I think you have feelings. What made you put your so called discovery on the web? Why you want as you say to help your human fellows? What motivated you for that? Is not a feeling one affection? If no then you want to be in the encyclopaedias, which is another feeling.

Richard, you have said many times in the past that you are free of all feelings. Is not this ‘fun’ you are having part and parcel of the feeling of enjoying what you are doing? Could you even go so far as to say that you love what you are doing?

So you have feelings Richard? Because the above of yours show an emotional state. It [‘music to one’s ears: something very pleasant to hear’] does not make any difference, because in an prior email you said that when you see a sunset is only seeing the sunset without any emotions, and when they asked you what is passing through your heart when you see your children, you answered, blood. So when you say something very pleasant to hear, you are in contradiction with the above, because you never said that a sunset is something very pleasant to see. So you have emotions and feelings.

And don’t tell me, Richard, that you don’t have feelings; I’d just bet you probably have all kinds of them. Your letter to me was full of the anguish of thought. It is thought that harbours the feelings. To be without thought, the idea, the word, the verbalisation, the psychological ‘me’, is, in my opinion, the state of creation.

You sure take things personally. So, in a rather long-winded, round-about way, you’re rationalizing taking questions regarding your authority and authenticity, personally. Ok. So much for having no feelings/emotions. Perhaps that part of one’s personality [taking things personally] remains.

Excuse me for having this crazy thought but it seemed to me in your reply to No. 24 that you sounded just the teensy-weeniest bit ... annoyed.

There is an interchange between Richard and a respondent in Emotions, Passions, and Calentures where Richard says ‘You are not Jewish, by any chance are you, answering a question with a question?’ Is that an example of someone ‘devoid of feelings who has the freedom to appraise without prejudice’ from Richard’s own words several paragraphs later. He goes on with ‘if there is insufficient information I can certainly form an opinion, or make an interpretation but then I will clearly state this is only an opinion or an interpretation when I speak about it’. Is this an example of someone devoid of an identity? Is this a benign non-malicious form of humour as what Richard claims in his own right?

Actualists appear to have some feelings or how could you use words like delight, benign, beneficent, happy, etc.? I can see having no passions (violent emotions) but there seems to be something of the emotional capacity (or feeling capacity) left. I have been practicing the AF method intensively the last few months and I am certainly much less emotional, but it seems that even in what seemed to be PCE or mini ones) some sort of a well-being sense – which in scientific categories of emotion is still considered an emotion or feeling.

Richard, aren’t your feelings of pleasure and delight integrated into your flesh and blood body? Are you saying that pleasure and delight are essential, necessary, and indispensable but not part of the body as in fused, joined, homogenised?

Richard, you have said many times in the past that you are free of all feelings. Is not this ‘fun’ you are having part and parcel of the feeling of enjoying what you are doing? Could you even go so far as to say that you love what you are doing?

[Richard:] ‘Of course I could go with her to the protest rally for it is not against any principle that I hold. I readily concede that demonstrations can ‘get things done’. That is not my point ... my point is the unwholesome atmosphere inhering at these rallies that reinforces the identity. The insalubrious ambience is always thick with ‘vibes’ that are palpable and factually unpleasant; be they going under the name of hate or love. Apparently she gets a ‘high’ from this, as further discussion with her elucidates the actual reason – the secretive motivation – for her attraction to these events. She admits, rather shame-facedly, that the ‘high’ makes her feel ‘alive’; by which she indicates that her daily life is dull, boring. She finds it thrilling to be at a confrontation; the adrenaline ‘buzz’ of a perceived imminent danger is irresistible to an addict. She does not appreciate the implied suggestion that she might very well be a ‘junkie’ herself, however.’ [www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedwriting/sw-feelings.htm]. So, if no ‘vibes’ exist in the actual world, then how can they be ‘factually unpleasant’ to you?

Apparently, after self-immolation has taken place, having a good laugh is not ruled out, as Richard has written else-where about nearly rolling on the floor in laughter. Is this then ‘an affective experience’? Sounds like it to me, Gary. Perhaps Richard could elaborate on this apparent contradiction? Perhaps one should not dwell on (or believe), in the authority of others?

Therefore the Self, the right brains, does not have to generate emotions in an attempt to gain control over the left hemisphere. This explains your observation of the emotionless nature of your state. You can say this also differently. You do not HAVE emotions anymore, because you have BECOME your emotions. And thought and thinking is your servant. This may look like madness. For if you have become your emotions, why do you not feel them any more? It is the same reason why the thought that controls the body is unable to see itself. For to be able to see itself, this seeing is in the form of a thought. So to see itself it must understand, to think itself. But then a switch from one form of ‘I’ to another has been done. The acting ‘I’ – thought is then changed into an observing ‘I’ thought, which is another form of action. Therefore it is never able to see itself. In the same way, the feeling you are is unable to feel itself, because it IS itself.