Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

RESPONDENT: What was it exactly that brought about the death which lead to the ability to live in a veritable garden of eden?

RICHARD: In late September 1992 a woman, who had been coming to see me on and off for some time, earnestly asked that she be taken on as a disciple ... she seriously wished me to be her master. I was astounded, for I had been at pains to explain that I was not interested in being anyone’s master, for I considered the entire system of the master-disciple relationship, with its attendant surrender, trust, worship and obedience, to be not only insidious, but pernicious as in regards to another person’s freedom. I declined, of course, yet I had to question just what I was ‘putting out’ to people to precipitate such a request. What was my part in all this? What was I doing – indeed what was I being – to encourage another to consider taking this step? I had been dismantling various aspects of the make-up of the Altered State Of Consciousness that I was living in – a state of Spiritual Enlightenment that I called Absolute Freedom – and had thought myself to be virtually free of all that hocus-pocus that goes on in the name of freedom. I asked myself what turned out to be a seminal question:

‘What am I in relation to other people?’

I asked the question in such a way so that I would not get a carefully thought-out and reasoned answer. I wanted an experiential result ... and I kept the question burning in the depths of my psyche, discarding any intellectual answers that inevitably popped-up in the course of the next five or six weeks. And then it happened as a direct result of keeping the question open – which is another story – thus these days I empirically know what I am in relation to other people: I am not an ‘Enlightened Master’ sitting in an exalted position ... and what a relief that is. I am a fellow human being, who happens to live in a condition of perfection and purity, offering my experience to whomsoever is interested.

What they do with this information is their business.

IRENE to Vineeto: You [have] already made-up [your] mind about me. Namely: that I must be wrong because I have walked away from Richard’s (and my!) method, like all the other people who ‘fled over the horizon’. Yet I did not flee, but I saw through Richard’s solution to mankind, as I now see it as deviating from our original goal: not for some of us but for all of us.

RICHARD: I would be very interested as to how you can say that actual freedom is only for ‘some of us’ and not for anybody and everyone. Actual freedom works in the market place ... there is no meditating in silence or living in a monastery shut away from the world. There are no celibacy or obedience requirements. There are no dietary demands or daily regimes of exercise. No one is excluded by age or racial or gender origins. There are no prescribed books to study or courses to follow or therapies to undergo. There are no fees to pay or any clique to join ... there are no rules at all. I have no plan whatsoever ... there is no authority here in charge of a hierarchical organisation. (The Actual Freedom Trust is simply a statutory legal body that four nominal directors operate under for sensible commercial reasons). We are all exploring life together.

This is my position: we are all fellow human beings who find ourselves here in the world as it was when we were born. We find war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and corruption to be endemic ... we notice that it is intrinsic to the human condition ... we set out to discover why this is so. We find sadness, loneliness, sorrow, grief, depression and suicide to be a global incidence ... and we gather that it is also inherent to the human condition ... and we want to know why. We report to each other as to the nature of our discoveries for we are all well-meaning and seek to find a way out of this mess that we have landed in. Whether one believes in re-incarnation or not, we are all living this particular life for the very first time, and we wish to make sense of it. It is a challenge and the adventure of a life-time to enquire and to uncover, to seek and to find, to explore and to discover. All this being alive business is actually happening and we are totally involved in living it out ... whether we take the back seat or not, we are all still doing it.

I, for one, am not taking the back seat.

IRENE to Vineeto: I can tell you that the reason [being ‘teacherish’ and ‘like a missionary’] was that it was actually not satisfying enough for me to have all that pleasure and delight for the two of us at the cost of all other people we came in contact with who felt constantly attacked.

RICHARD: Hmm ... this is the second time that you use the word ‘attack’. Shall we examine the implications? To start the ball rolling on a discussion, I would propose that it is the beliefs, values, principles, ideals, traditions, customs, mores, ethics, morals and so on that are being ‘attacked’ ... and relentlessly so. It is only to the degree that the person identifies with these ever-failing coping-methods that they feel personally attacked. As I put it in the introduction to ‘Richard’s Journal’: ‘The Actual Freedom Trust has published this semi-autobiographical journal that calmly yet trenchantly explicates just what has been going wrong and what can be freely and happily done to correct all the ills of humankind. It will be seen that the writing is both heretical and iconoclastic ... a fact that I make no apology for. The wars and rapes and murders and tortures and corruptions and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides that afflict this globe are far too serious a matter to deal with for me to spend time in mincing words’.

I am no ‘Gentle Jesus meek and mild’ – or whatever inanity it is that the myth says – and there is no ‘turning the other cheek’ here. There have been 160,000,000 people killed in wars this century alone ... now that is where the phrase ‘constantly attacked’ actually means something.

IRENE to Vineeto: Perhaps you could ask yourselves: why do most people lose interest in spending time in our company?

RICHARD: So as to avoid speculating, I can only go by what some people say that I have asked this question to. Generally they say that they do not wish to be happy and harmless ... that they would rather stay being ‘me’. As I point out that being ‘me’ is the sole cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides ... they usually stay away in droves.

RESPONDENT: Is your point then that ‘my ego’ and anybody else’s ego are virtually identical (with only technical differences that are manifested as individual personalities of people).

RICHARD: Not specifically the ego but the identity as a whole ... ‘me’ at the core of one’s ‘being’ is the rudimentary animal self common to all sentient beings. That is, ‘being’ itself is the ancient-most of the ancient-most ... which is why it is said by some (Zen Buddhists) upon rediscovering it to be one’s ‘original face’. It gives rise to the cherished feeling of ‘oneness’ with all of life.

There is that truism that states: ‘We are all unique’. I say ‘truism’ deliberately, for I am immediately reminded of that scene in ‘The Life Of Brian’ where Brian addresses the crowd saying: ‘You are all individuals’. The crowd roars back in unison: ‘We are all individuals’. Down the back a lone voice cries out: ‘I’m not!’

Of course, the Monty Python crew were making a social comment, when they wrote that scene, about the conditioned identity of the average citizen when it comes to following a spiritual leader, but one can consider whether it holds well for humankind at large. Human beings are all born with the same basic instincts and, no matter which culture one was socialised into being a member of, all peoples throughout the world have the same emotions and passions. Anger and forbearance, for instance, is anger and forbearance wherever it lives. There is no difference at root between English anger and forbearance and American anger and forbearance and African anger and forbearance and so on. Or love and hatred, enmity and alliance, jealousy and acceptance ... whatever the emotion or passion may be, they all have a global incidence.

RESPONDENT: If my ‘I’ and another person’s ‘I’ are basically identical then ‘I’ am not much different from any man who has lived in the past or will live in the future.

RICHARD: Yes, what is so different about each and everybody’s cerebral energisation ... like imagination, conceptualisation, hypothesising, believing and so forth? Once again, ubiquitous in its occurrence. And psychic phenomena, like intuition, prescience, clairvoyance, telepathy, divination, has a world-wide correspondence that is almost uncanny in its similitude. So, apart from cosmetic cultural variations upon the theme, where in all this is one’s cherished uniqueness? It would appear that there is indeed no substantial difference between one person and the next. The Human Condition is universal in its spread.

Can one conclude that there is no actual difference – other than superficialities – between one person and another?

RESPONDENT: I think the embarrassed way Richard deals with No. 12 is not at all helpful for both of them! ... smile ...

RICHARD: I might point out that on more than a few occasions I sincerely suggested a pause to reconsider the current course of action ... if a person choses to ignore my suggestions that the tack they are taking is going to make them look foolish in public then any ‘embarrassed way’ they thus experience themselves to be in is a consequence ... and a consequence which is the direct result of their own actions. Just dismissing cause and effect as linearity does not make it go away.

And so the silliness plays itself out until the player acknowledges their own amenability.

RESPONDENT: But is it the interesting point?

RICHARD: It is but one of the many interesting points that anyone may learn from ... this is the human condition in action being played-out before your very eyes.

RESPONDENT: To my point of view, the interesting point is more to discover if Richard’s series of contradictions is linked or not with his specific state. If it is not linked, it would show that Richard is a crook, pretending to be what he is not. If it is linked, it would show that actual freedom is not such a great state as soon as you need to deal with people.

RICHARD: Although first you do need to establish this ‘series of contradictions’ eh? A conclusion drawn from a false premise is bound to be faulty any day of the week.

RESPONDENT: Let’s have a look to this series of contradictions: Richard says: ‘I like everybody’ ...but does he like No. 12?

RICHARD: But what is it about the word ‘everybody’ you do not comprehend? It means that I like every man, woman and child on this planet ... irregardless of whatever mischief they get up to as a result of being driven by the human condition to feel, think, say or do things that they otherwise would not. Everybody, generally speaking, is well-meaning ... why would I hold it against them that they are a victim of their DNA? This is the very reason that I write; this is why The Actual Freedom Web Page exists; this is why The Actual Freedom Mailing List was established.

Because it is possible to be free of the instinctual passions which cripple intelligence.

RESPONDENT: Richard says: ‘I am totally fulfilled and utterly satisfied each moment again’ ... which means he likes everything, but maybe not some time spent having coffee with No. 12?

RICHARD: Yet this is but speculation on your part as I specifically stated that my social calendar was fully booked as it was. I provided many, many clearly stated reasons ... but eventually took a break from copy-pasting them as, somewhere along the line, a person does need to actually read what I have to say or they will continue to proceed along their ‘embarrassed way’ for ever and a day.

May I ask? Did you read all what I wrote in this thread before sending this E-Mail?

RESPONDENT: And apart from that, it is good to investigate about pointless or not pointless: once in the Actual Being Here and Now, does the stuff of life still have ‘points’? In this respect, why does the hell Richard react saying some possibilities are pointless, when all what happens (not what can happen) is perfect?

RICHARD: The last time I looked ‘all what happens’ for maybe 6.0 billion peoples was far, far from perfect. How will I be doing them a favour through enabling or facilitating their decision to continue suffering?

RESPONDENT: For me, actual freedom is breathe the here and now, and let it extend.

RICHARD: Okay ... and I chose the internet to share my discovery of peace-on-earth with my fellow human beings ... to ‘let it extend’ all over the globe.

RESPONDENT: Holding it, commenting it, expecting it, rejecting it, making choices and priorities, is not at all actual freedom, not true? But maybe I am just playing mind games and I have not at all understood what is Actually Being Here and Now!

RICHARD: I have been intimately and actively involved – meaning a hands-on approach – in the whole consciousness-study activity for twenty years now. In that time I have interacted with many, many people likewise engaged ... and it is a fascinating exploration. And there have been several times where someone, who has but half-listened to what I have to say, has gone off half-cocked into an enhanced or enlarged or extended state of consciousness in which, believing themselves to be thus awakened or illumined or enlightened or whatever, they then seek confirmation and/or recognition and/or accreditation from me. Sometimes the delusion is so grandiose that the person feels that they have gone beyond or have surpassed in some way and then turn it all around and proceed to tell me (or start teaching me) where I have gone agley. Invariably they call on the ‘Tried and True’ to bolster their insistence that I take notice of their atavistic wisdom ... until my consistent pointing out of facts either brings them back to their senses or they depart for some gullible pastures.

This is all par for the course as long as there are people who will not listen with both ears.

Being actually free from the human condition means that I am under no obligation whatsoever to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein I cannot live a normal lifestyle ... and this is what some peoples will not listen to. I fully enjoy my current lifestyle, as it is, totally, completely, utterly. I fully enjoy my own company; I fully enjoy the company of a choice companion; I fully enjoy the company of select associates; I fully enjoy all current associations ... my social calendar is thus fully booked out by simply living. To be fully able to freely live a normal lifestyle in a seaside village is why I set out to become free of the human condition all those years ago. And this is what an actual freedom from the human condition is ... it is right here in the market place.

The way to freely live a normal life is now available for all 6.0 billion people.

RESPONDENT: After ‘I’, (No. 7), am dead, with all my individual experiences and memories disappearing, my individual sense of time will also stop.

RICHARD: Your individual sense of everything (not only time) will cease absolutely ... death is the end. Finish. Oblivion.

RESPONDENT: It is wonderful that death is the end. The universe physical forces will create a new conscious ‘I’ to enjoy this life. There is responsibility for the coming ‘I’s, our future ‘myselves’.

RICHARD: Maybe an exchange I had with another some time back may be of interest? Vis:

• [Respondent]: ‘The species goes on unconsciously, there is no need for ‘apperception’ as you call it. Nature takes care of it through the reproduction instinct, the auto-preservation instinct, hunger for food, drink ... the species goes on like any other animal species. For man who live by these instincts alone, meaning must be searched ‘outside’, there is need to become, to achieve, to win, to have more etc. I will find out that meaning is ‘this’, I don’t need the ‘more’. The more is for the one’s living from that centre. Now, the meaning is being lived, and I don’t participate in the current that takes care of the preservation of the species. The species will continue through the ‘crowds’. I will now participate in something totally different. The species will eventually make it, or not’.

• [Richard]: Just look at the tone you wrote with. Vis.: ‘Now, the meaning is being lived, and I don’t participate in the current that takes care of the preservation of the species. The species will continue through the ‘crowds’. I will now participate in something totally different. The species will eventually make it, or not’. There is no such thing as ‘the species’ ... there is only flesh and blood human beings ... my fellow human being ... and I wish for each and everyone of us to ‘make it’ ... and then ‘the species’ will continue through happy and harmless human beings on the verdant paradise this planet earth is. Whereas ‘the species’ that you refer to that will continue through ‘the crowds’ is a malicious and sorrowful species ... is this what you wish for your future fellow human beings? Another 160,000,000 killed in wars this coming century?

It is for such self-centred, uncaring and inconsiderate attitudes like this that I have only ever wished, in these latter years, for the words and writings of an actual freedom and a virtual freedom to exist in the world so that they are available long after I am dead – and after those peoples writing here today are no longer – so that a third alternative is available for anyone who comes across them in any indeterminate future to draw affirmation and confirmation from.

RICHARD: That is correct. Just look at the development of the Greek understanding that I posted instead of rushing off to Elizabethan Faires with it. They were able to predict certain occurrences without fully understanding them. (‘Understanding’ according to a heliocentric geometric model, that is. Nowadays one is supposed to ‘understand’ according to a ‘space-time continuum’ that bends back upon itself).

It is all good fun. Each generation thinks that they know fully because they are modern. (‘Modern Times’ is only where you live. Everybody who has ever lived, when they were alive, lived in the ‘Modern Era’).

RESPONDENT: Were they autistic? Idiot’s Savants? How did they do this strange thing? It’s like Rain Man winning at blackjack but not knowing what gambling really is. How did they create arithmetic methods of the motions of stars sufficiently good for yearly predictions of lunar events, equinoxes, solstices, helical rising of stars, but fail to notice that some stars are circumpolar, and other stars are not? That the moon doesn’t actually show the same face all night long? That the stars on the meridian will set when the rising stars reach the meridian, invariably? You really believe these walking human calculators had no idea of what they were spending their lives studying and measuring, the basic motions of the Earth, daily rotation, monthly revolution, and yearly revolution.

RICHARD: You are trying to understand how people thought and felt in another era from your Twentieth Century paradigm. They experienced a different world-view ... as I wrote in another post. One will never be able to see the world through their eyes no matter how much one studies the archaeological records and translates and re-translates their language. They are dead ... and their world-view experience of themselves died with them.

For example: some Australian Aborigines two hundred years ago counted ‘one’, ‘two’, ‘plenty’ (in their language) and all the while they had ten fingers. Yet there were no words for three through to ten. I, for one, cannot comprehend this because of my Twentieth Century Caucasian mind-set. Modern day Aboriginals cannot throw any light onto this because they have a modern day understanding. Human development is a fascinating study.

RESPONDENT: You have mentioned the Australian Aborigines twice, once you said, ‘When he showed them the drawings and paintings – even photographs – that he had done of them they could not see anything recognisable ... and he was a realistic artist of considerable skill. It took him a while to get one of them – a child – to see the illusion of three-dimensionality on paper and canvas. So according to you, the Aborigines of 200 years ago ‘counted ‘one’, ‘two’, ‘plenty’ in their language’ and couldn’t see anything recognisable in photos and drawings of themselves shown to them only 25 years ago. I believe that you are perpetuating myths regarding the Australian Aborigines, which are not realistic and have a racial derivation. I do not believe you are describing reality, at best a great distortion of Aboriginal Culture and understanding.

RICHARD: You may believe whatever you like, but it will not make it so. I am not ‘perpetuating myths regarding the Australian Aborigines’, I am referring to the findings of field-work done by enterprising individuals over the last two hundred years. The Australian Aboriginal way of life has thrown much light upon all human development down through the ages ... for those who are not fussed about being politically correct. It is peoples like yourself who would put a halt to any understanding by hurling accusations of ‘racial’ at anyone independently energetic enough – and having a readiness to undertake investigation – to get off their backside and actually do something about understanding the human condition. You would have us all live in the dark ages with your reverence of the wisdom of the ancients. They were not happy and harmless – they were not free of sorrow and malice – thus there never has been a Golden Age wherein all was blithesome and benign anywhere in human history. The wisdom of the ancients could be written in capital letters on the point of a pin ... and there would still be room left over for the period.

RESPONDENT: Since you wrote your stuff I have been taking a look at web sites regarding Australian Aboriginal Art and Culture. I saw lot’s of photographs of Australian Aboriginal artists today, most of whom looked an average of age 60, so I guess they were young adults when that little girl supposedly taught them the picture magic courtesy of your benevolent godlike friend the ‘Swiss Artist’. They seem to have come a long way in 25 years from not being able to comprehend a photograph to putting up web pages on the Internet about their Art, although I don’t recall seeing any counters on the web pages since you have explained that they have a little linguistic problem with numbers greater than 3.

RICHARD: This paragraph – like the seventeen E-Mails of yours that follow – shows a startling lack of understanding. For example: there are Aboriginal artists earning a living today making ceramics decorated in the ‘traditional style’ of ancient Aboriginal art ... yet the Aboriginal culture never discovered pottery until the arrival of the Europeans. They never painted in three-dimensional illusion with acrylics on canvas either, until it was shown to them by Western artists ... be they ‘Swiss Artists’ or otherwise. As for all your sneering comments about ‘picture magic’ and ‘godlike artists’ (not to mention ‘little dark people’ and ‘offerings of fruit and young women’ in another post) ... methinks you have been watching too many Hollywood Tarzan movies.

Come into the nineties, and stop living in the past.

RESPONDENT: Redundant diatribe about metaphysics and the suffering millions snipped.

RICHARD: It is entirely permissible to snip without comment ... but since you have commented, shall we look at what your comment reveals? You said ‘diatribe about (...) the suffering millions’ ... do you not care about your fellow human? Does it not sink in that 100,000,000 people have been killed in wars this century alone? Not to mention the desolation and grief engendered among the survivors? And ‘diatribe about metaphysics’? At the very moment that I am writing this, many people, somewhere on this fair earth of ours, are being killed or suffering badly because of the ‘metaphysical’. This is actually happening; it is not an illusion, a dream, a play of the imagination or a fantasy. It is physically happening.

You may very well say: ‘redundant diatribe about metaphysics and the suffering millions’ But try saying that to the Buddhist woman who is being raped by a Christian soldier; try saying that to the Hindu mother whose son has been brutally tortured by Muslim terrorists; try saying that to a Jewish grandmother whose entire family has been wiped out by pious people fervently believing in ‘certain words and symbols’; try saying that to a Taoist girl whose life has been violated and ruined by Shinto soldiers; try saying that a Zen monk whose whole city has been razed by an atomic explosion!

After my experience in a war-torn foreign country I wished to do something constructive with my life; I wished to rid myself, personally, of the ‘human nature’ which all people say can not be changed ... which I did successfully eliminate ... and facilitate the self-same removal in anyone else dedicated to a genuine peace on earth. To become happy and harmless one must extirpate both malice and sorrow, which stem from the entity within ... sense of identity and self that has a parasitical life inside the flesh and blood body. Beliefs, and the act of believing itself, sustains and feeds this monstrous psychic entity within that seeks the ‘something’ that is metaphysical. And those people who somehow accomplish the attainment of ‘that which is sacred, holy’ then go around propagating a specious belief system that can only perpetuate all the abominable suffering that humankind has had to endure up until now.

RESPONDENT: (best wishes from No. 10, who lives under a 2000 power microscope of himself 100% of the time).

RICHARD: Good. With such discerning power as that we should be able to proceed famously, non?

RESPONDENT: Proceed with what Richard?

RICHARD: Well, silly me kind of assumed, because you were writing on a Mailing List purporting to be dedicated to the exploration of the appalling mess that is the human condition, that you might actually participate in an exploration. I guess not, eh? Are love and compassion and beauty sacrosanct after all?

RESPONDENT: Perhaps with your constant need to look smart?

RICHARD: No ... I simply wish for my fellow human being to be happy and harmless; to be freed of the malice and sorrow that they nurse in their bosom because all of the Saints and the Sages, the Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours have all instructed them to revere love and compassion ... and without malice and sorrow to sublimate and transcend (transcend not eliminate) Love Agapé and Divine Compassion are stillborn.

If you consider that I am being smart just because I actually care about peace-on-earth, then no wonder there are so many wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides.

RESPONDENT: Or your need to look Intelligent?

RICHARD: As I am on record as saying again and again that there is no ‘Intelligence’ this is just a silly statement.

RESPONDENT: Or your need to control?

RICHARD: My ‘need to control’ what?

RESPONDENT: All of your messages I have read are you saying the same thing which is HEY look at ME I am the authority!!

RICHARD: May I ask? Why this hang-up about authority? If I wish to learn to play the piano, I go to an expert piano-player ... I do not invent piano-playing all over again from the beginning. There are two meanings to the word ‘authority’ and the one that causes all the troubles is the one connected with power. (The power of the authority to enforce obedience; the power of the authority to enforce moral or legal judgements; the power of the authority to command or give the final decision; the power of the authority to control; the power of the authority of a governing body; the power of an authoritative holy book; the power of the authority to inspire belief and so on). The second – less used – meaning is: an expert on a particular subject.

Because I live in an actual freedom twenty four hours a day, I am automatically an expert about what it is like to experience freedom from the Human Condition. I have no power – or powers – whatsoever. It is very simple to be an expert on actual freedom ... one has but to live it and report to others from this on-going experience of being here now. (Expert as in specialist, professional, virtuoso ... or being experienced, proficient, able, accomplished, apt, competent and so on).

I freely acknowledge – and delight in – my expertise on all matters pertaining to actual freedom and spiritual enlightenment. This expertise is drawn out of my personal experience on a day-to-day basis, for the last eighteen years ... twenty four hours a day. If you wish to maintain that this makes me an ‘authority’ as in the spiritual meaning of the word ‘master’ then you are entirely missing the point of all I have said, written and demonstrated.

*

RICHARD: You do not mean a ‘real’ love, compassion, intelligence and truth (as in cognitive, affective or sensate) but the ‘real real’ Love, Compassion, Intelligence and Truth of a metaphysical, eternal (bodiless) transcendent ‘being’ that takes the place of the ‘old consciousness’ when a happening born out of ignorance occurs? In other words, you allowed an unknown bodiless entity to possess you 19 years ago. And what I get is that your ‘Transformation’ is the same-same as the ‘Tried and Failed’ mystical ‘Enlightenment’ with its ever unfulfillable pledge of a peace on earth ... unfulfillable because its ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ is a bodiless peace. Were you sucked in by the promise of a spurious post-mortem reward too?

RESPONDENT: I wonder Richard if you see if you can beat everyone you speak with?

RICHARD: Oh, there is no ‘if’ about it ... I already know that I can do that as I have had years of experience at dealing with recalcitrant egos. That is not why I am writing ... these days I am having the time of my life quizzing compliant souls ... bodiless entities, in other words. It is called ‘running the gauntlet of peer review’.

RESPONDENT: Hum Richard, rather than review, why not re-new?

RICHARD: Because ‘running the gauntlet of peer review’ is what happens when someone announces that they have discovered the ‘Secret To Life’ (by whatever name). You would have to be past being just ignorant and have headed well into being stupid if you fondly imagine that peoples will take what you say on blind faith and/or trust and leap energetically into ‘renewing’ themselves on your say-so (especially as the most obvious result so far is the ability to give forth of only infinitesimal snippets of information).

Are we not fellow human beings who find ourselves here in this world as it was when we arrived ... a mess? And do we not all seek to find a way through this mess ... and share our findings with one another? And if one has ‘got it wrong’ is it not beneficial that someone else will point that out to one? One can benefit from such interaction as much as the other ... we all benefit. Speaking personally, I make no secret of the fact that I consider that I have discovered the ‘Secret To Life’ and I welcome rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion and invite people to either agree or disagree (those who are neutral on the subject will just ignore it). I have been doing this for eighteen years now and have had the full gamut of scorn and derision and ridicule and flattery and gratitude and compliments ... and indifference. But I would not be where I am now if I had kept it all to myself. All those people who over those years pointed out flaws in my then ‘wisdom’ aided me immensely as far as I am concerned.

Why do you want to be treated differently?

RESPONDENT No. 21: See, thought, with its presumptive nature, being puffed up with its own importance, cannot fathom that it has no part in intelligence. Think about it. Consider, possibly, that none of us is intelligent.

RESPONDENT No. 23: Us, as many human beings comprising mankind or a group of posters in this list, is a perception of thought. Action driven by this perception – Konrad’s economic theory, Richard’s one-to-one sincere and candid conversation of redemption, and your self-correction attitude – is delusion. Just unintelligent. To see this, is intelligence.

RESPONDENT: If there is a fragmentation of many conflicting parts, there is a need for a central coordinating part to act in the best interest of the group. If the underlying unity of the parts is uncovered, there is no longer a need for a governing centre and it falls away without effort to remove it.

RICHARD: As far as I am concerned, the underlying unity already exists. It is that we are all fellow human beings. Finding ourselves born into this mess that is human relationship, we seek to understand ourselves and each other and thus be free of it once and for all. We share our discoveries with each other, for we are all well-meaning and wish only for the best.

RESPONDENT: If the many are reduced to one, what is the one reduced to ?

RICHARD: When it is understood that the one is the epitome of the many and that ‘I’ am the ‘many’ and the ‘many’ is ‘me’ ... ‘I’ self-immolate at the core of ‘being’. Then I am this material universe’s infinitude experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being.

A desirable side-effect is peace-on-earth.

RICHARD: Rather, ‘you’ exist only in relationship and clear seeing of that relationship is the beginning of the end of ‘me’ and thus all relationship.

RESPONDENT: Would you expand on what you mean by relationship in this context?

RICHARD: Relationship is being and belonging. One is affirmed, supported and encouraged to continue to be a someone – a ‘being’ – via relationship ... whether belonging is flattering or insulting; whether it is loving or hating; whether it is life-supportive or life-threatening.

RESPONDENT: ‘You’ are writing messages in response to the messages of others .

RICHARD: This flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware is reading and writing ... no ‘me’ is required at all. The species of the same genus recognise species of the same ilk ... we are fellow human beings. No sentiment – let alone mawkishness – is needed to interact.

RESPONDENT: In terms of activity, you exist only in relationship to that with which you interact: other people, animals, the environment, or thoughts, feelings and sensations that arise and are observed.

RICHARD: This flesh and blood body exists regardless of whether interaction takes place or not ... either extrinsic or intrinsic (like in deep sleep). Except that there are no feelings whatsoever ... there is physical sensation only with thought operating when required by the circumstances. There is no ‘I’ as a ‘thinker or ‘me’ as a ‘feeler’. Thus my awareness of being here as this flesh and blood body is that I am these on-going physical sensations ... rather than a ‘me’ having them.

RESPONDENT: The centre that is identified as ‘me’ may drop away and only then is there an actual connectedness rather than relating to and through images. This is understood through direct experience.

RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have no connectedness – actual or otherwise – as there is no ‘me’ to be connected. Connection is affective ... which is why ‘vibes’ can be picked up by another similarly afflicted. I cannot receive – or transmit – any ‘vibes’ at all ... hence nobody ever offers physical harm. Verbal abuse very rarely happens (in face to face interactions) and when it does it falls flat on the floor for want of a receiver. The other then stops doing it in puzzlement ... to be followed by a growing delight in finding a fellow human being free of any of the nonsense that epitomises the normal human interaction called ‘relationship’.

*

RESPONDENT: And [what is self-centred is] that by my effort I am free and now would teach others to be free if they can have nerves of steel, i.e.: have my fine qualities.

RICHARD: What would you have me do? Keep my mouth shut? That is, I can discover something that no one else has found – as far as I have been able to ascertain – that eliminates the cause of all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide ... but I am not to pass this information on to my fellow human beings to do with as they will? Would it not be self-centred – selfish – to keep it to myself?

RESPONDENT: That is self-aggrandisement isn’t it?

RICHARD: I like people ... and I care for my fellow human being. I am simply passing on my experience of life. What they do with this information is their business. There is no need in me to do this because I have no problems whatsoever. Why I do it is because other people tell me that they are suffering so I explain how I ended suffering in myself. One of the triggers that started me on this voyage into the psyche was the realisation that human beings are driven to kill their fellow human beings ... and I was one of them. Now I am not ... and I share that what triggered me because it may trigger them.

RICHARD: Succinct means concise, pithy, to the point. I was amused by the use of the word ‘succinct’ when seen in the context of who made the request, that is all ... and I capitalised on it. I happen to like the English language, you see.

RESPONDENT: You may like to read the English language, but it is much more fun to read people. The English language is a tool which is used to ‘read’ others or things. Perhaps this is what you are not reading, whilst being ‘hung up’ on just reading the words. Her posts may be abstruse in the sense of ‘difficult to understand’ in the way she puts her words together, but in no way are they concealing her. I feel as though I know her from reading her posts because she has been very open, vulnerable, and has shared her ‘self’ with everyone.

RICHARD: Golly ... what can I say? Apparently I am ‘hung up’ on ‘just reading words’ ... yet that is all there is to read. I do not – and can not – ‘read’ people ... that is called forming an image about the other. The ‘image-maker’ has vanished out of me.

The humour was in the writing style – the words themselves as arranged together – and not in poking fun at the (unknown) person writing them. My style had just been accurately dubbed ‘compressed format’ – which I found humorous because it is – and I extended this humour to include another person’s style, which by no stretch of the imagination could be called ‘succinct’.

It’s no big deal ... humour is just finding something funny.

RESPONDENT: And while I’m ‘reading you’ in your posts, I’ll comment some of the others, if you don’t mind. [Richard wrote]: ‘Apperceptive thought is the wide and wondrous mechanism that enables one to be here – fully here – at this moment in time and this place in space’. [endquote]. My dictionary gives the meaning of apperception as: 1. ‘introspection or self consciousness’, and 2. ‘The process of understanding something perceived in terms of previous experience’. Apperception, according to my dictionary’s meaning, means merely that memory is in operation, and how can memory possibly understand the moment. It cannot. Memory, in fact, stands in place of the present moment.

RICHARD: Now herein is a prime example of the danger in ‘reading’ people – forming an image – and the silliness in so doing. Your dictionary is not the only dictionary in the world; there are others which are more comprehensive. For example, the Oxford Dictionary, out of which I drew this meaning of the word apperception: ‘the mind’s perception of itself’. This is the third meaning of the word ... the two you quoted above are also in the Oxford Dictionary. (I also use a Webster’s Merriam which, like yours, only gives the first two meanings). The general meaning of apperception is: ‘how things are represented in consciousness’. For those who can remember how thinking happened of its own accord during a PCE in a peak experience, the third meaning is at once obvious and evident. Apperceptive awareness – this body being conscious without an ‘I’ in any way, shape or form – has a global occurrence ... it is universal in its scope. It is just that most people either forget about their PCE – for there is no emotional ‘I’ present to record the moment on its affective ‘tape-recorder’ – or they interpret the experience according to their culture’s icons.

RESPONDENT: Are you the Dr. Kovorkian of the psyche? If so, please send more further instructions.

RICHARD: I like your analogy. I take particular note that Dr. Kovorkian only provided the way ... the recipient does the actual deed. Nobody, but nobody can set you free other than yourself. This fail-safe mechanism is an example of how perfect and pure this universe actually is. It is entirely up to you to seek and to find; to explore and uncover; to investigate and discover ... and these actions are the very stuff of life!

However, it is even more fun to go hand-in-hand with a fellow human being ... it is actual intimacy in action.

It is the most stimulating adventure of a lifetime to embark upon a voyage into one’s own psyche. Discovering the source of the Nile or climbing Mount Everest – or whatever physical venture – pales into insignificance when compared to the thrill of finding out about life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being. I am having so much fun ... those middle-aged or elderly people who bemoan their ‘lost youth’ and wish to be twenty-one again leave me astonished. Back then I was – basically – lost, lonely, frightened and confused. Accordingly, I set out on what was to become the most marvellous escapade possible. As soon as I realised that there was nobody stopping me but myself – that nobody had to give me permission but myself – that realisation became an actualisation, and I was free to inquire, to seek, to investigate and to explore; I was free to encounter, to uncover, to discover ... and to finally find the ‘Secret to life’ (or whatever one’s quest may be called).

I have been talking with people about these matters for eighteen years now ... with many, many people. People are basically the same wherever they live, whatever their culture. Everybody suffers from sorrow and malice, with its attendant love and hate, compassion and anger, fear and trust, aggression and pacifism and so on and so on. It is a situation common to all human beings; it is not a Western problem nor an Eastern problem, it is a world-wide phenomenon. The West may be dealing with it in its own way and the East its way – and be currently borrowing from each others ‘understanding’ – yet the situation is fundamentally identical. All humans are swept up in the same trap and they do not seem to be able to get out of it. This has been going on for aeons. What is one to do about it? Can one, a normal human being, dedicate one’s life to unearthing and solving the ‘Mystery of Life’? Will one dare to venture into unknown territory? Will one devote oneself to becoming totally free of sorrow and malice? Will one become, for the first time, happy and harmless? When one sees the appalling misery and utter danger that lies in remaining ‘I’ and ‘me’, the psychological and psychic entities within the body, there is only one response ... immediate and irrevocable action. With ‘I’ and ‘me’ extirpated, then – and only then – is there actual peace-on-earth. And this provides the possibility of a global peace ... not that that matters all that much when one is autonomous.

Besides, everyone has the right to live their life as they see fit.

*

RICHARD: I have been examined by two accredited psychiatrists and have been officially classified as suffering from a pronounced and severe mental disorder. My symptoms are: 1. Depersonalisation. 2. Derealisation. 3. Alexithymia. 4. Anhedonia. Also, I have the most classic indication of insanity. That is: everyone else is mad but me. I just thought I might share that with you, as I consider that it may be important for you to know that you are currently engaged in a correspondence with a madman.

RESPONDENT: Richard, I’m going to let my light out from under the bushel and tell you what I see: You are still ‘crazy’, and I still have affection and/or compassion for you.

RICHARD: As I am a person devoid of either latent or active enmity, I require no restorative affection whatsoever to create the illusion of intimacy in my human interactions. And as I am also a person devoid of either latent or active sorrow, I require no antidotal compassion whatsoever to create the illusion of caring. Thus, in an actual freedom, intimacy is not dependent upon cooperation. I experience an actual intimacy – a direct experiencing of the other – twenty four hours of the day irrespective of the other’s affection and/or compassion ... or mood swings. If this is being crazy – if this is a severe mental disorder – then it sure beats the sanity of the real world ... which is a sanity that produces wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide.

RESPONDENT: Maybe No. 4 will come around to loving you, also.

RICHARD: Hmm ... my posts are written in appreciative response to a fellow human being who is spending the most precious gifts they have – their time and sincerity – to communicate with me about the sense they have made, so far, of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as it is with people as they are. To put it another way: I always value another human being simply for daring to be here on this fair earth – and therefore actively doing this living business – irregardless of where they are coming from.

Ain’t life grand!

*

RESPONDENT: I still don’t understand your ‘concern’ for the 6 billion abused people if you have no feelings.

RICHARD: I enjoy and appreciate being alive and being here in this amazing physical world ... and I take particular delight in spending time with my associate adventurers on this grand escapade we are all intimately involved in. We are all fellow human beings who find ourselves here in the world as it was when we were born. We find war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and corruption to be endemic ... we notice that it is intrinsic to the human condition ... we set out to discover why this is so. We find sadness, loneliness, sorrow, grief, depression and suicide to be a global incidence ... and we gather that it is also inherent to the human condition ... and we want to know why. We report to each other as to the nature of our discoveries for we are all well-meaning and seek to find a way out of this mess that we have landed in. Whether one believes in re-incarnation or not, we are all living this particular life for the very first time, and we wish to make sense of it. It is a challenge and the adventure of a life-time to enquire and to uncover, to seek and to find, to explore and to discover. All this being alive business is actually happening and we are totally involved in living it out ... whether we take the back seat or not, we are all still doing it. I, for one, am not taking the back seat.

I like being here.

RESPONDENT: How about: ‘if you label x, you negate x’.

RICHARD: No way. I am not caught up in words ... when I label (which I do often) I label the image that the person is presenting and defending and thus send it to the trash bin where it belongs. I negate their image like all get-out ... then the actual person is freed to be here ... now.

RESPONDENT: Then you do have an interest in relationship?

RICHARD: Only an identity has an interest in relationship ... all human beings are discrete (physically distinct) flesh and blood bodies which, being the very stuff that is this entire universe, are not separate from anything at all. It is the feeling of identity (which has its origins in the common ancestry of the animal instincts and takes on the feeling of being separate because of being manifest in individual flesh and blood bodies) that has the desire to regain ‘oneness’ with all sentient beings via relationship. ‘I’ am alone and lonely and long for the ‘connection’ that is evidenced in a relationship ... especially in a loving relationship. When ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ become extinct there is no need – and no capacity – for a relationship, for who is there to need to unite? Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was hopelessly wrong in his oft-repeated ‘Teaching’ that ‘Life is a movement in relationship’. Only a psychological and/or psychic entity needs the connection of relationship in order to create a synthetic intimacy – usually via the bridge of love and compassion – and manifest the delusion that separation has ended. And if human relationship does not produce the desired result, then ‘I’ will project a god or a goddess – a ‘super-friend’ not dissimilar to the imaginary playmates of childhood – to love and be loved by.

What I am interested in is my fellow human beings’ freedom from the human condition ... I like people because I am a people myself and I delight in their happiness and harmlessness and their enjoyment in being alive. I enjoy and appreciate being alive and being here in this amazing physical world ... and I take particular delight in spending time with my associate adventurers on this grand escapade we are all intimately involved in and fully appreciate their company each time again. I like being here and I like my fellow human being.

We find ourselves here in the world as it was when we were born. We find war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and corruption to be endemic ... we notice that it is intrinsic to the human condition ... we set out to discover why this is so. We find sadness, loneliness, sorrow, grief, depression and suicide to be a global incidence ... and we gather that it is also inherent to the human condition ... and we want to know why. We report to each other as to the nature of our discoveries for we are all well-meaning and seek to find a way out of this mess that we have landed in. Whether one believes in re-incarnation or not, we are all living this particular life for the very first time, and we wish to make sense of it. It is a challenge and the adventure of a life-time to enquire and to uncover, to seek and to find, to explore and to discover. Thus, as each and every human being no longer nurses malice and sorrow to their bosom, there is a genuine opportunity for a unilateral breakthrough into this actual world for each and every individual human being.

There is the possibility of a world-wide free association of like-minded people ... no relationships needed at all.

RESPONDENT: I do not see that the words of another can point out the utter necessity for the ending of malice and sorrow.

RICHARD: Words are vital as our means of communicating our understanding to one another. It is marvellous that we are able to be discussing these matters of great momentousness ... and momentous not only the individual, but for all of the humans that are living on this verdant planet. It is an amazing thing that not only are we humans able to be here experiencing this business of being alive ... on top of that we can think about and reflect upon what is entailed in words. In addition to this ability, we can communicate our discoveries to one another – comparing notes as it were – and further our understanding with this communal input. One does not have to rely only upon one’s own findings; it is possible, as one man famous in history put it, to reach beyond the current knowledge by standing upon the shoulders of those that went before. It is silly to disregard the results of other person’s enterprising essays into the ‘mystery of life’ – unless it is obviously bombast and blather – for one would have to invent the wheel all over again. (However, it is only too possible to accept as set in concrete the accumulated ‘wisdom of the ages’ and remain stultified ... enfeebled by the insufferable psittacisms passed on from one generation to the next). Speaking personally, I am very appreciative of all those brave peoples who dared to enter into ‘The Unknown’ ... if it were not for them leaving their written words behind I could not be where I am today. Please, do not scorn words ... it is what sets us apart from the other sentient beings. It is only through words that peace-on-earth is possible.

RESPONDENT: You do claim though, that having ended it yourself, you can pass it on somehow, how so?

RICHARD: Oh, very simply ... we are all fellow human beings. The only way into this world of people, things and events is via the human spermatozoa fertilising the human ova ... thus every human being is endowed, by blind nature, with the basic instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. Consequently I know your fear and aggression and nurture and desire intimately ... writing (talking) to you is no different to thinking (talking) about myself. It is called, in the jargon, relating.

RESPONDENT: Yes, but it is the individual that senses the nature of the self fragments and changes. Words are removed from that, even though they can draw attention to something.

RICHARD: Not so ... your knowledge of your consciousness is words. Writing, talking and thinking are all of the same ilk. It is feelings – emotions and passions and calentures – that are ‘beyond words’. If you are going to let notoriously unreliable feelings be your final arbiter of a personally salubrious and socially beneficial way of living your life ... then yes, words are indeed ‘removed from that’ . As it is often said by the proponents of this ‘Tried and True’ wisdom: ‘words are merely pointers’. But as the ‘Tried and True’ is the ‘tried and failed’ ... then any discerning intellect will no longer scorn words. It is only through words that peace-on-earth is possible.

RICHARD: If you are not aware of the abject misery of suffering – not only in oneself but all of humankind – then you are not old enough to be able to be reading these words. Can you not think for yourself? Do you not have feelings? Are you so inured to violence that all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide do not affect you at all.

RESPONDENT: It seems that the activity of defending the sensitivity of self importance can render these feelings moot.

RICHARD: You say ‘it seems’ ... does it or does it not? If one sees this – as a fact – then this seeing of the fact initiates action. Of course this may very well open the flood-gates and untold suffering may pour in ... or not. Are you willing to take the risk? After all, world-wide there are 27 wars occurring as you read this. Someone is being murdered somewhere right now. Torture is happening at this moment ... just ask ‘Amnesty International’. Someone, somewhere is being beaten up in a domestic violence situation as you read this. Somewhere some child is being brutalised in yet another incidence of the endemic child abuse. All over the world sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide is going on in uncountable numbers ... and the solution to all this lies in your hands.

RESPONDENT: The point here is that my self centred issues is not entirely different from everybody else’s.

RICHARD: Indeed ... a journey into your own psyche is a journey into humanity’s psyche, for ‘I’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’.

RESPONDENT: Understanding oneself helps to explain why people treat you the way they do.

RICHARD: Indeed. However, you said that ‘it seems’ that the activity of defending the sensitivity of self-importance can render being affected by the way human beings are moot ... does it or does it not? If one sees this – as a fact – then this seeing of the fact initiates action. Of course this may very well open the flood-gates and untold suffering may pour in ... or not. Are you willing to take the risk? After all, world-wide there are 27 wars occurring as you read this. Someone is being murdered somewhere right now. Torture is happening at this moment ... just ask ‘Amnesty International’. Someone, somewhere is being beaten up in a domestic violence situation as you read this. Somewhere some child is being brutalised in yet another incidence of the endemic child abuse. All over the world sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide is going on in uncountable numbers ... and the solution to all this lies in your hands.

RESPONDENT: You’ve got it right. Covert leads to overt, and overt get into trouble while covert looks like an angel. Empower women over men and chaos is the result.

RICHARD Hmm ... the last time I looked chaos already reigned supreme. As for ‘empowering women over men’ (or empowering men over women): as neither women nor men can ever have the upper hand (it is only the overt/covert balance of power interaction that can ever change) you need not be concerned about your scenario coming to fruition (for men would covertly ‘define the parameters’ as women now do to keep excesses in check through holding the high moral ground if or when women ever overtly ‘hold the reins of power’). If you fondly imagine that you are currently ‘empowered’ over women then it is time to go back to your drawing board and redraft your thesis in accord with the facts (I take it that you either did not access the URL provided or did not find it informative if you did). Besides all this: is the need for power itself that is the problem – not who currently overtly or covertly holds it – which is why I suggested coming out of the ‘sixties and here into the ‘noughties, where equity and parity is the key to success. The cathartic ‘airing one’s dirty linen in public’ of the ‘sixties is over for those who actually looked at the dirt displayed.

RESPONDENT: There is always a legitimate need for power in any family.

RICHARD: Why? And where has outwardly dominating one’s partner (overt power) ever lead to peace and harmony? And where has outward subservience (covert power) towards one’s partner ever lead to peace and harmony?

RESPONDENT: There is no such thing as parity.

RICHARD: Why not? Do you have a problem with being on a par, in having equivalence, with your partner? If so, why do you need to outwardly dominate her (overt power)? Similarly, does your partner have a problem with being on a par, in having equivalence, with you? If so, why does she need to be outwardly subservient (covert power)?

RESPONDENT: In every family one parent has more power than the other and it will always be that way.

RICHARD: Hmm ... as you have already stated (further above) that to ‘empower women over men and chaos is the result’ then this politically correct sentence of yours now reads: ‘in every family [the man] has more power than [the woman] and it will always be that way’. Other than because it says so in the Christian scriptures ... why do you consider this to be the way that ‘it will always be’? Where is the evidence of history to demonstrate that the man outwardly dominating the woman, and the woman outwardly submitting to the man, has evinced any peace and harmony ... let alone an enduring peace and harmony? Why do you want to insist on preserving the ‘tried and failed’ overt/covert power battle between the sexes? Is this not all sick?

RESPONDENT: The idea that there is a 50-50 situation exists only in someone’s imagination.

RICHARD: Yet the idea that ‘the man has more power than the woman’ only exists in someone’s imagination ... and presumably some patriarch’s imagination at that. Similarly, the idea that ‘the woman has more power than the man’ only exists in someone’s imagination ... and presumably some matriarch’s imagination. Why persist in a blind sickness?

RESPONDENT: Of course there is also an illegitimate need for power. That is obvious.

RICHARD: Why is it obvious? I do not see any basis for a ‘legitimate need for power’ ... let alone a basis for an ‘illegitimate need for power’ : any and all power is a sickness, whether one be dominant (overt power) or subservient (covert power).

RESPONDENT: In that case why are you trying to overpower people on the list through extensive verbiage? That is your prime endeavour here.

RICHARD: Not so ... am I to take it that you have you nothing further to contribute to the previous dialogue (above)? If so, are you in agreement or not?

RESPONDENT: It is so.

RICHARD: It is not so. You will need to elaborate so as to avoid a continuation of this ’tis/’tisn’t school-child nonsense (or next you may very well be going ‘narny-narny nah-nah yah-boo-suck’)

RESPONDENT: That is your prime directive.

RICHARD: It is not my ‘directive’ at all ... let alone the ‘prime directive’ . If you re-read the exchange (further above) this will become obvious.

RESPONDENT: You are involved with your own feelings of power.

RICHARD: As I have neither power nor feelings (which are one and the same thing) I cannot possibly be involved in what you hypothesise at all.

RESPONDENT: It is apparent to anyone who wants to look at it.

RICHARD: I am looking at it ... I am not seeing what you see. I am seeing that there is equity and parity (not to be confused with equality) in all of my interactions with my fellow human beings. Again, if you re-read the exchange (further above) this will become obvious ... provided you are not looking for equality.

I am as honest about explaining my interactions as I am in the actuality of my participation.

RICHARD: Whilst it is true that men overtly ‘rule the roost’ and/or ‘hold the reins of power’ ... yet all the while women covertly ‘define the parameters’ and/or ‘dictate the rules’.

RESPONDENT No. 21: You’ve got it right. Covert leads to overt, and overt get into trouble while covert looks like an angel. Empower women over men and chaos is the result.

RICHARD: Hmm ... the last time I looked chaos already reigned supreme. As for ‘empowering women over men’ (or empowering men over women): as neither women nor men can ever have the upper hand (it is only the overt/covert balance of power interaction that can ever change) you need not be concerned about your scenario coming to fruition (for men would covertly ‘define the parameters’ as women now do to keep excesses in check through holding the high moral ground if or when women ever overtly ‘hold the reins of power’). If you fondly imagine that you are currently ‘empowered’ over women then it is time to go back to your drawing board and redraft your thesis in accord with the facts (I take it that you either did not access the URL provided or did not find it informative if you did). It is the need for power itself that is the problem – not who currently overtly or covertly holds it – which is why I suggested coming out of the ‘sixties and here into the ‘noughties, where equity and parity is the key to success. The cathartic ‘airing one’s dirty linen in public’ of the ‘sixties is over for those who actually looked at the dirt displayed.

GARY: You say ‘equity and parity is the key to success’.

RICHARD: Yes, the ‘theory of mind’ signifies both equity and parity to be involuntarily automatic in any social situation. [Dictionary Definition]: equity: even-handed dealing; fairness, impartiality; unbiased. [Dictionary Definition]: parity: on a par; equivalence; similarity; correspondence. The question is: what is preventing this spontaneous recognition of being fellow human beings from flowing-on into all areas in common?

GARY: The notions of equity and parity are seemingly at the core of democratic institutions, with the idea that ‘all men are created equal’ and that there are certain ‘natural’ rights of human beings, stemming from the thinking of philosophers like John Locke.

RICHARD: I questioned whether all humans are born equal ... there are talents one has which leads to an ease in the acquisition of skills that another has to struggle to master and vice versa. The rapid shuffling of the DNA at conception (before the doubling takes place) leads to a difference betwixt one foetus and another. The same applies to physical stature (muscularity, stamina and so on) which all combine to produce a staggering array of differences ... and none of this I have detailed so far has anything to do with where one is born (climate) or in what era (progress) let alone social inequality such as what class of society one is born into (educational and career opportunities) and so on. As for ‘natural rights’ ... without question there are none: there is only ‘human rights’. And ‘human rights’ are a human construct – an agreement between human beings to conduct themselves in a certain way in relation to other human beings – and are designed to counter the insalubrious effects of the instinctual passions bestowed upon all sentient beings by blind nature via genetic inheritance. A ‘right’ is a legal entitlement ascribed to a person or persons with a reasonable or just claim to the terms of that agreement. A ‘right’ is therefore something ‘given’ by humans to humans – and to a certain extent to other animals – but what is given can be taken away ... at the point of a gun. There are no ‘rights’, in actuality, other than what human beings agree on ... and ‘rights’ have to be enforced at the point of a gun, anyway.

Any philosophical thinking (such as that of Mr. John Locke) which starts with a false premise is going to produce an elaborately false outcome (the falseness of which is concealed in the mass of concepts required to prop up the entire edifice). That there is some useful notions scattered hither and thither gives the thesis an air of respectability.

GARY: Equity. Parity. Are these just high-minded ideals, political theories divorced from the reality of everyday life in human societies?

RICHARD: Yes and no (and I am not being tricky here) in that yes, they are ‘just high-minded ideals’ when applied as a discipline, a practice, a duty ... and no, they are not ‘divorced from the reality of everyday life’ when they come spontaneously, involuntarily, of their own accord.

In a word: artlessly.

GARY: Naturally, there is a dark side of democratic institutions that is well known: the history of oppression and slavery, actual slavery, political and economic slavery, that democratic ideals, cleverly managed, conceal. And there is the actuality that we are quick to the trigger, to pick up a machine gun or a grenade launcher when the music stops and infringe on the ‘rights’ of others in territorial conquests or economic competition.

RICHARD: And here you have put your finger on the nub of the issue: the spontaneity of equity and parity that comes with the recognition of being fellow human beings is hijacked, subverted, sabotaged. And by what?

GARY: As an aside, the thinking of a Krishnamurti seems strikingly similar to the thinking of a previous philosopher, Hobbes, who maintained that human beings are basically selfish and that governments are a contract between individuals, motivated primarily by self-interest, and the corporate whole.

RICHARD: Again, any philosophical thinking that starts with a false premise is going to produce an elaborately false outcome ... and Mr. Thomas Hobbes is no exception with his version of a ‘social contract’ theory. The fatal flaw is that, as everyone is born into an already-existing society, they are dragooned into ‘signing’ the sick ‘social contract’ that was already here ... and nothing of worth is gained through coercion. The ‘with rights comes obligations’ central point of this enforced ‘social contract’ is the main sticking point: state rights take precedence over individual rights and individual obligations far exceeds state obligations in practice ... equity and parity are nowhere to be seen.

Ergo: resentment.

GARY: So, where do equity and parity come into the picture?

RICHARD: Only unilateral action will do the trick.

GARY: Are these just hollow ideals?

RICHARD: No ... or, rather, they were not for me, anyway.

GARY: Do they have any actual meaning in our lives?

RICHARD: My experience says: if you want it too it will have meaning in your life ... and bucket-loads of meaning into the bargain.

GARY: I would appreciate you expanding on these words.

RICHARD: This was my position all those years ago: just as I cannot change the weather to ensure a sunny day on the beach, how can I live with equity and parity in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are?