
RICHARD: G’day No. 12, I appreciate you giving it a go to clarify and a timely word from me will make your clarification complete. First of all, it is probably inevitable the phrase out-from- control be (incorrectly) expressed as ‘letting go of control’ yet the fact remains that the controller, being the controls, cannot let go of that which they are.
Secondly, the hyphenated term you mention as me having been calling [quote] ‘an out of control virtual freedom as opposed to a in control virtual freedom’ [endquote] clearly has the hyphenated term different-way-of-being immediately after the forward slash betwixt the two hyphenated terms. Vis.:
Upon reflection it will be seen I am not – repeat not – referring to a PCE as ‘being’ is in abeyance then (the very fact of not ‘being’ renders any different way of ‘being’ impossible).
Thirdly, and most importantly for any flow-on effect, in a PCE there is similarly a marked absence of both affective vibes and psychic currents – a pristine ambience – to that of an actual freedom. (As an aside: the 5-month PCE was as useless in regards affectively/ psychically fostering a milieu, where happiness and harmlessness can be the norm rather than the exception, as is an actual freedom).
An obvious out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom is an on-going excellence experience (EE) but an on-going intimacy experience (IE) may very well be the most likely state as an EE, being so close to a PCE as to be barely distinguishable is not so likely to readily occur sooner rather than later.
(Being out-from-control/in a different-way-of-being is quite daunting to contemplate as an on-going EE marks the end of the beginning of the end of ‘me’ and the commencement of the actualism process – as distinct from the actualism method – wherein a momentum not of ‘my’ doing takes over and an inevitability sets in; in an on-going EE the actual world has the effect of impelling one towards it – like a moth to a candle as the overarching benignity and benevolence of the actual increasingly operates such as to render ‘my’ felicity/ innocuity increasingly redundant; this is where being the nearest a ‘self’ can be to innocence – the naiveté located betwixt the core of being and the sexual centre (where one is both likeable and liking) – is attached as if with a golden thread or clew to the purity of actual innocence; an on-going EE is, thus, where one becomes acclimatised to benignity and benevolence and the resultant blitheness because the purity of the actual is so powerful that it would ‘blow the fuses’ if one was to venture into this territory ill-prepared).
Fourth, as any being out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being (and there are varying degrees of such intimacy experiences) implicitly requires pure intent – which renders the necessity for morals/ ethics/ values/ principles null and void – it is certainly not the territory a fledgling actualist (to use your phraseology) has any business venturing into precipitously.
Fifth, as any ‘letting go of the controls’ by the controller means, ipso facto, the controller still remaining in situ it can only refer to – just as you do – something of the nature of a [quote] ‘certain degree of letting go (of beliefs and old patterns)’ [endquote] else it does indeed bring a spiritualist practice into an actualist practice ... complete with the still in situ controller cunningly morphing into the watcher of religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical lore and legend.
Sixth, regarding your comment about somewhere Irene (pronounced ee-rain-uh incidentally) saying something like ‘no I don’t ‘let go’; in the seeing it just goes’ you might be recollecting the following excerpt from ‘Richard’s Journal’ (the only instance a computer search through my second wife’s writings for the word seeing came up with):
If it is not then I do not know what you are referring to but one thing is for sure: Irene (as distinct from Devika) never spoke in such a manner as to bring about the out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom which Devika lived for thirteen months, from November 1996 to December 1997 [corrected to Nov 1995 to Dec 1996], such as to occasion me to coin that term (and during which she penned those now-italicised passages of hers specifically for inclusion in what was to become ‘Richard’s Journal’). (At the time of writing it was titled ‘The Actualism Journal’ and was written in such a manner as to make it impossible to know which of the two persons featured – an unnamed man and a woman – was the one actually free and the one virtually free as we had figured the whole focus on something better than love and compassion would be more palatable if the gender of the actually free person remained unknown).
RICHARD: G’day [No. 4 (real name)], Yes, there is neither saint nor sinner (aka ‘the lotus has its roots in mud’) here – here in actuality – where 7+ billion flesh-and-blood bodies are already living, and any ascribing of (idealistic) saintly qualities onto an actually free flesh-and-blood body stems from attempting to counteract the imputed sinner qualities (i.e. automorphically imputed).
RESPONDENT: [...]. While it’s still fresh, here’s what kick-started the end of this 8-year process. A conversation with someone last night ended with us reaching a similar conclusion that Richard is fucked-up, but we can like him and wish him well anyway, and put an end to all the animosity forever.
The polarity was not escaped by validating/ embracing either of its poles and rejecting the other. All attempts to see the perfect ‘Richard’ as perfect had failed. It’s only when the animosity toward the flawed ‘Richard’ was released that the energy maintaining the polarity was dealt a fatal blow.
Wow, this is really interesting.
RICHARD: It appears that an often-overlooked feature of the actualism method – neither suppressing nor expressing both the positive *and* the negative emotions/ passions (both the good *and* bad affective feelings) so that the third alternative may hove into view – has finally worked for you. Vis.:
[Editorial Note: all impressions for a feeling-being are, by default (i.e. auto-centrically), emotionally-based/ passionally-backed impressions].
Vineeto recently spoke of this feature of the actualism method as being essential for feeling-being ‘Vineeto’, when ‘her’ out-*from*-control virtual freedom turned into an out-*of*-control panic mode (in Message No. 12614). Vis.:
And, once the third alternative hove into view for ‘her’, ‘she’ was once again tapping into pure intent personified – per favour ‘the quickening’ – and thereby got back to being (safely) out-*from*-control once more.
RESPONDENT to Claudiu: [...]. And the key point is that that animosity was not released by embracing the perfect ‘Richard’ instead. That had been tried and failed a thousand times. And now it’s obvious why.
CLAUDIU: So, how do you consider Richard now, sans polarity & animosity?
RESPONDENT: I like how you’ve phrased the question ‘*how* do I consider him’... because this isn’t about him as such; it’s more an insight into the ‘Richard’ I’ve been dealing with and how I’ve been relating to it.
RICHARD: It is indeed an insight – a valuable insight – into how *your* phantom ‘Richard’ is conjured into ‘being’. (Each person – each feeling-being – conjures up, via their own imaginative facility, their own phantom ‘Richard’; you may have noticed that no two phantom ‘Richards’ are identical).
RESPONDENT to Claudiu: The answer to that ‘how’ (now) is: take him as he comes. The notion that he’s someone I’m impelled to attack or defend, criticise or justify, embrace or reject, has had all the energy taken out of it. The process of figuring out where to stand and how to position oneself in relation to Richard has started to look pretty funny, because that’s part of the very process that creates a ‘Richard’ (or rather, several of them). I’ve mainly been dealing with: ‘Richard-the-fucked-up-and-unknowingly-malicious’ vs ‘Richard-the-actually-innocent-and-benign’. While I’ve often suspected either one of them of being a fabrication or phantom, it has never really *hit home* to me that they both are. [...].
The notion that he’s someone I’m impelled to attack or defend, criticise or justify, embrace or reject, has had all the energy taken out of it. Without all that other stuff, I can just read what he’s saying, and take it from there.
RICHARD: And it will be very interesting to see just where you ‘take it from there’ to because the ‘[No. 4]’ identity has been notorious for switching back-and-forth.
P.S.: You will have noticed that I have taken you literally when you said you were going to drop all the personae. Vis.:
Is it indeed correct to assume that you have finally ditched the ‘[No. 4]’ identity? Vis.:
Re: The Intimate Ambiance Experiment Audio Recordings
Something caught my eye on a second read-through of your latest email:
Particularly, the mention of intimacy experience, as something distinct from an excellence experience, and yet being intimately related to that which is known as being out-from-control.
Yet a google search through the Actual Freedom Trust site shows only three distinct phrases where you mentioning intimacy experiences, besides the above, all of which incidentally appear on your Selected Correspondence page regarding the Dynamic, Destinal Virtual Freedom:
To compare, Google provides 13 (non-unique) results for both <site:actualfreedom.com.au ‘intimacy experience’> and <site:actualfreedom.com.au ‘intimacy experiences’>, while providing 90 (non-unique) results for the same with ‘intimacy’ replaced with ‘excellence’.
Could you go into more detail as to what intimacy experiences are, how they differ from excellence experiences, and what role they play in being out-from-control/in a different-way-of-being? Did they feature in feeling-being ‘Richard’s wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom?
Incidentally, this may be a good a time as any to publicly state that, based on re-evaluation derived from recent correspondences, as during the time I previously considered I may have been out-from-control, I was not consistently feeling excellent, come-what-may, I can now say I have never genuinely experienced being out-from-control... and, as such, nor can I say I have ever experienced a near-actual caring.
RICHARD: G’day Claudiu,
In the same way that excellence experiences (EE’s) were a notable feature of feeling-being ‘Richard’s virtual freedom experiencing circa March-September 1981, although of course not named as such back then, so too did intimacy experiences (IE’s) play a similarly significant role even though increasingly overshadowed by the insistent emergence of love – and, especially, Love Agapé – in the later months due to a marked lack of precedence and, thus, of any praxeological publications (nowadays made freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site) on the distinction betwixt the near-innocent intimacy of naïveté and the affectional intimacy of romance lore and legend.
Just as the term ‘excellence experience’ came from feeling-being ‘Grace’ – who was exacting in evaluating ‘her’ differing ways of being a ‘self’ so as to not illude herself that ‘she’ was more progressive than was really the case – so too did the expression ‘different-way-of-being’. What gradually became more and more apparent was that a prevailing feature of ‘her’ differing ways of being was the degree of intimacy involved.
The gradations of ‘her’ scale were, basically, good, very good, great, excellent, and perfect – whereby, in regards to intimacy, ‘good’ related to togetherness (which pertains to being and acting in concert with another); ‘very good’ related to closeness (where personal boundaries expand to include the other); ‘great’ related to sweetness (delighting in the pervasive proximity, or immanence, of the other); ‘excellent’ related to richness (a near-absence of agency; with the doer abeyant, and the beer ascendant, being the experiencing is inherently cornucopian); and ‘perfect’ related to magicality (neither beer nor doer extant; pristine purity abounds and immaculate perfection prevails) – all of which correlate to the range of naïveness from being sincere to becoming naïve and all the way through being naïveté itselfto an actual innocence.
The term ‘intimacy experience’ became part of the actualism lingo after a particularly instructive event in late spring, 2007, when at anchor upriver whilst exhorting feeling-being ‘Grace’ to no longer reserve that specific ‘way-of-being’ for those memorable occasions when ‘she’ was alone with me and to extend such intimacy to also include ‘her’ potential shipmates in order to dynamically enable the then-tentative plans for a floating convivium – which were on an indefinite hold at that time – to move ahead expeditiously (this was in the heady context of feeling-being ‘Pamela’ having already entered into an on-going PCE a scant five days beforehand due to ‘her’ specifically expressed concerns to me over the lack of intimacy between actualists). At some stage during this intensive interaction feeling-being ‘Vineeto’, who had been intently following every nuance, every twist and turn of the interplay, had what ‘she’ described as a ‘shift’ taking place in ‘her’ whereupon the very intimacy being thus exigently importuned came about for ‘her’ instead.
To say ‘she’ was astounded with the degree of intimacy having ensued is to put it mildly as ‘her’ first descriptive words were about how ‘she’ would never have considered it possible to be as intimate as this particular way of being – an intimacy of such near-innocence as to have previously only ever been possible privately with ‘her’ sexual partner in very special moments – when in a social setting as one of a number of persons partaking of coffee and snacks in a sitting room situation. Intuitively seizing the vital opportunity such intimate experiencing offered ‘she’ took over from me and commenced interacting intensively in my stead – notably now a one-on-one feeling-being interchange – and within a relatively short while feeling-being ‘Grace’ was experiencing life in the same, or very similar, manner as feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ (hence that 4th of December 2009 report of mine about how these intimacy experiences are potentially contagious, so to speak, for other sincere actualists as the atmosphere generated affectively-psychically can propagate a flow-on effect).
As for your query regarding how the intimacy experience (IE) differs from an excellence experience (EE): qualitively they are much the same, or similar, insofar as with both experiences there is a near-absence of agency – the beer rather than the doer is the operant – whereupon naïveté has come to the fore, such as to effect the marked diminishment of separation, and the main distinction is that the IE is more people-oriented, while the EE tends to be environmental in its scope.
In other words, with an EE the ‘aesthetic experience’ feature, for instance, or its ‘nature experience’ aspect, for example, tends to be more prominent, whilst with an IE the ‘fellowship experience’ characteristic, for instance, or its ‘convivial experience’ quality, for example, comes to the fore. In either type of near-PCE – wherein the experiencing is of ‘my’ life living itself, with a surprising sumptuosity, rather than ‘me’ living ‘my’ life, quite frugally by comparison, and where this moment is living ‘me’ (instead of ‘me’ trying to live ‘in the moment’) – the diminishment of separation is so astonishing as to be as-if incomprehensible/ unbelievable yet it is the imminence of a fellow human’s immanence which, in and of itself, emphasises the distinction the most.
For instance, the degree of intimacy experienced with minera, flora and fauna upon strolling through some botanical gardens with either near-PCE occurring – as in, with rocks, trees and birds, for example – is to the same gradation as when in a social setting such as a typical sitting room situation (as in, with ashtrays, flowers and humans, for instance) yet it is the ‘fellow human being’ element which exemplifies the already astounding diminishment of separation which ensues upon the blessed onset of this near-innocent intimacy of naïveté.
And that latter point – the felicitous advent of naïve intimacy – is another way the IE differs from the EE inasmuch if a near-PCE is initiated via intensive interaction with a fellow human being/ with fellow human beings it takes on the properties of an intimacy experience (IE) whereas if the near-PCE is triggered via interacting intensively with the world at large (as in, an aesthetic experience, a nature experience, a contemplative experience, for example) it takes on the properties of an excellence experience (EE).
The role they play in an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom (entitled ‘The Dynamic, Destinal Virtual Freedom’ on that web page to distinguish it from the still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom entitled ‘The Pragmatic, Methodological Virtual Freedom’) is, essentially, in enabling the actualism process to take over.
In effect, the actualism process is what ensues when one gets out from being under control, via having given oneself prior permission to have one’s life live itself (i.e., sans the controlling doer), and a different way of being comes about (i.e., where the beer is the operant) – whereupon a thrilling out-from-control momentum takes over and an inevitability sets in – whereafter there is no pulling back (hence the reluctance in having it set in motion) as once begun it is nigh-on unstoppable.
The Third Alternative
(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)
Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.