RESPONDENT: I think you have feelings. What made you put your so called discovery on the web?

RICHARD: You have asked a similar question before:

• [Respondent]: ‘You speak about peace on earth, is this not a feeling toward humanity?
• [Richard]: ‘No, it is actually caring about my fellow human beings and not merely feeling that one cares.

RESPONDENT: Why you want as you say to help your human fellows?

RICHARD: Because of fellowship regard ... like species recognises like species throughout the animal kingdom.

RESPONDENT: What motivated you for that?

RICHARD: Have you never heard of what is sometimes called ‘Theory Of Mind’?

RESPONDENT: Is not a feeling one affection?

RICHARD: If by this you mean do I have a feeling of affection for my fellow human beings then it may be useful for me to explain that, not only do I have no feeling of affection at all, I do not experience any affective feelings whatsoever. This is because I do not have any anywhere in this body at all ... this body lost that faculty entirely when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being which is ‘being’ itself) became extinct.

Literally I feel nothing at all.

RESPONDENT: If no then you want to be in the encyclopaedias, which is another feeling.

RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to say it again for emphasis: literally I feel nothing at all.

RICHARD: But I do not want you (or anybody) coming to me – for their own freedom – as I am having too much fun, living my life in the way I see fit, to clutter up my lifestyle with ‘guru-circuit’ peoples, who cannot think for themselves, trooping daily through my front door. The Internet is my chosen means of dissemination for the obvious reason of being interactive and rapid. The electronic copying and distribution capacity of a mailing list service – with its multiple feed-back capability – is second to none. Words are words, whether they be thought, spoken, printed or appear as pixels on a screen. Ultimately it is what is being said or written, by the writer or the speaker that lives what is being expressed, that is important ... and facts and actuality then speak for themselves. Anyone who has met me face-to-face only gets verification that there is actually a flesh and blood body that lives what these words say. I am a fellow human being sans identity ... there is no ‘charisma’ nor any ‘energy-field’ here. The affective faculty – the entire psyche itself – is eradicated: I have no ‘energies’ ... no power or powers whatsoever. There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ here in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: Richard, you have said many times in the past that you are free of all feelings.

RICHARD: Yes ... more specifically: free of the persistent identity (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). It is impossible to be a stripped-down ‘self’ (divested of feelings) ... such a person who tries to do that absurdity has what is called by psychiatry ‘a sociopathic personality’ (commonly known as a psychopath).

RESPONDENT: Is not this ‘fun’ you are having part and parcel of the feeling of enjoying what you are doing?

RICHARD: Not the ‘feeling’ of enjoyment ... direct enjoyment: I have not felt happy for years and years.

RESPONDENT: Could you even go so far as to say that you love what you are doing?

RICHARD: No ... this is much, much more than ‘loving’ what I am doing. It is also much more than being in love and even more than being love.

RESPONDENT No. 50: I had a work assignment today that in the past has always been upsetting, but today ... I wasn’t! I was too busy being happy and harmless!

RICHARD: Ahh ... those words are music to my ears.

RESPONDENT: So you have feelings Richard? Because the above of yours show an emotional state.

RICHARD: I am cognisant of the fact that English is not your first language, thus idiomatic expressions can be misconstrued, yet I am also cognisant of the fact that your wife was born and raised in the country where I reside and that therefore you must have at least some passing familiarity with such expressions as the one I used above. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity in communication, I will refer you to the following:

• ‘music to one’s ears: something very pleasant to hear’. (©Oxford Dictionary).

And maybe this will be of assistance in comprehending any future such expressions on my part as well:

• [Richard]: ‘My keenness for another’s experience always accords to the following sequence: (1.) I am primarily interested for your sake (for the sake of the particular flesh and blood body) as you are a fellow human being. (2.) I am secondarily interested for everybody’s sake (for the sake of flesh and blood bodies in general) as another person being actually free increases the possibility of setting a chain-reaction in process. (3.) I am lastly interested for my own sake (for then not only am I am no longer arguably a ‘freak of nature’ but I can compare notes, as it were, so as to more reliably separate out what is species specific from that which is idiosyncratic).

Of course I am pleased when someone reports being happy and harmless all day – especially in a situation which previously had always been upsetting – as that is the whole point of The Actual Freedom Trust web site, and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, being made available in the first place.

Similarly, and as you have publicly said you take medication (SSRI’s) for anxiety (Agoraphobia), I would also be delighted to hear that you no longer need to.

One does not have to have affective feelings in order to be chuffed upon hearing of another’s successes – the affections are not the be-all and end-all of life – as there is, as I have already said to you in another context on July 10 2003, life after feelings.

And a perfect life at that.

RESPONDENT: 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.

RICHARD: Perhaps this will be of assistance:

• [Richard]: ‘... to forestall any further queries about feelings – emotions and passions and calentures – it would be useful for me to explain that not only do I have no feelings about this scenario, but I have none about any other you might like to propose. I do not experience feelings per se because I do not have any anywhere in this body at all ... this body lost that faculty entirely when ‘I’ became extinct. Thus to use the jargon: no one can ‘press my buttons’ as I do not have any buttons – nor any feelings under them – to be activated. Literally I feel nothing at all. Even when, say, watching a magnificent sunrise where some lofty clouds are shot through with splendid rays of golden light, transforming the morning sky into a blaze of glory ... I feel nothing at all. These eyes seeing it delight in the array of colour, and this brain contemplating its visual splendour can revel in the wonder of it all – but I can not feel the beauty of it in the emotional and passionate sense of the word feel.
Just as when a person becomes physically blind all their other senses are heightened, so too is it when all feelings vanish entirely. This body is simply brimming with sense organs which wallow in their own sensual delight. Visually, everything is intense, vivid, brilliant ... sensually everything is dynamic and alive with an actuality ... a matter-of-fact actualness. Everything is endowed with a purity that far exceeds the now-paltry feeling of beauty ... and an intimacy that surpasses the highest feeling of love. Love is actually a pathetic substitute for the perfection of actual intimacy.
Actual intimacy is the direct experience of the pristine actuality of another, unmediated by any ‘I’ whatsoever.

And this:

• [Richard]: ‘... to feel pleasure affectively (hedonistically) is a far cry from the direct experiencing of the actual where the retinas revel in the profusion of colour, texture and form; the eardrums carouse with the cavalcade of sound, resonance and timbre; the nostrils rejoice in the abundance of aromas, fragrances and scents; the tastebuds savour the plethora of tastes, flavours and zests; the epidermis delights to touch, caress and fondle ... a veritable cornucopia of luscious, sumptuous sensuosity.
All the while is the apperceptive wonder that this marvellous paradise actually exists in all its vast array.

And this:

• [Richard]: ‘... whilst strolling along a country lane one fine morning with the sunlight dancing its magic on the glistening dew-drops suspended from the greenery everywhere; these eyes are delighting in the profusion of colour and texture and form as the panorama unfolds; these ears are revelling in the cadence of tones as their resonance and timbre fills the air; these nostrils are rejoicing in the abundance of aromas and scents drifting fragrantly all about; this skin is savouring the touch, the caress, of the early springtime ambience; this mind, other than the sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being alive as this flesh and blood body, is ambling along in neutral – there is no thought at all and conscious alertness is null and void – when all-of-a-sudden the easy gait has ceased happening.
These eyes instantly shift from admiring the dun-coloured cows in a field nearby and are looking downward to the front and see the green and black snake, coiling up on the road in readiness to act, which had not only occasioned the abrupt halt but, it is discovered, had initiated a rapid step backwards ... an instinctive response which, had the instinctual passions that are the identity been in situ, could very well have triggered off freeze-fight-flee chemicals.
There is no perturbation whatsoever (no wide-eyed staring, no increase in heart-beat, no rapid breathing, no adrenaline-tensed muscle tone, no sweaty palms, no blood draining from the face, no dry mouth, no cortisol-induced heightened awareness, and so on) as with the complete absence of the rudimentary animal ‘self’ in the primordial brain the limbic system in general, and the amygdala in particular, have been free to do their job – the oh-so-vital startle response – both efficaciously and cleanly.
Cattle, for example, are easily ‘spooked’ by a reptile and have been known to stampede in infectious group panic.

In regards your reference to the fellow human beings who were my children back when I was a parent: indeed, on the occasions whenever I see them (which is very rarely) there are no affective feelings felt whatsoever – anymore than when I see any other of my fellow human beings – for there are, literally, no feelings whatsoever to be activated.

And whilst on the topic of kin (for I nowhere do I deny I am their biological progenitor): kinship, as in ‘family ties’, or ‘blood is thicker than water’, and so on, sets up a powerful ‘us and them’ relationship with any other ‘us and them’ family, clan, tribe, race, and nation – to the point that untold millions of gallons of blood have been spilt over the aeons because of it – and the very nature of that powerful relationship, the very root of it all, is nothing other than the affective feelings, the emotions and passions, you are so insistent I must have.

RESPONDENT: So you have emotions and feelings.

RICHARD: So, if I understand what you are and have been saying correctly, just because I am pleased when someone reports being happy and harmless all day – especially in a situation which previously had *always* been upsetting – this to you is the evidence that (a) Richard has feelings ... and (b) actualism is a crock ... and (c) Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti has said it all before ... and (d) your agenda on this mailing list, to expose Richard for the charlatan he can only be, dismiss actualism for the copy-cat philosophy it must be, and promote a set of teachings about an after-death immortality, is well-justified.

Am I understanding you correctly?

RESPONDENT: And don’t tell me, Richard, that you don’t have feelings; I’d just bet you probably have all kinds of them.

RICHARD: I know your theory sounds good to you ... but other humans – some of whom who are downright suspicious of me – have been unable to detect anything at all despite the closest observation possible. There are other people here in my daily life who observe me closely – very closely – for all of the waking hours of the day. This kind of scrutiny has been going on for eighteen years now ... and has been fruitless as in regards to finding a fault for the last five years. No-one has been able to observe a discrepancy between what I say about myself and what they see in my behaviour. No one has been able to observe any trace of a feeling – an emotion or a passion or calenture – in me since 1992. I have been examined by two accredited psychiatrists (and by one of them every three months for more than three years) and found to have alexithymia – amongst other detailed psychiatric findings – which means no affective faculties whatsoever. Also, a psychologist has been following my condition at three-weekly intervals since March 1994 ... and he says that I may very well be the evolutionary break-through that humankind has been waiting for, for centuries.

You are, of course, welcome to come and see for yourself. Until then you just have to take my word for it ... or the word of a man who has observed me closely since January 1997 and has written about it. His writing may be found on his Web Site under ‘Peter’s Journal’. (Editorial Note: ‘Peter’s Journal is now available as an e-book here)

RESPONDENT: 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.

RICHARD: ‘State of creation’? But this universe already always is ... what is there to be created or in a ‘state of creation’? Fantasies?

RESPONDENT: You sure take things personally.

RICHARD: If you want an impersonal discussion about life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, you are at the wrong address: actualism is not a matter of abstract logic – be it arm-chair philosophising, vacuous intellectualising, amateur psychologising, academic analysing, theoretical hypothesising, or whatever – as it is a hands-on moment-to-moment experiential matter ... and it does not come any more personal than that.

RESPONDENT: So, in a rather long-winded, round-about way, you’re rationalizing taking questions regarding your authority and authenticity, personally.

RICHARD: If I may point out? I am not ‘rationalising’ (justifying with plausible but specious reasons) anything of the sort ... I am explaining that actualism is a very, very, personal matter.

RESPONDENT: I couldn’t agree more.

RICHARD: I am pleased that the matter of taking things personally has been satisfactorily cleared up.

*

RESPONDENT: Ok. So much for having no feelings/emotions.

RICHARD: How you can draw that conclusion from what I wrote has got me stumped ... perhaps that is why you had to first invent something I did not do in order to make it.

RESPONDENT: My mistake if I misunderstood you.

RICHARD: Why ‘if’ ... did you or did you not?

*

RESPONDENT: Perhaps that part of one’s personality [taking things personally] remains .

RICHARD: Does being impersonal, then, equate to what being free of the affections signifies to you (as in fictional characters such as ‘Star Trek’ for instance)?

RESPONDENT: No and very funny, as in you have an extremely dry sense of humour.

RICHARD: What do you equate with taking things impersonally, then, if not dispassionately (given that the general thrust of both your responses has been to make the case that the feelings you are projecting into my words are coming from me)?

RESPONDENT: Of course, it is always your correspondents projections on you. It couldn’t possibly be you.

RICHARD: Indeed not (there is no affective faculty whatsoever in this flesh and blood body) ... so what do you equate with taking things impersonally, then, if not dispassionately?

*

RESPONDENT: Just like the anger you quoted UGK as saying stays there after the I &/or me goes.

RICHARD: Does being personal, then, equate to being a feeling being (according to you)?

RESPONDENT: Your question is not clear as I am not schooled enough in your particular brand of psychobabble or any school of psychobabble for that matter.

RICHARD: This is what the word ‘psychobabble’ indicates to me: ‘psychobabble n. (colloq., derog.) lay jargon, esp. concerning personality and relationships, derived from the technical language of psychology. (Oxford Dictionary). In what way am I using the phrase ‘a feeling being’ that it is so much a departure from normal usage it signifies ‘your particular brand of psychobabble’ to you?

RESPONDENT: ‘Feeling being’ means what? (according to your use).

RICHARD: The same as it means in normal usage of course: (snip five instances of normal usage). It is a more-inclusive phrase than ‘an emotional being’ as it includes the passions as well.

RESPONDENT: You have taught me a new phrase.

RICHARD: Okay ... does being personal, then, equate to being a feeling being (according to you)?

*

RESPONDENT: You know Richard. I like you tonight despite yourself.

RICHARD: What do you mean by the ‘despite yourself’ caveat?

RESPONDENT: I’ve no idea why.

RICHARD: As a suggestion only: why not compare it to when you do not like the ‘Richard’ you are liking on this occasion and see what happens?

RESPONDENT: By the way, I like that one and only picture you have of yourself on the website. That old photo ... you look like a nice kid.

RICHARD: Hmm ... ‘he’ was, of course, as full of malice and sorrow, and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion, as any other normal human being (born out of the instinctual passions, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, all sentient beings are genetically endowed with) so I do wonder what the term ‘a nice kid’ signifies to you.

In fact the nicest thing ‘he’ ever did was ‘self’-immolate, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body ... as such I salute ‘his’ audacity (for daring to care).

For to dare to care is to care to dare.

RESPONDENT: 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.

RICHARD: I must acknowledge that when I read your post I was puzzled enough by your observation to re-read what I had written to No. 24 to see just what would make you think that it showed annoyance. For the life of me, I can not see where it does. What had happened was that I simply saw no point in discussing the subject of believing and beliefs with a person whose avowed intent was to not do anything at all with what was being written about. I am not interested in being involved in what amounts to being nothing but an academic polemic about such an important matter as peace on earth. I enjoy a discussion with people who sincerely want to do something about ensuing such a prospect coming into being ... and I can freely engage in a most robust and vigorous discussion if warranted. But I can not countenance the notion that specious argumentation and disputation are going to be the means whereby peace can be achieved.

No. 24’s latest post demonstrates the validity of my point entirely:

• ‘I don’t have much of a problem with my ego: Because I don’t pay it any mind. I am concerned with other things’ .
• ‘The truth that lay behind the joke is that I am really not very interested, unlike everyone else around here, apparently, in getting rid of my ego’ .
• ‘I think there are some things in life I can’t do anything about’ .
• ‘Richard, I’m sorry, it was just fun to visualise you squirming’ .

And to cap it all off, where I attempted to penetrate through the layers of belief to the wide-eyed naiveté that lies buried under that cultured sophisticate that has taken possession of No. 24’s body by writing: ‘If one diligently pursues the wide and wondrous path of an actual freedom all the way, one will find oneself here for the very first time as this body only, minus any argumentative and lugubrious ‘I’, No. 24 was inspired to buy into No. 4’s attempt to ridicule the content of what I write by comparing me to a cow by writing to me: ‘Cows are neither argumentative nor lugubrious’.

All of which causes me to ponder upon what I wrote elsewhere:

‘I propose an absolute end to not only suffering, but malice as well and, as much as people mouth such sentiments as being ideal, when it comes to the nitty-gritty of actually achieving such a condition, they invariably defend the status-quo. Not only do they maintain their inherited position, they contend that I am either deceiving myself or suppressing my feelings. According to them I merely ‘think’ that I have achieved the perfection I speak of ... nobody, it seems, is permitted to be actually living what they all piously hope for. When faced with the concrete realisation of their dreams they passionately deny that such a thing is possible. Ever so slowly, as the years roll by, I am having to revise my optimistic prediction that global peace-on-earth will be about five thousand years in coming. If some of the people I have met during this last seventeen years are anything to go by it will never happen’. (pages 203-204: ‘Richard’s Journal’, ©The Actual Freedom Trust 1997)

*

RICHARD: She was inspired to buy into No. 4’s pathetic attempt to ridicule the content of what I write by comparing me to a cow.

RESPONDENT: It sounds as though your feeling of being offended at the analogy is causing you to miss the point of the argument. I don’t think it was said to ‘ridicule’ you but to call your attention to the fact that what you were describing had certain qualities in common with animal existence.

RICHARD: I am not offended by anything, let alone the analogy ... and where you say: ‘I don’t think it was said to ‘ridicule’ you’ , you seem to ignore the actual words ‘to ridicule the content of what I write’ . Please note ‘content’ , not as you have shifted it too ... ‘you’ . The content of what I write about does not have the slightest ‘quality in common with animal existence’ whatsoever. This particular thread has devolved into utter nonsense by people not reading what is written but by reading what they think – or want to think – is being written.

RESPONDENT: I don’t know many people who are inspired to ponder their own words. It’s interesting that although you say you have no ego, you quote yourself more than anyone else on this list does. It’s also interesting that you only seem to comment on this one thread, which originated with yourself and which is mostly about your own experience. Is that all that interests you?

RICHARD: I quote myself because there is no need for me to gain validity by quoting other people’s opinions. I generate all my own knowledge out of my own direct experience of actuality ... and no one I have ever met can remotely experience life like this.

RESPONDENT: 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?

RICHARD: Here is the interchange in question:

• [Respondent]: ‘It takes a lot of patience; a lot of love and care; and an absence of judgement to live through the feelings. I don’t mean living ‘through’ feelings, but without attachment to the feelings.
• [Richard]: ‘Who is the person that is ‘without attachment to the feelings’ ? [And even if that were possible, which it is not as feelings are the core of ‘my’ being, would it not be easier to dispense with them altogether]?
• [Respondent]: ‘And who would be the one to dispense with them?
• [Richard]: ‘You are not Jewish, by any chance, are you ... answering a question with a counter-question? Yet I find it easy to answer, nevertheless: The ego ‘I’ can self-immolate psychologically. The soul ‘me’ can self-immolate psychically. Psychological and psychic self-immolation is the only sensible sacrifice that ‘I’ and ‘me’ can make in order to reveal perfection. Life is bursting with meaning when ‘I’ and ‘me’ are no longer present to mess things up. ‘I’ and ‘me’ stand in the way of that purity being apparent. ‘My’ presence prohibits perfection being evident. ‘I’ and ‘me’ prevent the very meaning to life, which ‘I’ and ‘me’ are searching for, from coming into plain view. The main trouble is that ‘I’ and ‘me’ wish to remain in existence to savour the meaning; ‘I’ and ‘me’ mistakenly think that meaning is the product of the mind and the heart. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Apperceptive awareness makes self-immolation possible.
Then the search for meaning amidst the debris of the much-vaunted human hopes and dreams and schemes has come to its timely end. With the end of ‘I’ and ‘me’, the distance or separation between ‘I’ and ‘me’ and ‘my’ senses – and thus the external world – disappears. To be the senses as a bare awareness is apperception, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) of the world as-it-is. Because there is no ‘I’ as an observer – a little person inside one’s head – or ‘me’ as a feeler – a little person inside one’s heart – to have sensations, I am the sensations. There is nothing except the series of sensations which happen ... not to ‘I’ or ‘me’ but just happening ... moment by moment ... one after another. To be these sensations, as distinct from having them, engenders the most astonishing sense of freedom and release. Consequently, I am living in peace and tranquillity; a meaningful peace and tranquillity. Life is intrinsically purposeful, the reason for existence lies openly all around. Being this very air I live in, I am constantly aware of it as I breathe it in and out; I see it, I hear it, I taste it, I smell it, I touch it, all of the time. It never goes away ... nor has it ever been away. ‘I’ and ‘me’ were standing in the way of meaning.
So, again: ‘Who is the person that is ‘without attachment to the feelings’?

It will be seen that it was a rhetorical question – when faced with an often used debating technique – designed to draw attention to the fact that my co-respondent had not answered my entirely sensible query regarding the typical spiritual practice of detachment. I had some time previously watched a television documentary of religious students in a Jewish Yeshiva (an orthodox Jewish college or seminary; a Talmudic academy) who were trained to debate their religious scriptures, and the commentaries on their scriptures, in this very manner – a manner which, if my memory serves me correctly, is also used by the Tibetan Monks in their seminaries – and also discovered that it was a time-honoured technique.

I have had literally thousands of exchanges with many, many people on the subject of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being and quite often it becomes apparent that the other person would rather debate than discuss. If you read through all my e-mail exchanges you will find more than a few examples of me endeavouring to shift the exchange from argumentation to dialogue.

As for ‘the freedom to appraise without prejudice’ ... I am quite ecumenical in my endeavours because at other times I have pointed out to peoples that I discuss these issues with that they are quibbling over trivialities like an Hindu Pundit or hypocritically disputing the issue like a Born-Again Christian and so on.

Lastly, it is certainly not funny so any attempt to ascertain whether it be ‘a benign non-malicious form of humour’ or not is besides the point.

RESPONDENT: Actualists appear to have some feelings or how could you use words like delight, benign, beneficent, happy, etc.?

RICHARD: You may find the following informative in this regard:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard, in reading your recent contributions to this list, I am beginning to question whether you and I use certain words, such as ‘emotions’ in the same way. For it seems that perhaps I use that word in a more inclusive sense of which your use is a subset. Perhaps your use is more restrictive/precise. For example when you express that communicating via the internet is great ‘fun’ – I equate fun to have an emotional component. If joy and fun are non-emotional, they also are not machine like nor dead. What do you call that vivifying facet of each breathtaking moment if not emotional?
• [Richard]: ‘I appreciate that what you want to discuss is the ‘vivifying facet’ ... for it cuts straight to the nub of the issue. Put simply: sensuousness and its in-built apperceptive awareness is the vivifying facet. It is the ability to fully enjoy and appreciate being just here – right now – at this moment in eternal time and at this place in infinite space as this flesh and blood body. In this full enjoyment and appreciation is an amazement that all this wondrous event called life is actually happening ... and a marvelling at the perfection of it all.
It is such fun and a delight to actually be here doing this business called being alive.
As for the words I use to describe the qualities of experiencing life, as this flesh and blood body only, it is sobering to come to understand that all of the 650,000 words in the English language were coined by peoples nursing malice and sorrow to their bosom ... hence most of the expressive words have an affective component. When I first began describing my on-going experience to my fellow human beings I chose words that had the least affective connotations ... coining too many new words would have been counter-productive.
Consequently, the etymology of words can be of assistance in most cases to locate a near-enough to being a non-affective base ... the word ‘enjoy’ for example, is linked with ‘rejoice’ which means ‘gladden’ (from ‘glad’ meaning ‘shining’, ‘bright’, ‘cheerful’, ‘merry’). Of course the word ‘joy’ (from ‘enjoy’, from ‘rejoice’, from ‘gladden’, from ‘shining’) is loaded with the affective feeling for most people ... hence I tend to use it in conjunction with ‘delight’ (as in ‘it is such a joy and a delight to be here’). The word ‘delight’, incidentally, comes from the Latin ‘delectare’ (hence ‘delectation’, ‘delectable’) meaning ‘charm’, allure’ ... and so on through all sub-sets of nuance.
It is pertinent to comprehend that dictionaries are descriptive (and not prescriptive as are scriptures) and reflect more about how words came about, how they have changed, and how they have expanded into other words, rather than what they should mean. I tend to provide dictionary definitions only so as to establish a starting-point for communication ... from this mutually agreed-upon base each co-respondent can apply their own specific nuance of meaning to words as are readily explainable and mutually understandable (such as I do with ‘real’ and ‘actual’ and with ‘truth’ and ‘fact’, for example). Generally I can suss out what the other means by a word via its context and both where they are coming from and what they are wanting to establish ... if not I ask what they are meaning to convey.
As for it being ‘great fun’ communicating via the internet ... it is simply marvellous that I can sit here in my lounge-room in a seaside village and have my words be available, and potentially accessible by all 6.0 billion peoples on this planet (‘potentially’ meaning, of course, being given access to computers – such as in internet cafes – and the ability to read and comprehend English), totally free of charge ... and with nary a tree being chopped down in order to do so.
Ain’t life grand!

RESPONDENT: I can see having no passions (violent emotions) but ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? Is that how you experience passion (as a ‘violent’ emotion)?

RESPONDENT: ... [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: It is quite simple: if there be affective feelings (under any categorisation) in a peak-experience then it is not a pure consciousness experience (PCE).

This may be an apt moment to point out that the word ‘feeling’ (in its affective usage and not in its sensate usage) does not always refer to the exact same thing as the words ‘emotion’ and ‘passion’ do. For example, to say ‘I am emotional about (whatever)’ is not the same as saying ‘I am passionate about (whatever)’ ... whereas to say ‘I feel deeply about (whatever)’ or to say ‘I feel strongly about (whatever)’ is.

Generally speaking a passion is a deep feeling/a strong feeling whereas an emotion is more a nervous feeling/an agitated feeling ... for instance, to say ‘I am emotionally in love with (whomever)’ does not convey what saying ‘I am passionately in love with (whomever)’ does.

RESPONDENT: Perhaps, this is more a problem with British versus American English.

RICHARD: I do not find that ... for here is a truncated version of what one dictionary from the USA has to say, for example, about the word ‘passion’:

• ‘passion: a powerful emotion, such as love, joy, hatred, or anger; ardent love; strong sexual desire; lust; an abandoned display of emotion.
Synonyms: passion, fervour, fire, zeal, ardour. These nouns denote powerful, intense emotion. Passion is a deep, overwhelming emotion. The term may signify sexual desire or anger. Fervour is great warmth and intensity of feeling. Fire is burning passion. Zeal is strong, enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance. Ardour is fiery intensity of feeling. See also synonyms at ‘feeling’. (American Heritage® Dictionary).

And here are those synonyms at ‘feeling’:

• ‘Synonyms: feeling, emotion, passion, sentiment. These nouns refer to complex and usually strong subjective human response. Although feeling and emotion are sometimes interchangeable, feeling is the more general and neutral. Emotion often implies the presence of excitement or agitation. Passion is intense, compelling emotion. Sentiment often applies to a thought or opinion arising from or influenced by emotion. The word can also refer to delicate, sensitive, or higher or more refined feelings. (American Heritage® Dictionary).

Most of that is, more or less, how I have always understood it.

RESPONDENT: Or more to the point, a problem with the strict dictionary use of a term versus a psychological (or evolutionary use of) use of the term emotion to refer to all feelings as being ‘emotional’.

RICHARD: Hence I tend to use the word ‘affective’ (it being a ‘catch-all’ word).

RICHARD (to Respondent No. 20): Pure consciousness is where this flesh and blood body can be apperceptively aware of this actual world ... the world as-it-is. And what-it-is is a rather magical play-ground full of pleasure and delight ... and nary a feeling to be found anywhere. Sorrow and malice cease to exist ... one is happy and harmless in character without any effort. Needless to say, the word ‘integration’ is not at all applicable, here.

RESPONDENT: Richard, aren’t your feelings of pleasure and delight integrated into your flesh and blood body?

RICHARD: Nope, not at all. Integral, yes indeed (as in: essential, necessary, indispensable, requisite, basic, fundamental, inherent, intrinsic, innate). But integrated, no way (as in: unite the various parts, join, combine, amalgamate, consolidate, blend, incorporate, coalesce, fuse, merge, intermix, mingle, commingle, assimilate, homogenise, harmonise, mesh, concatenate).

• [Respondent No. 20]: ‘An integrated self is not a self at all, nor is it any of these thought projected pure ideals’.
• [Richard]: ‘Oh yes it is ... otherwise why call it an ‘integrated self’, for example? It is some airy-fairy far-removed from here affective dream-world conjured up through abstinence and sublimation ... the discipline that comes through order and negation. To project a fantasy and yearn to live in it until one becomes it is simply an insult to one’s native intelligence’.

RESPONDENT: Are you saying that pleasure and delight are essential, necessary, and indispensable but not part of the body as in fused, joined, homogenised?

RICHARD: That is right ... pleasure and delight are the senses in operation. And the senses are as innate, inherent and intrinsic as the heart, lungs and liver.

RICHARD: But I do not want you (or anybody) coming to me – for their own freedom – as I am having too much fun, living my life in the way I see fit, to clutter up my lifestyle with ‘guru-circuit’ peoples, who cannot think for themselves, trooping daily through my front door. The Internet is my chosen means of dissemination for the obvious reason of being interactive and rapid. The electronic copying and distribution capacity of a mailing list service – with it’s multiple feed-back capability – is second to none. Words are words, whether they be thought, spoken, printed or appear as pixels on a screen. Ultimately it is what is being said or written, by the writer or the speaker that lives what is being expressed, that is important ... and facts and actuality then speak for themselves. Anyone who has met me face-to-face only gets verification that there is actually a flesh and blood body that lives what these words say. I am a fellow human being sans identity ... there is no ‘charisma’ nor any ‘energy-field’ here. The affective faculty – the entire psyche itself – is eradicated: I have no ‘energies’ ... no power or powers whatsoever. There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ here in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: Richard, you have said many times in the past that you are free of all feelings.

RICHARD: Yes ... more specifically: free of the persistent identity (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). It is impossible to be a stripped-down ‘self’ (divested of feelings) ... such a person who tries to do that absurdity has what is called by psychiatry ‘a sociopathic personality’ (commonly known as a psychopath).

RESPONDENT: Is not this ‘fun’ you are having part and parcel of the feeling of enjoying what you are doing?

RICHARD: Not the ‘feeling’ of enjoyment ... direct enjoyment: I have not felt happy for years and years.

RESPONDENT: Could you even go so far as to say that you love what you are doing?

RICHARD: No ... this is much, much more than ‘loving’ what I am doing. It is also much more than being in love and even more than being love.

RESPONDENT: Richard, I would like to bring your attention to the following: [quote] ‘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.’ [from 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?

RICHARD: If you could point out where I said that the insalubrious vibes inhering at protest rallies are factually unpleasant to me I would be only too happy to answer your query.

RESPONDENT: It is quite important to me that you answer this inquiry with a well-reasoned, well-worded reply. I would much appreciate it.

RICHARD: If you could frame your inquiry in a well-reasoned, well-worded way it may very well attract an answer in kind ... in the meanwhile I can do no better, by way of explanation, than to offer the paragraphs immediately preceding the one before the quote you provided:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) a fellow human being is asking me about the disputed pollution of a local river. What am I to answer? Am I to acquiesce to what she desires ... which is to carry a placard at the river-mouth rally next Saturday morning? For if I were to do so, I would be pandering to her anger and agony, rewarding her for holding such animosity and anguish against her contemporaries. If I counsel against such a performance, I stand accused of ‘not caring for the environment’ ... and of course I do care. But for me to attend any rage-driven rally is to kow-tow to the mob anger which perpetuates savagery. Peace on earth is the furthermost thing from their minds at those moments; the confrontation is the highlight of their day. Although demonstrations can get things changed, the cost in terms of the loss of human togetherness is high. The so-called ‘peaceful rallies’ are not an exception; the participants are fuming with frustration and self-righteous indignation, against all that oppose.
There must be a better way to get things changed.
There is a better way. It may not be so physically appealing as the apparent ‘cure’ of a protest, but it has the immense benefit of being permanent. Protest demonstrations are never ending ... there is always another cause lurking just around the corner. Some people have become professional protesters; it is their life’s work, their raison d’être (...)’. (page 175, ‘Richard’s Journal’, Second Edition; ©2004 The Actual Freedom Trust).

GARY: 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’?

RESPONDENT: Sounds like it to me, Gary. Perhaps Richard could elaborate on this apparent contradiction?

RICHARD: It is only an ‘apparent contradiction’ if all laughter is first determined to be affective ... one can laugh with the sheer delight of being alive or in moments of great pleasure. I recall that when freedom first happened there was much laughter because it was as if I had been playing a great joke upon myself by searching everywhere and everywhen for something that was already always just here right now ... I am chuckling even now as I write about it (all suffering is self-caused and totally unnecessary).

Also, one can laugh where something is ludicrous, farcical, absurd, ridiculous and so on ... speaking personally, I find the TV series ‘3rd Rock From The Sun’ humorous as it oft-times demonstrates many of the foibles of human nature (as in the first thirty four years of my life). Plus it is hilarious that for eleven years I lived-out the experience of being the latest saviour of humankind ... there is much about life which is irrepressibly funny.

And I find it cute that an actual freedom from the human condition is deemed an incurable mental disorder.

RESPONDENT: Perhaps one should not dwell on (or believe), in the authority of others?

RICHARD: There is a distinct difference between the authority of experience (expertise) and the authority of law (rule).

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

P.S. I typed the words ‘rolling’ and ‘the floor’ and ‘laughter’ into this computer’s search engine and sent it through all my written words ... this is what came up:

• [Richard]: This discussion is not a competition about which one of us knows the most or is the cleverest at putting words together. We are talking about the possibility of your peace and your happiness and your harmony coming about here on earth, as this body, in this lifetime. For you to personally experience the ultimate each moment again, twenty four hours a day, three hundred and sixty five days of the year ... for the remainder of your life.
• [Respondent]: Actually doesn’t sound that appealing – I don’t mind a bit of suffering – it’s good for the soul.
• [Richard]: Peace and happiness and harmony does not ‘sound that appealing’? Are you for real? Do you mean to say that you condone wars, murders, tortures, rapes, domestic violence incidents and child abuse ... not to forget all the sadness, loneliness, grief, depression, despair and suicides? Do you really mean it when you say: ‘I don’t mind a bit of suffering’? If it was not so serious, I would be rolling about the floor laughing by now, at what you have just written ... for it is ludicrous. Read it again and see for yourself what nonsense it is.

And:

• [Respondent]: ... [I agree that] it is funny that someone struts the world stage preaching humility and saying at the same time that they are God ...
• [Richard]: Yes ... it is comical because it is absurd, preposterous, farcical, ridiculous, nonsensical and foolish. (...) Ever since I became capable of appreciating ‘black humour’ (thanks to the TV series ‘Black Adder’) I sometimes have a difficult job to not roll about the floor laughing. What makes it black humour is that such hypocritical duplicity perpetuates 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 forever and a day.

KONRAD: 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.

RICHARD: I have ‘become my emotions’? But no one has been able to observe any trace of an emotion in me for five years. I have been examined by two accredited psychiatrists (and by one of them every three months for more than three years) and found to have alexithymia – amongst other detailed psychiatric findings – which means no feelings whatsoever. Also, a psychologist has been following my condition at three-weekly intervals since March 1994 ... and he says that I may very well be the evolutionary break-through that humankind has been waiting for, for centuries.

KONRAD: 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.

RICHARD: I know your theory sounds good to you ... but, as I say, other humans – some who are downright suspicious of me – have been unable to detect anything at all despite the closest observation possible.