Richard’s Selected Correspondence
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 itself to 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.
ANDREW: I remember reading on the AFT, Richard mentions the general mood of the 1960’s and has good things to say about it. The focus on peace, adventure, challenging social order, an optimistic view that change was possible.
RICHARD: Yet what you remember reading on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is actually what feeling-being ‘Peter’ wrote – feeling-being ‘Richard’s focus in the 1960’s was, instead, on warfare, misadventure, upholding social order, an unenterprising view that change was impossible – which is neatly encapsulated in ‘Peter’s Journal’ via descriptions of then being a typically radicalised university student (per favour the subversive ‘Nouvelle Gauche’ socialistic-communistic propaganda, of Mr. Herbert Marcuse (a.k.a. ‘Father of the New Left’) and the ilk, which gripped the largely proto-revolutionary imagination of those socio-politically impressionable youths of the time).
Incidentally, your comment on the 17th of Feb, 2016, about not sharing the opinion that there was anything special about that era – viz.:
– could perhaps be said to typify a wholesale ignorement of just how successful that ‘Nouvelle Gauche’ propaganda against the then still-prevailing dextral individualism has been, as evidenced by the stranglehold sinistral statism has increasingly had on the ‘International Community’ in the decades since, insofar as the way in which politico-economic governance nowadays operates in developed nations is more or less in accord with what the sixties ‘student revolution’ was practicably on about.
Put the other way around: as what those gullible university students protested about so vociferously, and marched en-masse in the streets for, has largely come to pass in the technologically advanced nation-states, then your usage of ‘exactly’ – in the above “in exactly the same way” characterisation – may very well stem more from a blanket ignoration of how deprived the bulk of the populace comprising those laissez faire states were, before the resultant expansion of the corporative ‘Welfare State’ (which ever-expanding bureaucratisation of governance, were it not largely funded by its correspondingly ever-expanding indebtedness, would ultimately become all-encompassing), than from an even-handed appraisal of the outcome those ‘New Left’ propagandists were agitating for.
Ha ... it could even be a classic case of hoary adage “Be careful what is wished for [whilst the peasant-mentality prevails] lest it come true”, eh?
ANDREW: Is it possible that [No. 49] indeed did practice a proto-version of “actualism” before Richard discovered just how far it can go, and as such, is non-plussed about labels and terminology for that reason?
RICHARD: In a word: no.
In a couple of hundred words: as he has evidentially never practised what he recently dismissed as the “glibly produced” and thus “quite unhelpful” way, manner or means on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site – namely: the actualism method (as in, consciously and with knowledge aforethought imitating the actual by enjoying and appreciating being alive/ being here each moment again, for as much as is humanly possible, until the actualism process, per favour the ‘golden clew’ pure intent, invokes an out-from-control different-way-of-being momentum conducive to going blessedly into oblivion prior to physical death, that is) – then the 1986 vintage “proto-version” of his post-1999 ‘on-going mindful action’ (as per the half-dozen quotes in Footnote № 3, of Message № 21923, from the ‘ListBot’ archives of The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list) would surely be just as it is depicted therein ... to wit: a 1986 vintage ‘on-going mindful action’, promoted as working due to it having been in use for a full thirteen years prior to finding the actualism/ actual freedom writings in late 1999, and which he gradually came to refer to over the years with the same [quote] “haietmoba” [endquote] string of letters which quite a few persons were using back then to refer to the actualism method.
To summarise: as there is no textual evidence with which to substantially differentiate that 1986 vintage ‘on-going mindful action’ from any other regular mindful-of-the-moment practice – as per that (misnamed) ‘mindfulness’ regimen of buddhistic mispractice which has gained traction in large swathes of many and various societies and cultures around the world (with many and various secularised off-shoots) – this further “Is it possible...” speculation of yours is self-evidently demonstrative of the proliferative nature of speculation unrestrained by the anchored-in-fact effect all valid premises have.
ANDREW: Richard makes the point of how much research he did to find a precedent of “an actual freedom from the human condition”, but not so much the actualism method itself ...
RICHARD: As there is no such “precedent” (an actual freedom from the human condition is indeed entirely new to human experience/ human history) then it follows that the way, manner or means of having that unprecedented condition come about – consciously and with knowledge aforethought imitating the actual by enjoying and appreciating being alive/ being here each moment again, for as much as is humanly possible, until the actualism process, per favour the ‘golden clew’ pure intent, invokes an out-from-control different-way-of-being momentum conducive to going blessedly into oblivion prior to physical death – is equally unprecedented.
Otherwise – and given there are untold millions upon millions of malpractitioners of the many and various ways in which that mindful-of-the-moment buddhistic mispractice is practiced (plus equally innumerable practitioners practising a secularised version thereof as well) – how come none of them ever discovered Terra Actualis?
What was it, about that naïve boy from the farm, which enabled ‘him’ to find what untold billions upon billions of peoples of any description and persuasion, in any culture and every age, never ever found (including the person you are defending through the invocation and proliferation of abstract possibilities)?
Have you never wondered, for instance, why the near-innocent intimacy of naïveté does not feature in dictionary listings of various forms of intimacy/ ways of being intimate?
ANDREW: ...[the actualism method itself...] which when you separate it out, has many parallels with the types of naive optimism that spawned such phrases as “if it feels good, do it”, “make love, not war”, “give peace a chance”.
RICHARD: And therein lies the rub: more than a few otherwise intelligent peoples do indeed “separate it out” (from an actual freedom itself) such as to instead practice some already extant method or modification thereof – being either too stupid to realise that doing what untold millions upon millions of practitioners have already done, without even a single success, is a totally unproductive enterprise, or being so arrogant as to think they can succeed despite untold millions upon millions of practitioners, without exception, having abjectly failed thereby – despite the way, manner or means of having such an unprecedented condition come about indubitably needing to be as unprecedented as it is.
Is it just a case of that apocryphal ‘definition’ of insanity (i.e., doing the same thing over and again, ad infinitum, yet expecting a different result) or is it something else entirely?
A primary reason to “separate it out” (from an actual freedom itself) is, of course, the arrant failure to appreciate how ground-breaking the millions of actualism/ actual freedom words actually are – as evidenced, for instance, by that egotistically-fuelled you-cannot-know-you’re-the-first fixation, which afflicted more than a few peoples upon coming across the website or, for another example, the inordinate lengths the ‘Pragmatic Dumber’ participants went to/ go to in order to incorporate gross distortions of them into their massively watered-down and westernised version of the already watered-down traditional buddhistic mispractice – as well as likewise failing to appreciate how truly epoch-changing a female replication of the ground-breaking male break-through into Terra Actualis actually is inasmuch that, for the first time in human history/ human experience, it is now possible, and demonstrably so, for man and woman to live together in peace and harmony with gladness and delight.
And here is why that replication is truly epoch-changing:
As the implications and ramifications of this epoch-changing replication not only directly relate back to your “make love, not war” and “give peace a chance” allusions to the idealistic 1960’s generational shake-up of the prevailing cultural ethos, of the post-World War II era, but directly impinge upon your failure to “share the opinion that there was anything special about that era” then this is an apt moment to spell-out just what the “naïve optimism” of the sixties generation (disparagingly referred to as ‘the boomers’ and the suchlike, by succeeding generations, when not latterly being called ‘old farts’) has managed to spawn.
(In case it has escaped your notice: the first settlers to take up residence in Terra Actualis are all a product of that naïvely optimistic sixties generation, as contrasted to the cynically pessimistic generations who disenchantedly succeeded them, and it remains to be seen whether the latter can successfully retrieve their long-lost naïveté or not).
To spell-it-out then: All through the ages, and throughout all cultures, one basic predicament exemplified the problem of human relationship and, thus, civilisation itself: man and woman had never been able to live together in peace and harmony – let alone with mutual gladness and delight – for the twenty-four hours of every day for the duration of their respective lives.
Each and every person currently alive, and ever alive, on this otherwise verdant and azure paradise has or had entered this world of minera, flora and fauna via the only possible way – any and all peoples both alive and now dead are or were the progeny of man and woman – and the quality of the start of life is, to a considerable degree, dependent upon the quality of the relationship between each and every person’s progenitor and progenitrix.
Any and all children can and could but blindly follow the examples – and the precepts – bequeathed, at best, with the all-too-human love and compassion of their parental providers and carers (not to mention their extended families).
Obviously, what was required was an in-depth investigation and exploration, an existential uncovering and discovering, a salutary seeking and finding, of the pitfalls and problems which have beset and tormented both genders – difficulties which were, so had it been ordained, set in concrete and indisputable – as per the hoary “you can’t change human nature” maxim.
That appalling status-quo was simply not acceptable to a handful of persons of a sufficiently naïve sensitivity.
Thus the basic premise was, and is, as simplistic as this: if man and woman cannot or could not live together with nary a bicker or a squabble – let alone a quarrel or a wrangle – then forget about street-marches, assorted ‘love-ins’ and other public-demonstrations calling for world peace because man-woman sexuality and intimacy is the genesis of family and thus the very core of civilisation itself.
Subject: Re Yet Another Summary of the Actualism Method
RICHARD: Well now, that is because it was the first time [No. 49] was openly dismissive of the actualism method – as depicted on the third and last scrolling banners in the ‘This Moment of Being Alive’ article – inasmuch he methought-it-was-therefore-it-was quite unhelpful to glibly produce, or pronounce, what is printed on those banners as being a method and, further, that in his opinion those banner words were not describing a method at all.
’Twas the step too far – which left me with no choice but to ‘head it off at the pass’, so to speak, lest it gather momentum through finding favour with any other entities instinctually more cunning than the norm running with it – [...elided...]. (Richard, List D, Andrew, 28 February 2016)
Wherever there be no underestimating the extent to which a lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning feeling-being
will go in order to remain affectively-psychically in existence – millions upon millions of years of blind nature’s successful perpetuation of
the species via its rough-and-ready instinctual survival passions blindly dictates no other course of action can ever instinctually come about –
is where there be far less likelihood of ascribing to nescience that which quite properly has its roots in the visceral wiliness of the wild which
has so successfully proliferated the species thus far.
ALAN: Hi Richard,
An erudite, thought provoking and, as always, hugely enjoyable read.
Reading “other entities more cunning than the norm” (to which ‘class’ I undoubtedly belong) got me to wondering whether being more cunning than the norm (as determined by genetic inheritance) also gives rise to “the vitalising pioneer-spirit”. If so (and experiential evidence – as amply documented on the Actual Freedom Trust website – indicates such being the case) it means that the posters to this list (Richard excluded) are the most cunning bastards currently alive on the planet. And I find that more than a little amusing.
Life was meant to be fun
RICHARD: Alan, just a brief note whilst perusing the latest posts online because, and speaking quickly, you have it totally ...ahh... spout face as the vulpinism in question – as specifically referenced by Footnote № 1 above (i.e., “the visceral wiliness of the wild”) – is the direct opposite of naïveté (naïve = guileless, artless, ingenuous, unsophisticated, open, aboveboard, direct, frank, straightforward, child-like, simple &c.).
Of particular note is the explanatory words therein – parenthesised by em-dashes (viz.: “millions upon millions of years of blind nature’s successful perpetuation of the species via its rough-and-ready instinctual survival passions *blindly dictates no other course of action can ever instinctually come about*”) for prominent effect – which must surely indicate to even the most casual reader that this ‘visceral wiliness of the wild’ in question could never, ever, possibly be that which [quote] “also gives rise to ‘the vitalising pioneer-spirit’” [endquote] so essential to effecting radical change.
As your back-to-front discombobulation may very well be indicative of a ‘more cunning than the norm’ cozener – perhaps even of such an upside-down vulpecular callidity as to be instinctually impelled into the sliest casuistry only ever dreamed of by a normal knavishness (stopping short of being so perfidiously jesuitical as to be positively machiavellian however) – such tergiversation reminds me of what feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ reported after the first few weeks of listening to me/ reading my words.
Speaking in regards to the effects any and all attempts to fit this totally new paradigm into ‘her’ existing mindset were having, ‘she’ explained the process as being ... (1.) as if ‘her’ brain was being turned upside-down ... and how (2.) ‘she’ was having to relearn how to think all over again.
Could it be a stage you have skipped, perchance, upon having jumped the gun?
SRID: Hi Richard, As I too cannot recall a PCE (and never had one yet), I printed your email out of interest and spent about an hour thinking over it ... reading each words/ sentences carefully (often re- reading several times). Your meticulousness in explaining the approach did give me some clarity in this matter.
These days it is merely a matter of seeing where sincerity lacks (and thus naiveté is missing) ... and this alone tells a lot of about where I am missing attentiveness. For instance, the other day, I noticed how much ‘maneuvering’ (an opposite of naiveté) I subconsciously exhibit in matters related to women... and how that is preventing a carefree/ felicitous experience at these times.
RICHARD: G’day Srid, Just popping in briefly as I am going to be far to busy locally, for the next few days, to catch-up on pending posts.
Given that it is, plainly and simply, always ‘my’ choice as to how ‘I’ experience this moment then the optimum manner in which to do so is, of course, sincerely/ naïvely.
Thus the part-sentence in that previous post of mine [quote] ‘and to be sincere is to be the key which unlocks naiveté’ [endquote] is worth expanding upon.
The operative words in that part-sentence are [quote] ‘... to be the key ...’ [endquote] and with particular emphasis on the word ‘be’ (rather than ‘have’ for instance).
In other words, to be sincerity (not only have sincerity) is to be the key (not merely have the key) to be naiveté (not just have naiveté).
(Bear in mind that, at root, ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ and it will all become clear).
As there is something I have oft-times encouraged a fellow human being to try, in face-to-face interactions, which usually has the desired effect it is well worth detailing here:
Reach down inside of yourself intuitively (aka feeling it out) and go past the rather superficial emotions/ feelings (generally in the chest area) into the deeper, more profound passions/ feelings (generally in the solar plexus area) until you come to a place (generally about four-finger widths below the navel) where you intuitively feel you elementarily have existence as a feeling being (as in ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself).
Now, having located ‘being’ itself, gently and tenderly sense out the area immediately below that (just above/just before and almost touching on the sex centre).
Here you will find yourself both likeable and liking (for here lies sincerity/ naiveté).
Here is where you can, finally, like yourself (very important) no matter what.
Here is the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’.
Here lies tenderness/ sweetness and togetherness/ closeness.
Subject: In Lieu of a PCE
If you have the time and inclination to respond, I would like to ask you whether you would reckon or agree that a sincere awareness (in lieu of a PCE) that this moment is already living me and that it is in fact an illusion that ‘I’ am in control could be consistently applied successfully in enabling ‘me’ to give ‘myself’ that permission to allow this moment to live me … and let go the controls?
Regards, Rick (Subject: Re: Log, 10 Jan 2014)
RICHARD: G’day Rick,
Your above query has been efficaciously engaging itself at the back of my mind, for these past three weeks or so, as any immediate reply of mine would have been, of course, that for me to publicly sanction anyone giving themself permission to allow this moment to live them – to let their life live itself (rather than ‘me’ trying in vain to live ‘my’ life perfectly) that is – without having first tapped into pure intent (via not only being naïve, which sincerity is the key to unlocking, but by then being able to naïvely ‘be’ the near-innocence of naïveté itself) would be starkly at odds with my oft-repeated caution to not proceed without that oh-so-essential ‘golden thread’ (aka ‘clew’) connection having first been established.
I had also re-read your referenced message (#15720) – which had already caught my attention when you first posted it – of which the essential section is as follows.
As a [quote] ‘relative release’ [endquote] is self-evidently insufficient for the purpose thereof (no matter how sincere an awareness may be, that ‘this moment is already living me’/‘that it is in fact an illusion that ‘I’ am in control’) the main reason why your in-lieu-of-a-PCE query has been at the back of my mind, for these past three weeks or so, is because there may very well be a way for you to proceed ... provided, that is, there be a *freely-acquiescent willingness* on your part to experiment (as in, literally being a pioneer insofar no guarantees whatsoever are either being made or implied).
If so, I will first refer you to the first four paragraphs (plus Footnotes No. 1 & No. 2) of my response in Message No. 13604 as they are vital in regards a fully-informed comprehension of the very nature of this pioneering experiment.
Now, having read, comprehended, and fully grasped the import of those four paragraphs/those two footnotes, then what I am about to say next should make sense (if it does not then it would pay to re-read those paragraphs/ footnotes again).
The reason why that ‘golden thread/clew’ is oh-so-essential is because of agency inasmuch as, whilst identity is in the driver’s seat (i.e., is the agent), any such giving of permission to have the controls be let go of without same will result in said identity being an out of control agent in some ASC or another (bearing in mind the three primary psychoses – schizophrenia, mania, and depression – are also altered states) rather than in an out-from-control and/or different-way-of-being virtual freedom.
The first two paragraphs of the second part of my response in the above Message No. 13604 explains that the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body, circa January/ February 1981, realised how only that which was outside of ‘himself’ (i.e., outside of the human condition) could do the trick and it is in this context that my last paragraph should make sense in regards the essential factor of this pioneering experiment
At this point I will refer you to the closing portion – especially the line beginning with the word ‘Enclosed’ – of your private email to Vineeto four days later (Sent: Saturday, 1 June 2013 8:52 PM) from a gmail account of yours.
Whilst re-reading it in conjunction with my last paragraph above – allowing the details and atmosphere of that moment exactly as *you* remember it to occupy your consciousness fully – try reaching down inside of yourself intuitively (aka feeling it out) and go past the rather superficial emotions/ feelings (generally in the chest area) into the deeper, more profound passions/ feelings (generally in the solar plexus area) until you come to a place (generally about four-finger widths below the navel) where you intuitively feel you elementarily have existence as a feeling being (as in ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself).
Having located ‘being’ itself, gently and tenderly sense out the area immediately below that (just above/ just before and almost touching on the sex centre).
Here you will find yourself both likeable (very important) and liking ... for here lies naïveté.
Here is where you can, finally, be naïveté itself (the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’).
Now, whilst being naïveté itself – along with the details and atmosphere of that moment exactly as *you* remember it fully occupying your consciousness – you may very well be experiencing the softness enclosed in that shirt again (that immanent ‘purity personified’).
Here is where it is possible for that oh-so-essential ‘golden thread/clew’ connection to establish itself.
RESPONDENT: I feel that I am a highly sophisticated and analytical intellectual. Any ideas regarding how I can get in touch with what has been termed as ‘naiveté’?
RICHARD: In a word: sincerity. Copy-paste the following, as-is, into the search-engine box at Google: [the key to unlocking naiveté site:www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/]. Then left-click ‘search’ (or tap ‘enter’) ... you should get about 16 hits.
RESPONDENT: I did; thanks.
RICHARD: If you were to reach down deep within yourself, way past the more superficial emotions and even further than the deeper passions where you intuitively feel yourself to be as your essence (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being or ‘being’ itself), you may possibly come upon naiveté quite readily ... it is where you are intimately likeable.
Physically, it is locatable just below that feeling of ‘being’ (typically four-fingers width below the navel) and just above your sexuality (at the top of the pubic area).
RESPONDENT: I have some follow up questions. You say: [quote] ‘... only naïveté entertains the notion that not only is peace-on-earth possible, in this life-time as this flesh and blood body, but that it is already always existing (meaning it is already just here, right now, as it always has been and always will be)’. [actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-naivete.htm]. What is peace-on-earth is already always existing?
RICHARD: It is another way of saying it exists eternally (never beginning/ never ending).
RESPONDENT: What does peace on earth mean?
RICHARD: It means a physical, or corporeal, peace (as distinct from a metaphysical, or incorporeal, peace).
RESPONDENT: What kind of peace?
RICHARD: It is not only both a personal peace (as in calmness, tranquillity, serenity, and so on) and an interpersonal peace (as in harmony, amity, cordiality, and so forth) but the ultimate peace of having attained to one’s destiny (as in fulfilment, satisfaction, contentment, and so on) whereupon the meaning of life lies open all about ... complete with an utter security or an absolute safety the likes of which is inconceivable/incomprehensible and unimaginable/unbelievable to any identity whatsoever.
There is a vast stillness here in this actual world.
RESPONDENT: How is it equivalent to saying ‘it is already just here, right now, as it always has been and always will be’?
RICHARD: Have you not ever noticed that it is never not this moment?
RESPONDENT: Is it a feeling state of mind? Or is it an attitude and a way of looking at the world?
RICHARD: It is a state of wide-eyed wonder ... for instance:
RESPONDENT: I get it to some extent; but as naiveté is a state of the identity, is it an affective state?
RICHARD: Yes ... a happy and harmless state.
RESPONDENT: A felicitous feeling?
RICHARD: It is a felicitous/ innocuous feeling-state.
RESPONDENT: Also, can you help me in remembering any PCE that I had?
RICHARD: As a generalisation, pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) are more prevalent in childhood and the memory is tucked away in an area of the brain not normally accessed. Because a PCE has no emotional/ passional qualities whatsoever – there is no affective being present to record the memory in its affective memory banks – it cannot be remembered in the normal way (reverie, reminiscence, nostalgia, and so on).
Also, ‘I’ can have a vested interest in disremembering a PCE as it could very well be the beginning of the end of ‘me’.
Mostly PCE’s happen for no demonstrable reason at all – as in being a serendipitous event – and quite often occur in everyday surroundings doing everyday things such as washing the dishes (for instance) and can be quite brief ... I can recall being on a farmhouse veranda at age eight, looking into the glistening white of a full glass of milk in the early morning sunshine, when it happened for the entity within.
Often in my early childhood there would be a ‘slippage’ of the brain, somewhat analogous to an automatic transmission changing into a higher gear too soon, and the magical world where time had no workaday meaning would emerge in all its sparkling wonder ... where I could wander for hours at a time in gay abandon with whatever was happening.
They were the pre-school years: soon such experiences would occur of a weekend ... so much so that I would later on call them ‘Saturday Morning’ experiences where, contrary to having to be dragged out of bed during the week, I would be up and about at first light, traipsing through the fields and the forests with the early morning rays of sunshine dancing their magic on the glistening dew-drops suspended from the greenery everywhere; where kookaburras are echoing their laughing-like calls to one another and magpies are warbling their liquid sounds; where an abundance of aromas and scents are drifting fragrantly all about; where every pore of the skin is being caressed by the friendly ambience of the balmy air; where benevolence and benignity streams endlessly bathing all in its impeccable integrity.
This magical world is what occasions me to write like this:
RESPONDENT: Can you give me some good pointers and questions and help/assist me with your expertise on human condition to uncover any such pure experience I had?
RICHARD: Have you ever thought that there must be more to life than currently experienced (the everyday norm in which maybe 6.0 billion peoples live)?
RESPONDENT: I shall read more about this and co-operate with you sincerely if you have the time/ inclination to do so.
CO-RESPONDENT: Can you give me some good pointers and questions and help/ assist me with your expertise on human condition to uncover any such pure experience I had?
RICHARD: Have you ever thought that there must be more to life than currently experienced (the everyday norm in which maybe 6.0 billion peoples live)?
RESPONDENT: Let’s see if someone can exorcise the materialist in me then. Why ‘must’ there be more to life than the miserable reality people live in?
RICHARD: I did not say there must be ... I only asked whether my co-respondent had ever thought that, as a lead-in to uncovering a pure consciousness experience (PCE), and this is why I did:
RESPONDENT: The universe is not predisposed to good or bad ...
RICHARD: Indeed not ... what the universe is predisposed to (to use your phraseology) is perfection.
RESPONDENT: ... there’s no reason to expect life to be happy.
RICHARD: Happiness is not a product of good or bad ... it is inherent to perfection.
RESPONDENT: Also, ‘meaning’ is of human invention ...
RICHARD: I have no interest in getting into a teleological discussion ... suffice is it to say I only use the term ‘the meaning of life’ (or ‘the purpose of universe’ or ‘the riddle of existence’ or whatever other way one’s quest may be worded) to refer to the d’où venons-nous/ que sommes-nous/ où allons-nous (‘where do we come from/ what are we/ where are we going’) type of query which is endemic to most, if not all, thinking, reflective beings.
RESPONDENT: ... life and the universe can’t have a purpose or meaning.
RICHARD: Even so, the answer to those types of queries/ quests mentioned above lies open all about in this actual world ... complete with an utter security or an absolute safety the likes of which is inconceivable/ incomprehensible and unimaginable/unbelievable to any identity whatsoever.
RESPONDENT: I think I have found perhaps why some struggle with this method. 1) unless like Vineeto and Peter you have a history of training of the attention (i.e. meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation) your control over your attention will likely not be stable enough to usefully examine feelings and beliefs.
RICHARD: There is, of course, a major flaw in your thought ... to wit: the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, had no history whatsoever of attention-training (as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation). Vis.:
RESPONDENT: One could benefit in practicing attentiveness sitting down with a simple focus like the darkness you see when you close your eyes.
RICHARD: Or, alternatively, one could ask oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) whilst going about one’s normal everyday life.
RESPONDENT: After you gain some control over your attention you could start practicing attentiveness to a not to changed belief before you move on to bigger stuff.
RICHARD: Or, alternatively, one could be attentive to whatever felicity/ innocuity one is currently experiencing because, with practise, even the slightest diminishment of that happiness/harmlessness is then unavoidably noticed, and thus attended to forthwith, so as to recommence feeling felicitous/innocuous sooner rather than later.
RESPONDENT: After you get good at this you could work on attaining a degree of apperceptiveness.
RICHARD: Hmm ... in a manner somewhat similar to being partly pregnant, perchance?
RESPONDENT: Once you can do that somewhat you could then delve in experientially to feelings that are seemingly not really tied to thoughts. By fully experiencing them with apperceptiveness one can begin to disempower then more and more until they minimise from non-use.
RICHARD: In actualism the term ‘apperception’ refers to unmediated perception – and for perception to be unmediated it needs to be sans mediator (aka without identity) – and as an identity is its feelings (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) there are no feelings to experientially delve into/ fully experience apperceptively ... let alone disempower until minimised from disuse.
RESPONDENT: Basically I think ‘actualism’ asks too much for many people.
RICHARD: Whereas the actualism on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site asks very little ... so little as to appear simplistic to some. For instance:
RESPONDENT: Some training in attentiveness could be helpful. Those with experience or with a ‘knack’ for this kind of thing would not of course.
RESPONDENT: I see how the ‘good side’ combats the ‘dark side’ in my relationship with my mother. Does the good side hold the dark side in place? In other words, if I eliminate the good side (love) will the hate for her also disappear or must the dark side be eliminated first and then the good side goes with it?
RICHARD: As both the ‘good side’ and the ‘dark side’ are the same (affective) energy, at root, it is not possible to eliminate the one without the other ... the entire package goes in one fell swoop. What can be done in the meanwhile, however, is to direct all of that energy into being the felicitous/ innocuous feelings.
RESPONDENT: Ok, then the way I am understanding it is to investigate either the good or bad feelings, whichever might be present, in order to eliminate those and get back to being ‘felicitous/innocuous’.
RICHARD: What I mean by [quote] ‘in the meanwhile’ [endquote] refers to the opportunity, each moment again, for the already always existing actual world to become apparent for the very asking, as it were, not being taken full advantage of.
In other words, directing all of that affective energy (that is, ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself) into being the felicitous/innocuous feelings is what can be done so as to effect what the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years lived circa March-September 1981, as a deliberate imitation of the actual experienced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), and which has become known as a virtual freedom ... to wit: being as happy and as harmless (free of malice and sorrow) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’.
Such imitative felicity/ innocuity, in conjunction with sensuosity, readily evokes amazement, marvel, and delight ... a state of wide-eyed wonder best expressed by the word naiveté.
Naiveté, being the nearest a ‘self’ can come to innocence, allows the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to the infinitude this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is to operate more and more freely. This intrinsic benignity and benevolence, which has nothing to do with the imitative affective happiness and harmlessness, will do the rest.
RESPONDENT: Who can vouch for this method with 100% sincerity?
RICHARD: This particular flesh and blood body typing these words can, of course, as this very discussion would not be taking place had the method not been 100% effective (which is not to forget to mention that the mailing list and the web site owe their very existence to its efficacy).
Meanwhile, back at the topic you chose, the method (which has not only already enabled one human being to be actually free from the human condition but has also enabled others to be virtually free of same) is just sitting there ... quite ready to be utilised by anyone who is prepared to give the minimisation effect of it a goodly chance to work its magical-like way of maximising felicity/ innocuity.
And here is a clue to make things go tickety-tick: naiveté, being guaranteed to reawaken a child-like sensuosity, means one walks about in a state of wide-eyed wonder, simply marvelling at being just here right now.
RESPONDENT: When Richard advises people to ‘minimise’ the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activate the felicitous feelings what does he really mean by ‘minimise’?
RICHARD: He means lessen their grip and reduce both the prevalence and duration of them, through nipping them in the bud (via sincere application of the actualism method), before they can get up and running ... thus maximising the amount of time the felicitous/ innocuous feelings can remain operating.
RESPONDENT: Feelings can be ‘minimised’ by brute force, e.g. repression, denial, avoidance and distraction but what is the sensible way to do it?
RICHARD: By getting into the habit – humans are very adept at habituation – of feeling felicitous/ innocuous come-what-may ... nothing, but nothing, is worth losing felicity/ innocuity in order to get malicious and/or sorrowful about.
It is all very, very simple.
RESPONDENT: Okay, I see I have been going about it the wrong way. Instead of declining to be sucked into the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings I have been going into them willingly in order to explore them in depth, thinking that if I explore them thoroughly enough they might tire themselves out and stop coming back! It hasn’t worked that way. I’ll try it your way now. Thanks.
RICHARD: You are very welcome ... and I particularly took note of something you wrote elsewhere. Vis.:
That which I have highlighted is the crux of the matter ... it being why naiveté rarely, if ever, gets a look-in. The following may be of interest in this regard:
RICHARD: ... my interest lies only in my fellow human being, in this specific instance, becoming freed from a rhetorical device – a ducking-the-question discussional gambit – which has the effect that [quote] ‘all desire and possibility for investigation, learning and change are destroyed’ [endquote]. In short: you are frittering away a vital opportunity.
RESPONDENT: Your words here have been taken note of. Throughout my life, cynicism, mistrust (healthy or otherwise) has kept me away from many offerings, systems, groups, etc, for better or worse. It is no doubt the same view at work that I brought to AF. I had come to rely solely upon myself to figure things out. I have come to the conclusion that what you have to offer is worth a look/see. I have nothing to lose. It is a no risk proposition from my vantage point.
RICHARD: This is what a dictionary has to say about cynicism:
RESPONDENT: In short, in the coming days, weeks, months ... I will be exploring in earnest what you have to offer here. I am not immune to an honest sincere helping hand.
RICHARD: Whatever you do, do not swing over to trust and/or credulity, and thus gullibility, as such a course of action is decidedly unhealthy ... instead there is nothing more salubrious than a goodly dose of self-administered sincerity to flush the cynicism out of one’s system. This is because naïveté is the closest one can come to innocence (which is where integrity lies) whilst remaining a ‘self’ and sincerity is to key to unlocking this little-used innate capacity ... and it is little-used/locked-away because in childhood being naïve and being gullible goes hand-in-hand (due to the trusting and credulous nature which reliance on nurturance evokes).
However, with the maturity of self-reliance, in concert with adult sensibilities, it is possible to separate-out the two so as to be able to be naïve once more ... and only naïveté entertains the notion that not only is peace-on-earth possible, in this life-time as this flesh and blood body, but that it is already always existing (meaning it is already just here, right now, as it always has been and always will be).
And naïveté ensures pure intent.
RESPONDENT: I hope you’ll respond to any honest questions just as you have to my protestations.
RICHARD: Sure, but for obvious reasons I cannot possibly respond to each and every e-mail from each and every person – and those peoples currently travelling the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition know far more than I do about the nuts and bolts of doing so anyway – plus there are many questions/responses already available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site.
Whilst on this topic: hundreds of people have been poking away at what is on offer, especially since coming onto the internet, trying to find the flaws they are convinced must be there – which is one of the reasons why all correspondence is archived – and this only goes to show how badly people have been sucked in for millennia by the many and varied snake-oil salespersons.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I think it is possible for you to lie, is it not?
RICHARD: As you have titled this e-mail ‘Sincerity’ there could be more to this question than the pragmatic fact that, given the human condition is endemic, it is sometimes necessary on occasion to not provide a truthful answer to an adversarial person or persons in a position of power who, bent on dominance, will not listen to reason.
Even so, I cannot recall any instance over the last x-number of years that I have had to have recourse to lying ... having nothing to hide there has simply been no need to.
RESPONDENT: Many thanks for your time and I look forward to your response, if you can bear the monotony.
RICHARD: No problem ... I do not expect somebody – anybody – to grasp something as simple as what I am saying overnight, as it initially looks to be simplistic to the sophisticated mind, and thus what I am saying gets overlooked, again and again, as being childish nonsense.
RICHARD: One needs to contact, or have a connection with, apperceptive awareness so as to no longer be alone in the monumental endeavour to end all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition. Hence the activation of one’s innate naiveté – the closest approximation to innocence one can have whilst being a ‘self’ – ensures that such a connection is sustained.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I have read this definition of naiveté earlier on AF site, but could never really understand it. You define it as ‘the closest approximation to innocence one can have whilst being a ‘self’’. But what is this ‘innocence’ one can have whilst being a ‘self’.
RICHARD: It is the nearest a ‘self’ can have to innocence ... innocence is when the ‘self’ is no longer in existence.
RESPONDENT: Can you please describe it the way you describe your AF experience.
RICHARD: In a nutshell it is where one is walking through the world in a state of wide-eyed wonder ... simply marvelling at it all. Naiveté is that intimate aspect of oneself that one usually keeps hidden away for fear of seeming foolish ... it is like being a child again, but with adult sensibilities, which means that one can separate out the distinction between being naïve and being gullible.
Some synonyms of naiveté are: guileless, artless, simple, ingenuous, innocuous, unsophisticated, artless, frank, open.
What ensues when one walks through the world in a state of wide-eyed wonder and amazement – simply marvelling at the magnificence that this physical universe actually is – is a blitheness (being carefree, happy, merry, amiable and so on) and a gaiety (jollity, joviality, cheeriness, delight, fun, and so on) as the inevitable result ... cynicism can no longer get a look-in.
One can easily enter into the magical fairy-tale-like paradise that this verdant and azure earth actually is.
RESPONDENT: You say that ‘self’ is present in such a state. Does it mean that apperception and ‘self’ can co-exist – for a short time at least?
RICHARD: No, not even for a short time.
RESPONDENT: If yes, does it mean that I can experience apperception while also experiencing (feeling) self at the same moment of time?
RICHARD: No, apperception is where the self is not.
RESPONDENT: How is it different in a peak experience?
RICHARD: In a peak experience, of such purity and perfection as a pure consciousness experience (PCE), the self is absent and all is transparently clear of its own accord – such peerless clarity is called an apperceptive awareness – and when one falls back out of such an experience into being a self again one needs to enable a connection to be made with that apperceptive awareness so as not to be alone in the endeavour to end all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition.
RESPONDENT: In this way I am helping you too, because if we can eliminate the naïve ones, you can concentrate on those that consciously want to benefit from your time and energy.
RICHARD: What I would suggest is accessing the search engine at the following URL: www.google.com
RICHARD: ... the way to an actual freedom from the human condition is the same as an actual freedom from the human condition – the means to the end are not different from the end – inasmuch that where one is happy and harmless as an on-going modus operandi benevolence operates of its own accord ... you partly indicated this (above) where you commented that people are generally helpful toward each other when feeling happy. Where benevolence is flourishing morals and ethics, as a matter of course, fall redundant by the wayside ... unused, unneeded and unnecessary.
RESPONDENT: This is clearer to me now.
RICHARD: Good ... life is truly this simple: the pure intent to have the already always existing peace-on-earth become apparent, as evidenced in the pure consciousness experience (PCE), is activated with the nourishment of one’s innate naiveté via wonder ... whereupon an intimate connection, a golden thread or clew as it were, is thus established whereby one is sensitive to and receptive of the over-arching benignity and benevolence of the world of the PCE – which is already always just here right now anyway – and one is not on one’s own, in this, the adventure of a lifetime.
And sincerity works to awaken one’s dormant naiveté.
RESPONDENT: I think the confusion stems from the fact that I witness the general helpfulness of human beings – even in contexts where there is no immediate personal gain physically or emotionally – so it seems that altruism is more than just ‘self-sacrificing’ – but more of an instinct towards perpetuating not only the survival, but the flourishing of the species – but not only homo sapiens, but all other things in the universe insofar as one has an effect on them.
RICHARD: Again, what you say here is sourced in blind nature’s nurture – taken to a fantastic extreme when applied to ‘all other things in the universe’ – which instinctual passion is currently the flavour of the month in those ‘save mother earth’ circles.
RESPONDENT: This confusion is a result of confusing the two senses or ‘altruistic’ – the biological and the moralistic. My reference to ‘all other things in the universe insofar as one has an effect on them’ might better read ‘all other things in the universe insofar as they have an effect on one’. Reversing the latter part of the sentence may be more accurate – since it shows the ‘self centeredness’ of feeling-caring. For a while, I couldn’t understand why you called that comment ‘fantastic’ – but I see now that what I was referring to was merely the moralistic idea of altruism – which is not at all to be equated with benevolence.
RICHARD: Exactly ... in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) one discovers that the universe is already benevolent and benign (it does not need ‘my’ benevolence and benignity pasted as a veneer over it). There is a passage in ‘Richard’s Journal’ which may be worth contemplating:
I have emphasised the words which indicate one of the biggest stumbling-blocks to first setting foot upon the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition – the apprehension of becoming a simpleton – so as to highlight the fact that when I say naiveté I mean naiveté.
RICHARD: ... if one asks oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (which is the only moment one is ever alive) all will be revealed in due course, in the bright light of awareness, as one goes about one’s normal life. Moreover, all the instinctive drives, urges, impulses, compulsions, demands, pressures, cravings, yearnings, longings – all the instinctual passions which necessitate social conditioning in the first place – will be laid bare with the perspicacity born of pure intent and thus open for examination. The human mind cops a lot of bad press ... but only because its native intelligence is crippled.
RESPONDENT: Am I correct in concluding that the decision for peace on earth (with pure intent) is the ‘mechanism’ that allows us to dissipate all our triggers that cause malice & sorrow?
RICHARD: Yes, this is because ‘the decision for peace on earth’ is to choose to dedicate oneself 100% to having that happen (which dedication makes peace on earth the overriding priority in life irregardless of whatever situations and circumstances may arise) and unequivocally deciding for peace on earth actualises the pure intent to enable such a condition just here right now: pure intent is the unwavering devotion to living life happily and harmlessly each moment again – being peaceful and harmonious is an ongoing commitment – and it is the very staunchness of pure intent which ensures continued success ... malice and sorrow (and thus their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) have no room in which to manoeuvre where benignity and benevolence flourish.
RESPONDENT: An interpretive meaning is all that can be given to what another says.
RICHARD: Not necessarily ... there are peoples who listen to what I have to say without interpreting.
RESPONDENT: If they truly understand you, they would be able to explain what you point to in their own words how it is seen to operate in themselves and not just parrot quotations in fear of distorting ‘original’ meaning. Or they would point out where what you are saying seems to be at odds with the facts as they see them. What a speaker communicates verbally can only be understood in terms of the listener’s own direct experiencing or insight.
RICHARD: So as to not become side-tracked into discussing various qualifiers, conditioners and caveats which may or may not apply ... am I to take it from the general thrust of your response that you have not concluded that ‘an interpretive meaning is all that can be given to what another says’ after all?
RESPONDENT: It depends on what you mean by interpret.
RICHARD: As it appears from what follows that you would rather become side-tracked into discussing various qualifiers, conditioners and caveats than acknowledge what the general thrust of your response seems to indicate I will say this much: what I am pointing to, where I say there are peoples who listen to what I have to say without interpreting, is a fellow human being who is vitally interested in what it is to be living happily and harmlessly, in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, so as to be free to find out, once and for all, what life, the universe, and being human is all about ... a quest which is variously put as being ‘what is the meaning of life’ or ‘what is the purpose of existence’ or ‘where are we coming from, where are we going to, what are we here for’ and so on.
This fellow human being is capable of listening with both ears – or reading with both eyes – because they want to know, so intensely that they have never wanted anything as much as this ever before, for themselves just what this business called being alive actually means ... and they want to know it now, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, and not later.
Such a depth of sincerity obviates turning what they hear or read into being a clip-on to their existing mind-set ... because sincerity enables naiveté.
ALAN: I suddenly ‘got’ there was no one here to experience this fear – shivers of delight/fear all over, especially up the spine, culminating in the brainstem.
RICHARD: Ah ... ‘no one here’, eh? (this is what ‘‘I’ am an illusion’ means). And ‘delight/fear’ ... and ‘especially up the spine’. Yes, this is what I often refer to as fear having a thrilling aspect ... and thrilling is a delicious excitement than can transport you to being here now. By focussing more on the thrilling part of fear – rather than the fear itself which usually dominates – that very energy does the trick and one rides the wave of delight/fear through to the ‘Promised Land’ (joke).
ALAN: Then, I guess, ‘I’ tried to make something ‘turn over’.
RICHARD: Actively increasing pure intent is handy here. Effort – as in straining muscles – does nothing. The same applies to will-power ... and love. Pure intent is born out of naiveté, which is the nearest ‘I’ have to innocence. It is an effortless, almost foolish, sensation ... but exquisite.
RESPONDENT: According to Vineeto this (Pure intent) has to be ‘kept up’ or ‘cranked up’ (Peter’s sincerity), until the fat lady has sung, so ... it may transpire that the peanut factor may be inversely proportional to the time that the fat lady needs to finish her sung. In other words in PI/t t= time in months/years that is necessary to make P come closer and closer to 100%. Thus at t (Time)=t (time fat lady has been singing) -t (moment that movement into *AF* began) or in worldly time schedule: time/date MY arrival destination at *AF* [so at the moment t (Time) E=B is accurate, one has arrived] (y in years from now) can be calculated: take off (2000)+(t=Xy)=?
X is the peanut factor. As X (as private information) is only available at *AF* (because then one knows how long it took to arrive) X is legally speaking indeed the GREAT UNKNOWN as is traditional in science so the challenge is for oneself to find out/discover the value of X for him/herself.
RICHARD: At first glance what is glaringly obvious is that the requisite catalyst (naiveté) has not been factored in ... hence the incomplete resolution of the formulae is due to the lack of benediction (which would help to clarify the implicit time-scale error as exemplified by your ‘one second of 100% pure intent’ and et seq. observations) and elucidates why the fat lady has not yet sung.
To explain: one can bring about a benediction from the perfection and purity, which is the essential character of the universe, by contacting and cultivating one’s original state of naiveté through the application of sincerity. Naiveté is that intimate aspect of oneself which is the nearest approximation that one can have of actual innocence – there is no innocence so long as there is a rudimentary self – and the constant responsiveness of naive intimacy results in a continuing benediction. This blessing allows a connection to be made between oneself and the perfection and purity.
This connection I call pure intent.
Pure intent endows one with the ability to operate and function safely in society without the incumbent social identity with its ever-vigilant conscience and its concomitant cynicism. Thus one is reliably rendered relatively innocent (and virtually happy and harmless) by the benefaction of the perfection and purity of this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe and therefore one is no longer alone in this monumental endeavour ... one has all the energy of infinitude at one’s disposal.
RESPONDENT: I have not met anyone on this list naïve enough to accept your facade.
RICHARD: Hmm ... this is unfortunate – not the ‘facade’ bit – but because naiveté is so vital to freedom. This is because even the strictest application of moralistic and ethicalistic injunctions will never lead to the clean clarity of the purity of living the perfection of the infinitude of this material universe. Purity is an actual condition – intrinsic to this universe – that a human being can tap into by pure intent. Pure intent can be activated with sincere attention paid to the state of naiveté. To be naïve is to be virginal, unaffected, unselfconsciously artless ... in short: ingenuous. Naiveté is a much-maligned word, having the common assumption that it implies gullibility. Nevertheless, to be naïve means to be simple and unsophisticated. Pride is derived from an intellect inured to naïve innocence; to such an intellect, to be guileless appears to be gullible, stupid. In actuality, one has to be gullible to be sophisticated, to be wise in the ways of the real world. The ‘worldly-wise’ realists are not in touch with the purity of innocence; they readily obey the peremptory decrees of the cultured sophisticates. A sample of such decrees are: ‘I didn’t come down in the last shower’, or ‘I wasn’t born yesterday’, or ‘You’ve got to be tough to survive in the real world’, or ‘It’s dog eat dog out there’ ... and so on. Such people are said to have ‘lost their innocence’. Human beings have not ‘lost their innocence’ ... they never had it in the first place.
Innocence is something entirely new; it has never existed in human beings before. It is an evolutionary break-through to come upon innocence. It is a mutation of the human brain. Naiveté is a necessary precursor to invoke the condition of innocence. One surely has to be naïve to contemplate the profound notion that this universe is benign, friendly. One needs to be naïve to consider that this universe has an inherent imperative for well-being to flourish; that it has a built-in benevolence available to one who is artless, without guile. To the realist – the ‘worldly-wise’ – this appears like utter foolishness. After all, life is a ‘vale of tears’ and one must ‘make the best of a bad situation’ because one ‘can’t change human nature’; and therefore ‘you have to fight for your rights’. This derogatory advice is endlessly forthcoming; the put-down of the universe goes on ad nauseam, wherever one travels throughout the world. This universe is so enormous in size – infinity being as enormous as it can get – and so magnificent in its scope – eternity being as magnificent as it can get – how on earth could anyone believe for a minute that it is all here for humans to be forever miserable and malicious in?
ALAN: Perhaps it is this ‘pure intent’ which keeps ‘me’ going, which insists that it ‘ain’t over till the fat lady sings’, which is the knowledge that this is not perfection, and perfection is possible.
RICHARD: Perfection is an actual condition – intrinsic to this universe – that a human being can tap into by pure intent. Pure intent can be activated again and again with sincere attention paid to the state of naiveté. To be naive is to be virginal, unaffected, unselfconsciously artless, ingenuous, simple and unsophisticated ... and pure intent manifests in the connection between the intimate aspect of oneself (that one usually keeps hidden away for fear of seeming foolish) and the purity of the perfection of the peak experience. The experience of purity is a benefaction and out of this blessing comes the pure intent which consistently guides one through daily life, gently ushering in an increasing ease and generosity of character. With this growing magnanimity, one becomes more and more anonymous, more and more self-less. With this expanding altruism one becomes less and less self-centred, less and less egocentric. It is the highway to an utter freedom – to one’s destiny – and it is a wide and wondrous path. Once activated, freedom is no longer a matter of choice – it is an irresistible pull – but pure intent will provide one with the necessary intestinal fortitude.
RESPONDENT: What where you trying to solve when these two major shifts happened to you? I would be much obliged if you would share your findings with me.
RICHARD: I was wanting to know what ‘my’ part in all this mess was. Eighteen years ago ‘I’, the persona that I was, looked at the natural world and just knew that this enormous construct called the world – and the universe itself – was not ‘set up’ for us humans to be forever forlorn in with only scant moments of reprieve. ‘I’ realised there and then that it was not and could not ever be some ‘sick cosmic joke’ that humans all had to endure and ‘make the best of’. ‘I’ felt foolish that ‘I’ had believed for thirty two years that the wisdom of the world ‘I’ had inherited – the world that ‘I’ was born into – was set in stone. This foolish feeling allowed ‘me’ to get in touch with ‘my’ dormant naiveté, which – as I wrote above – is the closest thing one has that resembles actual innocence, and activate it with a naive enthusiasm to undo all the conditioning and brainwashing that ‘I’ had been subject to. Then when ‘I’ looked into myself and at all the people around and saw the sorrow and malice of humankind ‘I’ could not stop. ‘I’ knew that ‘I’ had just devoted myself to the task of setting both myself and humankind free ... ‘I’ willingly dedicated my life to this most worthy cause. It is so lovely to devote oneself to something whole-heartedly ... the ‘boots and all’ approach ‘I’ called it then!
Thus I find myself here, in the world as-it-is. A vast stillness lies all around, a perfection that is abounding with purity. Beneficence, an active kindness, overflows in all directions, imbuing everything with unimaginable fairytale-like quality. For me to be able to be here at all is a blessing that only ‘I’ could grant, because nobody else could do it for me. I am full of admiration for the ‘me’ that dared to do such a thing. I owe all that I experience now to ‘me’. I salute ‘my’ audacity. And what an adventure it was ... and still is. These are the wondrous workings of the exquisite quality of life – who would have it any other way?
RESPONDENT: The world has tremendous subtle violence going on then doesn’t it? (I hope I do not sound too naive).
RICHARD: No, you are most definitely not ‘too naive’. It is the cultured sophisticates that cause – and have caused – such untold damage on this fair earth. Naiveté is a beneficence ... it is what I got in touch with to enable me to steer my way through the maze of conditioning ... a conditioning that stretches back into antiquity. Naiveté is the closest thing one has got to an actual innocence ... one can rely much more upon it to see one’s way clearly than one can rely upon the most profound thought or the most sublime feeling. No matter how lofty the thought or deep the feeling, unless one is nearly innocent, one will never succeed.
As I said, naiveté is the closest thing we have to innocence. The fabled ‘innocence’ of children is just that: a fable. A child’s so-called ‘innocence’ turns out to be no more than a trusting gullibility, a preparedness to believe out of ignorance. Children are not innocent (literal definition: ‘free from sin’). Infants and children are not as happy and harmless and benevolent and carefree as is so often made out to be the case ... and have never been so. They have malice and sorrow firmly embedded in them, for one is born with instinctual fear and aggression. Just watch a one month old baby bellowing its distress at being alone; just watch a one year old pinching its sibling in spite for taking its toy; just watch a two year old stamping its foot in a temper tantrum; just watch a three year old child fighting with its peers for supremacy.
One must ask: where in all this is the fabulous ‘innocence’ ... an innocence which must have peace and harmony and tranquillity in it for there to be peace-on-earth? The imposition of social mores – moral virtues, ethical values, honourable principles, decent scruples and the like – are essential to curb the instinct-born spiteful anger and vicious hatred that are part and parcel of the essential traits of being a sentient being. A ‘Golden Past’ has never existed at any period, or at any stage, of development. To achieve a truly golden age, something entirely new must come into existence. All peoples must cease ‘being’. To change ‘Human Nature’, (which everyone says cannot be changed) one must give-up, voluntarily, one’s cherished identity ... the self one was born with.
RICHARD: Becoming free of the human condition is an irrevocable occurrence, wherein the ‘lizard-brain’ mutates out of its primeval state ... but if this mutation is not allowed its completion one becomes enlightened.
RESPONDENT: This sounds like speculation upon neuro-psychology theories ... are you claiming it is fact?
RICHARD: Yes ... this has been my on-going experiencing, night and day, for years now ... it is so ‘normal’ that I take it for granted that there is only perfection.
RESPONDENT: Er ... hum ... you have related it to the ‘nape of the neck – how do you know what goes on there?
RICHARD: My experiential sensate-feeling experience (sensation) tells me that it was the brain-stem (reptilian brain) where all the activity took place to free me from the human condition. As the result of this (when the activity ceased) is a twenty four hour a day freedom from the human condition then it is entirely reasonable to assume that the relationship was one of cause and effect. It does not take a genius to suss out that what the neuro-biologists are empirically discovering is right on the ball in regards the human condition.
RESPONDENT: That’s an incredibly naïve statement if you think that these guys have got the definitive take on what’s happening in the ‘nape’.
RICHARD: Yet I did not say that they have ‘the definitive take’ at all ... I said that ‘what they are empirically discovering’ (note that the word <discovering> is different from the word <discovered> and you will get the drift) is ‘right on the ball’. Only Richard has ‘the definitive take’ so far as I have been able to ascertain.
It is always cute to see how the cultured sophisticates respond to my stressing the importance of naiveté in becoming free of the human condition ... apparently the words <gullible> and <naïve> go hand-in-hand for them. Yet to be naive is to be virginal, unaffected, unselfconsciously artless ... in short: ingenuous. Naiveté is a much-maligned word, having the common assumption that it implies gullibility. Nevertheless, to be naive means to be simple and unsophisticated. Pride is derived from an intellect inured to naiveté (which is the closest a ‘self’ can get to innocence); to such an intellect, to be guileless appears to be gullible, susceptible, credulous, uncritical, unwary, unsuspecting, unsuspicious, trusting, stupid. In actuality, one has to be gullible to be sophisticated, to be wise in the ways of the ‘real world’. The ‘worldly-wise’ realists are not in touch with the purity of innocence; they readily obey the peremptory decrees of the cultivated sophistication which says: ‘I didn’t come down in the last shower’, or ‘I wasn’t born yesterday’, or ‘You’ve got to be tough to survive in the real world’, or ‘It’s dog eat dog out there’ ... and so on.
Such people are said to have ‘lost their innocence’: human beings have not ‘lost their innocence’ ... they never had it in the first place.
Innocence is something entirely new; it has never existed in human beings before. It is an evolutionary break-through to come upon innocence. It is a mutation of the human brain. Naiveté is a necessary precursor to invoke the condition of innocence. One surely has to be naive to contemplate the profound notion that this universe is intrinsically benign, friendly; one needs to be naive to consider that this universe has an inherent imperative for well-being to flourish; one can only be naive in order to see that this universe has a built-in benevolence available to one who is artless, without guile. To the realist – the ‘worldly-wise’ – this appears like utter foolishness. After all, life is a ‘vale of tears’ and ‘you must make the best of a bad situation’ because ‘you can’t change human nature’ and therefore ‘you have to fight for your rights’. This derogatory advice is endlessly forthcoming; the put-down of the universe goes on ad nauseam, wherever one travels throughout the world. This universe is so munificent in size – infinity being as abundant as it can be – and so magnanimous in its scope – eternity being as bountiful as it can get – how on earth could anyone believe for a minute that it is all here for humans to be forever miserable in? It is foolishness of the highest order to believe it to be so. Surely, one can have confidence in a universe so grandly complex, so marvellously intricate, so wonderfully consummate. How could all this be some ‘ghastly mistake’ (as more than a few people claim)?
To believe it all to be some ‘sick joke’ (as some other people claim) is preposterous, for such an attitude cuts one off from the perfection of this pure moment of being alive here in this fantastic actual universe.
RICHARD: ‘I’, the thinker, joyfully agree 100% to allowing ‘myself’ to be ‘taken away by the utter fullness of it!’. It is a conscious decision.
RESPONDENT: So the thinker can align/be in harmony with that. That is so simple. And here ‘I’ was looking for a situation where the thinker was at odds with harmony, hence my predicament. You seem to be pointing to the actual possibility for order, yes?
RICHARD: Yes ... order is concordance. Now that ‘I’ know, via direct experience, that ‘I’ can never, ever become perfect or be perfection ... then the only thing ‘I’ can do – the only thing ‘I’ need to do – is to say !YES! so that the already always existing perfection can become apparent (‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’). So when ‘I’ ask (as an open question) ‘what am I here for?’ ... the essential character of the perfection of the infinitude of this universe which born me, is living me and will die me in due course, is enabled by ‘my’ concurrence. ‘I’ give ‘myself’ permission to allow this moment to live me (rather than ‘me’ trying to live in the present) ... and let go the controls.
RESPONDENT: Perhaps you will object that this is the ‘tried and failed’, but the saying ‘you must become as little babes’ seems to apply here. For the magic of youth is just this simple non-gilding of the lily that is this universe without the artifice of the thinker (separate self). It is fullness and freedom, beauty and truth, harmony and order.
RICHARD: Maybe it is suffice to say at this stage that I do stress how essential the pure intent of naiveté is ... yet because ‘naïve’ and ‘gullible’ are so closely linked (via the trusting nature of a child in concert with the lack of knowledge inherent to childhood) in the now-adult mind most peoples initially have difficulty separating the one from another. Perhaps it may be helpful to report that, when I first re-gained naiveté (which is the closest a ‘self’ can approximate to innocence) at age 33 years, I would exclaim to whoever was prepared to listen that ‘it is like being a child again ... but with adult sensibilities’ (naïve but not gullible). I was soon to discover, however, that being child-like is not it – children are not innocent – and that innocence is totally new to anyone’s experience (it is just that a child is more prone to readily allowing the moment to live one, from time-to-time, than a cynical adult is).
Thus the pure intent of naiveté provides the collateral assurance ‘I’ require to safely give ‘myself’ permission to allow this moment to live me (rather than ‘me’ trying to live in the present) and to let go the controls. Yet it is the direct experience itself which is the fundamental factor when it comes to making the curious decision to abandon both one’s present course and that of one’s peers and plunge into the adventure of a lifetime. Vis.:
This is what is important.
RICHARD: When ‘the unlimited fullness of that’ is allowed free rein thought functions at its optimum ... a much fuller than 3-D thought. Thoughts are sparkling ... coruscating.
RESPONDENT: Infused/steeped/in harmony with – the fullness that is, eh?
RICHARD: Oh yes ... fully immersed in an amazing, marvellous, wondrous and magical happening: the meaning of life is brilliantly obvious all around and throughout.
RESPONDENT: Yes. It is funny I once asked you if you were AI, because you have an awakened heart (I realise this is going to create some tongue clicking here).
RICHARD: What happened was that I had a direct experience of actuality in 1980 ... and it was what ‘I’ had been searching for 33 years. When I reverted back to normal in the ‘real world’, ‘I’ knew, with the solid and irrefutable certainty of direct experience, that ‘I’ was standing in the way of the actual being apparent ... and ‘I’ had to go, disappear, and not try to become something ‘better’. That is, ‘I’ just knew that ‘I’ could never, ever become perfect or be perfection. It was flagrantly evident that the only thing ‘I’ could do – the only thing ‘I’ had to do – was to say !YES! so that the already always existing perfection could become apparent. Of course there was a lot of thinking about it all and feeling it out – and discussion with ‘my’ peers who all said it was not possible twenty four hours a day – yet there was an awareness that predominated all the while that disregarded all this thinking and feeling and discussion and which simply and wordlessly said ‘THIS IS IT’ no matter what conclusions and decisions were reached. This utter correctness left no choice – and no choice means no doubt whatsoever – so ‘I’ acted/there was action ... solely upon/because of this direct experience.
If I were to paraphrase/plagiarise I would say, that as a result of this action, ‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it’ ... permanently.
RICHARD: You do realise that if you go all the way into this it will be the end of you, do you not?
RESPONDENT: How would I know that? Who is this you? The thinker who is out of order with that? The thinker who will do anything to avoid dissolution? Please elaborate.
RICHARD: Not just ‘the thinker’ ... everything that you think that you are; everything that you feel that you are; everything that you instinctually know that you are will vanish in the twinkling of an eye. Which means that the grim and glum everyday reality – the ‘real world’ – also disappears.
RESPONDENT: Yes, the slate is cleansed and one is born anew (which means the old not in the way). I take it though, from my vantage point, that one still has memories of the past which can be accessed when thought is used practically.
RICHARD: Yes. I have been here for 53 years and have all my own memories ... I have always been here like this: I have been having a wonderful, marvellous and amazing life for 53 years.
It is this simple: the slate was wiped clean because ‘my’ memories disappeared along with ‘me’ when ‘I’ disappeared.
RICHARD: It is important not to turn the thinker into the villain, an enemy: the thinker is thus one’s greatest ally ... now that this fact is seen.
RESPONDENT: Now you seem to be turning the tables. But, provided thought is acting in harmony, what you say seems to hold water. The divided thinker which assumes separation must go!
RICHARD: Yes ... the ‘divided thinker’ is, in fact, divided against itself ... whilst peoples beat themselves up for not being good enough or for being ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ (or whatever description) they have no chance of ever enabling the ‘fullness of that’. None of this mess is ‘my’ fault ... ‘I’ was born like this. Now that ‘I’ realise this ‘I’ can willingly, cheerfully be in concordance.
RESPONDENT: Yes, suicide is torment induced by the conflicted thinker. I would change your last sentence to read: ‘seeing this, there is cheerful concordance (or harmony)’. ‘I can be in accordance’ may lead a thinker to exert effort to ‘create’ such concordance, which is a false facsimile of the realer than 3-D actuality. It also may give credence to the idea that the thinker, who goes buy ‘I’ can achieve harmony. That would be a misinterpretation, eh?
RICHARD: Indeed ... ‘I’ can never, ever become perfect or be perfection. The only thing ‘I’ can do – the only thing ‘I’ need to do – is to say !YES! so that the already always existing perfection can become apparent (‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’).
RICHARD: An open question is a seminal question: ‘I’ ask the question (what am I here for) in such a way that ‘I’ do not just get a carefully thought-out and reasoned answer and be satisfied with that. ‘I’ want an experiential result ... and ‘I’ keep the question burning in the depths of ‘my’ psyche, discarding any intellectual answers (no matter how accurate) that inevitably pop-up in the course of time. And then it happens as a direct result of keeping the question open.
RESPONDENT: So there must be seriousness and a fatigue of seeking escape?
RICHARD: As the goal is peace and harmony – what I describe as being ‘happy and harmless’ – then in no way will seriousness do the trick. Be sincere, yes – utterly sincere – but seriousness ...?? No way ... life is too much fun!
RESPONDENT: Sincerity is my favourite cup of tea. Great! (it makes sense too).
RESPONDENT: I close with this, Richard, for your particular benefit: [Respondent]: ‘I like your commitment to investigation, empiricism, pragmatism, ACTUAL FACTS’. [Richard]: ‘It is one thing to like another’s commitment to ‘investigation, empiricism, pragmatism, ACTUAL FACTS’ ... and another thing entirely to emulate same’. [endquotes]. Have no fear about my emulating your commitment.
RICHARD: If you had not snipped what immediately followed you would see that it is not my commitment at all I am speaking of:
I have no such commitment – and I did nothing at all as I have been here all along just having a ball – because the necessary altruism is, just as selfism is, a core feature of the passionate identity within ... and not the flesh and blood body.
RESPONDENT: I will do no such thing.
RICHARD: Suit yourself ... it is your life you are living, when all is said and done, and only you get to reap the rewards, or pay the consequences, of any action or inaction you may or may not do.
All I can do is offer suggestions ... what the other does with these suggestions is entirely up to them, of course.
RESPONDENT: I have my OWN commitment to integrity in this investigation, that depends not a whit upon yours.
RICHARD: If I may suggest? Sincerity is the key to unlock one’s innate naiveté, the nourishing of which is essential if the wondrous magic of life itself is to be apparent, which naiveté effortlessly provides the ‘integrity’ you say you have your own commitment to.
Speaking of which ... did you not notice that I said the commitment was a ‘total dedication to global peace and harmony’ (and not the ‘commitment to integrity’ you make it out to be)?
RESPONDENT: If, as time unfolds, your commitment, or anyone else’s should appear less that 100% ...
RICHARD: Again (and put differently for emphasis) my commitment is 0.00%.
RESPONDENT: ... my commitment to doing this investigation with integrity will be unaffected.
RICHARD: So be it ... you stay with your commitment to ‘doing this investigation with integrity’ then, and let other people, who have twigged to the fact that naïveté is the closest that one can come to innocence (which is where integrity lies) whilst remaining a ‘self’, proceed on their way so that the results of your experiment can be assessed for viability against this salient bench mark.
I might add, though, that naïveté does away with all that ‘heavy lifting’ you spoke of in an earlier e-mail. Vis.:
Where you have gleaned this diaphoretic impression from has got me stumped ... here is but one of the many ways I describe the actualism practice:
Or even more specifically to the point of your ‘heavy lifting’ comment:
In short: if it be not either easy (effortless) or fun (enjoyable) then there is something to look at until it is again.
RESPONDENT: And ... at the end of the day (week, month, year), if I have concluded that indeed there is something radically different and radically worthwhile going on here (i.e. a legitimate 3rd alternative able to at long last deliver the goods ... i.e. AF), I will have no trouble, I assure you, in permanently re-adjusting my cognitive maps and models as you, Mr. Peter and Ms. Vineeto have done, regardless of my ultimate judgement of any of the PROMOTERS and their integrity at any given moment.
RICHARD: I wonder why you do not see how you undo your claim to have, not only a background of PCE’s but having had one just recently, when you make comments such as above. For example:
Yet you say now that, at the end of the day, week, month, or year, if you have concluded that indeed there is something radically different and radically worthwhile going on here (that is, a legitimate third alternative, an actual freedom, able to at long last deliver the goods) you will have no trouble, you assure me, in permanently readjusting your cognitive maps and models.
Do you see why I look askance at the other things you have to say? Things like this for instance:
As it is the PCE which convinces – and not any claims I make as my words are designed to precipitate a PCE in the reader (whereupon they can then experience perfection for themselves) so as to not have them believe me or be convinced by the sensibility of any description I offer – I would suggest there is a strong possibility that whatever it is you experienced, both before you ‘re-engaged as an egoic self’ and after disconnecting, it was not a PCE.
Which could explain why you considered that Mr. Douglas Harding [Finding The Self], Ms. Byron Katie [God With God], Mr. Maximilian Sandor [Alienation/Integration Of The Being], and Free Zone [The Beingness-By-Itself] were some places to look to see where an actual freedom from the human condition was already happening because Richard had not yet made an exhaustive investigation of all the other places it might have been happening up until now.
More to the point: if it were indeed a PCE then your contributions to this mailing list would be of an entirely different nature to what they currently are.
RESPONDENT: And finally, just so you and everyone else here knows: I’m very comfortable being proven wrong, about things small or large.
RICHARD: As the only proof worthy of the name, in matters of consciousness, is experiential proof only you can prove yourself wrong.
RESPONDENT: It is a comfort I commend to one and all ...
RICHARD: Oh? Are you really recommending that people should emulate your comfort? If so, why then do you spurn emulation of the commitment to global peace and harmony the identity parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body made all those years ago?
Is it a case of one rule for your advice ... and another rule for my advice?
RESPONDENT: ... one that prevents, and even cures, premature hardening of the orthodoxies.
RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend the basis of your commendation (after 30+ years of having prevented, or even cured, premature hardening of the orthodoxies):
If being ‘settled’ in a variant of Buddhism is not a hardening of the orthodoxies, be it premature or otherwise, then I would like to know what is ... or is there some inscrutable understanding in this deconstructionism method of yours that I am missing?
RESPONDENT: Richard, you are right. I am wrong. This is one of those occasions when I am happy to be an ass. I am my feelings, my feelings are me. And most importantly: yes, I can choose how I feel.
This is how I’m grokking it now: Experiencing myself/ thinking of myself as an entity who has feelings is indicative of being in a mildly dissociative state. The ‘normal’ state is mildly dissociative, right?
RICHARD: It is indeed ... for instance:
RESPONDENT: From that mildly dissociated state, feelings are something that happen, something that I react to. The dissociated ‘I’ is indeed quite powerless to reach in and change the feeling substrate because that ‘I’ is insubstantial; it is a cluster of images/ ideals/ identifying tokens etc, whereas feelings (although not actual) constitute the real, organic, living ‘being’ itself. So a mildly dissociated person trying to change an underlying feeling state is roughly analogous to a shadow trying to exert physical force upon a real-world object. And because I am identified with the one who is trying to exert this force, and because this force is quite ineffectual, it generates frustration, and eventually exasperation and anger.
RICHARD: To the point of it escalating, on occasion, into that ‘screaming feedback loop’ which was such an issue for you in May-June this year (2005), eh?
RESPONDENT: (I could, and did for a while, get relief from this frustration by being further dissociated, less inclined to try to change anything, more inclined to just happily accept whatever must be).
RICHARD: And that method – gaining relief by being further dissociated/ by not changing anything/ by accepting whatever must be – is, in a nutshell, the essence of the religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical approach to the human condition/ the ills of humankind.
RESPONDENT: But if I understand that I am this whole package, the whole feeling being, as opposed to identifying with just the fragment of self who is assumed to have feelings, then choosing the way I feel is equivalent to simply OPTING TO BE A DIFFERENT WAY at this moment in time. And that is a different ball-game altogether. That is do-able. That is easy!
RICHARD: It is indeed easy ... and, when the choice to give felicity/ innocuity a go becomes (via its ensuing paradigmatical change) the default position, as it were, opting to be a different way at this moment is then as simple as letting go of whatever other way of being may have inadvertently crept in under the radar, so to speak, and !Hey Presto! happiness/ harmlessness appears of its own accord.
And that happiness/ harmlessness readily enables a straight-forward sussing out of where, when, how, why – and what for – that other way of being came about.
RESPONDENT: Instead of paying attention to feelings, trying to somehow induce (or allow or facilitate) felicitous ones and avoid other ones, I can just choose to BE different in the way I approach the living of this moment. IOW, feeling-as-‘me’ and ‘me’-as-feeling are not passive and helpless like they are in a dissociative state. A feeling being isn’t powerless to influence itself, but a dissociated fragment thereof is quite powerless.
RICHARD: Sometimes to the point of being so powerless that submission/ surrender becomes the only option.
RESPONDENT: In practical terms this insight is only about 40 minutes old, so I’m not totally sure about all the details ... and I hope I’ve expressed it in a way that is comprehensible. I would appreciate some feedback here because if this is roughly how it works, and it seems to be so far, it would explain a lot.
Any comments welcome.
RICHARD: Just this: seeing the fact (that ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’/ that it is ‘my’ choice as to how ‘I’ experience this moment) enables sincerity, as to be in accord with the fact/ being aligned with factuality/ staying true to facticity is what being sincere is (being authentic/ guileless, genuine/ artless, straightforward/ ingenuous), and to be sincere is to be the key which unlocks naiveté ... an aspect of oneself locked away in childhood through ridicule, derision, and so on, which one has dared not to resurrect for fear of appearing foolish, a simpleton.
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.