Richard’s Selected Correspondence
RESPONDENT: Richard, you said in a post to No. 74 a while back that you would not cheat on your partner because that would affect her integrity.
RESPONDENT: Could you please explain why would sleeping with another woman would affect your partner’s integrity?
RICHARD: As I never said what you say I said there is no such thing to explain.
RESPONDENT: What type of integrity do you have in mind?
RICHARD: The type of integrity I parenthetically delineated in the very exchange you are referring to, of course.
RESPONDENT: I can’t grasp the point you’re making.
RICHARD: The general point I am making is that being sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto does not mean I am a robotic/ automated android-like organism speaking in a flat, monotone voice and devoid of both a sense of humour and any fellowship regard (aka caring/ consideration) for other sentient creatures.
The specific point I am making is that for my earlier co-respondent to have asked why not change companions every day, as if by having no affective feelings it makes no difference just who it is, is to have cavalierly disregarded the integrity of, not only my current companion, but each and every one of those (365 per year) fellow human beings – adroitly assuming, of course, as that previous co-respondent presumably had, that a steady stream of females would indeed be knocking on my door each morning wanting admission as soon as the previous day’s female-in-residence had departed for places unknown (an instinctually-driven archetypal male-fantasy if there ever was) – and not to forget, of course, the assumed total lack of integrity on my part ... but, then again, a robotic-like automaton would of course be devoid of same anyway.
Incidentally, it is not case of having another’s integrity affected – it is a case of (presumably) having so little regard/ no regard at all for the integrity of ones companion that they could be changed daily – and it speaks volumes for the parlous state of the human condition that such a scenario would even be entertained for a moment ... let alone typed-out and sent to me.
RESPONDENT: Where I stand, sex is just an experience in which variety plays an important part, like food or changing residence.
RICHARD: Whereas with no separation whatsoever (an actual intimacy) sexual intercourse with a constant companion is a precious experience ... it is both a delight and a privilege that one of the 3.0+ billion females on this planet wants to spend their most irreplaceable asset (their time) living with me/ being with me, twenty four hours a day/ seven days a week, for the remainder of their life.
RESPONDENT: Whether I choose to tell my girlfriend about it or not is a matter of personal choice and above all, freedom.
RICHARD: For an all-too-brief period a number of years ago my living arrangement was of the ménage à trois variety ... the reward for being up-front and out-in-the-open is exquisite, to say the least, as to be with females being so open and honest together is to be with truly marvellous creatures.
RESPONDENT: Is it correct to say that ‘actual sex’ is non-erotic?
RICHARD: As the word ‘erotic’ usually means ‘of or pertaining to sexual love; amatory, esp. tending to arouse sexual desire’ (Oxford Dictionary) ... yes; where the word ‘erotic’ means erogenous – ‘of a part of the body: sensitive to sexual stimulation; capable of giving sexual pleasure when touched or stroked’ (Oxford Dictionary) – then ... no.
RESPONDENT: I have two parrots in a cage home, and I see them flirting and playing. You said that you are not able for flirting but able for sex.
RICHARD: You must be referring to this:
RESPONDENT: I can’t understand that. I really can’t.
RICHARD: The word ‘libido’ (Latin meaning ‘desire’, ‘lust’) is the psychiatric/psychoanalytic term for the instinctual sex drive, urge, or impulse, and the word ‘flirt’ refers to behaving in a superficially amorous manner, to dally sexually with another ... what is so difficult about understanding that, sans the instinctual passion to procreate (and nurture) the species, the ability to be sexually amorous (either superficially or deeply) ceases to exist?
With no passions driving behaviour one is able to treat the other as a fellow human being ... and not a sex-object.
RESPONDENT: Why you have a companion and you don’t change one every day?
RICHARD: Primarily because of fellowship regard ... and specifically because of how my current companion is.
RESPONDENT: You don’t have any feelings for her, so what a difference makes?
RICHARD: A whole lot of difference ... just for starters I actually care, rather than merely feel that one cares, and thus have genuine consideration for her integrity.
Plus I have no interest whatsoever in toying with my fellow human being, anyway, no matter who they are.
RESPONDENT: Also could you make sex with a 80 years old and 150 kilos?
RICHARD: Pardon, your prejudices are showing.
RESPONDENT: Please don’t even let pass for a moment from your brain that there is any trace of irony in my email.
PETER: Sex such a direct experiencing of another – so direct and actual that it leaves what many attempt to obtain in Tantra for dead. I once had a very strong Tantric experience where, on reflection, I had an amazing orgasm accompanied by waves of Love and Bliss. I searched for years after for the same experience but it always eluded me. It appeared to be some elusive carrot on a string, forever to search for. Well, what I have and experience in sex now far exceeds an elusive mirage. It is actual, sensual, and freely available .
RICHARD: In Tantra, the aim is to transcend sex by using the sexual energy to produce Love and Bliss ... and thus an ineffable state of being wherein ‘The Truth’ becomes manifest. One ‘rises above’ the sexual centres and resides in the heart. Living from there, if this is carried out to completion, the seventh chakra opens at the top of the head and one realises one’s ‘True Nature’ ... one realises that ‘I am God’ or ‘I am That’ or whatever metaphysical name one cares to use.
Over the years I have read perhaps ninety of the books transcribed from Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s talks in order to find the core of his teachings ... he was a great one for being inconsistent. Page after page and book after book would I read wherein what was said today – as fact – was contradicted tomorrow ... or next week. He would boast about his inconsistency – and his sannyasins revel in it’s licence – but three things remained unchanged throughout all his works. A true sannyasin will end up being single, celibate and sitting in meditation. The Jain religion shines through ... for one who is at all observant. Thus sex for him was a means to an end and not equal to the end.
In actualism, the means and the end are one and the same thing.
PETER: And the senses being free of churning feelings and emotions such as fear, guilt, comparison, love, duty, etc., are on full alert if you like. Fully here, firing on all cylinders, absolutely no limits to the amount of pleasure shared. To have found an equally sexual other-sex human is indeed remarkable.
RICHARD: To have as a companion someone who shares the identical goal in life to oneself is occasion enough in itself for celebration. Then to have the success after success that you have had throughout your time together, is proof indeed of the benevolence and wisdom of a life being well-lived. And as success after success multiplies exponentially, one experiences that the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom delivers the goods right here and now ... not off into some indeterminate future. Plus the successes are repeatable – almost on demand – and thus satisfy the ‘scientific method’.
I am just amazed that this has never been discovered before.
Because of the utter proximity of the other in the sensate sexual embrace, a direct experience of the actuality of the other is almost inevitable. The ensuing actual intimacy can cause one to ‘slip through’ into this actual world – initially seen as another dimension from the real world – leaving one’s ‘self’ behind ... where it belongs. Then I am here, where I have always been, and it is always now. Here, I and my partner are perfection personified. Yet there is more ... everything appears to be magically transformed into a fairy tale-like paradise. However, I have always been here and it has always been like this ... nothing has been transformed at all. It was that ‘I’ was standing in the way of this clean and clear purity being apparent.
This experiencing is ambrosial to say the least.
PETER: That there exists a state that is beyond Enlightenment and includes the free delightful enjoyment of sex is indeed proof of the perfection of the universe – as I experience it actually, here now, right this moment ... and again and again.
RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have an active sex-life ... equalled only by gustatory delight. Yet there is no sex-drive whatsoever. There is no instinctual sexual desire operating here in this actual world ... thus the other gender are never viewed as sexual objects. With no aberrant urges to control one walks freely in the world of people, things and events ... a world wherein all people are fellow human beings. It is impossible to stray; to be tempted by an affair or to have a fling simply just does not happen. Without sexual stirrings, both the female and the male body are appreciated for aesthetic reasons alone ... without the natural seduction or abhorrence as felt in the real world.
ALAN: Continuing with the theory, and assuming my two previous ‘major’ experiences were ‘actual freedom’, my two experiences and your current experience are made different only by our terms of reference. My first was that sexual freedom was the answer – because the experience was triggered by reading a book on erotic philosophy and other matters, which you have read.
RICHARD: My companion is pursuing actual freedom via sexual freedom at this point in time ... for a woman to break through all the hang-ups around sex is a marvellous thing in itself. Wallowing in sexuality – and abstaining from ejaculation – was one of the things that ‘Richard-the-self’ used to gain peak experiences with back in 1981.
RICHARD: How would a sexually abused baby, a sexually abused infant, a sexually abused toddler – a sexually abused child of any gender – have any notion that all this is happening because ‘they fail to acknowledge their responsibility’?
RESPONDENT: The first assumption of your question is that children view what we consider sexual abuse as abuse, or as ‘all this is happening’.
RICHARD: What ‘assumption’ are you talking about? Are you seriously trying to tell me that all the sexually abused babies and all the sexually abused infants and all the sexually abused children of any gender in the world are happy whilst it is happening? Of course, they would not be trying to decide whether it was abuse or not ... they would be too busy feeling it.
Are you for real? In a previous post you proudly proclaimed that ‘each instance of rape is fine’ ... and now you are arguing the toss as to whether a sexually abused child would know whether it is being sexually abused or not!
RESPONDENT: Interestingly, a research project done in association with Dr. Norman Pollard, while pursuing my second college degree (in psychology) indicates that most children (the project included two groups, one three to six years old, and the other 18 years old or older, I am referring to the former group) who have been reported to have experienced physical and/or sexual abuse (as defined by the then current NYS Child Protective Service’s definition) think very little or nothing of their abuse. The idea of who is responsible for ‘all this is happening’ would not make sense to ask since nothing much is happening.
RICHARD: Whoa-up here ... ‘nothing much is happening’? They are being SEXUALLY ABUSED ... and you were saying (above) ‘Yes I know the cause of all the suffering’ and that they are being SEXUALLY ABUSED because ‘they fail to acknowledge their responsibility’.
Does this look as silly to you as it does to me when viewed sensibly in print?
RESPONDENT: Also, and importantly, if the child were to be concerned with responsibility, that concern would needs be focused on who is responsible for their own feelings about the circumstance. Again speculating, young children might find such an inquiry foolish because they would have no familiarity with any possibility of any-thing other themselves being responsible. Again speculating, but not without at least reasonable evidence based on the observed development of the Beautiful Children here, children may accept responsibility for their own feelings rather like a bird takes to flight until some other possibility is suggested to them.
RICHARD: Well, well, well ... No. 14 (as god) is ‘speculating again’, eh? And these ‘young children might find such an inquiry foolish’ you say? May I ask?
RESPONDENT: Since there could be only difference between the action you call the flesh and blood body Richard, and the action you would call the flesh and blood body of ‘enlightened people’ (being that it is impossible for those two <Richard and enlightened people> actions to be the same) I would like to see the physicality of the qualities that could be the actualisation of the possibility of being the same, thus making it sensible for one to say ‘Where I differ from the enlightened people’. Thank you.
RICHARD: Sure ... it is this simple: you are into altering behavioural patterns (rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic) whereas what I speak of is the elimination of that which causes the aberrant behaviour in the first place. As pacifists and their ilk (those who live the doctrine of non-violence) do not eliminate the source of aberrant behaviour ... then they have to imitate the actual ease of an actual freedom from the human condition by making a big splash about their ‘goodie-goodie’ behaviour. To put it simply – and in a way that might just convey it to you – this what I speak of is somewhat indicated by what is possibly the only passage in the Christian’s Holy Scriptures worthy of note. Vis.:
Whilst obviously not a direct quote, this applies to all anti-social behaviour ... not just a minor thing like sex outside of marriage. Things like all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, to give but a small yet very representative example.
RESPONDENT: Do you drink, smoke, hunt for women, lie, cheat, or steal? Do you overeat, over-sex, or over intellectualise?
RICHARD: I must acknowledge that I sat and stared nonplussed at this sentence for some time. As I see no mention of all the genuinely terrible things that afflict human beings – like wars, rapes, murders, tortures, domestic violence, child abuse, sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide – I find it difficult to take this question sincerely. Basically, you seem to have paraded your prejudices in public and are asking me if I believe in them too.
RESPONDENT: If you do none of these things, there is no reason for you to have any conflict over your values.
RICHARD: I am very pleased that you are not in any substantial position to stand judgement on the human race ... there are far, far worse things than smoking, drinking, womanising, lying, cheating, stealing, overeating and intellectualising, you know. Would it not be more important to attend to the sorrow and malice nestled firmly in your and every other human breast? What about the 160,000,000 people killed in wars this century alone? Do you think that they would thank you for going on a one-man crusade against all the drinkers, smokers, womanisers, liars, cheats, thieves, gluttons and intellectuals?
RESPONDENT: Because you would already be in compliance with the higher values you say do not exist, if I understand you.
RICHARD: I guess it would be clear by now that you do not understand me ... for if that lot (above) is an example of your god’s ‘higher values’ then no wonder the human world remains in the mess it is in.
RESPONDENT: I did not think you would be doing those obvious evils.
RICHARD: I am not only talking of not doing these things, I am talking of not even having to suppress thinking these kind of thoughts at all ... ever. The reason why I am not impulsively thinking these thoughts is that in an actual freedom I have no furious urges, no instinctive anger, no impulsive rages, no inveterate hostilities, no evil disposition ... no malicious or sorrowful tendencies whatsoever. The blind animal instinctual passions, which some neuro-scientists have tentatively located toward the top of the brain-stem in what is popularly called the ‘reptilian brain’, have under-gone a radical mutation. I am free to be me as-I-am; benign and benevolent and beneficial in character. I am able to be a model citizen, fulfilling all the intentions of the idealistic and unattainable moral strictures of ‘The Good’: being humane, being philanthropic, being altruistic, being magnanimous, being considerate and so on. All this is achieved in a manner ‘I’ could never foresee, for it comes effortlessly and spontaneously, doing away with the necessity for virtue completely.
RICHARD: Would it not be more important to attend to the sorrow and malice nestled firmly in your and every other human breast? What about the 160,000,000 people killed in wars this century alone? Do you think that they would thank you for going on a one-man crusade against all the drinkers, smokers, womanisers, liars, cheats, thieves, gluttons and intellectuals?
RESPONDENT No. 23: I think it is a matter of degree. No. 21 feels that indulgence in sex is bad enough while you think only rape merits attention.
RICHARD: Whilst you may complacently think it is only a ‘matter of degree’ ... try telling that to someone who has just been raped; try telling that to someone who is in a trench on the front-line; try telling that to someone being tortured; try telling that to the person on the receiving end of domestic violence; try telling that to the recipient of child abuse; try telling that to someone sliding down the slippery-slope of sadness to loneliness to grief to depression and then suicide. May I ask? What planet do you live on?
RESPONDENT: Must we deal with all of the problems of the world at once? Compared with being burnt in oil, domestic violence might seem like a picnic. Compared to being interned in a concentration camp and tortured to death, depression isn’t much of a problem. You can always overeat and feel better. Let’s not compare but instead just deal with the subject at hand which is indulgence in illicit sex, drinking too much, taking drugs, excess fantasising, greed, overeating, venting our hostilities on our victims, etc., etc. Are you trying to minimise those things by comparing them to the world’ s most heinous crimes? Why would you want to do that? What are you avoiding here?
RICHARD: If I may point out? The ‘subject in hand’ is the total ending of sorrow and malice from within the human psyche ... in particular the one known as No. 21. This will solve all of the ‘problems of the world’ at one fell swoop.
RESPONDENT No. 23: Some people wondered if the act of adultery was wrong and Jesus told them that even the thought of it was wrong.
RICHARD: Once again the focus is on only this adultery business ... what about 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? And the point I am making is not only not doing these things, I am talking of not even having to suppress thinking the kind of thoughts that cause the doing of these things at all ... ever.
RESPONDENT: What about a leader that declared war on another country because he was in a bad mood due to the fact that his wife was committing adultery with one of the enemy? You are taking a silly approach to the subject here. Adultery is adultery. It is not the most heinous of crimes, but it is not something we need more of either.
RICHARD: If ‘you’ were to eliminate malice and sorrow permanently, not only would you no longer consider my approach silly, but you would be living an individual peace-on-earth ... and as this body in this life-time.
RESPONDENT: It is not at all something I would expect from a man that has found true freedom.
RESPONDENT: What are you sexual predilections by the way? Are you free from that?
RICHARD: Yes, I have no sexual drive – no urges or desires – whatsoever. My libido is null and void. (‘Libido’: from Latin ‘desire’, ‘lust’: psychic drive or energy associated with the sexual instinct).
RESPONDENT: You must be a real ugly co-ed to be spending this much time writing E-Mails instead of getting laid.
RICHARD: There is much more to life than ‘getting laid’ all the time. For example, the wee small hours are my favourite time for writing and I most often wake up at two or three o’clock in the morning and write until the first kookaburras start their laughing-like call from some trees over the back fence. Then I like to sit and sip an early morning coffee, with my feet up on the computer desk, and be with the first grey light coming into the room ... through to the first glow of pre-dawn ... and then the sunrise itself.
RESPONDENT: You seem to be advancing the same position as the homosexual who contends that he is free of the blind dictates of morality.
RICHARD: No ... nothing like that at all. Morality – and ethicality – seeks to control the animal ‘self’ that is formed out of those basic instincts of fear and aggression and nurture and desire ... a ‘self’ who is epitomised by malice and sorrow. It is the instincts that are blind ... blind in the sense that they serve only one purpose: the survival of the species ... and any species will do, as far as blind nature is concerned.
RESPONDENT: In this way, the gay man gains his sexual freedom which is really where his focus is. He has no qualms about being a moral standard for boy scouts, sitting in a jury box, or dying for his country. The drive that set you free, however, extends beyond carnality. Am I right?
RICHARD: Oh yes ... far beyond carnality. The sexual impulse is but one of the instincts that blind nature impresses on all creatures. However, the instincts are a software package – not hardware – and as such can be deleted.
RESPONDENT: Nothing is ‘given’ in science even the principles of scientific investigation are under scrutiny in meta-physics. So just what is gravity a wave a particle both? Does it expand at the speed of light? How does this change curvature of space time ... oh wait in a few minutes you say there is no space time. Please clarify these situations for me, I have found the scientific literature so contradictory and theoretical that gravity doesn’t seem to be given at all.
RICHARD: I received a State School education in the fifties when things like gravity were described as a ‘given’. Since then the advances in scientific knowledge in regards waves, particles, space-time continuum, curved space and so on have been theoretical models based on increasingly frantic mathematics – or so I understand it. The search for a ‘Unified Theory Of Everything’ is based upon unifying gravity, electro-magnetism, weak nuclear particles and strong nuclear particles – if my memory serves me correct. If this is the case, then it seems that gravity is still a ‘given’. However, I am willing to be wrong on this, as I am neither a physicist nor a mathematician.
Be that as it may, I mean ‘given’ in the literal sense that when one holds a brick, say, at arm’s length and lets go of it, it always meets the ground with a satisfying thump. This is a fact. Perhaps I should have said ‘fact’ instead of ‘given’. Gravity is a fact. Male and female parts fitting together is a fact ... and what a pleasant fact that is!
RESPONDENT: He [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti] lived with a female companion for many years (and possibly still does) yet claimed he was totally unattached to her. I don’t know if ever experimented in group sex, but no doubt he would have been above it all if he had.
RICHARD: He did, but he does not any more as she is dead now. I have no idea about ‘group sex’ but on one of the videos he said that he had not had sex for the last seventeen years as ‘Sex is pleasure’ and that he ‘Wouldn’t use another person for gratification’. I thoroughly enjoy physical – sensual – pleasure and mutual pleasure is a delight. We ‘use’ each other by agreement ... after all, our parts fit together so well ... and so deliciously.
RESPONDENT: Let me ask you this, Richard. Suppose you and your wife are living together, and you come home one day to find thirty men in your living room. Upon inquiry you find out that these men are all there to have sex with your wife, and that she is already in the bedroom busily engaging herself with three strapping young men. When you try to see her, she calls out that you’ll have to wait your turn, before resuming her attention upon the activity at hand, one which involves certain parts of the young men fitting very nicely into various parts of her body. I assume that this wouldn’t bother you, since (a) all parties are using each other by agreement, and (b) their parts are fitting together so deliciously well.
RICHARD: My word, you do have a vivid imagination! Thirty men? Really? And strapping at that? My companion did her best not to roll about the floor laughing when I described your lurid little sex-saga to her ... but I will forgo passing on her comments to you as you were asking the question of me and not her.
As I have no imagination whatsoever, I can not ‘Suppose ... [that I] come home one day to find thirty men in [my] living room’ . I can not envisage such a scenario as I am unable to visualise anything at all in my ‘mind’s-eye’ ... I lost that faculty as a result of becoming free of ‘I’. I can not generate images at all because the image-maker does not exist. However, ‘he’ would have probably been: Incredulous? Upset? Embarrassed? Disappointed? Jealous? Hurt? Enraged? Sickened? Envious? Something like that, I guess, because I actually can not remember in detail, but I do know that ‘he’ was ruled by these type of emotional and passionate thoughts. I do remember that ‘he’ was possessive ... ‘he’ foolishly thought that ‘he’ could own another person ... but ‘he’ had an experience of actuality one day and consequently self-immolated, psychologically. Hence I am able to be here at this moment in time where only purity and perfection exist.
RESPONDENT: It has been shown that the female is capable of creating the ova and the activating essence to create a life without any male being involved. I understand such offspring are generally female. This could be the very thing that created the extreme paternalistic dominance of the past few millennia ... I mean ... how does the male ego handle the fact that he is biologically redundant?
RICHARD: I do not know how a male ego handles the fact that he is biologically redundant for I do not have one. Also, I had a vasectomy many, many years ago because I was not interested in procreating and adding to the population explosion ... so I do not mind at all being redundant.
RESPONDENT: To state these things as ‘nothing other than being in a state of denial’. Is a sweeping generalisation which shows little depth or thought. There are many good reasons for the separation of the sexes ... and most of them have to do with the powerful nature of sexual attraction. In my experience if there is any restriction in a ‘religion’ it is because of manipulation by the power structure, or as a preparation for a return to this condition at a higher point in the spiral.
RICHARD: Nevertheless, I do still consider that it is ‘being in a state of denial’ because, back in my spiritual years, I was celibate for nearly five years (along with many other austere practices) and I would look down when urinating and think: ‘Is that all these parts are to be used for?’. Eventually I decided to forego my puritan path and embark upon the way of pleasure. Instead of being ‘Straight and narrow is the path to God’, the way of pleasure is a wide and wondrous path, full of enjoyment and delight. And it does not exclude half of the population ... which I consider is definitely being in a state of denial.
RICHARD: Fear and aggression are built into the Human Condition – it is intrinsic and known as the ‘instinct for survival’. The ‘self’ is born out of the instincts.
RESPONDENT: But is not the sex drive an instinct? Where do you draw the line between the ‘instincts’, and the emotions you enjoy? Forgive me if I’ve missed these points previously.
RICHARD: Yes, the sex drive is an instinct ... and this instinct – and other instincts – can be eliminated entirely. Then one is free to act appropriately according to the circumstances – and not out of an instinctual reaction. Instincts are not set in stone, they are simply ‘blind nature’s’ way of ensuing survival. With our thinking, reflective brain we can improve on nature in this respect, as we have done in so many other ways. Any instinctual drive can be eradicated.
Then one is free to enjoy the sexual act as a physical, sensual pleasure (not as an emotional or passionate ‘solution’ to loneliness and sorrow via love) or free to enjoy celibacy as an idiosyncratic celebration of singularity (not as a dispassionate or detached way to dissolve the ego via craftiness). It is then an act of free choice to have sex, or not have sex, just as easily in either alternative. No drive means no urge. With no urge there is nothing to have to deny, nor anything to have to indulge. Thus it is neither ‘Asceticism’ nor ‘Hedonism’ ... this is an actual freedom.
I do not have any emotions to enjoy (or to dislike) as all feelings – emotions and passions – are no longer extant. And, yes, you may have missed out as I have written elsewhere on this list:
I did not ‘arrive’ here in this condition by either denying or indulging in sexuality ... I did not do anything at all for I have always been here. It was the ‘I’, the psychological entity residing within this body, that did all the work. ‘He’ self-immolated, psychologically speaking ... and only ‘he’ could do that. (Please note that I did not realise ‘myself’ – I am not a ‘Self-Realised Being’. ‘I’ am not an enlightened being any more, nor will ‘I’ ever be again – that hazard is over forever – for ‘I’ do not exist.) I am this living, breathing body being alive at this moment in time. By being here, as an actuality, I am the universe experiencing itself as a thinking, reflective human being.
Because the universe is infinite, it is perfect. Infinity is perfection – it can not be otherwise – because there is no ‘outside’ to infinity for there to be an opposite. Thus there is no ‘outside’ to perfection. Consequently, it is all perfect and has always been thus. Any imperfection was but a nightmarish fantasy created in the fertile imagination of ‘I’, the fictitious alien supposedly residing ‘within’. ‘I’, the ‘self’, am comprised in two parts: the ego (as a generalisation, located in the head) and the soul (as a generalisation located in the heart). Over-riding this ‘self’ is a sense of identity ... the ‘who’ that ‘I’ think and feel that ‘I’ am when ‘I’ ask the question: ‘Who am I?’
Whereas Richard is not a ‘who’, I am what I am ... these eyes seeing, these ears hearing and so on. Hence my immutable stance:
Do not, ever, ask the question ‘who am I?’ for one may be in danger of accidentally realising ‘who’ one is and, by thus becoming enlightened, continue to perpetuate all the appalling misery and suffering that has endured throughout the centuries because of the Enlightened Being’s well-meant – but fatally flawed – ‘Teachings’.
RESPONDENT: You are doing sex without the reason to make any children, that means still because of the lust are having power on you.
RICHARD: Here is the exchange in question:
How you converted my report of the total absence of ‘libido’ (Latin meaning ‘desire’, ‘lust’), which is the psychiatric/ psychoanalytic term for the instinctual sex drive, urge, or impulse, into ‘you are doing sex without the reason to make any children, that means still because of the lust are having power on you’ defies any rational understanding.
RESPONDENT: This is my first letter to you on actualism. More might follow as we engage in a dialogue.
Thank you for the extensive and extremely interesting website. I must say it contains probably the largest amount of common-sense discussions about the major topics concerning humanity (compared to all the web sites I have come across in my 10 years of internet experience). I have already given an introduction to my background in the email ‘Hello from a new member.’ I am anticipating comments on that, from you and others. After going through many SC sections, glossary sections, Peter’s Journal, and so on, I understand that (please correct me if I am wrong):
a) Spiritual enlightenment is identification of the mind with the psychical self and a dissociation with the body/mind/ego-self. The mind then also engages in an illusory decoration of this identification as ‘one-ness with God’ etc. This is a wishful dreamy ‘happy’ state, which is rather harmful and not harmless.
b) Actual freedom is freedom from both the social conditioning (which I think is also based on regulating the animal passions) and the instinctual animal passions themselves (those of fear, aggression, nurture and desire).
c) One is then just the infinite eternal universe (limitedly) self-aware of a body, mind and sensate experience. This awareness is bounded by the sensory horizons, that is why I call it limited. One is not aware of what is happening at the centre of the sun. In fact, I do not think that is possible for a human being or for any limited being. I am not postulating any unlimited being.
d) Then one lives according to simple principles of being happy and harmless. One is not following ideals, as well as not following instincts. In fact, there is no ‘one’ at all (it is just a linguistic construct for communication). The body/ mind is making choices as to how to live happily and harmlessly.
Now I have a few assertions and related questions for actualists. First a set of assertions (based on my experience and inferential thought processes) (please feel free to contradict them with your experience):
a) The body/mind makes choices based on memory and conditioning.
b) This conditioning takes many forms: social imprinting, the primitive brain evolved over many millennia and one’s own experiences which one finds pleasant or painful, at the sensate or mental level (for various reasons). E.g., Richard enjoys meat, coffee, physical intimacy, and talking about actualism, exposing spiritualists etc.
c) As long as the body/mind is living, it has to make constant choices as to what to do, how to live, how to earn food/clothing/shelter, which relationships to engage in etc. The normal person makes these choices based on his conditioning, so as to safeguard his own body as well as his (imaginary) self.
Now the questions for actualists:
a) What are your choices based on? Is it not your own conditioning plus your intelligent appraisal of the situation?
b) Many things you find pleasant in the world, they are the things that a normal person also finds pleasant. I.e., many non-actualist people enjoy sex, good food, television, shopping etc. Maybe your enjoyment is of a different order, but I have not been able to find a distinction. Is it possible that the pleasure you obtain from the senses and the mind (shopping e.g. is not really a sensate pleasure, you are just handling pieces of paper and plastic bags, it is imagining how you are going to enjoy these things in the future which is pleasant (at least for most people), is also just a habit pattern, and so a self-inflicted conditioning?
c) If you are denied all these pleasures (say forced into jail) would you feel constrained, in pain? Since it is demonstrable that your present life is a pleasure-seeking life, how do you have any conviction in saying that you will be happy in any and every situation?
d) The pleasure of sex in particular, is a mostly mental pleasure. What is so different in licking the saliva/nipples of a (almost flat-chested) woman than in licking the saliva/nipples of a man (with shaved chests)? It is the consciousness that the other is a female which gives rise to pleasant feelings and erections in a (heterosexual) male. Why do you not question this basic form of conditioning as well? Why do you not question the hormonal/sexual level of one’s mental background? It has been asserted by many people in human history that this background can also be obliterated.
The delight the body/mind gets from smelling a nice feminine perfume which one’s mother wore. Is this not a conditioning? Basically, why not question the basis of delight?
e) In general, a purely sensate experience in neither delightful nor painful. It is the evaluation of sensations by the brain which makes one choose one sensation over the other. And since an actualist IS choosing sensations (given a description of your daily lives), it is basically a pleasure seeking life (albeit without any guilt or craving). I can well understand that you would not be too upset (or even a little upset) if you don’t have enough money for watching the latest movie that you want to watch. That you would move on to getting pleasure from something which is within your reach, so to speak.
But isn’t this a symptom of inner boredom? Why seek pleasure at all? Why is it not enough to just sit still? If you are happy sitting still, what makes you go out and have coffee? It is certainly not thirst, otherwise water would be as good. Why this certain delight in a certain taste? Why not be free of all one’s pleasure needs? Isn’t that freedom worthwhile?
f) Why do you spend so much of effort on convincing people that actualism is a good thing? What is the basis of this effort? What desire, or urge? Or is it a ‘causeless action’, just like swinging your legs while sitting on the porch, or just delighting in climbing a mountain?
Again, is there any basis of delight other than one’s conditioning? Please note that I am not at all antagonistic towards you. I sincerely wish to understand the basis of your actions and choices, since that is the issue I am grappling with (as regards myself) these days.
In my desire to understand you, I seek to understand myself.
RICHARD: First and foremost what I write is a report, a description, and an explanation, of what life is like in this actual world – the sensate world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum – which is the world which becomes apparent when identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) become extinct.
In other words, the affective faculty in its entirety (which includes its epiphenomenal psychic facility) has no existence whatsoever ... meaning that it is impossible to ever be hedonic (aka ‘a pleasure-seeker’) as the affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain is null and void.
The following passage is how I have described the anhedonic actualism experience:
Coupled with the inability to affectively feel pleasure is, of course, the inability to affectively feel pain (as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate) even though most, if not all, definitions of anhedonia only say ‘the inability to feel pleasure’ ... actualism, being most definitely not hedonism, can never be sadistic, masochistic, or sadomasochistic.
Secondly, conditioning – be it familial conditioning, peer-group conditioning, or societal conditioning – is a well-meant endeavour to control the wayward self within ... where there is no identity whatsoever all conditioning has nothing to condition and falls by the wayside (hence choices made are freely made choices).
Thirdly, shopping (for example) is indeed a sensate experience ... for what is the very handling of pieces of paper and plastic bags (for instance), then, if not a sensate handling?
Fourth, being anhedonic it would be impossible to be in pain (to feel constrained) in a gaol ... nor anywhere else you may propose.
Fifth, knowing the difference between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity is a matter of gender orientation – determined, as I understand it, somewhere around the twelfth to sixteenth week of gestation – and not just a case of conditioning.
Sixth, the olfactory sense operates unimpeded here in this actual world – no smell is repulsive, repugnant, disgusting – thus there is no need for a perfume such as a mother may have worn (or may wear).
Seventh, the basis of delight is the sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being just here, right now, as a flesh and blood body only simply brimming with sense organs.
Eighth, a purely sensate experience is indeed either (physically) pleasurable or painful ... just sprinkle the contents of a packet of thumb-tacks in the middle of a carpeted room and walk bare-footed from one wall to the other and see what happens.
Ninth, there is no ‘inner’ (nor ‘outer’) here in this actual world ... let alone boredom: ‘tis impossible to be bored where all is novel, fresh, new.
Tenth, it is indeed enough to just sit still ... doing something is a bonus on top of the utter delight of simply being this flesh and blood body only.
Eleventh, the delight in a certain taste (coffee for instance) has to do with both the quantity and the distribution of the taste buds ... and thus varies from body to body.
Twelfth, one is indeed free of all (pleasure) needs here in this actual world ... an actual freedom from the human condition is most certainly worthwhile.
Lastly, no effort is required to inform my fellow human being of an actual freedom from the human condition – nor is it a causeless action (such as swinging the legs) – and you might as well take your pick among the following responses to similar questions:
RESPONDENT: Richard, thanks for your extensive, though terse replies.
RICHARD: There are two reasons why eleven out of my thirteen replies were ‘neatly concise; compact and pithy in style or language; to the point’ (Oxford Dictionary) ... (1) most, if not all, of your queries stemmed from you having [quote] ‘not been able to find a distinction’ [endquote] between enjoyment as a normal person and enjoyment sans identity in toto (both the thinker and the feeler) ... and (2) a detailed response to each and every one of your queries would make for a very long e-mail (there were twenty-two question marks in the ‘questions for actualists’ part of your e-mail).
If you were to re-read the ‘first and foremost’ part of my response it may become more clear ... here is the crux of it:
To put that another way: the pristine perfection of the peerless purity of this actual world is impeccable (nothing ‘dirty’, so to speak, can get in) ... innocence is entirely new to human history.
RESPONDENT: Let me put my question in another way: Once I was travelling in a bus. I had my eyes closed but wasn’t asleep. A person came and sat next to me. The body had an explicit feminine perfume. (I think we can agree that there are feminine and masculine perfumes). So, with my eyes closed, I concluded that it was a woman. She was pressing against my body and I was enjoying the touch sexually, not just sensually. Whenever her sandal touched my feet, a shiver went down my spine.
This continued for half an hour. Then, suddenly the bus came to an abrupt halt (the road was blocked). I opened my eyes. It was a man who was sitting next to me. As soon as that perception happened (that it was a man), the whole texture of his body touching my body changed. It was no longer enjoyable in the same sense. In fact, I wanted him to sit a little away from me. :-)
Wouldn’t one say that the pleasure I got during that half hour was an illusion based on a certain evaluation of sensory data?
RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) all it were was a misappraisal of the situation based solely upon the olfactory sensing of an applied aroma usually associated with a feminine presence then ... yes; as you describe your fellow human being as both pressing against you and, more than once, touching feet with you there may very well have been more to it than just that.
Put succinctly: given that a male of the species is (1) wearing what you describe as an explicit feminine perfume ... and (2) pressing against another male ... and (3) touching feet with another male (which sent a shiver down your spine each time it happened) there could very well have been an affective/psychic ‘come-on’ operating as well.
‘Tis only a possibility, mind you.
RESPONDENT: And you maintain, correct me if I am wrong, that this ‘affective come-on’, or rather, as I would put it, a sexual overlap on the sensory input, is absent in the actual world.
RICHARD: I notice that you use the word ‘overlap’ further below. Vis.:
As an affective/psychic ‘come-on’ operates simultaneous to sensations I do not see why you would rather put it as an overlap to the sensations numbered 1, 2, and 3 further above.
RESPONDENT: In the actual world, the sandal touching my feet would be just that, a sandal touching my feet. In the actual world, the shiver down my spine (a symptom of my current state in which I consider the sensory input sexually, as the touch of a female) would be absent EVEN IF I AM AWARE OR PERCEIVE OR CONSIDER BASED ON OLFACTORY INPUT that the touch is that of a gorgeous female. Such an affective overlap can not happen to an actualist.
RICHARD: Not only can an affective/psychic ‘come-on’ not happen to a person actually free from the human condition – there is no pleasure/pain centre (as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate) in this flesh and blood body to be affected – there is no such ‘come-on’ in actuality anyway ... irregardless what any psychological/psychic identity, be it in a male or female body, may emanate in the real-world (the world of the psyche).
In short: nothing affective/psychic ever happens here in this actual world.
Incidentally, it is where you say you ‘consider the sensory input sexually’ that is the nub of the issue (as that sexual consideration itself *is* the pleasure/pain centre in operation).
RESPONDENT: If your answer is no, the shiver might still be there, then I must say that actualism does admit the possibility of pleasure based on an evaluation of the sensory data, not just the sensory data itself. If your answer is yes, such a shiver will not happen, then read on ...
RICHARD: Hmm ... it is not a case of what actualism does or does not ‘admit’ as actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is not a person (what I write is a report, a description, and an explanation, of what life is like in this actual world).
RESPONDENT: Isn’t all sexual pleasure that?
RICHARD: No ... anhedonic (non-affective/non-psychic) sexual pleasure is not that.
RESPONDENT: Let us say, one is licking the genitals of one’s partner. Let’s assume the eyes of both are closed. Now as far as the sensory input is concerned, the tongue is having some tangy/pungent/fishy taste. But one wouldn’t get that pleasure from merely licking a stale fish. Would you agree?
RICHARD: There is more to ‘as far as the sensory input is concerned’ than the absence of visual sensing and the occurrence of gustatorial sensing ... much more. For a rather simple example: a (blind-folded) person with pegged nostrils cannot ascertain just what a mouthful of powdered cinnamon is.
And I say ‘a rather simple example’ as, just like with the stale (thus dead) fish, with the cinnamon there is not the lively feed-back (the arousal, for instance, or the interest) of another living creature to enhance the enjoyment ... and, usually, increase the arousal/interest and thus invigorate the licking/tonguing.
RESPONDENT: Exactly my point.
RICHARD: As your point is that the pleasure of sex is based on the mental perception of a different entity (see further below) and that all sexual pleasure is an illusion based on a certain evaluation of sensory data (see further above) – whereas I am speaking of sensory perception (just above) – it is anything but that.
Now, I have never licked a stale (thus dead) fish – either with eyes open or closed – and have no intention of ever doing so yet it does not take a genius to suss out that no matter how much one might do so there would never, ever, be any lively feed-back (the arousal, for instance, or the interest, of another living creature) ... there will be no erotic aromas, no thrusting movements, no appreciative sounds, no blood pulsing, no genital engorgement, no proximate warmth, no viscous secretions, no stimulating pheromones, and so on.
Also, there surely would be quite a distinction between the tactile sensation on the tongue of warm, soft and erogenous sexual-tissue and the tactile sensation of cold, hard and non-erogenous fish-scales ... as I have said before, there is more to ‘as far as the sensory input is concerned’ than the absence of visual sensing and the occurrence of gustatorial sensing.
RESPONDENT: I claimed that this lively feedback, or rather, the PERCEPTION OF the presence of a live otherness is THE crux of the matter, which you deny as under: [Richard] ‘I can assure you (for whatever that is worth) that the anhedonic pleasure of sex and sexuality, here in this actual world, is not based upon the mental perception of a different entity (especially given that you delineate mental perception as being ‘imagination’ and ‘mental imagery’ immediately below)’ [endquote]. The reason why I call it a mental perception is because it may be an illusion (since it is an evaluation of sensory data), as was my incident in the bus.
RICHARD: And is where you say ‘the PERCEPTION OF the presence of a live otherness’ also a mental perception (according to you)? For example:
Or is it sensory perception? Vis.:
Incidentally, here is the passage I was responding to with those words of mine you quoted:
If you were to re-read my response you will see that what I am saying is that, here in this actual world, the *anhedonic* (non-affective/ non-psychic) pleasure of sex and sexuality is not based upon the mental perception (and especially not on imagination/ mental imagery) of a different entity ... it is, in fact, the direct, immediate, sensual experiencing (which happens just here, right now, and nowhere and nowhen else).
RESPONDENT: Suppose you are licking the lips of your girlfriend. Suppose she leaves and a robot takes her place. You still have your eyes closed. The robot’s lips feel just as warm wet and soft and it is wearing the perfume your girlfriend wears. Only the lips of the robot are touching your lips, no other body parts are touching. Suppose further that the robot actively kisses you for ten more minutes and then suddenly it makes a clanking noise and you open your eyes and see that it is a robot. Would you still be able to close your eyes, and enjoy the kiss?
RICHARD: As this is such an implausible scenario (somewhat akin to licking a dead fish in lieu of cunnilingus) I cannot provide a meaningful reply.
RESPONDENT: I would be very much interested in actualism if you say yes.
RICHARD: Why on earth would you be ‘very much interested in actualism’ if you were to be informed that the enjoyment of kissing a perfumed robot was one of the ... um ... the fringe-benefits of living in this actual world? One does not have to be actually free from the human condition to enjoy something of that nature ... there are many peoples all over the globe who already enjoy sexual activity with plastic/ silicone devices/ models.
RICHARD: In short: sex and sexuality is a mutual experience.
RESPONDENT: I am glad you accept it.
RICHARD: As I never did ‘accept’ what you are referring to – that the pleasure of sex is based on the mental perception of a different entity (and/or that all sexual pleasure is an illusion based on a certain evaluation of sensory data) – there is nothing to be glad about.
RESPONDENT: Now, let’s lay the matter threadbare. Can you explain what makes a purely sensory data transform into a MUTUAL experience?
RICHARD: The lively feed-back – the erotic aromas, the thrusting movements, the appreciative sounds, the blood pulsing, the genital engorgement, the proximate warmth, the viscous secretions, the stimulating pheromones, and so on (as a response to the tactile sensation of a nimble tongue/warm breath on soft, erogenous sexual-tissue) – not only enhances the enjoyment but, usually, increases the arousal/interest and thus invigorates the licking/tonguing (which, in turn, heightens the lively feed-back and further enhances the enjoyment and further increases the arousal/interest and, usually, thus further invigorates the licking/tonguing ... and so on and so on (back and forth).
Put succinctly: arousal/interest for both persons escalates because of the mutuality.
RESPONDENT: In what way do the sensations on your tongue change when you see a rapturous smile on the face of the woman?
RICHARD: If I may point out? The cunnilingus/ licking-a-stale-fish comparison specifically required the eyes be closed.
RESPONDENT: Can you really claim that when you see the smile on her face, it is just a change in the visual field and you do not make a connection between the movements of your tongue and her smile? Now, when you make that connection: it is a thought process. You modify your tonguing in order to increase that smile etc. Why does that smile make you change your behaviour? I claim that if it is a robot, this mutual feedback loses its strength ...
RICHARD: As a robot is not a living creature there is no ‘mutual feedback’ to either lose or gain strength.
RESPONDENT: ... [I claim that if it is a robot, this mutual feedback loses its strength] and you would not want to give ‘it’ pleasure since it is incapable of feeling pleasure in a subjective way.
RICHARD: As a robot is not a living creature it is incapable of pleasure, period ... let alone feeling ‘subjective’ pleasure (a robot has no identity within).
RESPONDENT: You would want to give pleasure only to an alive entity which is likewise capable of perceiving you as different from itself. Once again, I posit: the pleasure of sex is based on the mental perception/evaluation of a different other live entity. If this perception is absent, the pleasure of sex is reduced to pure sensory data and then it is a sensate experience, not a sexual pleasure.
RICHARD: As one has only to alternate between fondling one’s nose (for instance), with thumb and forefinger (for example), and fondling one’s genitals, in the exact same manner, to experience the distinction between the two sensate experiences it would appear that what you posit is not empirically-grounded.
RESPONDENT: This perception is not a sensate experience. It is a thought process which infers the presence of life and appropriate gender in the other entity based on certain inputs. E.g. a warm body, presence of sweat, a certain smell and so on. The entity with which one is having sex MUST BE subjectively alive for one to have a sense of pleasure. Isn’t it so even for an actualist?
RICHARD: Not ‘subjectively’ alive ... no.
RESPONDENT: If yes, can you explain WHY? And I claim that this pleasure is based on ego.
RICHARD: All subjective pleasure is identity-based (both ego and soul) ... and not just ‘based on ego’.
RESPONDENT: The other entity must have an ego, be capable of this mutual-ness of pleasure and of subjective perception.
RICHARD: As there is no identity whatsoever in this flesh and blood body (thus no ego), and as this flesh and blood body is indeed capable of mutuality in sex and sexuality (as in the arousal/interest description much further above), the subjectivity you speak of is not at all essential (‘essential’ as in your ‘MUST BE’ phrasing further above).
I will say it again for emphasis: what I write is a report, a description, and an explanation, of what life is like in this actual world (the world of the senses).
RESPONDENT: That is the difference between a robot and your girlfriend.
RICHARD: Not so ... a robot is not a living creature.
RESPONDENT: In the sexual case, the mind knows that the tongue is in contact with the genitalia of another living human being ...
RICHARD: If I may interject? Just how does ‘the mind’ know that (if all there is is gustatorial sensing)?
RESPONDENT: Because before you closed your eyes, you saw her. Right now, there is only gustatorial input ...
RICHARD: Oh? Is there no tactile sensation of soft, erogenous tissue on the tongue, no erotic aromas, no thrusting movements, no appreciative sounds, no genital engorgement, no blood pulsing, no proximate warmth, no viscous secretions, no stimulating pheromones, and so on, then?
RESPONDENT: ...[Right now, there is only gustatorial input], but it is now mixed with previous perceptions to give it the overlap which leads to sexual pleasure.
RICHARD: As you have already explained that the previous perceptions were visual am I to take it that the totality of your at-the-moment sexual experiencing amounts to the current gustatorial sensing – ‘the tongue is having some tangy/pungent/fishy taste’ – and a remembered visual sensing?
If so, it is no wonder you liken it to licking a stale fish, then.
RESPONDENT: ... [the mind knows that the tongue is in contact with the genitalia of another living human being] who fulfils the role of a sexual partner.
RICHARD: Hmm ... there is more to a fellow human being (of the gender one’s sexual orientation particularly appreciates) than merely fulfilling a role.
RESPONDENT: The pleasure is based on this subtle fact.
RICHARD: Again, there is nothing ‘subtle’ about viewing one’s sexual partner as a role-fulfiller ... it is quite blatant.
RESPONDENT: I think what I want to say must be clear at this stage. It is this: The pleasure of sex is based on the mental perception of a different entity.
RICHARD: Given that you wrote both the above and your previous words for the express purpose of sincerely wishing to understand the basis of the actions and choices of a person actually free from the human condition and really wishing to learn about same, I can assure you (for whatever that is worth) that the anhedonic pleasure of sex and sexuality, here in this actual world, is not based upon the mental perception of a different entity (especially given that you delineate mental perception as being ‘imagination’ and ‘mental imagery’ immediately below).
RESPONDENT: Even masturbation is quite impossible (or unfulfilling) without this imagination of a partner. If this is not a pleasure based on conditioning and mental imagery, what is?
RICHARD: It is impossible to either imagine/ form images or be conditioned where there is no identity ... the affective faculty in its entirety (which includes its imaginative/intuitive facility) has no existence whatsoever in this flesh and blood body.
RESPONDENT No. 94: Do you become ‘aroused’ without any mental component (i.e. do you find yourself with an erection when a partner expresses some desire to engage in sex) or what?
RICHARD: Here in this actual world it is impossible to ever be hedonic as the affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain – as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate – is null and void.
You may find the following self-explanatory:
RESPONDENT: Don’t you ever get an erection without tactile stimulation?
RICHARD: Yes ... nocturnal tumescence can and does occur during the transition from sleeping to waking (the autonomic release of nitric oxide, synthesised from arginine and oxygen by the enzyme nitric oxide synthase, can enable erectile tissue to involuntarily engorge in both males and females).
RESPONDENT: If you watch a pornographic movie, for example?
RICHARD: No ... all appetitive desires are non-existent. Vis.:
RESPONDENT No. 94: Would the idea of masturbation ever arise?
RICHARD: Having lived with a female companion since 1992 there has been no occasion where, being but a substitute for the real thing, it would ... there is (presumably) no reason why it would not, though, were the situation to be different.
RESPONDENT: Would you masturbate without thinking of a partner?
RICHARD: As your query is drawn from my speculative response then what you are asking me to do is to further conjecture about a supposition ... what I can say, however, is that the anhedonic pleasure of sex and sexuality, here in this actual world, has nothing to do with mental imagery.
Indeed, it is impossible to either imagine or form images where there is no identity (the affective faculty in its entirety – which includes its imaginative/intuitive facility – has no existence whatsoever in this flesh and blood body).
RESPONDENT: Just a physical stimulation of your genital organs would it be, then?
RICHARD: If the hetero-sexual tactile stimulation already referred to in my initial response at top of this page is anything to go by there is (presumably) no reason why mono-sexual tactile stimulation would be any different ... other than, of course, a difference in quality.
RESPONDENT: If a man touched your nipples or your lips or any other erogenous zone would you experience pleasure?
RICHARD: If any body – be it human, dog, monkey, and so on, and so forth, of either gender, or any age, shape, size, appearance, race, ethnicity, and social status – were to touch, stroke, caress, lick, suck, nuzzle, or in any other way set out to stimulate me in an erotic manner, then erogenous pleasure would (presumably) be experienced.
RESPONDENT: And if so what does that imply?
RICHARD: I am none too sure that it implies anything (other than the absence of prejudice already mentioned).
RESPONDENT: Does the fact that animal or man can arouse you mean that you are not heterosexually oriented as you said in some post where you were discussing your sex life and companionship?
RICHARD: First of all, virtually any flesh and blood body would experience erogenous pleasure when stimulated in an erotic manner. Vis.:
Second, I now comprehend just what implication it was you were fishing for ... and, as I understand it, there are various devices on the market which would (presumably) also bring about erogenous pleasure – and (probably) of a similar nature to that stimulated by the living creatures listed above – yet there is no way that would mean my sexual orientation was not heterosexual.
Or, put differently, were my sexual orientation to have been homosexual, and a female (of any age, shape, size, appearance, race, ethnicity, and social status) was to then stimulate me in an erotic manner, the erogenous pleasure experienced would in no way mean that my sexual orientation was not homosexual.
Last, but by no means least, there is a vast difference between hedonic pleasure, where arousal means desire, and anhedonic pleasure, where arousal remains sensate only ... in this actual world (the world of the senses) it is impossible to ever be hedonic (desirous) as the affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain – as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate – is null and void.
RESPONDENT: How can you say you have any sexual orientation at all?
RICHARD: As I understand it, and this is a vaguely recalled generalisation, both gender and sexual orientation are set in place whilst a foetus – from memory around the tenth/ twelfth week for a male and the twelfth/fourteenth week for a female – due to either the presence or absence of testosterone, in conjunction with other hormones, as determined by the type of chromosomes endowed at conception.
Be that as it may ... the extirpation of the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto (and thus libido or sexual desire) does not eliminate sexual orientation.
RESPONDENT: Does the flesh and blood body called Richard have a preference companions that wear skirts and have smaller bone structure?
RICHARD: No, sexual orientation is not a preference.
RESPONDENT: Your input on this matter is important to me as I am facing issues around my sexual (homosexual) identity/ reality since AF.
RICHARD: Neither heterosexuality or homosexuality (or bisexuality/ transsexuality for that matter) are a product of identity as other animals display variations in sexual orientation as well ... being born and raised on a farm I have personally witnessed, for just one example, cows in oestrous (aka on heat) sniffing, licking, nuzzling, rubbing and mounting each other (known colloquially as ‘bulling’).
Nor are various sexual practices either, by the way, as I have also seen, for instance, a doe goat quite obviously enjoying fellatio with a buck goat and ‘water sports’ (aka golden showers), for another example, are also very common as urine often contains, especially when on heat, sexually stimulating pheromones.
RESPONDENT: I don’t understand how you can say that because you have observed same sex animal behaviour that this makes the animals homosexually oriented.
RICHARD: That could be because I never said such a thing – as the cows in the example above also vigorously mate with the bull then the variation in sexual orientation they are displaying is bisexuality – and, anyway, the point I am making is that sexual orientation is not a product of identity (I only gave the ‘other animals’ example so that you would not have to take my word for it).
RESPONDENT: How can a flesh and blood body be programmed in utero to prefer what is basically a social construct.
RICHARD: I never said that a flesh and blood body is programmed in utero to [quote] ‘prefer’ [endquote] what is basically [quote] ‘a social construct’ [endquote] ... I specifically say (a) sexual orientation is *not* a preference ... and (b) both gender and *sexual orientation* are set in place whilst a foetus.
RESPONDENT: Don’t get me wrong, I know the difference between a man and a woman but we all know that construction workers will whistle at anything that has on lipstick and heels!
RICHARD: Both lipstick/heels and the skirts which you mentioned further above are but a particular society’s cultural aspects of the innate gender and sexual orientation ... in other societies those cultural aspects take on a different appearance (where the equivalent of those archetypal male construction workers you portray would vociferously express their sexual orientation in a corresponding culturally-conditioned way to anybody appearing publicly in that particular society’s female accoutrements).
RESPONDENT: This is important to me. I need you to clarify. I don’t understand how you can be sans identity (affective feelings) and say you are heterosexually oriented.
RICHARD: I say that my sexual orientation is heterosexual for no other reason than the reason already explained/exampled ... to wit: sexual orientation is not a product of identity (hence my ‘other animals’ example).
RESPONDENT: What constitutes an object of your heterosexual orientation?
RICHARD: A female human being (no matter her age, shape, size, appearance, race, ethnicity, or social status).
RESPONDENT: Perhaps you’ll tell me that the organism Richard has certain predilections based on his collective memory ...
RICHARD: No, and especially not when I have already said that sexual orientation is not a preference ... here it is again (from further above)
RESPONDENT: ... [Perhaps you’ll tell me that the organism Richard has certain predilections based on his collective memory] ... so then ... well ... I’ll see what you have to say about this so far.
CO-RESPONDENT: How can you say you have any sexual orientation at all?
RICHARD: As I understand it, and this is a vaguely recalled generalisation, both gender and sexual orientation are set in place whilst a foetus – from memory around the tenth/ twelfth week for a male and the twelfth/ fourteenth week for a female – due to either the presence or absence of testosterone, in conjunction with other hormones, as determined by the type of chromosomes endowed at conception.
Be that as it may ... the extirpation of the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto (and thus libido or sexual desire) does not eliminate sexual orientation. (...)
RESPONDENT: How do you discover/ know what your sexual orientation is (other than by performing a scientific study of genes and the body using various experiments)?
RICHARD: By virtue of which gender one experiences oneself as (regardless of genitalia) ...
RESPONDENT: It is interesting that you say ‘regardless of genitalia’.
RICHARD: I am, of course, referring to well-documented reports by transsexuals (who experience themselves as being the other gender to what their genitals signify).
RESPONDENT: What constitutes such an experience if not an affective feeling of ‘maleness’ or a ‘male identity’ or a ‘manliness’?
RICHARD: It is an innate sensory experiencing of the gender set in place, as I understand it, whilst a foetus (due to either the presence or absence of testosterone, in conjunction with other hormones, as determined by the type of chromosomes endowed at conception).
RESPONDENT: Can you provide some further explanation/ details on the nature of this experience?
RICHARD: It is not all that dissimilar to, say, experiencing oneself as being of a certain height.
RICHARD: ... in conjunction with which gender one is sexually receptive to ...
RESPONDENT: Again the same question. What is the nature of this receptivity if neither an instinctual urge/desire/affective feeling of tenderness etc. nor a preference?
RICHARD: Again the same answer: it is an innate sensory experiencing of the sexual orientation set in place, as I understand it, whilst a foetus (due to either the presence or absence of testosterone, in conjunction with other hormones, as determined by the type of chromosomes endowed at conception).
RICHARD: ... from earliest memory right up to the present day my experience has been that of a heterosexual male.
RESPONDENT: Are you saying that if your sexual orientation was otherwise it would have shown up as something even during all those days you were experiencing life as an identity (under the influence of instincts and cultural programming)?
RICHARD: In effect ... yes. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Do you see any relationship between the orientation of raw instinctual desire (if it can ever be seen without the overlaying cultural program) and the sexual orientation?
RICHARD: Yes, the one follows the other ... the former impulsively/ compulsively energises the latter.
RESPONDENT: As an identity did you affectively experience any repulsion for the idea of physical closeness/sexual act with men?
RICHARD: Not that I can recall (at least not of any significance) but by being born and raised in the ‘forties and the ‘fifties there was, of course, a culturally-induced disdain ... a deprecation which did not become apparent, curiously enough, until married and whilst serving in the military.
RESPONDENT: Certainly not a desire, right? (from what you say).
RICHARD: No, not at all ... the identity in residence never had any doubts/ any confusion about either gender or sexual orientation (even at pubescence when there was some minor same-sex experimentation).
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.