|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Actual Intimacy
On Many An Occasion While Growing Up For instance, there was a long-lost recall of reading aloud a child’s storybook tale (by virtue of being able to read before being sent to school at age five) upon being asked to by a platinum-haired girl a few months older than me. She was one of the several daughters born of a farmer and his wife some miles away and was quite special in the way she locked onto my reading eyes, drinking in each and every uttered word and meaning, as if being able to be reading for herself. With her wide-open eyes lustrous in excitation, her features alive with an eager anticipation, her whole being absorbed by intense comprehension, the simple tale unfolding soon drew us inexorably closer and closer together. This expansive togetherness thusly engendered, along with the sensitive closeness by-now ensuing, soon segues into a delicate tenderness blossoming, which is flowering as this luscious richness now opening up, out of which splendid exquisiteness the magical realm, where separation has never been nor ever will be, is oh-so-sweetly manifesting in all its wondrous splendour. Looking up over the pages of the booklet, gently gazing into those velvety eyes gazing softly back into my own, there is the mutual recognition of fellow travellers in this (normally) faraway land where time stands eternally still. She is the first to come with me, into this altogether other world, this ever-fresh alterity, and her naive delight at this haply event is a wonder in itself. Here is a female, my favoured of the human kind, who has never hurt me nor ever will, as here is a female who has never been hurt nor ever will be. For here, where separation has no subsistence at all, both hurting and being hurt never happen, thusly here is a female who is ever with me, with her fresh femininity pervasive, just as is ever the same with me for her, with my mint masculinity immanent. There is no modesty here as we are fully out-in-the-open, in total exposure, having nothing to hide and the very daring of doing so has rendered no privacy undisclosed for our naked ambition to be exactly as we are has revealed all. We can no longer pretend, upon any association hence, to again be someone we are not as our most intimate secret has outed itself. Her soft gaze shows, in this eternal instant of mutual showing, how she knows we both know what she too is knowing. Nary a word is expressed of this most precious revelation—indeed five year-old children know naught of these manner of words—as our very outing is speaking for itself in a language of its own. She asks, instead, where Kalamazoo and Timbuktu are. 
Re: The Intimate Ambiance Experiment Audio Recordings G’day Richard, 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:
And:
And:
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. Cheers, 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 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) 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 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 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. Then one is in for the ride of a lifetime! Re: The Intimate Ambiance Experiment Audio Recordings • [Claudiu to Richard]: “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?” (Message № 21810). • [Respondent to Richard]: “In addition to that I would also like to ask about “real intimacy” and “actual intimacy”, I mean, is that intimacy you are talking about related to “real intimacy” or would it be “near-actual intimacy” or something like that?” (Message № 21811). • [Claudiu to Respondent]: “Just to clarify, since the phrase “real intimacy” • [Respondent to Claudiu]: “Yes and yes, if you’re not actually free then I assume any intimacy will be affective anyway, that’s why I’d like clarification”. (Message № 21814). • [Richard to Claudiu]: “In the same way that excellence experiences (EE’s) were a notable feature of feeling-being ‘Richard’s
virtual freedom experiencing circa March-September 1981, although of course not named as such back then, so too did intimacy experiences (IE’s)
play a similarly significant role even though increasingly overshadowed by the insistent emergence of love—and, especially, Love Agapé—in
the later months due to a marked lack of precedence and, thus, of any praxeological * RESPONDENT: Hello, Richard, there are lots of references to “actual intimacy” on your website but there is no mention of “real intimacy”. Is “real intimacy” the same as “The affective intimacy of love” mentioned below? Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Love, Love Agapé and Actual Intimacy. I have copied a few dictionary definitions for “intimacy” below. OneLook Dictionary Search. I would like to ask you if you can elaborate more on the difference between regular plain “intimacy” aka “real intimacy” and “actual intimacy”, so as to clarify for instance what kind of intimacy is involved in “The Intimate Ambiance Experiment”. I have to admit I have listened to very little of the recordings but it appears to be the intimacy of friends talking. I have the impression that most people still can’t tell the difference. Personally, I still desire the intimacy of close or genuine friendship where one can be honest about one’s true feelings and talk about anything. Also, there is something else related to intimacy I’d like to ask, which is, what is the difference between friends and associates? Because I know you say you don’t have friends, but associates instead, and I still value friends, especially of the genuine kind. Regards, [Respondent No. 46]. RICHARD: G’day [No. 46], I incorporated considerable detail relating to “near-actual intimacy” (as per your “in addition” query re-presented further above) into my response to Claudiu’s request—as in, “the near-innocent intimacy of naïveté” & “an intimacy of such near-innocence” & “the felicitous advent of naïve intimacy” & “a near-PCE...intimacy experience”, for example—whilst bearing in mind your “yes and yes” reply, to his clarifying-with-live-links email to you, on the assumption that the word ‘yes’ means ...um... ‘sim’ (i.e., ‘resposta affirmativa’) in Brazilian Portuguese. Look, the reason why that “real intimacy” term of yours does not appear on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is essentially no different to why a term such as, say, ‘real sincerity’ also does not feature even though countless peoples fake sincerity, as a matter-of-course, throughout many of their interactions with their fellow human beings—developing that particular skill-set is considered an essential part of on-the-job training, for instance, in matters of commerce (e.g., used-car salespersons) and politics (e.g., ambassadorial attachés) for some obvious instances—inasmuch the distinction between such unreal sincerity and a real sincerity (just as is the case with unreal intimacy and real intimacy) is not the focus of what is on offer on the website. Indeed, the entire focus is upon how being alive, as a conscious/ sentient creature on this verdant and azure planet, is experienced during perfection experiences which are known, for convenience in communication, as pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s)—as contrasted to how life is experienceable when either an ordinary state of being is operating or a non-ordinary state of being, a.k.a. an altered state of consciousness (ASC), is operational in its stead—and rather than coining new words, when reporting/ describing/ explaining such experiencing, it was far more practicable to instead exploit an anomalous distinction, which exists in everyday usage of the English language (however, not in Brazilian Portuguese, though), between the word ‘real’ and the word ‘actual’. Viz.:
This anomalous usage is only possible because the word real (from Late Latin reālis, from Latin
rēs, ‘thing’)
has increasingly come to mean, in everyday usage, more or less whatever is perceived, felt or intuited to be a reality for the percipient, the
feeler, or the intuiter thereof (e.g., “you create your own reality”)—and corresponds to a similarly self-centrically subjective usage of
the word truth (e.g., “that’s your truth”) as distinct from the word fact—whereas the word actual Furthermore, as the term ‘real world’ is a regular feature of everyday English usage (e.g., “life in the real world”)—and especially so in a pejorative sense, as in, “welcome to the real world”, for example, or “life’s tough in the real world” and “it’s dog-eat-dog in the real world”, for instance—it readily lends itself to being contrasted to the unadulterated actual world (i.e., the world of the senses, the sensate world, the world where flesh-and-bodies already reside) where being alive, as a conscious/ sentient creature, takes place on a paradisaical terraqueous globe, as an everyday actuality. Thus, by the prefacing of the word ‘intimacy’, in this instance, with the word ‘actual’—so as to refer to how intimacy is experienced in actuality (where flesh-and-bodies already reside)—the necessity of explaining what newly-coined words mean is thereby obviated. Viz.:
Therefore, what you are effectively asking—via your “is ‘real intimacy’ the same as ‘the affective intimacy of love’ mentioned below?” wording—is whether or not intimacy, for feeling-beings, is the same as the intimacy of love. Yet, because intimacy can be referred in several ways (i.e., via its denotation, its connotations, and its consuetude As the word ‘intimacy’ refers to the state or condition of being intimate—a word which comes from Latin intimātus, ‘to make familiar with’, past participle of intimāre, intimāt-, ‘to make known’, from Latin intimus, ‘innermost’, ‘deepest’; from intus, ‘within’—perhaps some more extensive dictionary entries than those quick ones will throw some light upon what it is you are wanting to know about intimacy per se and the intimacy of love. Viz.: (Century Dictionary and Cyclopaedia). And here are their entries for ‘intimate’ in exhaustive detail: • intimate (adj. and n.): I. (adj.): 1. inner; inmost; intrinsic; pertaining to minute details or particulars: as, ‘the intimate structure of an organism’; ‘the intimate principles of a science’; [e.g.]: “Enough beauty of climate hangs over these Roman cottages and farm-houses—beauty of light, of atmosphere and of vegetation; but their charm for seekers of the picturesque is the way in which the lustrous air seems to illuminate their intimate desolation”. (Henry James, “Italian Hours”); 2. pertaining to the inmost mind; existing in one’s inner thoughts or feelings; inward: as, ‘intimate convictions or beliefs’; ‘intimate knowledge of a subject’; [e.g.]: “They knew not | That what I motion’d was of God; I knew | From intimate impulse”. (John Milton, “Samson Agonistes”, 1. 223); “His characteristics were prudence, coolness, steadiness of purpose, and intimate knowledge of men”. (William Hickling Prescott, 1796-1859, “History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic”, ii. 24); 3. closely approximating or coalescing; near; familiar: as, ‘intimate relation of parts’; ‘intimate union of particles’; ‘intimate intercourse’; [e.g.]: “When the multitude were thundered away from any approach, he [Moses] was honoured with an intimate and immediate admission”. (Robert South, “Sermons Preached Upon Several Occasions”, Vol. I); “I crown thee [Winter] king of intimate delights, Fire-side enjoyments, homeborn happiness”. (William Cowper, “The Task, Book IV; The Winter Evening”, iv. 139); 4. close in friendship or acquaintance; on very familiar terms; not reserved or distant; [e.g.]: “I sent for three of my friends. We are so intimate that we can be company in whatever state of mind we meet, and can entertain each other without expecting always to rejoice”. (Richard Steele, “The Tatler”, No. 181); “Barbara... took Winifred’s waist in the turn of her arm—as is the way of young women, especially of such as are intimate enemies”. (John Williamson Palmer, “After his Kind”, p. 282); 5. familiarly associated; personal; [e.g.]: “These diminutive, intimate things bring one near to the old Roman life. ... A little glass cup that Roman lips have touched says more to us than the great vessel of an arena”. (Henry James, Jnr., “Little Tour in France”, p. 214); II. (n.): a familiar friend, companion, or guest; one who has close social relations with another or others; [e.g.]: “Poor Mr. Murphy was an intimate of my first husband’s”. (Mrs. Hester Lynch Thrale-Piozzi (née Salusbury), Aug. 29, 1810); “Thackeray was one of the intimates at Gore House”. (Walter Besant, “Fifty Years Ago”, p. 204); “I testify that our lord and our Prophet and our friend Mohham’mad is his servant, and his apostle, and his elect, and his intimate, the guide of the way, and the lamp of the dark”. (quoted in Edward William Lane’s “Modern Egyptians”, I. 101). [from Latin intimatus, pp., ‘made known’, ‘intimate’; see the verb]. ~ (Century Dictionary and Cyclopaedia). What is immediately noticeable is how the listings in the various dictionary entries do not feature the near-innocent intimacy of naïveté.
This is because there is a marked lack of information on the distinction between the intimacy of love and that naïve intimacy (as pointed out in
the latter part of the first paragraph of my response to Claudiu on January 28, 2016
Just pause for a moment, if you will, to allow due consideration of what this extraordinary fact betokens.
For not only is an actual freedom from the human condition entirely new to human experiencing, and, thusly, totally new to human history as well, so too is
this outstanding intimacy, intrinsic to being naïveté itself, completely new—and which near-innocence is still within the human condition, mind you,
just as the pathematic Put succinctly, this intimity To continue: I also detailed how feeling-being ‘Grace’, who was exacting in evaluating ‘her’ differing ways of being a ‘self’,
had gradations of scale in regards to intimacy (togetherness: → closeness: → sweetness: → richness: → magicality)—all
of which correlated to the range of naïveness from being sincere to becoming naïve and all the way through being naïveté
itself to an actual innocence—in the second and third paragraphs Thus your query (posted nearly seven hours after that January 28, 2016 response of mine to Claudiu * (Just by the bye, and purely as a matter of historical note, I first detailed the above gradations publicly on Tuesday, November 10,
2009, in Message № 7476 * In regards to elaborating on the difference between intimacy as experienced by feeling-beings (i.e., the affective intimacy of the ‘real world’) and the actual intimacy experienced by flesh-and-blood bodies only (i.e., sans identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty), in the world as-it-is in actuality, it will be instructive to first provide the context from which you selected that second paragraph of mine you quoted (with that paragraph highlighted for convenience). Viz.:
Basically, I am sitting here (metaphorically) scratching my head and wondering just what it is you want to know which is ... (1.) not already explicated in that exchange ... and (2.) not already elaborated on in my ‘intimacy experiences’ reponse to Claudiu (posted nigh-on seven hours before this one of yours). Perhaps if I were to put it this way: a feeling-being, residing as they do in their ‘self’-created ‘inner world’, feels separated from other feeling-beings as a matter of course (who, whilst similarly residing in their own ‘self’-created ‘inner worlds’, nevertheless manifest as residing in that feeling-being’s ‘self’-created ‘outer world’) and seeks to bridge that ‘self’-generated separation in the only way a feeling-being can—affectively and psychically—such as to experience a feeling of being intimate (i.e., a feeling intimacy a.k.a. an affective intimacy), when successful, and even unto an affective-psychic union, a ‘oneness’ experience, when that feeling of being intimate, through having become a loving intimacy, then transforms itself, via what is known as “falling in love”, into a state of being called “being in love” (i.e, being love itself as “a state of ‘being’”). Meanwhile, here in this actual world—(where flesh-and-bodies already have ubiety Given that intimacy as typically experienced, in reality, by a feeling-being is so totally different to intimacy as bodily experienced, in actuality, then this impression you have (about how “most people still can’t tell the difference” between them) looks more like an impression in need of considerable review than anything else. And especially so as your speculation about the intimacy involved in “The Intimate Ambiance Experiment” (which to you “appears to be the intimacy of friends talking” despite having listened to very little of the recordings)—being based on the differentiation between a feeling-being’s intimacy, as typically experienceable, and intimacy as bodily experienced (else why ask for elaboration thereof and thus clarification thereby)—neither takes into account the very raison d’être of the experiment itself, despite such featuring in its title, nor the intimacy atypically experienced in the real world (so atypical, in fact, as to not feature in the listings in the various dictionaries). Here is a “thought for the day” (so to speak): unless you have or know of “friends
talking” solely with the
intent of [quote] “creating a felicitous/ innocuous/ intimate atmosphere via psychic currents (i.e. via each participant aiming to enjoy and
appreciate each moment of being alive via (at least) affectively feeling good, thus automatically giving off general-sense-of-well-being psychic
currents, to be picked up by the other participants and to reinforce their own general-senses-of-well-being, and so on in a feedback loop)”
[endquote] And especially so as you immediately go on to express how you, personally, are *still* desiring “the intimacy of close or genuine friendship where one can be honest about one’s true feelings and talk about anything” (which, bespeaking as it does of such “intimacy of friends talking” being yet to happen for you, suggests that the very nature of your speculation itself is based upon an ideal as to what constitutes an intimacy born of friendship). * As to your query regarding the word ‘associates’ vis-à-vis ‘friends’ the following exchanges are quite informative in respect to not only friendship/ comradeship and connubiality/ conjugality but also in regards to familial/ societal relationships as well. Viz.:
And:
To summarise: as a flesh-and-blood body only my experience of all other flesh-and-blood bodies—of which there are seven-plus billion of the human variety—is direct, instant, immediate, absolute ... as in, unmediated by any separative identity, whatsoever. In other words, as there are no feeling-beings in actuality then their highly-valued relationships/ friendships have no actual existence either. ’Tis all so simple, here. Regards, Re: What Near-Actual Intimacy Means Practically RICHARD: What did not get included in those second and third paragraphs, regarding feeling-being ‘Grace’ and her rigorous
gradations, was ‘her’ oft-repeated observation – regarding the onset of the third stage, on that range of naïveness, where ‘her’
gradation of ‘great’ related to sweetness MARTIN: What does that mean practically then Richard? RICHARD: G’day Martin, Essentially, what “that” meant practically for feeling-being ‘Grace’ was how ‘she’ needed to be fully
alert, upon the emergence of (if not prior to) that third-stage ‘sweetness’ The reason for drawing attention to this instinctual tendency/ temptation – (i.e., to become loving and, consequently, feel even closer to another ‘being’ because of its affectuous intimacy) – in the above Footnote № 1 is two-fold: • It is the natural and normal (instinctual and default) course of action: see Message № 20312 (By the way: this natural and normal course of action, this instinctual and default tendency and/or temptation, must surely feature majorly in any plausible hypothesis as to why an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience/ human history). MARTIN: Obviously I have to start with an affective intimacy rather than the actual intimacy you describe (as I’m currently a feeling being). If I’m with a women should I let myself like them rather than love them, so there’s an experience of closeness / intimacy based on liking rather than affection? RICHARD: Because “an experience of closeness / intimacy” is already happening before the onset of the third
stage depicted in that footnote, as per feeling-being ‘Grace’s gradations of scale regarding intimacy (good:→ very good:→ great:→
excellent:→ perfect), which correlates to the range of naïveness from being sincere to becoming naïve and all the way through being
naïveté itself to an actual innocence (togetherness:→ closeness:→ sweetness:→ richness:→ magicality), your query has
prompted me to pull together my scattered references to those gradations, bring them up-to-date (upon spotting a misnamed term in the original 10th
of November 2009 post Viz.:
So, bearing in mind the distinction betwixt the near-innocent intimacy of naïveté and the affectional intimacy of romance lore and legend, as clearly demarcated in the two preceding email exchanges, plus the footnoted account regarding feeling-being ‘Grace’s oft-repeated observation (about a bifurcation manifesting upon the onset of the third stage), then ... yes, steadfastly being as true to an imitation of the actual as is feasible (i.e., staying as faithful as is imitatively doable to actuality) and thus unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human creature/ one’s fellow human creatures – despite that instinctual urge, drive, impulse, or any other similarly blind appetitive craving/ longing/ desiring for an affective-psychic coupling or bonding form of consummation (i.e., merging, blending, fusing, uniting, or any other state of integration, unification, oneness, nonduality, and etcetera) – is a significant feature in the enabling of the IE’s delineated in the first of the two preceding email exchanges. MARTIN: Is it as simple as that? RICHARD: As your nominative pronoun “it” draws its referencing function from the way in which intimacy experiences (IE’s) come about as per feeling-being ‘Grace’s gradations of scale regarding the range of naïveness from being sincere to becoming naïve and all the way through being naïveté itself to an actual innocence – (this syntactically precise exegesis of the referent whence your query derives relevance is purely for the sake of clarity in communication) – then ... no, “it” is not “as simple as that” (in your case liking women rather than loving them; in ‘her’ case liking men rather than loving them) as some considerable finesse of focus is called for in order to discern this which is as entirely new to human experience/ human history as an actual freedom from the human condition is. Perhaps if I were to put it this way: untold billions of peoples down through the ages and across cultures have liked, rather than loved, another and/or others relationally, familially and societally – and yet even so the near-innocent intimacy of naïveté does not appear in the dictionary listings – to the point that it speaks volumes regarding the all-dominating puissance of blind nature’s rough-and-ready instinctual survival passions which, whilst self-evidently successful in its proliferative perpetuation of the species, nevertheless blindly dictate that no other course of action, vis-à-vis being intimate, than love’s affectuous intimacy will ever instinctually come about. Put succinctly: as all what blind nature is concerned about (so to speak) is the survival of the species – and even then any species will do as far as blind nature is concerned – then it is patent that blind nature cares not a whit about any such finesse of focus being articulated here. MARTIN: Also, I have a tendency to hide away / shut down my feelings, do you have any advice on overcoming that? RICHARD: My stock-standard response to advice-seeking reports of some personal or idiosyncratic tendency/ propensity/ predilection/ etcetera which only the person concerned is properly equipped to deal with – I cannot possibly know another person’s every thought, every feeling, every instinctual impulse; nor the nuances of their ethnic background, the intimate details of their familial upbringing, the subtleties of their peer-group coercions, and so on – is to suggest watching/ reading news bulletins ... for example:
MARTIN: One way you describe sincerity is ingenuousness, are you referring to not hiding away? RICHARD: A computerised search of all my publicly available words for <ingenuousness> returns only one hit – where it is utilised in relation to being pure innocence personified in actuality – and wherever the word ingenuous is used to “describe sincerity” it generally appears linked to and/or synonymous with ‘straightforward’ as follows:
Other than that, the word ingenuous usually appears in a list of synonyms for either naïve or naïveté – as in my recent
‘brief note’ Message № 22277 * As a matter of related interest, most dictionaries MARTIN: I have to make a conscious effort to not pull back, and to allow myself to have a feeling of liking for others and show this feeling (as opposed to introverting), but is this the same as expressing the feeling which you warn against? RICHARD: Hmm ... I write of the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago neither suppressing
nor expressing either the ‘good’ or the ‘bad’ feelings – and provide a personal example of (full-blown) anger being thusly put into a
bind, such as to occasion the third alternative to magically hove into view, whereafter (full-blown) anger played no active part in ‘his’ life
ever again – and more than a few take this to be a general ‘rule of thumb’ applicable to all the affective feelings Look, the whole point of minimising both the malicious/ sorrowful feelings (the ‘bad’ feelings) and their antidotal loving/ compassionate feelings (the ‘good’ feelings) whilst maximising the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (the ‘congenial’ feelings) is to make for a potent combination when this untrammelled conviviality operates in conjunction with a naïve sensuosity – whereby one is both likeable and liking – such that the benevolence and benignity of pure intent may increasingly become dynamically enabled for one purpose and one purpose alone ... to wit: for the already always existing peace-on-earth to become apparent, in this lifetime, as this flesh-and-blood body. As your proposed making of a conscious effort to not pull back – and to allow yourself “to have a feeling of liking for others and show this feeling” (which is indeed “the same as expressing the feeling” of course) – is on track with “maximising the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (the ‘congenial’ feelings)” then here is an example of what that untrammelled conviviality could look like when translated into action. Viz.:
* MARTIN: I sometimes feel exposed though and this can prevent a relaxed intimacy. RICHARD: First of all, the raison d’être of being intimate – and the word itself, coming as it does from the Latin intimātus, past participle of intimāre, ‘to make familiar with’ from Latin intimāre, intimāt-, ‘to make known’, from Latin intimus, ‘innermost, deepest’; from intus, ‘within’, clearly reflects this – is to be fully exposed, with nothing hidden, and thus able to be yourself, as-you-are, with no pretence. Obviously, for any such intimacy to be “a relaxed intimacy” then any and all pretence at being anyone other than
who you really are – as-you-are in reality, that is, and not a societal entity, in ideality As pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) unequivocally evidence who you really are (as-you-are in reality), as distinct from what you actually are (as-you-are in actuality), as being nothing but the instinctual survival passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof – just like all the other 7.0+ billion pretenders busily pretending to be anyone other than who they really are, as-they-are, in reality – then the concomitant realisation that it is not your fault and how, like all the other 7.0+ billion feeling-beings, you were born thataway (per favour blind nature’s rough and ready survival passions), releases you from any shame/ embarrassment, and etcetera, for being who you really are, as-you-are, in reality. Furthermore, as who you really are (as-you-are in reality) has no existence whatsoever or howsoever either anywhere or anywhen in actuality – has no actual substance wheresoever or whensoever (i.e., is not only not actually extant but never was nor ever will be) – it is a lot of fun to be sincerely playing the game of finding out just what makes you tick (i.e., how you operate and function both in public and in private). MARTIN: Is the idea that if I’m sincere (as an guileless) that I have nothing to hide, and I can give up my hiding place? RICHARD: No ... “the idea” (as you put it) about being sincere – and the root meaning of sincerity is to be in accord with the fact/ to be aligned with factuality/ to stay true to facticity (i.e., being authentic/ guileless, genuine/ artless, straightforward/ ingenuous) – regarding aspirations for actuality is to be in accord with/ be aligned with the actual, per favour the PCE, as in, staying true to (a.k.a. remaining faithful to) actuality as experientially evidenced. The realisation that you are, essentially, the same as all the other 7.0+ billion feeling-beings parasitically inhabiting their host bodies – inasmuch you were all born thataway per favour blind nature’s rough and ready survival passions – means there is nothing unique about you, at the core of your being, which necessitates having “to hide” anything. Put differently, as your “hiding place” is the same-same “hiding place” as each and every other feeling-being’s “hiding place” (all 7.0+ billion of them) just who do you reckon you are really fooling, other than yourself, by remaining hidden not only from others but from yourself as well? In other words, how will you get to know yourself, intimately, unless you reveal yourself as-you-are in reality? Speaking personally, the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body circa 1980-1981 first began finding out just who ‘he’ was, as-he-was in reality, via the guise of being ‘an eccentric artist’ (a socially-acceptable way of being a bit of an oddball) due to the total lack of any precedent and, therefore, of any praxeological publications. (The first of the subsequent millions of words nowadays freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site had no public existence prior to 1997). It was such fun! And the more eccentric ‘he’ became – as more and more oddball facets of who ‘he’ really was, as-he-was in reality, emerged into play – the more ‘the others’ lapped it up! Talk about being encouraged by one’s peers to “just be yourself”, eh? Ha! What a hoot it all was – and quite the ‘Drama Queen’ on occasion as well – especially that ‘Latest and Greatest Saviour of Humankind’ part ... it would take some doing to top that (in the ‘oddball’ stakes) no matter what else you have hidden away there. MARTIN: And then I can be liking / naive? RICHARD: The way to be both likeable and liking – to be as near to innocence as is possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – is to retrieve and resurrect your long-lost naïveté (locked away in childhood, per favour the scorn, ridicule and derision poured forth upon it by the worldly-wise cynics and sophisticates, due to an infantile/ juvenile inability to separate out being naïve from being gullible), nowadays made readily possible by virtue of your adult sensibilities, and operate and function in the world at large by being naïveté itself (thus by-passing/ over-riding that instinctually/ viscerally felt core-of-being centre of ‘self’). MARTIN: Also, relevant to this is how as a body only (or when you were liking rather than loving as a feeling being) do you form an association with a woman? RICHARD: The following should be self-explanatory inasmuch it demonstrates, via a well-known instance being melodramatically played-out a couple of years afterwards on this very forum, how more than just a few women (who generally tend to place more emphasis on intimacy than men and who, despite their much-talked about fear of intimacy, have difficulty overlooking the man with precisely that on offer) find the opportunity to be intimate well-nigh irresistible. Viz.:
Incidentally, and lest an erroneous impression again be obtained from both the above and its well-known melodramatic aftermath, it is vital to comprehension that it be read in conjunction with the following understanding:
For instance:
MARTIN: You have to demonstrate interest or nothing will develop (I assume), but how does this come about without affectionately touching her on the arm for example? RICHARD: To cut to the chase: as I have been gratuitously informed by more than just one female that my physical touch – even a caressive stroking of their bared back for example – is tangibly a non-possessive and actually caring touch (i.e., a literally selfless touching) please be assured that nothing of value will be lost upon the extinction of the masculinist capacity to be “affectionately touching” the female of the species. MARTIN: In other words how does intimacy develop without an affectionate connection? RICHARD: The short answer is: it develops quite magically, of course, sans any such “affectionate connection” as you depict. Howsoever, here is a sample of how feeling-being ‘Peter’ went about putting into practice ‘his’ version of what ‘he’ had been reading/ hearing when ‘he’ first came into contact with actualism/ actual freedom words and writings. Viz.:
MARTIN: Also, there is a (perhaps absurd) fear that if I’m sincere / intimate with everyone as a feeling being (and if that naturally develops to further intimacy), that I may be put in awkward situations where I have to turn down women sexually that I am not personally attracted to. RICHARD: Well now ... welcome to the ‘world of womankind’, then, for whom turning-down unwanted advances, politely or otherwise, is part-and-parcel of the ‘job-description’ (so to speak) of being the female of the species. MARTIN: There is a fear that I will send out the wrong signals, or not be able to make choices if I don’t hold / hide some part of me back. RICHARD: Again, variations on this “send out the wrong signals” theme are par-for-the-course for the female of the species. MARTIN: Bearing in mind I’m not in a relationship and so can’t give that as a reason, can I be fully sincere / intimate and still say ‘no’? RICHARD: The approach which spontaneously came about during my itinerant and homeless years – which turned out to
also be my single and celibate years – was to never say ‘no’ but, rather, to embrace the proposals enthusiastically (there were 20+
propositions of that nature with several being of the ménage à trois variety) with the fundamental proviso that the proposer be 100% committed to
going all the way, inclusive of the then-current lifestyle and livelihood MARTIN: What would you recommend saying in these situations, as the usual reasons like ‘I don’t have romantic feelings for you’ are somewhat disingenuous / insincere as I am not looking for romantic feelings with anyone! Thanks. RICHARD: You could, of course, try telling them just what it is you are looking for (in explicit detail). Going by the experience of the egoless feeling-being already mentioned, the last ‘he’ would ever hear from those egoistical proposers in respect to their ill-thought-out proposal – those whose spiritualised ‘self’-centeredness could see but a glamorous and glorious sex-object to use for their ‘self’-justifying delectation and scorecard enhancement – was the rapidly fading sound of their pitter-pattering footsteps as they scampered for the hills. ’Tis quite amazing the effect sincerity had – the genuine article, that is, and not the feeling of earnestness more than a
few mistake as being such – on those 20+ par-for-the-course Regards, Re: Don’t have to do a thing. [...] Nevertheless, back in 1997 when Devika was in the process of transmogrifying into being Irene, where she would flip back-and-forth betwixt the two personae, I recorded a conversation we had about love’s possessive nature one delightful morning in early winter (the weather at this latitude is such that winter-time is the dry season wherein the days are warm and sunny, mostly with brilliant blue skies and a clear atmosphere, and the nights are crisp to cold) as a feeling-being’s memory of apperceptive awareness is notoriously unreliable when it comes to the allure of love. Viz.:
Regards, IRENE to Vineeto: A person who despises love has a reason to repress love, either because of the absence of love in his/her life or because of deep disappointment in love-affairs, which says nothing about love itself but everything about the experiencer, who could be just incapable of loving or is angry with it as it proved to be different from lust, owning, possessing, using the other and expecting the other to be available. RICHARD: This is the second time you use the word ‘despises’ ... here it is love that you are saying is being despised and further above it was intuition and some unnamed ‘other senses’. As ‘despise’ means detest or hate or condemn – and they are all feelings – then I rather fail to see how you have come to this conclusion. For the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom – actualism – is all about being as free of emotions, passions and calenture as is humanly possible. I cannot consider for a moment that anyone could make out a case for an actualist bothering to replace love with despisal, detestation and hatred. That would be silly ... and what a pathetic way to live one’s life anyway! As for a ‘deep disappointment in love-affairs’ having nothing to with the fault of love itself but ‘everything to do with the experiencer’ ... do you not find it strange that every human being has had this said about them? Is love that sacred that one is never to question its efficacy in being capable of delivering on its implicit promise? Is every human being who has ever lived or is now living – ten billion people – all been ‘incapable of loving’? If so, that makes love unreachable ... it is akin to what Mr. Leo Tolstoy so aptly described as that moral perfection that is not able to be achieved ... but one is to strive for it, anyway. It is like a light one holds out to one’s front on the end of a long stick ... the more one moves toward it, the more it moves ahead of one. But ... you are exhorted to follow that elusive light, anyway. Whereas the actual intimacy of being here at this moment in eternal time and this place in infinite space is to be the perfection of the purity of infinitude personified ... here on earth now and in this life-time. In regards to love being ‘different from lust, owning, possessing and using the other’ ... may I refer you to an observation Devika made – on audio tape – when she was deeply in love? Who knows, it may jog your memory,
Lastly, in reference to your comment about ‘expecting the other to be available’ ... with actual intimacy, one is
always available as it is impossible to be closed off. Speaking personally, you are welcome any time. IRENE to Peter: Feelings of affection, care and consideration for others bring the juice and the cream to the surface of life as a human being, they make us vivacious! RICHARD: Hmm ... and if that is what lies on the ‘surface of life’ ... what lies underneath? Those pesky instincts that give rise to malice and sorrow perchance? IRENE to Peter: Caring and consideration are feelings, affections that cannot exist when the whole faculty for feeling, for being human is wiped out, eliminated, exterminated. RICHARD: Etymologically the word ‘care’ comes from the Old English ‘caru’ meaning ‘charge’ or ‘oversight’ (‘charge’ as in the Latin ‘carricare’ from ‘carrus’ meaning ‘wagon’ – thus ‘carry’ – and ‘oversight’ as in ‘overseeing’) and basically means ‘an object or matter of concern’ as in ‘a thing to be done or seen to’ or ‘protective overview’ or ‘guardianship’. The only way to make it a particular feeling is by linking it with the Gothic and Germanic word ‘kara’ meaning ‘grief’ or ‘lament’ (as derived from ‘karar’ meaning ‘bed of sickness’). In popular use it appears to mean worrying about the other. The word ‘consideration’ is from the Latin ‘considerare’ meaning ‘examine’ (perhaps from the Latin ‘sider’ or ‘sidus’ meaning ‘constellation’ or ‘star’) and basically means ‘the action or fact of examining and taking into account of anything as a reason or motive with regard for the circumstances of another’. In popular use, however, it generally means ‘don’t hurt my feelings’. IRENE to Peter: Intimacy can only exist between 2 people who are equally honest and dare to own up to their feelings as well as their thoughts, ideas, ideals, dreams, intimations and so forth. RICHARD: Whereas in an actual freedom, intimacy is not dependent upon cooperation. I experience an actual intimacy – a direct experiencing of the other – twenty four hours of the day irrespective of the other’s honesty, daring ... or moods. It is an estimable condition to be in! RICHARD: As libido is null and void for me then being sexually active or not is purely a matter of preference. What this means in effect is that sexual congress, because of its utter proximity, has more to do with intimacy than anything else. Now, here is where it becomes quite an intriguing matter because, and as a generalisation only, women tend to place more emphasis on intimacy than men. Indeed, many a woman has bewailed the dearth of men prepared to make the big commitment required for such connubial accord. Yet they are deathly afraid of intimacy – the fear of intimacy is a subject most women have talked to me about – for it means loss of self. And therein lies the rub: the survival instincts can kick in big- time, especially during sexual congress, and the very opposite of the longed-for intimacy takes place (as in pulling-back, turning-away, closing-off, shutting-down, and so on). RESPONDENT: Very apt observations and understanding. Further more, the survival instincts, can kick in also because of the predator/ prey tendencies that men, inadvertently, display and their aloofness for intimacy. RICHARD: In normal men (and as a generalisation) ... yes, of course. Had I been born a female my response would have been couched in terms of how it is for a man/for men, in regards to sexuality and intimacy, during sexual congress with a woman actually free from the human condition. RESPONDENT: If you will indulge my question: is it possible still to have actual intimacy, even if the partner (man/woman) is evidently inhibited by self and survival instincts? RICHARD: Actual intimacy – no separation (no separative self whatsoever) cannot wax and wane/ come and go/ switch on and off here in this actual world (the world of the senses). Upon an actual freedom from the human condition an actual intimacy is the norm with every body and every thing regardless of whatever their or its current situation and circumstances might be. (Some peoples have looked at me blankly upon being informed there is an actual intimacy with, say, an ashtray or a polystyrene cup or a pebble or whatever). In terms of human sexuality, and due to its utter proximity, sexual congress sans identity/ affections is the exquisite experience of two flesh and blood bodies sensuously delighting in being sensually and sexually aroused. (As there are no identities in actuality I actually interact only with flesh and blood bodies; at times this can be quite disconcerting, to say the least, for any identity feeling itself to be other than illusory). Because it can take an incredible amount of willpower for a pulled-back or turned-away or closed-off or shut-down identity to override (psychosomatically) its bodily arousal, its body’s natural sexuality, the body’s sensual delight, that exquisite experience can continue until such over-riding succeeds in its quite perverse anti-intimacy aim and arousal diminishes, sexuality declines and sensual delight falls away to nought. In short: although reciprocity is never needed there is, of course, a preference for sexual enjoyment and appreciation be mutual. * RICHARD: Put briefly: unless or until such a woman comes into my purview being single, in this respect, will remain my ongoing status. RESPONDENT: You do not prescribe to fellow humans, but do you recommend the above sensible approach rather than ‘experimenting’ with fellow human beings to explore sexuality or actual intimacy? RICHARD: Oh, no ... not at all (that above approach is only in regards to an actual freedom from the human condition). No, on the contrary, exploring sex and sexuality is enormously beneficial: there is no better way, in my experience, for a man and a woman to approach such intimacy than sexual congress. For instance, back when I was a normal man I came close to the loss of self already mentioned on several occasions (in my first marriage) only to instinctively pull-back, out of instantaneous fear at such imminence, as it intuitively seemed she would thus take over my mind and make me her slave for ever and a day. It was not until after the four-hour PCE, which initiated the process resulting in an actual freedom, that it became obvious to me what such loss of self actually meant. Accordingly, I deliberately set out to induce a PCE via giving myself completely to her – totally and utterly – whilst hovering indefinitely on that orgastic plateau which precedes an orgasm (something which I had discovered whilst pubescent). And then ... !Hey Presto! ... no separation whatsoever. (Incidentally, rather than that intuitive fear of thus being her slave coming true it was quite instructive to have her then relate how she had been fantasising about a current heart-throb pop singer all the while I was giving myself to her totally). RESPONDENT: I am aware that PCE and EE are much more possible during sexual intimacy and congress hence the urge to experiment. RICHARD: Yes, indeed so. Both my third wife (de facto) and my second wife (de jure) were very keen to experiment. For instance, my third wife initially set out to explore her ‘wild side’ (to use the jargon) as she was most appreciative of being with a man with no limits – no limiting fear in regards the vast extent, and a near-insatiability at times, of female sexuality. Curiously enough, in the end it was her very own fear (of female sexuality) which set the limits. But, until then rampant sexuality took place morning, noon and night – all throughout the period of writing those millions of words to my fellow human beings – and much was uncovered/ discovered about female sexuality. She has a scale of quality in regards sexual experience: good, very good, great, excellent and magical.
To explain: togetherness is the companionship of doing things together – be it shopping, cooking, having sex, whatever – and pertains to the willingness to be and act in concert with another. A closeness is where the personal boundaries are expanded to include the other into one’s own space; this is a normal type of intimacy. A sweetness is when closeness entrées a lovely delight at the proximity of the other (although it can veer off into affection, ardency, love, oneness). A richness (aka an excellence experience) is where sweetness segues into a near-absence of agency via letting-go of control and one is the sex and sexuality (the beer and not the doer). Magical sex is where sex and sexuality are happening of their own accord – neither beer nor doer extant – and pristine purity abounds (an immaculate perfection). Ain’t life grand! RESPONDENT: Richard, I am currently perplexed about ‘caring’. You distinguish between ‘feeling caring’ and ‘actually caring’. I think I understand the distinction for the most part – ‘feeling caring’ is caring based upon emotion – ‘feeling’ that one cares, and ‘actually caring’ is something that happens ONLY in a PCE or when one is actually free. Now, this results in the somewhat shocking statement that the only people who actually care are those in pure consciousness. RICHARD: Aye, it can indeed be a shock to realise that, for all the protestations of being caring, no one trapped in the human condition actually cares. However, apart from galvanising one into action, it is a liberating realisation as it releases one from the bonds that tie. There are always strings attached in affective caring. RESPONDENT: Now, I don’t want to debate the merits of this for one moment, but I would like to understand it better. For example, just how is it that ‘feeling-caring’ is an ‘illusion of caring?’ RICHARD: In saying ‘to create the illusion of caring’ (and ‘to create the illusion of intimacy’) I am referring to generating the false impression, or the deceptive appearance, of being caring (and being intimate) because of the reality which underpins all human interaction ... as the following passage where the quote comes from clearly shows:
Thus the feeling of caring (and the feeling of intimacy) is the antidote for feeling uncaring (and the restorative for feeling separate) and, as such, has a causal basis – meaning it has a dependant nature – resulting in an inevitable instability. Whereas actually caring (and an actual intimacy) cannot be switched off ... ever. RESPONDENT: Is it an illusion of ‘Actual caring?’ RICHARD: Yes, it is a synthetic substitute for actually caring (or an actual intimacy) ... an ersatz surrogate born out of the instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: It seems to me that feeling caring is caring on some level – since caring-for is actually happening. For example, take a mother who breast feeds her child – she may be ‘feeling-caring’ – therefore, under the illusion that she is actually caring for her child – yet the child is actually being taken care of – which isn’t an illusion at all. RICHARD: There is a difference between feeling care and taking care – you are mixing the sentiment of care with the action of care – wherein the former is a fancy and the latter is a fact. In other words, you are confounding the affective experience of care with the physical activity of care ... which is not what is meant by the expression ‘feeling caring’ as contrasted to the expression ‘actually caring’. To experience being caring as a feeling (born of separation) is a far cry from the experience of being caring as an actuality (sans separation). Feeding an infant feelings along with the food corrupts the action of caring. RESPONDENT: I also seem to experience a difference between what I might call ‘contrived’ caring and actually caring. For example, a waiter may completely contrive caring about the service they provide in order to get the largest tip possible – so they pretend to care about me when they actually care about the tip. Then with other waiters, I get the sense that they actually care about giving good service – just because it’s more fun to actually care about the person and engage them as a person – rather than a means to an ends. This is the normal distinction that I make between ‘illusory (contrived) caring’ and ‘actually caring’. RICHARD: Okay ... although faking care is not the distinction being referred to as the person feeling caring is being true to their feelings. It is not their fault that the truth is insincere. RESPONDENT: Yet it seems that you may want to push it further and say that all feeling caring is only an illusion of caring – this is what I don’t understand. RICHARD: No, I am not pushing your distinction further ... the distinction I talk of is in another category. RESPONDENT: It also seems you are saying that in some sense ‘I’ cannot actually care about anything or anyone else? RICHARD: No, what I am saying is that ‘I’ cannot experience the actuality of being caring ... ‘I’ can only experience the feeling of being caring. For example, the last time I visited my biological parents (1984) I was told ‘we worry about you’ ... which fretful feeling of apprehension/anxiety is, to them, being caring. They mean well, of course, as do most people. RESPONDENT: What is happening when I do ‘take care of’ other people and things? RICHARD: Well, things and other people do get taken care of – it is remarkable what is achieved despite all the hindrances – but it is the motivating factor which muddies the waters and undermines the result. Also, what is known as ‘compassion fatigue’ can happen as well. RESPONDENT: Are you saying this only happens in a selfish sort of way? That all feeling caring is selfish – therefore not really caring at all? RICHARD: I would rather say ‘self’-centred than ‘selfish’ ... when someone is touched by another’s suffering, as in being moved sufficiently to stimulate caring action, it is their own suffering which is being kindled and quickened. Thus feelings are being aroused, which motivate the activity of caring, and taking care of the other works to assuage the aroused feelings (as well as working to help the other of course). Shall I put it this way? They are missing-out on experiencing the actuality of the caring action, the helpful activity itself, which is taking place. RESPONDENT: If all ‘I’ can manage is the illusion of caring, how is ‘altruism’ or ‘pure intent’ possible? I don’t understand. RICHARD: First of all, in its biological sense altruism is an instinctive action – born of the drive to survive – such as in fighting to the death to protect the young, defend the group, or secure the territory, and is not so much a feeling of caring but an involuntary response ... a response which could evoke any number of feelings (such as fear, thrill, courage, excitement, exhilaration, euphoria and so on). Although it can be used to mean an unselfish feeling, the ‘self’-centred feeling of caring for others, that is a watering-down of the word as, properly speaking, altruism is an instinctive behaviour or deed which benefits others at the expense of self ... of the two survival instincts, individual survival and group survival, the instinct for the survival of the group is usually the stronger instinct. It takes a powerful instinct (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinct (selfism). The pure intent to have the already always existing peace-on-earth become apparent is a determination, born of the PCE, and thus is indicative more of a dedication, a strength of purpose, as in the will to freedom, rather than a ‘self’-centred feeling of caring ... one taps in to the over-arching benignity and benevolence of the actual world. Then one is not on one’s own, in this, the adventure of a lifetime. * RESPONDENT: I have similar questions about the distinction between ‘feeling intimacy’ and ‘actual intimacy’. Could you define exactly what you mean by those terms – as well as just exactly what you would say is going on when there is a ‘feeling intimacy’? RICHARD: So as to circumvent coining new words I chose to make a distinct difference between the word ‘actual’ and the word ‘real’ (plus the word ‘fact’ and the word ‘true’) whereas the dictionaries do not: thus when I talk of the actual world, as contrasted to the real world, whilst both words refer to the physical world I am making a distinction in experience. I usually put it this way: what one is (what not who) is these eyes seeing, these ears hearing, this tongue tasting, this skin touching and this nose smelling – and no separative identity (no ‘I’/‘me’) inside the body means no separation whatsoever – whereas ‘I’/‘me’, a psychological/psychic entity, am busily creating an inner world and an outer world and looking out through ‘my’ eyes upon ‘my’ outer world as if looking out through a window, listening to ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ tongue, touching ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ skin and smelling ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ nose. This entity, or being, residing in the body is forever cut-off from the actual – from the world as-it-is – because its inner world reality is pasted as a veneer over the actual world, thus creating the outer world reality known as the real world, and experiences an affective intimacy (oneness, union, unity, wholeness) wherein the separation is bridged by love and compassion ... instead of an actual intimacy (direct, instant, immediate, absolute) where there is no separation whatsoever. In other words, no separative identity in the first place means no division exists to be transcended. RESPONDENT: Is there no intimacy in feeling intimacy? RICHARD: Yes, there is the feeling of being intimate. RESPONDENT: If that’s the case, why do you call it feeling ‘intimacy’? RICHARD: Because that is what it is ... the feeling of being intimate. RESPONDENT: Lastly, I’m curious about the notion of ‘imitation’ of the actual. You once told me that someone pursuing actual freedom takes what they know of the actual world from the PCE and ‘imitates’ it. RICHARD: Yes ... but knowingly imitates it (thus one is not fooling oneself). RESPONDENT: Would their caring then become ‘virtual caring’ or somehow MORE actual? RICHARD: It is more a case of being in line with what is actual rather than being more actual: feeling happy and harmless, as much as is humanly possible each and every moment again, is as far-removed from the normal modus operandi as to be a virtual freedom. Or, to put that another way, the means to the end are not different from the end (other than being a feeling rather than the fact of course). RESPONDENT: Or is it still only ‘feeling caring’, thus an illusion? RICHARD: As all affective-based experiencing in the real-world is an illusion (including the real-world itself) you are, basically, asking me which part of the illusory experience is less of an illusion than any other part of the illusory experience. I pass. RESPONDENT: I guess what I’m asking is … if all feeling caring is an illusion of caring, how is one to care if one is pursuing an actual freedom? RICHARD: As happily and as harmlessly as is humanly possible ... in a word: benevolently. RESPONDENT: In other words, how can one actually care, when it is all too clear that actually caring can only happen in the PCE?? RICHARD: Exactly ... one cannot actually care unless one is free of the human condition. I have oft-times said that I have no solutions for life in the real-world ... the only solution is dissolution. Then all interaction is based upon fellowship regard. RESPONDENT: Or does one just continue with (attenuated) feeling caring – saying it is becoming more and more an imitation of actually caring? RICHARD: Yes, until the blessed dissolution happens, attenuating both the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ feelings whilst amplifying the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (hence being as happy and as harmless as is humanly possible) is what one does in the meanwhile. Thus the benefits are immediate ... and have the added benefit of preparing the way. RESPONDENT: I have searched through the website to answers to these questions – and there is much material that pertains to them, but I was unable to find any clear answers. So it would be great if you would shed some more light on these issues. Thanks! RICHARD: Okay ... perhaps it would be handy to mention that, in a close personal association (such as in a marriage or in a relationship), a being residing in the body can feel a connection, or a feeling rapport, with another being residing in another body (which relationship can be called a bond, a tie, a link, an attachment) giving rise to the feeling of caring ... be it a pitying caring, a sympathetic caring, an empathetic caring, a compassionate caring or a loving caring. This is because all sentient beings, to a greater or lesser extent, are connected via a psychic web ... a network of energies or currents that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’. The affective energies are a two-way street ... mostly peoples initially overlook the ‘harmless’ part of my oft-used ‘happy and harmless’ phrase. In other words: how can one live freely in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst ‘I’ nurse malice and sorrow, and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion, to ‘my’ bosom? One cannot be happy unless one is first harmless ... and one cannot be harmless unless one is first happy. To be actually free one abandons ‘humanity’ in oneself – one cuts the umbilical cord – which means that the ability to connect-relate vanishes ... life is not ‘a movement in relationship’ (as one enlightened being was wont to say) here in this actual world. There is no relationship here – no bonding, no tying, no linking, no attaching – as there is no being, or entity, to necessitate such a connective affinity ... there is no ‘I’/‘me’ to either be affected or to affect others when one is free from the human condition. Furthermore, and this is a salutary point few comprehend, I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here – when a fellow human being tells me they are an identity inside the body I have to take their word for it – as nothing ‘dirty’, as it were, exists in actuality. There is only purity and perfection in this actual world. RESPONDENT No. 6: If you will indulge my question: is it possible still to have actual intimacy, even if the partner (man/woman) is evidently inhibited by self and survival instincts? RICHARD: Actual intimacy – no separation (no separative self whatsoever) cannot wax and wane/ come and go/ switch on and off here in this actual world (the world of the senses). Upon an actual freedom from the human condition an actual intimacy is the norm with every body and every thing regardless of whatever their or its current situation and circumstances might be. (Some peoples have looked at me blankly upon being informed there is an actual intimacy with, say, an ashtray or a polystyrene cup or a pebble or whatever). In terms of human sexuality, and due to its utter proximity, sexual congress sans identity/ affections is the exquisite experience of two flesh and blood bodies sensuously delighting in being sensually and sexually aroused. (As there are no identities in actuality I actually interact only with flesh and blood bodies; at times this can be quite
disconcerting, to say the least, for any identity feeling itself to be other than illusory). RESPONDENT: Your comment about ‘As there are no identities in actuality I actually interact only with flesh and blood bodies’ – was extremely useful in detecting some slippery and subtle identification in my interactions with others. RICHARD: Good ... (as I am never annoyed there is never any need for giving vent). Another poster offered their
experience on it recently (Message X) My second wife would oft-times say to others how it was not always easy to live with me as ‘she’ was totally ignored (in ‘her’ view) by me. (Please note it is an impossibility to ignore anything at all which has no existence in actuality and how I do pay lip-service, just as I am now, to the apparent existence of any identity feeling itself to be real). What my second wife was really referring to is the total absence of any supportive identity rapport/ affective connection. As this was amply corroborated by my third wife, it is a primary consideration when contemplating any potential man-woman type
of association which comes into my purview (in my experience the ménage a trois provided what a ménage a deux cannot). RESPONDENT: I do hope that we can continue to be friends on that basis. RICHARD: You have raised this before in a previous exchange some months ago. Viz.:
It would appear that personal friendships are important to you ... as is being respected, being valued and being accredited (to name but three of the things you have wanted from me in this current exchange of E-Mails). There is only one thing which will impress me: the other person being actually free from the human condition. This is because then they too, just like me, will be incapable of not liking another just because of whatever mischief it is they get up to. It is impossible to ‘switch off’ an actual intimacy ... ever. RESPONDENT: No comment. Seriously, I think what you wrote there was good. I would be interested to see whether you can live up to what you have written – if indeed that is your intention. And what are your views regarding relationships and what people call ‘love’? Do you think it’s possible for two identity-less beings to fall in love with each other? RICHARD: You make a valid point ... however, it is not a case of ‘living up to what I have written’ ... it is a case of currently and continuously living it now. It is not ‘my intention’, it is my actuality ... I write directly out of my on-going experience. Otherwise it would all be only theory and conjecture, speculation and surmise ... and what follows would amount to nothing but bombast and blather. There is an actual intimacy between me and my companion. Actual intimacy is a direct experiencing of the other. It is an actuality born out of pure intent. Pure intent was activated by paying intense attention – exclusive attention – to one’s peak experiences. A peak experience is where ‘I’, the identity, temporarily abdicate the throne and everything is seen to be already always perfect. A chief characteristic of the peak experience is the clarity of apperception ... the seeing through of the belief in ‘my’ existence. In the months that followed the peak experience, the pure intent – this unwavering attention – amounted to an obsession for ‘me’, the identity, for what a sin it was to be disconsolate and miserable when the world had been experienced as being so glorious. To be here, intimately here at this moment in time, where this actual world is such a marvellous place to be alive in, is a satisfaction and fulfilment unparalleled in the annals of history. Actual intimacy – being here – does not come from love, for love stems from separation. The illusion of intimacy that love produces is but a meagre imitation of this direct experience of the actual. In this, the actual world, ‘I’, the personality, the subjectively experienced identity and self, have ceased to exist; whereas love accentuates, endorses and verifies ‘me’ as being real. And while ‘I’ am real, ‘I’ am relative to other, similarly afflicted, persons; vying for position and status in order to establish ‘my’ credentials ... to verify ‘my’ very existence. To be actually intimate is to be without separation ... and therefore free from the need for love with its ever un-filled promise of Peace On Earth. I am not apart from the universe ... I am the universe experiencing itself as a thinking, reflective human being. Whereas ‘I’ can never be intimate for ‘I’ am distanced from the actual by ‘my’ very ‘being’ ... ‘I’ stand in the way of actual intimacy. The intimacy that ‘I’ as a personality can have, as a feeling – an emotion or a passion – for another in a relationship, pales into insignificance when compared with the actual intimacy of being the universe experiencing itself. There is no need for a relationship here. Relationship requires a separated identity in order to do the relating. By being what I am – ‘what’ not ‘who’ – I am not separate from the universe. This body is literally made of the very stuff of the universe ... there is no difference whatsoever between this stuff and me. I am it. I do not make the mistake, as the people who have dissolved only their ego do, of identifying myself with Existence or Whatever ... as being God On Earth, or any of that deluded nonsense ... I have no identity or self whatsoever. Nothing that ‘I’ – as an ego-less ‘Self’ – experienced many years ago when ‘I’ lived in the Divine Realm (Samadhi, Satori, Nirvana, Sunyata and so on) can equal the magnificence of being here in this actual world. Being here as-I-am far surpasses any Religious Illumination, Spiritual Enlightenment, Mystical Union or any other Altered State Of Consciousness. For example: This moment is perennial, not timeless. I am perpetually here – for the term of my natural life – as this moment is; I am not immortal. It is the universe that is eternal ... not me. I am free to be me; me as I actually am. I am free to be practical, straight-forward and down-to-earth. I am free of any guile, any hypocrisy, any duplicity, any cupidity ... any corruption at all. Innocence prevails only where time has no duration ... and this moment has no measure, it is ever-new. I have no need for such a paltry surrogate as Immortality ... Immortality fades into the oblivion it deserves when compared to the magnitude of experiencing the infinity of the universe as a human being living here, each moment again, fresh and new and pristine. I am free to live in this magical wonderland that is the actual world. RESPONDENT: You don’t make it clear whether ‘my companion’ refers to the Infinity of Nature (God) or an individual human being. I will assume you mean the latter. In that case I will ask you whether your ‘companion’ has exactly the same philosophical realisation and ambition as yourself? And would they mind if you were equally ‘intimate’ with lots of other people at the same time? RICHARD: My companion could not possibly be ‘the Infinity of Nature (God)’, as any God or Goddess is clearly nothing but a psychic projection of the ‘self’. I experience – and therefore acknowledge – the only infinity that there is: the infinity of this physical universe that is what we are all tangibly made up of. This flesh and blood body is the same corporeal stuff, simply in a different formulation, as the stuff of the stars and planets – some people mistakenly think that the universe is only out in space – it is as much this body and this room as anything else or anywhere but here. We are not constructed of some material from ‘outside’ of the universe by some unknowable god and put ‘in here’ for some inscrutable purpose. We are, literally, this infinite universe ... and there is no outside to infinity. RESPONDENT: Agreed. RICHARD: So yes, you assume correctly. My companion is a living, breathing, human being. RESPONDENT: I always thought a ‘companion’ was someone who keeps you company in old age when you have lost all dignity and are on your last legs, and comforts you that you’re not a waste of space when all reason says you are. RICHARD: As my companion and I are legally married I could have written ‘my wife’ ... only to be accused of being chauvinistic or patriarchal or possessive or old-fashioned or whatever. She refers to me as ‘my partner’ ... is that any better? I hereby submit a list of appellations for your consideration and approval ... please advise me as to which you find appropriate: My wife, My spouse, My partner, My colleague, My friend, My associate, My mate, My chum, My buddy, My pal, My supporter, My collaborator, My coadjutor, My peer, My acquaintance, My amigo, My playmate, My familiar, My compeer, My confidant, My crony, My accomplice, My comrade, My ally, My cohort, My confrere, My consort, My counterpart, My sidekick, My bosom buddy, My intimate, My helpmeet, My compatriot, My confederate, My concubine, My mistress, My courtesan, My paramour, My accessory, My woman, My inamorata, My girl friend, My chick, My old lady ... or if we want to degenerate entirely and go ocker: The ball and chain, The trouble and strife, The cheese and kisses, The old dear, The old chook ... and so on. Personally, I prefer ‘my companion’. * RICHARD: And, yes, she has exactly the same realisation and ambition, which is the primary reason that we are living together. RESPONDENT: My word! Then she is either a very exceptional woman or you are a common fraud. Your words concerning Reality have merit, but I have serious reservations about your actual understanding as it manifests in the way you live your life. Your words about ‘living in the moment’ don’t do much for me, as every mindless person I meet is actively promoting the lifestyle of ‘living in the moment’. It is the fashion of the age. RICHARD: She has had several peak experiences, of precisely the same nature that the ‘I’ that used to live in this body all those years ago had, and has no other objective in life but to live these experiences twenty-four-hours-a-day. RESPONDENT: She’s given-up work then? Declared war on femininity? And she is fully aware that she has to reach a state beyond all emotion (fear, desire, love, pity, etc.)? Forgive me, but I always have a good laugh when I hear of men seeking to keep the company of women while giving the reason that they are trying to spiritually advance themselves. But for all I know your female friend may be every bit as noble you think she is. She may indeed be a fully enlightened Buddha. It’s possible. Perhaps we can hear from her on this discussion list? RICHARD: It follows, of course, that not only does she not mind that I have an actual intimacy with everyone and everything ... she wants nothing but that for herself. Actual intimacy is the direct experience of the people, things and events in the world about, unmediated by any ‘who’ within ... that emotional and mental construct known as ‘I’. Actual intimacy has nothing to do with sexual proclivity – which is a matter of individual predilection – but refers to the absence of any psychological distance betwixt one and another. It is ‘I’ who creates this psychological distance; it is ‘I’ who then feels separate; it is ‘I’ who correspondingly longs for Union; it is ‘I’ who creates love to bridge the self-created gap; it is ‘I’ who invents Gods and Goddesses to become One with. It is ‘I’ who, being a fiction, desires Immortality to perpetuate ‘my’ real existence for all of Eternity – thus secretly despising this body and this physical life – and it is ‘I’ who, being a central figure in ‘my’ scheme of things, proposes that there is an outside to this material universe. There is not. This universe has no edges ... which means that there is no centre either. With no centre to existence we are nowhere in particular. Being here, as an actuality, is to be anywhere at all, for infinity is everywhere all at once. Why would she have to be an exceptional woman? The only requirement to wish to solve the ‘Mystery of Life’ is that one be a human being who, having had experiences of the actuality of being here in the world as-it-is, wants nothing other than to live that perfection twenty four hours a day. As to whether I am a common fraud ... that is for you to ascertain one way or the other ... and as you have serious reservations about the way I live my life (based on no more information other than that I live with a human being who happens to be a female) then it seems that you already know the closely kept secret that the only proof that one is a truly free person is that one eschews women and shuns them entirely. Also, I typed the words ‘living in the moment’ into the search function of this computer and sent it back through my posts and it could not find the phrase anywhere. Perhaps you could send me your copy where it does say that? What it did find, using the word ‘moment’ only, to search, was:
I, too have met people who are ‘actively promoting the lifestyle of ‘living at this moment’’. They do not seem to understand that as long as they are an ‘I’, a psychological entity living a parasitical existence within the body, then this moment of being alive is forever locked away in some other dimension. Only when ‘I’ am not is this moment apparent. As for ‘giving up work’: she does not have to work as we are retired and living on a pension ... we are doddering around in our senility being companions to each other, remember? And she has not ‘declared war on femininity’: she simply prefers to be a human being rather than living the socially prescribed role of ‘woman’ ... be it ‘mainstream’ or ‘feminist’ or anything else. And she is not ‘trying to spiritually advance’ for there is not the slightest trace of spirituality, religiosity or mysticism in what she is doing. And no, she is not the teeniest bit noble – sincere, yes – but noble? No. And she is most definitely not ‘a fully enlightened Buddha’ for she has no interest at all in living in a delusion like he did. And yes she is well aware about being beyond all ‘emotion (fear, desire, love, pity, etc.)’ ... in fact she can tell you about that herself: ‘I am immensely happy to simply be alive, to be here in this world. Many years ago I would not have been capable of living a life without any ‘stress’ whatsoever. As I was then – the old me – I would have found the prospect of an existence devoid of any disharmony and nervous tension to be utterly boring and uninteresting; a life surely wasted in apathy and complacency. A ‘goody-two-shoes’, as such a person is derogatorily called in the real world, is something one is fervently warned against by one’s contemporaries. It seems to be of the utmost importance there that each child, as soon as possible, learns to cope and deal with the Human Condition in the way that is accepted as being ‘normal’ in the orthodox mode of life. In other words: how it has always been done. Prolonged naiveté and non-conformity must be eradicated ‘in the best interests of the child’, so the person will not be hurt when they venture out and about in the real world. The newest recruit to humanity has thus not only been persuaded to sell themselves out to the system, but has entered into the society of stress, anxiety and all the other peer group pressures. By the time the child has reached adult-hood, they will never dare to be authentic, genuine, original ... and will be forever afraid to risk entering into an area believed to be boring, dull, unemotional and lethargic.
Is this enough? I can send more if you wish, for I have nothing else to do but potter around the house taking
up space (seeing that ‘a companion is someone who keeps you company in old age when you have lost all dignity and are on your
last legs, and comforts you that you’re not a waste of space when all reason says you are’.) But out of regard for others on
this list in respect to the length of posts I will stop for now.
RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard’s Text ©The
Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
