RESPONDENT: Do you think it is possible to successfully apply oneself to the path of actual freedom and still hold reservations as to whether or not Richard was the first identity to ever self-immolate?

RICHARD: First and foremost: the issue of whether it was Richard that was the first, or not, is a distraction away from the main issue – that an entirely new way to live life on this verdant and azure planet is now available – and it is this way of living which is worthy of further investigation, and thus validation, and not the way Richard knows it is entirely new (which validation requires following in Richard’s footsteps).

I am aware that I have re-posted the following before yet as the question is particularly perspicacious it is worth re-posting again:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Do I understand correctly from your mail, that your being unique in this is not what is important: that you merely wanted to stress with it that you bring something that is entirely new?
• [Richard]: ‘Yes. The on-going experiencing of the already always existing peace-on-earth is entirely new to human experience ... everybody I have spoken to at length has temporarily experienced such perfection, in what is called a pure consciousness experience (PCE), but nobody has been able to provide a clear, clean and pure report as an on-going actuality. Usually the PCE is interpreted and/or translated according to selfish personal desires, and by corresponding cultural conditioning, as a variation of the many types of an Altered State Of Consciousness (ASC) which perpetuates the ‘self’ as the ‘Self’ (by whatever name) in some spurious after-life ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’. And thus 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 have gone on forever and a day.
Now the opportunity exists for an eventual global peace-on-earth: with 6.0 billion outbreaks of individual peace-on-earth no police force would be needed anywhere on earth; no locks on the doors, no bars on the windows. Gaols, judges and juries would become a thing of the dreadful past ... terror would stalk its prey no more. People would live together in peace and harmony, happiness and delight.
But do not hold your breath waiting.

It is somewhat difficult to report to one’s fellow human beings that one has discovered something entirely new to human experience without saying that it is ... um ... something entirely new to human experience.

RESPONDENT: Let’s say that Peter did not suggested you to make this site.

RICHARD: You must be referring to this:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘One wonders what would you do without the internet?
• [Richard]: ‘I would be doing what I was doing before I came onto the internet, presumably, which was writing about my experience on a portable typewriter and putting the pages in a loose-leaf folder in a drawer. In fact, if it were not for Peter coming into my life and expressing interest in what was in the loose-leaf folder, and suggesting I put sections of it out on the internet for feedback, it may very well have been that you and I would not be having this discussion today.

RESPONDENT: Then you die and another one rediscover the AF. He claims to be the first because nobody here in Europe for example have ever heard about Richard in Byron Bay.

RICHARD: Then when this (abstract) person goes public it would sooner or later be drawn to their attention that there has been another ... and they would be delighted that Richard had written about his experience as they could then compare notes, as it were, and thus advance human knowledge.

RESPONDENT: So the same situation might happen with someone before you he gained AF but did not made it public. Why is this impossible?

RICHARD: As an actual freedom from the human condition requires an all-inclusive altruism to effect – and altruism wipes away selfism completely – it would be a contradiction, not only in terms, but in effect to not pass on a report of the discovery of the already always existing peace-on-earth to one’s fellow human beings.

Put simply: because of the inherent character of fellowship regard here in this actual world if this (abstract) person ‘gained AF but did not made it public’ – that is, kept it to themselves – it ain’t an actual freedom from the human condition.

There are times I am particularly well-pleased not to be a logician ... and this is one of them.

RESPONDENT: Now that we’re talking (more or less) I invite you to deal DIRECTLY with the heartwood of my questions ... as articulated in my last post to respondent No. 59, et al. That’s a good place to shed some light, if indeed light is to be shed.

RICHARD: If I may point out? I am already doing just that ... I provided four quotes (plus two more in this e-mail) which make it patently clear that your ‘some places to look’ are, quite simply, nothing other than more of the same-old same-old tried and failed spiritual solution to all the ills of humankind. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘I don’t yet accept that this is a ‘now for the first time’ kind of a deal. We’ve got some people exiting Plato’s Cave here, and claiming that ‘now for the first time’ the sun is shining. They haven’t yet made an exhaustive investigation of all the other places it might have been shining up until now (though they might THINK they have). I mentioned some places to look above, for starters’. (‘Conversation Continuing’; Monday, 04 August 2003).

As for your claim, that I have not yet made ‘an exhaustive investigation of all the other places’ an actual freedom from the human condition ‘might’ have been happening up until now, this may be an apposite moment to explain that, even though I have talked with many and varied peoples from all walks of life (I have both travelled the country and overseas), and watched television, videos, films (whatever media is available), plus read about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet), for more than two decades so as to find somebody else actually free from the human condition, but to no avail, I do not rely upon that kind of verification to be able to know that an actual freedom is something entirely new to human experience.

In 1985 I had the first of many experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment (as described in ‘A Brief Personal History’ on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust web site) and it had the character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was experienced at the time – and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism).

Thus I knew even before becoming actually free that this condition was entirely new to human experience while still alive ... furthermore, in the ensuing years, as I proceeded to penetrate deeper and deeper into the state of being known as spiritual enlightenment, the psychic footprints, as it were, of those who had explored some of the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself gradually became less and less in number and finally petered out altogether leaving only virgin territory wherever the (psychic) eye would look.

I was truly on my own ... no one had ventured into this terrain before.

RESPONDENT: That said, how can Richard or anyone know whether there was not some American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples who hadn’t accomplished the very same thing?

PETER: In your attempts to disprove Richard’s claim you have yet to provide any evidence that anyone else has become free of the human condition of malice and sorrow … let alone provide any evidence of anyone who has said, or is saying, that it is possible for anyone to become free of the instinctual passions that are the root cause of human malice and sorrow. In the light of this failure you are reduced to clutching-at-straws propositions, which do nothing but highlight the lack of facts that support your case.

RESPONDENT: The onus is not on me to disprove Richard’s claim. How could I or he prove this? It boggles the mind to think that one could possibly know. Really, it doesn’t matter to me whether he is the first or not or what condition he is or isn’t in. I am happy for him and you and all the others you all have helped.

PETER: What a load of codswallop.

You came to this mailing list pre-primed to disprove Richard’s claim and now you are wimping out because you have been unable to come up with any evidence whatsoever to support your claim. Of course you will dismiss this because you have already made it clear that you are not at all interested in whether Richard actually has discovered a way to become free of malice and sorrow –

[Respondent]: ‘the focus here ... (is) your claim that you are the one, the only, the only one in the history of man & woman to live, to be in your self-coined term of ‘actual freedom’. Whether this is true or not is besides the point.’ Question 16.10.2003

PETER: This makes it clear that the only motive you have for writing on this list is to be adversarial.

And not only that, your claim that you ‘are happy for him and all the others he has helped’ stands contrary to what you have written on this mailing list to other list-members –

[Respondent]:

• It’s beyond me how you could expect anyone but the most desperate & vulnerable to buy what you are selling as proof positive that you are the first & only one to be freed of what you dub, the ‘human condition’. Extraordinary proof??, 18.10.2003
• Exactly J ... lets see how he is able to wriggle out of this one. Worms and snakes know no other way. Even more clarification 21.10.2003
• You are no different than drug addicts looking forward to their next injection. More objections 20.10.2003
• You must be an absolute nightmare for you current sexual release person. A couple of (business) questions 28.10.2003
• Don’t waste your time arguing with Sir Richard the FIRST, the ONE, the ONLY, the ONLY ONE. Extraordinary proof 27.10.2003
• My my my … did we wake up on the wrong side of the throne today? A couple of (business) questions 27.10.2003
• ... and now you are kissing Richard’s ass ... whose ass are you gonna kiss next when you are tired of Richard’s? Helping people 22.10.2003
• You are an actual fool. You have learned well. Be yourself 23.10.2003
• My my my my my my ... how sarcastic and cynical are we today? Did I hurt your feelings in some way? A question for the expert 22.11.2003
• Perhaps you would do yourself a favour and see if you could find the real, virtual or actual No 37 buried somewhere underneath your borrowed actualist clothing. Its really kind of pathetic for a grown man (I am assuming you are a grown man, correct me if I am wrong) to be so under the spell of an internet website and its founder, Mr. Face Value. Experiences to any confused, searching, desperate, greedy, despairing, vulnerable soul. Re freedom, 23.11.2003

PETER: These are not the words of someone who is ‘happy for him and you and all the others you all have helped’ but rather the words of someone who is scornful of, rather than happy for ...

RESPONDENT: How is anyone to know what has happened to every single human that has ever walked the face of this verdant and azure planet?

PETER: But you do claim to know and you have made it plain that you do know –

‘Who knows if he is free, if there is such a thing as freedom. And if there is such a thing, he is certainly not the first.’ Respondent to No 59, 27.10.2003

PETER: As you have made the definitive claim, ‘he is certainly not the first’, then it is certainly up to you to provide the evidence to back your claim.

The other relevant point is that you remain fixated on the discoverer and have made it clear that you have zilch interest in what it is that he has discovered, which makes your contributions to the focus of this mailing list an irrelevancy.

[Richard]: ‘This is a forum for discussion about an end to malice and sorrow forever and an actual freedom for all peoples. The sincerity of your participation will increase the opportunity for an on-going investigation, for both yourself and anyone else who is genuinely concerned about becoming free of the Human Condition, and thus effecting peace-on-earth in this life-time.’ Welcome Message to the Actual Freedom Mailing List

PETER: Just to remind you, here are a few examples of your contributions on the subject of bringing about an end to malice and sorrow –

• So everyone wants to be free of the human condition? What for? You think it will solve all your problems. What’s wrong with the human condition? I say be human. Richard and his actual freedom 20.10.2003
• Happy and harmless is a theory. It’s another useless ideal that conflicts with actuality. The ideal of happy & harmless that fights with your act of screaming is violence. If you had no ideal, you would scream your head off and be done with it but that stupid ideal you got from whoever is screwing up your head. It’s the ideal that is violent and not your outburst. Your act of screaming at your friend is peace. Helping people, 22.10.2003

RESPONDENT: In a few years, Richard may disappear to finish his days in obscurity. I don’t see why others who were in the same condition before him, didn’t do the same. Hence, no trace.

PETER: The prime reason The Actual Freedom Trust was established was to ensure that Richard’s writings and the writings of other actualists would be available for others to peruse. A Trust is a handy legal entity to do this because its existence is not dependant on any one single person and when one person dies the other Trust members can continue to support the Trust or other members can be enjoined to continue the work of the Trust. Who knows how long this will last but I shall certainly be supporting the Trust and its aims as long as I am alive, and there may well then be others who would be interested in taking my place so as to maintain the website.

*

RESPONDENT: Clearly the writings of Carlos Castaneda point to the Indians of the Mexican peninsula devoting their entire existence to such goals. One is not likely to find such evidence scouring the internet.

PETER: Speaking of straw-clutching, Carlos Castaneda’s writings have long been exposed as being fiction masquerading as fact. All one needs to do is type ‘Carlos Castaneda’ into a good search engine and one can readily see that his fictional stories have nothing to do with actualism and everything to do with shamanism, spiritualism … and pop-psychology.

RESPONDENT: I didn’t know his writings had been ‘exposed as being fiction masquerading as fact’. There seems to be too many nuggets of truth in his tales for it to be completely fictional.

PETER: Yep. People do find it hard to completely dismiss fictions such as these. The fact that the hoaxers who perpetrated the first crop circles owned up did nothing to daunt the true believers let alone discourage the copycats who keep the hoax running. I noticed that the hoaxer who perpetrated the Bigfoot hoax in the U.S. was recently revealed but this did little if anything to dint the hopes of those who are still ‘searching for Bigfoot’.

RESPONDENT: I never said he had anything to do with your actualism.

So I’m now to take it that when you said –

‘Clearly the writings of Carlos Castaneda point to the Indians of the Mexican peninsula devoting their entire existence to such goals.’

you weren’t referring to the goals of actualism? This does make the conversation somewhat surreal.

RESPONDENT: There is obviously shamanism, spiritualism and other isms intertwined in his tales.

PETER: As I understand it, shamanism and spiritualism are not just intertwined in his tales, they are the very substance of his tales and hence the very appeal of his writings – the belief that they contain nuggets of truth.

RESPONDENT: All I meant was that if there is any truth at all to his writings, [which I think there is] then this points to some subculture of peoples devoting their lives to uncovering the meaning of life, not unlike the goal of actualism.

PETER: Shaman, sages, gurus, spiritualists and the like all believe that the meaning of life for a feeling being (a spirit being) is to be found in the spiritual world (the world of spirits) – where else? Whereas an actualist devotes his or her life to eliminating his or her feeling being, along with ‘his’ or ‘her’ associated malice and sorrow, in order that the already existing meaning of life that is the actual world can become apparent 24/7.

No similarity at all – different people, different worlds, different intent … and different results.

RESPONDENT (to Peter): ... how can Richard or anyone know whether there was not some American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples who hadn’t accomplished the very same thing?

RICHARD: Just as a matter of interest: is this American Indian/ Mayan/ Incan/ Aboriginal person (or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples) the first person to become actually free from the human condition ... or was there someone, somewhere, somewhen, before that person as well?

RESPONDENT: You are just goading me into useless banter.

RICHARD: Not at all ... I am asking a valid question: if (note ‘if’) the, thus far abstract, person did exist as a flesh and blood body, in a particular place at a particular time, would you then be satisfied that they were the first to be actually free from the human condition? ‘Tis a simple question, non?

RESPONDENT: So to humour yourself ... Richard ... I haven’t a clue ...

RICHARD: Do you realise that you are acknowledging you ‘haven’t a clue’ whether an abstract entity was indeed the first to be actually free from the human condition?

RESPONDENT: I haven’t a clue whether a particular entity was indeed the first ...

RICHARD: Okay ... and I appreciate that you acknowledge this. I have no further questions.

RESPONDENT: You are pathetic Richard ... just pathetic.

RESPONDENT No. 18: ... what on earth is pathetic about that?

RESPONDENT: ... do I really have to explain myself there? I have posted 15 or 30 posts since I have been here. He pulls one line out of one thousand and makes up a question and then answers it with one line out of 1000. Sorry, but you are smart enough to see that that is nothing short of pathetic. And extremely pathetic for someone of his intelligence.

RICHARD: Apparently I am not ‘smart enough’ as I cannot see how the above exchange is anything other than the straightforward sequence of a query/response dialogue ... as per any other straightforward discussion on this or any other mailing list I have ever subscribed to.

Here is the context in which the ‘one line out of one thousand’ originated:

• [Respondent]: ‘On another note and a popular topic of discussion on this list: while I have brought this up in the past regarding Richard’s claim of being the 1st to be fully free of the human condition ( I will use the actualist term). First I would like to say that regarding the ongoing discussion between  Respondent No. 56 and the ‘defenders of the faith’ (my term – no offence intended referring to Richard, Peter, Vineeto, Respondent No. 18, et al) that I can clearly see  Respondent No. 56’s points. That said, how can Richard or anyone know whether there was not some American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed out indigenous culture and peoples who hadn’t accomplished the very same thing? Clearly the writings of Carlos Castaneda point to the Indians of the Mexican peninsula devoting their entire existence to such goals. One is not likely to find such evidence scouring the internet. [emphasis added]. (‘Re: Objections’; Wed 12/11/03 8:41 AM).

You had distinctly said ‘on another note’ so I am obviously not taking it out of the context of the long e-mail the paragraph was situated at the end of; the ‘popular topic of discussion on this list’ was started by you (‘Question’; Wed 15/10/03 7:13 AM) and is not a topic which actualists would have any reason to discuss otherwise; it is not ‘the actualist term’ to say I was the first but rather that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human history (I just happened to be the first to discover it was possible to live the pure consciousness experience (PCE) twenty four hours a day seven days a week) and it is interesting to note that objectors to being happy and harmless seize on the ‘claim of being the 1st’ topic and make an issue out of it; even though you qualify your ‘defenders of the faith’ term as being not offensively intended it does have the effect that when somebody sets the record straight (that actualism has nowt to do with faith) it can, and often does, elicit the hoary ‘you are being defensive’ reply and, as such, is just a waste of time saying it in the first place; the points you can ‘clearly see’ in another’s e-mails are spurious points (Zen Buddhism does not even remotely resemble an actual freedom from the human condition) and have been addressed extensively already (with supportive quotes); the writings of Mr. Carlos Casteneda are works of fiction and do not refer to any flesh and blood body (living or dead) nor do any of them refer to anything remotely resembling an actual freedom from the human condition; I have not only scoured the internet looking for another person actually free from the human condition I have also travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life, I have been watching television, videos, films, whatever media is available, I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and only latterly on the internet) for over twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail.

Are you really suggesting I should respond thus (to each and every point in your paragraph) rather than just taking the ‘one line out of one thousand’ which is germane to the ‘popular topic of discussion on this list’ you started a little over six weeks ago?

As for Richard ‘makes up a question’ ... given the context (your focus on the ‘claim of being the 1st’ rather than focussing on what has been discovered) is it not a legitimate question to ask if (note ‘if’) the, thus far hypothetical/fictitious, person did exist as a flesh and blood body, in a particular place at a particular time, would you then be satisfied that they were the first to be actually free from the human condition?

In other words: what does it take to satisfy the straight-jacket demands of abstract logic?

Lastly: what you call my ‘one line out of 1000’ answer was in direct regard to you saying that my repetitive responses to your repetitive replies (as in ‘I don’t care’/‘you cared enough to write to me’ for example) were [quote] ‘getting tres old & tres boring’ [endquote] and, for another instance, (supposedly) putting you to sleep (as in your ‘blah, blah, blah ... wake me when it’s over’ response) ... so I cut to the chase and attended solely to the main point I was making (rather than perpetuate the silliness masquerading as discussion you seem to favour) that nothing can satisfy the straight-jacket demands of abstract logic.

For example: would it not also be correct to acknowledge, for example, that you ‘haven’t a clue’ whether Mr. Edmund Hillary and Mr. Tenzing Norgay can indeed claim to be the first to have ascended Mt. Everest (on May 29, 1953) ... after all, how can they know that someone from Tibet/Nepal/Mongolia/Wherever had not already done so 10/100/1000/10,000 years ago and just never got around to informing their fellow human beings?

Would it not be correct to acknowledge, for another example, that you ‘haven’t a clue’ whether Mr Robert Peary did lead the first expedition to the north pole (if only because any number of arctic dwellers may have picnicked there in the aeons gone by)?

Would it not be correct to acknowledge, for yet another example, that you ‘haven’t a clue’ whether someone from, say, Outer Gondwanaland had not already been to the South Pole long before Mr Roald Amundsen?

What about Mr. Yuri Gagarin ... was he the first human being to leave the planet’s atmosphere or not?

Was Mr. Neil Armstrong the first human being to set foot on the moon or not?

Furthermore, and arguably more importantly, is there any point in discovering, say, a cure for cancer (someone, somewhere, somewhen, may have already discovered it and just because they did not tell anybody else is irrelevant)?

The entire thrust of your argument conveniently ignores what has sometimes been called ‘the law of probability’ (or ‘the probabilist theory’) upon which 99% – if not 100% – of all human endeavour is sensibly based ... and I have written about this before:

• [Richard]: ‘Sixth, given that you dismiss the extraordinary way of knowing as believing that I know it may be pertinent to point out that I am well aware of the proposition made by Mr. Karl Popper that, logically, nothing can ever be known exhaustively by the ordinary way of knowing (in an infinite and eternal and perpetual universe there just might be a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eater somewhere and somewhen) yet to have to personally verify every single person, thing or event in order to satisfy the demands of such a logical conclusion only serves to show the limiting strait-jacket that such an abstract logic is as it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that there is a limit to the rarefied demands of such theoretical thinking (an academic theorist says ‘is it a logical proposition’ whereas a field engineer says ‘does it work in practice’).
Seventh, in practice then, if the extraordinary way of knowing is held to be believing that something be known, any (apparently) previously unknown discovery is a new discovery by default until evidence to the contrary shows otherwise. Which is why I keep on asking the simple question where the person/persons already actually free from the human condition prior to 1992 is/are to be found. If somebody – anybody at all – could provide names and addresses or book titles or web site addresses or refer me to the relevant magazine articles, newspaper reports, manuscripts, pamphlets, brochures or whatever I would be most pleased ... as I could compare notes, as it were, and thus advance human knowledge.
Thus far, especially since coming onto the internet, nobody has been able to produce such a person or persons.

And, if I may point out, neither have you been able to produce such a (flesh and blood) person or persons.

RESPONDENT: As you may have gotten from my reply in the ‘imagination post’ I’m with you and for that matter on a more mature level. One had to be the first and why not Richard. That seems to be so logical from where I am right now ...

RICHARD: Indeed ... or, rather, so practical/pragmatic – somebody has to be the first to discover something new in any field of human endeavour (such as discovering the cure for cancer for instance) – and why there is so much brouhaha about being able to live in this actual world 24/7, for the remainder of one’s life, now being possible for the first time in human history defies sensibility.

Perhaps it is nothing other than a knee-jerk reaction to the price of admission?

RESPONDENT No 60: Another example of neo-solipsistic-like thinking in actualism: I know I am the first because I don’t know of any who might have been there before me. Absence of knowledge of a predecessor is ‘proof’ that there wasn’t one.

RESPONDENT: Would you, likewise, propose that when Neil Armstrong claimed to be the ‘first man to walk on the moon’ that he was being ‘solipsistic’? (...) Maybe he should be known as ‘first man to walk on the moon, as far as we know ...

RESPONDENT No 60: Even if the two claims WERE similar ... The question is whether the absence of knowledge of a precedent is proof of the absence of a precedent. Strictly speaking, yes, the absence of knowledge of a previous moon-walk is not certain proof that there never was one before Armstrong. Armstrong, apparently a sane and reasonable man, would have no problem acknowledging this in principle. It then becomes a question of likelihood. If anyone can get Richard (or his more ardent followers), by hook or by crook, to acknowledge that it is a question of likelihood rather than experiential certainty, I will run stark naked and screaming across the Sydney Harbour Bridge for your entertainment pleasure.

RESPONDENT: Would it be enough to qualify for an acknowledgement ‘that it is a question of likelihood rather than experiential certainty’ if Richard said that there is a possibility (no matter how unlikely) that there was another person prior to him to discover and live a permanent actual freedom?

Richard, knowing that you say you are the first to live an actual freedom, do you admit that it is at least possible, no matter how unlikely, that someone else before you lived an irreversible actual freedom for some indeterminate time in their life?

RICHARD: If you look at the (above) exchange you will see that the crux of the topic under discussion is that a sane and reasonable person would have no problem acknowledging that, in principle, the absence of knowledge of a precedent is not proof of the absence of a precedent.

Whilst I am not sane I am indeed reasonable and I hereby unambiguously acknowledge that the absence of knowledge of a precedent is not proof of the absence of a precedent ... which (logical) principle I have acknowledged before. Here is but one example:

• [Richard]: ‘... given that you dismiss the extraordinary way of knowing as believing that I know it may be pertinent to point out that I am well aware of the proposition made by Mr. Karl Popper that, logically, nothing can ever be known exhaustively by the ordinary way of knowing (in an infinite and eternal and perpetual universe there just might be a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eater somewhere and somewhen) ...’.

Now, to have to personally verify every single person, thing or event in order to satisfy the demands of this logical principle only serves to show the limiting strait-jacket that such an abstract logic is as it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that there is a limit to the rarefied demands of such theoretical thinking (an academic theorist says ‘is it a logical proposition’ whereas a field engineer says ‘does it work in practice’).

In practice, then, any (apparently) previously unknown discovery is a new discovery by default until evidence to the contrary shows otherwise ... which practice is what has sometimes been called ‘the probabilism theory’ (or ‘the probabilist theory’) upon which 99% – if not 100% – of all human endeavour is sensibly based. For example:

• ‘probabilism (Philos.): the theory that there is no absolutely certain knowledge, but that there may be grounds of belief sufficient for practical life’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Thus the [quote] ‘another example of neo-solipsistic-like thinking in actualism’ [endquote] referred to at the top of this page is but (another) facile argument based upon a misrepresentation as I have never said [quote] ‘I know I am the first because I don’t know of any who might have been there before me/absence of knowledge of a predecessor is ‘proof’ that there wasn’t one’. [endquote] ... here is what I have actually said (at least 48 times):

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You claimed once that you are the only one to have discovered what you discovered ...
• [Richard]: ‘For as far as I have been able to ascertain ... yes. I have travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life; I have been watching TV, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet) for over twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail.

As ‘for as far as I have been able to ascertain’ is but a variation on your ‘as far as we know’ phrasing – to which your co-respondent answered [quote] ‘strictly speaking, yes ...’ [endquote] – it looks as if it is a beat-up you are responding to

RESPONDENT: Or is there something intrinsic to the experience of a PCE or an actual freedom that informs you that it is an impossibility, rather than an unlikelihood, that any other human being has lived an actual freedom prior to you?

RICHARD: Put specifically: in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) it is obvious that actualism (the direct experience that matter is not merely passive) is *not* what spiritualism refers to ... this is the way I have described it before:

• [Richard]: ‘In mid-1980, six months prior to the commencement of the path that would eventually lead to an actual freedom from the human condition, I had a four-hour PCE wherein it was manifestly obvious that what the human race had made of such experiences was a degradation of the actual ... and five years later I had the first of many extra-extraordinary experiences – of going beyond the extraordinary experience called spiritual enlightenment – which experientially demonstrated (proved) to me that an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience.

And:

• [Richard]: ‘Speaking in the context of the only religio-spiritual language I knew then (from the culture I was born into) I would say, to anyone prepared to listen at the time [mid-1980 to mid-1981], that everybody has got it wrong because nobody has to physically die to get to heaven ... that eternity was just here right now because, as it is already always happening, it cannot cease at physical birth and recommence at physical death after a 70+ year interregnum.

As for an actual freedom from the human condition: I cannot know (other than the ordinary way of knowing) whether anybody since 1992 is actually free from the human condition ... as I made clear only five months ago:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘One more point, this time not based in mistrust:

[Co-Respondent]: ‘For some reason, I do believe you are telling the truth, and I find it fascinating that the universe is not allowing you to become aware of others who have made the same discovery (you’d probably say because no-one has)’.
[Richard]: ‘Yep ... and, just in case there has been a misunderstanding, the universe is not god/goddess and thus neither allows nor prevents such an awareness you refer to’.

I understand that I am placing human qualities on this thing called the universe (everything) but I don’t fully understand your reply. Could you expand on this please.
• [Richard]: ‘Sure ... as the awareness you refer to is a psychic awareness it has no existence outside of the human psyche – there is no ‘spirit’ or ‘presence’ or ‘being’ in actuality – and there is no such facility operating in this flesh and blood body (when the affective faculty vanished so too did its epiphenomenal psychic facility).
Hence it is impossible to be aware of anybody else actually free from the human condition by such means.

In short: it was the ‘being’ possessing this flesh and blood body in 1985 who experientially discovered that no-one had gone beyond enlightenment before then ... and not me.

I am simply providing a report of ‘his’ experience ... what another does with this report is their business.

RESPONDENT: Just discovered the web page today and was browsing through some of the correspondence when Vineeto’s statement to Gary, in so many words, pronounced Richard as the discoverer to the method of attaining actual freedom ... what? The non-believer in me finds this hard to believe! (grin). None of what is on the web page is a surprise to me ... I will just say that my life’s journey has brought me to this point ... I am in no disagreement at all ... Richard’s experiences and findings mirror my own; my reaction is, ‘Yeah! Way to go!!’ So, is Richard the ‘first’??

RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Mailing List. I am always pleased when what is written on the web page attracts attention as it indicates that the internet is living up to its far-reaching ‘sharing of information’ reputation.

I am also pleased to know that Richard is indeed not the first ... presumably you have been sharing your discovery of an actual freedom from the human condition for many, many years now? So as to save needless repetition on this mailing list do you have a web page, wherein you detail your experience for your fellow human being, that I can access? Failing that, what books, magazine articles, newspaper reports, manuscripts, pamphlets, brochures or whatever do you have that I can acquire ... so as to compare notes, as it were? Or, maybe you have already written about your discovery on other mailing lists that I can subscribe to?

I have been scouring the books for nigh-on twenty years ... to no avail.

[Editorial note: The correspondent has not been heard from again].

RESPONDENT: Richard, for now I have one question that comes to my mind many times: It seems to me that you think it very important that you are the single and only one on this planet that is and ever has been Actually Free.

RICHARD: It has nothing to do with whether I ‘think it very important’ or not ... I have travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life; I have been watching TV, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet) for twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail.

I would be delighted to hear about such people ... so as to compare notes, as it were.

RESPONDENT: At least, you stress it time and again, in your writings, and in your ‘defences’ or explanations.

RICHARD: No, it is simply a fact ... for as far as I have been able to establish thus far. If you know of such a person, or persons please let me know. Also, whenever someone attacks me I always have the option to defend myself if the situation warrants such a course of action ... there is no ‘turning the other cheek’ pacifism, defeatism, fatalism or martyrdom operating in this flesh and blood body.

Have you ever noticed that it is bodiless entities that propagate such a dictum?

RESPONDENT: Why is this aspect so important?

RICHARD: You do seem to be overlooking the importance of what has been discovered – the already always existing peace-on-earth – and are instead focussing upon what you deem to be what Richard finds important. Whereas this is what is important: none of the saints, sages or seers have ever discovered peace-on-earth ... they all propose an after-death ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’. And they have all displayed varying degrees of those emotions grouped under the ‘catch-all’ words malice and sorrow from time to time. Most commonly they were subject to anger and anguish (disguised and/or designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees and/or followers and/or readers). The question to ask is this:

Just what is it that is going on in regards the supposed innocence of the saints and sages and seers?

RESPONDENT: Richard, are the terms ‘mahasamadhi’/‘parinirvana’ used in the ancient texts describing a state and/or condition identical to what you’re living now?

RICHARD: As the terms ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) and ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism) explicitly refer to a bodiless state of being in a timeless, spaceless and formless dimension, only attainable at physical death when an Enlightened Being/Awakened One ‘quits the body’, there is no way it can be identical to what this flesh and blood body is living now.

RESPONDENT: Was the condition described by the terms ‘parinirvana’/‘mahasamadhi’ actually based on the gleamings/ flashes of an enlightened one into the ‘Great Beyond’ or are these terms based on speculation rather than experience?

RICHARD: As the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago was able to have pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) whilst in the enlightened/awakened state there is no reason to presume that other enlightened/awakened beings could not.

RESPONDENT: They haven’t followed fully on the trail of these flashes because it would have meant physical death (exactly as it seemed to you), maybe that’s why they said it is only attainable at physical death as a permanent state (condition).

RICHARD: The prospect of total oblivion – the existential angst of discovering that one is nothing but a contingent ‘being’ and that one will cease to ‘be’ unless the redemptive straw, of several doomsday straws, be grasped – can be so terrifying/horrifying as to bring about a state of dread of such magnitude as to render intelligent action null and void.

I have written about the dread of oblivion before:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘There is a feeling of dread now. I feel stuck and unable to proceed. There is nothing thrilling about it.
• [Richard]: ‘A deep feeling of dread, the abject intuition of impending doom, is fraught with foreboding, be it a grim, dire, or awful presage, and this intensely apprehensive trepidation is symptomatic of the existential angst (the anguish of the essential insecurity of being a contingent ‘being’) which underpins all suffering. As such an occasion of profound dread is an opportune moment to plumb the depths of ‘being’ itself (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being) ... rather than avoidance through realisation of the portentous event as all manner of phantasmagoria can be manifested by such evasion. With pure intent one can enable a movement into the existential angst, rather than despairingly grasping at doomsday straws, which movement facilitates the bright light of awareness being shone into the innermost recesses of ‘my’ presence ... which is ‘presence’ itself.
Such an active perspicacity in ‘my’ moment of reckoning will reveal that ‘presence’ itself feeds off ‘my’ fear – it is its very life-blood as it were – and this functional acuity brings an abrupt end to its nourishment. Whereupon all-of-a-sudden one finds oneself on the other side of the wall (to keep with the ‘cornered’ analogy for now) with the hitherto unseeable doorway to freedom closing behind one ... and one is walking freely in this actual world where one has already always been living anyway.
All what happened was that upon ‘my’ exposure dissolution occurred and the Land of Lament sank without a trace’.

RESPONDENT: But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they haven’t lived without the Self (the known unknown) for brief periods, no? Isn’t the resulting state identical to a PCE (the unknowable)?

RICHARD: There is no reason to assume that any enlightened/awakened being could not have a PCE ... acting upon it so as to bring about an absolute end to the highly-prized enlightened/awakened state is, of course, another matter.

RESPONDENT: How can one become free from the insidious grip of the ‘unknown’ if one doesn’t first begin to know himself in ‘his’ totality? But to know oneself in one’s totality is enlightenment, no?

RICHARD: No ... and I draw your attention to the following:

• [Richard]: ‘If I were a gambler, which I am not, I would bet my bottom dollar that this [quote] ‘much better/freed’ [endquote] intelligence, even though like having access to the whole comprised knowledge of Being, did not/could not/can not suss out that Being per se is contingent, eh?
[Respondent]: ‘As I was having a great time, there was no need to suss that out. How can you fight a tornado when you’re in the middle of it?
(...)
• [Richard]: ‘... could/did/can the energy of thought, flowing more freely due to the lesser amount of barriers/blockages existing in that psyche, which in turn was due to the elimination of the ego, suss out that Being Itself is a contingent ‘Being’?
• [Respondent]: ‘No, as I was ‘Being’. The interesting thing is that I don’t know how my Self looks like to this day ...’. (Friday 20/05/2005 1:30AM AEST).

RESPONDENT: You say that there’s a possible route by-passing enlightenment ...

RICHARD: I am none too sure I have ever said there *is* a possible route by-passing enlightenment ... what I have said is that the current situation calls for pioneers. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘There is still evidence to come for a person to safely arrive to ‘actual freedom’ and then to convey how it was ‘via the non-enlightenment route’. I bet it would be a very interesting account.
• [Richard]: ‘The account of the next person to become actually free would indeed be interesting ... maybe this is an apt moment to put this hoary subject to bed, pat it on the head and send it to sleep, until somebody new to this mailing list raises it again as if it has never occurred to Richard that an actual freedom from the human condition has not yet been replicated (even though they may say, in the next breath, that it has been lived before)? Vis.: [Richard]: ‘Let us be realistic, though. When you talk about .00001 percent ... we have not yet demonstrated that anyone can replicate my condition. (...) Can my condition be replicated? Who knows? Only time will tell. (...) So we can say that we can demonstrate that something [virtual freedom] is actually possible, but it has not yet been demonstrated that it is possible to replicate me. I may be a freak’. [endquote]. (... snip five more quotes ...) There are other references but maybe these will do for now ... put succinctly the replication of my condition presently calls for pioneers, people with the necessary derring-do to pilot a one-seater aeroplane by the seat of their pants to this pristine wonderland, and not for those who will follow in their wake in air-conditioned comfort, eating hygienically prepared food and watching an in-flight movie into the bargain.
And nobody knows who that pioneer aviator is until that person actually lands here ... not even me’. (Monday 25/08/2003 10:10 AM AEST).

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity