Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions

RICHARD: If you could provide the passage where I said I prefer to have the company of a woman ‘instead of being alone’ it would be most appreciated.

RESPONDENT: That it [the company of a woman] is a privilege etc.

RICHARD: The ‘etc.’ is, in fact, none other than delight (see immediately below).

RESPONDENT: But the very fact that he would consider it a privilege, that is, something which adds value to his life, belies the claim that the world is perfect as is for an actualist.

RICHARD: This is what I actually wrote:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘In a PCE, there is no need for a relationship as everything is already perfect. There is an enormous feeling of well being and there seems to be no particular motivation to go and find another person and prove that two people of the opposite gender can live together in peace, harmony, equity, etc. My question is: ‘What motivates Richard to be in a relationship with a woman if he is living in Actual Freedom (which I understand to be more or less a permanent PCE)?’ I mean, why bother?
• [Richard]: ‘It is not to ‘prove’ that two people can live together in peace and harmony that I am currently living with a female companion – it is impossible to be anything other than happy and harmless here in this actual world – and it is no ‘bother’ at all to live in marriage-like association with a fellow human being of either gender (according to sexual orientation) ... it is both a delight and a privilege. (Friday 22/10/2004 AEST).

Nowhere did I say that it is something which ‘adds value’ to my life (thus belying that this actual world is perfect) ... and the odd thing is that all what is required is to just simply ask me, if it be not obvious, what I mean by it being a privilege to be living with a female companion.

Just look at what your e-mail brought forth:

• [Co-Respondent to Respondent]: ‘Your first two paragraphs get to the heart of the matter. Privilege or something that adds value to his life has no place in PCE ...’. (Saturday 23/10/2004 AEST).

And on and on it went ... here is your latest:

• [Respondent]: ‘In actualism, why do people prefer a relationship involving the possibility of sexual congress? In what way does it add value to their life, in order for Richard to say that it is a privilege? (Monday 25/10/2004 AEST).

It is this simple: there are over 3.0 billion females on this planet ... and one of them wants to spend their most irreplaceable commodity (their time) living with me/being with me, twenty four hours a day/seven days a week, for the remainder of their life.

Now, that is something special (it is, so to speak, putting one’s money where one’s mouth is big time) ... hence ‘privilege’.

To put it all into perspective: I have nothing to offer in the normal sense – no affection/love/adoration, no empathy/sympathy/commiseration, no high-paying career/house/car/money in the bank, no children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren (because of an irreversible vasectomy) – nor anything in the abnormal sense (no charisma/magnetism/radiant transmission outside of the scriptures, no enlightenment/awakenment/self-realisation through an intense master/disciple relationship) ... and nothing to offer in regards a singular dispensation in becoming actually free from the human condition (I cannot set anybody free).

In short: a fellow human being likes me as-I-am – with no strings attached/no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive – for what-I-am ... and not for what I can give/do/provide/dispense and so forth.

And this is truly marvellous.

RESPONDENT: I mean, can there be an icing on a cake, a cake which is infinitely big?

RICHARD: Indeed there can be (and dollops of cream on top of the icing as well) ... bucket-loads of it, in fact. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Isn’t ‘self’ really (and literally) an after-thought? For example, humans instinctively respond to certain situations and then the after-thought actually creates the self? For example, an instinctive response to avert a danger, and then after-thought: ‘I could have died’. The latter, I think, is what constitutes the self. Similarly with pleasurable activities: it is the desire to have more that creates the self.
• [Richard]: ‘Speaking personally, I have pleasure by the bucket load – and take for granted that there is an endless supply – and no ‘self’ gets created.

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You see, it is nearly impossible for me to not seek, to not be self-centred. Perhaps there were/are moments/days/weeks/etc. of absence of self-centeredness in my dealings with my daughter, family, a few friends. But, by and large, I am rooted in my pleasures. So, whatever I feel, care for, experience, etc. is all tinted by the strong tint of pleasure.
• [Richard]: ‘Once again ... have the injunctions of the ‘Deathless Ones’ (the bodiless entities) really had that much influence on your thinking? You have just had a direct experience of the actual ... yet away you go into interpreting it according to the ‘Tried and True’. Speaking personally, I have pleasure by the bucket load – and take for granted that there is an endless supply – and thus enjoy and appreciate the world of people, things and events each moment again.

RICHARD: Fear and aggression are built into the Human Condition; it is intrinsic and known as the ‘instinct for survival’. The ‘self’ is born out of the instincts.

RESPONDENT: But is not the sex drive an instinct? Where do you draw the line between the ‘instincts’, and the emotions you enjoy? Forgive me if I’ve missed these points previously.

RICHARD: Yes, the sex drive is an instinctual drive ... and, along with other instinctual urges, can be eliminated entirely. Then one is free to act appropriately according to the circumstances and not out of an instinctual reaction. Instincts are not set in stone, they are simply ‘blind nature’s’ way of ensuing survival. With our thinking, reflective brain we can improve on nature in this respect, as we have done in so many other ways. Any instinctual drive can be eradicated.

Then one is free to enjoy the sexual act as a physical, sensual pleasure (not as an emotional or passionate ‘solution’ to loneliness and sorrow via love) or free to enjoy celibacy as an idiosyncratic celebration of singularity (not as a dispassionate or detached way to dissolve the ego via craftiness). It is then an act of free choice to have sex, or not have sex, just as easily in either alternative. No drive means no urge. With no urge there is nothing to have to deny, nor anything to have to indulge. Thus it is neither ‘Asceticism’ nor ‘Hedonism’ ... this is an actual freedom.

I do not have any emotions to enjoy (or to dislike) as all feelings – emotions and passions – are no longer extant. And, yes, you may have missed out as I have written elsewhere on this list:

• [Richard]: ‘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’. [end quote].

I did not ‘arrive’ here in this condition by either denying or indulging in sexuality ... I did not do anything at all for I have always been here. It was ‘I’/‘me’, the psychological/psychic entity residing within this body, that did all the work. ‘He’ self-immolated, psychologically/psychically speaking ... and only ‘he’ could do that (I did not realise ‘myself’ ... I am not a ‘Self-Realised Being’). I am not an enlightened being any more, nor will I ever be again ... that hazard is over forever for ‘I’ do not exist. I am this living, breathing body being alive at this moment in time. By being here, as an actuality, I am the universe experiencing itself as a thinking, reflective human being.

RESPONDENT: I wouldn’t say that eschewing women is a proof that one is free, but being attached to women is a sure proof that one is enchained. The Buddha (I know you don’t like him but I do) says: ‘So long as the lustful desire of a man for a woman, however small, is not destroyed, so long is that man in bondage, like a calf that drinks milk is to its mother. (The Dhammapada).

RICHARD: Without an ‘I’, there is nothing inside this body to be either attached or detached ... one is free to be living with, or without, a member of the other gender. Living is all so very easy and simple in the actual world ... to be without ‘I’ in ‘my’ entirety is a most estimable condition to be in. To practice detachment merely manifests and strengthens the second ‘I’ (of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer aka Ramana fame) and can lead to one realising oneself as the ‘Self’. If carried out successfully, one will be in danger of becoming enlightened and live in the massive delusion of existing for all Eternity ... that is: Spaceless, Timeless, Unborn, Undying and so on. ‘I’ thus survive, triumphant, only to wreak ‘my’ havoc once again ... disguised now as some Metaphysical Entity who has manifested for ‘The Good of All Mankind’. ‘I’ conveniently ignore all the hatred and bloodshed that ‘I’ – as my illustrious predecessors have also done – leave in the wake of ‘my’ noble Love Agapé‚ and Divine Compassion. This has been the way of humans for millennia: to escape from ‘reality’ by creating a ‘Greater Reality’ ... this is the wisdom of the Sages and the Saints, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours – and is but a delusion created out of an illusion. It is all predicated upon the persistence of an identity existing through into an ‘After-Life’.

*

RESPONDENT: So your wouldn’t mind at all if your wife slept with other men every day and spent most of her time with them?

RICHARD: Not at all ... I do not own her, she is not my possession ... she is free to live her life as she sees fit. Similarly, she does not see me as her possession and does not own me. Apart from practical considerations about things like STD’s and unwanted pregnancies, we put no boundaries upon each other. If she or I then willingly choose to remain monogamous, that is a free choice. (For what it is worth, as an illustration only, until recently we have been living in what is called a menage a trois. She is currently living in her own home doing whatever she does do when we are not with each other. We are married in name only – for legal purposes – which is why I originally wrote ‘my companion’ ... we do not consider ourselves ‘married’ in the sense most people mean by that term.)

*

RESPONDENT: Being in relationships does leave you at the brunt of a lot of jokes I’m afraid!

RICHARD: Strange ... nobody around here makes jokes about my relationships ... you have the dubious honour of being the first. Which makes me wonder just what kind of world you have created for yourself. Being in a relationship is one of the most delicious, delightful, fascinating and rewarding things that one can ever do. In case you have not taken it in, given that half of the population being female and the other half being male, it an actuality that we fit together. It is a ‘given’, as they say in scientific circles, like gravity. It is the method by which we all came to be here – there is no other way of becoming a human being other than the union of the ova and the spermatozoa. And strange indeed it is that most religious/spiritual/mystical/metaphysical paths, somewhere along the line, insist that one eschews anyone of the other gender. It amounts to nothing other than being in a state of denial.

Apart from that, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

RICHARD: It is this simple: there are over 3.0 billion females on this planet ... and one of them wants to spend their most irreplaceable commodity (their time) living with me/being with me, twenty four hours a day/seven days a week, for the remainder of their life. Now, that is something special (it is, so to speak, putting one’s money where one’s mouth is big time) ... hence ‘privilege’.

RESPONDENT: Well, such a commitment is not to be sneezed at, but in what way does availability of this commodity (another person’s time for you) make you more delighted than being alone?

RICHARD: The delight, to be living with a female companion, does not come from it being a privilege that a fellow human being wants to spend their most irreplaceable commodity (their time) living with me/being with me, twenty four hours a day/seven days a week, for the remainder of their life ... the delight is in the day-to-day enjoyment and appreciation of being with/living with that person. It does not provide for ‘more’ delight than being alone/living alone – there is just as much delight in the day-to-day enjoyment and appreciation in being alone/living alone – as it is the capacity to both enjoy and appreciate which determines the quality of the delight. (...)

RESPONDENT: Saying that to live with a woman (who is choosing to live with you as-is etc.) is both a delight and a privilege means it is in some way a better state than either a) to not have such a partner b) to have a partner who does not have those qualities.

RICHARD: Perhaps this may be of assistance: whenever the occasion arises I am delighted to be living alone/being alone.

Does that throw some light upon the matter ... or are you now going to ask me what it is about living alone/being alone that makes me more delighted and/or mean it is in some way better than a) to have such a companion b) to have a companion who does not have those qualities?

*

RESPONDENT: I have serious doubts as to whether Peter, Vineeto and Richard are free from the need for sexual congress. Vineeto claims she is free, Richard too claims the same.

RICHARD: May I ask? What is the basis of your ‘serious doubts’ as to whether Richard is free of the instinctual drive to copulate (as in just what is it that I have reported/described/explained which would occasion such)?

RESPONDENT: Because you are indulging in it ...

RICHARD: Where did I say I was indulging in the instinctual drive to copulate?

RESPONDENT: You are indulging in sexual intercourse, I meant.

RICHARD: Okay ... here is an example of what your response now looks like:

• [Richard]: ‘What is the basis of your ‘serious doubts’ as to whether Richard is free of the instinctual drive to copulate?
• [Respondent]: ‘You are indulging in sexual intercourse. [end example].

I draw your attention to something you wrote further above:

• [Richard]: ‘As long as there is a craving or need for a certain (hedonic) pleasure then untold bucket-loads of (anhedonic) pleasure will be being kept at bay.
• [Respondent]: ‘Makes sense.’

Am I to take it that, as far as you are concerned, the untold bucket-loads of (anhedonic) pleasure do not include (anhedonic) sexual pleasure?

RESPONDENT: Hence, any claim that you are free of the desire for sexual intercourse would have to withstand close scrutiny (which would not be required if you were living a celibate life).

RICHARD: I draw your attention to something you wrote further below:

• [Respondent]: ‘Then [if you were living a celibate life] I would ask you if you masturbate, if you have wet dreams etc.’.

As I get the impression that, according to you, a person actually free from the human condition would not be having sex, period (be it hetero-sexual sex, homo-sexual sex, mono-sexual sex , or auto-sexual sex ), then here is a question for you to ponder: would global peace-on-earth – as in an actual freedom from the human condition for all peoples – mean the end of the human race, then? (...)

*

RESPONDENT: You consider it a privilege to live with an as-is-accepting woman, with whom you have sex.

RICHARD: If I may point out? The question is about [quote] ‘the instinctual drive to copulate’ [endquote] and not copulation per se.

RESPONDENT: I can only talk about the observable facts.

RICHARD: Oh? What is observably factual about this (for just one example)? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Richard claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: Whether you are free of the instinctual drive to copulate or not is not an observable fact.

RICHARD: Not so ... it is an observable fact for my current companion and was an observable fact for my previous companion.

RESPONDENT: Only the fact of your having sex is.

RICHARD: Now here is something for you to muse upon: suppose Richard were to be living the celibate life, which you said (further above) would not require close scrutiny, then how would that make it an observable fact that Richard is free of the instinctual drive to copulate when the only observable fact, as far as you are concerned, is that Richard is not having sex?

*

RESPONDENT: But why they choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life?

RICHARD: Has it ever occurred to you to ask the obverse question as well (why a person actually free of the human condition would choose a solitary life of nonsexual mono-existence?

RESPONDENT: Because he wouldn’t need it ...

RICHARD: If by ‘it’ you mean a person actually free of the human condition would not ‘need’ a life of heterosexual co-existence then why would such a person not choose such a life? Or, to put that the other way, because a person actually free of the human condition does not ‘need’ a life of heterosexual co-existence then why would such a person choose a solitary life of nonsexual mono-existence?

RESPONDENT: [Because he wouldn’t need it], and involving another person (who is most likely not free of the human condition) in one’s life is going to involve conflicts, fights, struggles for space, etc. I mean why would one want to live in a fish market instead of around a peaceful garden?

RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have lived a life of heterosexual co-existence for many years now and not once have I ever ceased living in the magical fairy-tale-like paradise this actual world is. Here is a clue:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard ... the problem is not the ‘self’ (in regard to war, rape, murder, heartache, sorrow, malice, tooth decay, etc., etc,), the problem is always ‘the other’. And we cannot ‘get rid of’ the other.
• [Richard]: ‘Au contraire ... when ‘the ‘self’’ in its entirety (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul), who was parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body, psychologically and psychically (ontologically and autologically) self-immolated ... ‘the other’ (all six billion ‘others’ plus all past and future ‘others’) vanished.
I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world.

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard, if I were to knock-knock on your brain there will be no-one to answer, let alone your heart?
• [Richard]: ‘My previous companion would oft-times say ‘there is no-one in there’ or ‘there is no-one home’ when feeling me out whilst looking at me quizzically ... she also would explain to others that, contrary to expectation, it was sometimes difficult to live with Richard (it could be said that living with some body that is not self-centred would always be easy) as it was impossible for her to have a relationship because there was no-one to make a connection with.
She would also say that Richard does nor support her, as an identity that is, at all ... which lack of (affective) caring was disconcerting for her, to say the least, and my current companion has also (correctly) reported this absence of consideration.
Put simply: I am unable to support some-one who does not exist (I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world).

And:

• [Richard]: ‘There is no such self-aggrandisement, as you propose, here in this actual world as the pristine purity of the actual ensures that nothing ‘dirty’ can get in, so to speak, thus I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here (there is no identity in actuality).
And this is truly wonderful.

RESPONDENT: Ok, so despite the occasional complaint from your partner regarding the absence of ‘affective caring’ etc., you have a harmonious existence.

RICHARD: No, what I am saying, in those above three quotes, by way of providing a clue as to why I have been able to live a life of heterosexual co-existence for many years now and not once ever ceased living in the magical fairy-tale-like paradise this actual world is, is that I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world.

In short: even if (note ‘if’) the observations of my previous companion/current companion were indeed, as you make out, to be complaints I have a harmonious existence irregardless.

*

RESPONDENT: Simply a matter of preference [to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life]?

RICHARD: Indeed ... any such choice, being a choice sans the instinctual drive to copulate, is a freely-made choice.

RESPONDENT: Doesn’t really sound very convincing.

RICHARD: What would really sound convincing, then (according to you)?

RESPONDENT: That you are living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress.

RICHARD: I see ... do you want me to prove that a person actually free of the human condition does not need a life of heterosexual co-existence by living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress, then?

RESPONDENT: It would certainly look more convincing.

RICHARD: How would me living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress make it certainly look more convincing, that a person actually free of the human condition does not need a life of heterosexual co-existence, when all that would be an observable fact, as far as you are concerned, would be that I am not having sex?

*

RESPONDENT: Why do you choose to live with a woman, by the way, and not a man?

RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following: [Richard to Respondent]: ‘... knowing the difference between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity is a matter of gender orientation – determined, as I understand it, somewhere around the twelfth to sixteenth week of gestation – and not just a case of conditioning. [endquote]. Quite simply: my sexual orientation is heterosexual.

RESPONDENT: Fine. So you agree in the above Q&A that you choose to live with a woman because she is a WOMAN, i.e., who can satisfy your heterosexual orientation.

RICHARD: No ... what I clearly agree with, in the above question and answer, is that I choose to live with a woman, *and not a man*, because my sexual orientation is heterosexual.

RESPONDENT: I.e. you choose your partner based on your SEXUAL orientation.

RICHARD: No ... I choose a woman as a companion, *and not a man*, based upon my sexual orientation.

RESPONDENT: This is getting clearer and clearer.

RICHARD: I do not see how it is getting clearer and clearer for you ... you are (presumably) intent on reading whatever you deem necessary, into my specifically answered reply to your specifically asked question, in order to see the evidence your preconceptions ordain as surely being there.

*

RESPONDENT: You choose your partner based on her sexual identity as well as orientation.

RICHARD: No ... I choose a woman as a companion, *and not a man*, based upon my gender and sexual orientation (just as her choice for me, *and not a woman*, as a companion would be based upon her gender and sexual orientation).

RESPONDENT: That is what you just said above.

RICHARD: It is not what I said above ... I specifically answered your question as specifically asked.

RESPONDENT: The so-called other factors pale in comparison with this big factor.

RICHARD: They are not ‘so-called other factors’ ... they are specific to the question you specifically asked. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Is it too much to presume that your choice of *your current partner* is based upon her gender? [emphasis added].

First you ask me a general question (as in your ‘a woman and not a man’ phrasing) then switch from the general to the particular (as in your ‘your current partner’ phrasing) only to shift to the general once again (as in your ‘you choose’ phrasing) in the midst of your response ... whilst somewhere in between giving me a mini-lecture on being simple and not using too many words.

RESPONDENT: May I remind you that this is so for the vast majority of humankind?

RICHARD: I do not need to be reminded that the vast majority of human beings choose a partner based upon gender and sexual orientation ... a person of a particular gender and sexual orientation would have to be pretty silly to choose, for example, a partner of the opposite gender with a same-sex sexual orientation.

RESPONDENT: Sex is primary.

RICHARD: Instinctually-driven sex is primary ... yes.

RESPONDENT: By the way, did you ever propose to a man to start living with you?

RICHARD: Ha ... I never even proposed to my current companion that she start being with me /living with me and my then companion (it was her proposition to move in).

RESPONDENT: (Of course, sex wouldn’t enter the picture at all then).

RICHARD: Given that my sexual orientation is heterosexual then ... no, it would not.

RESPONDENT: And therefore, it would be much more convincing that you don’t need sex anymore.

RICHARD: Are you aware that what you are saying is, in effect, that your convincement requires a heterosexually-orientated person, free of the instinctual drive to copulate, to be living with/being with a celibate same-sex companion?

May I ask? Just what is the point of being free of the instinctual drive to copulate, then, if not to be able to freely enjoy and appreciate sex and sexuality?

*

RESPONDENT: What would that [your choice of your current partner being based upon her gender] imply?

RICHARD: Nothing other than that my sexual orientation is heterosexual.

RESPONDENT: Wouldn’t that imply that the possibility of sex is still important to you?

RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? I did not become actually free from the human condition just so that I could be single/celibate, be a vegetarian/vegan/fruitarian, live on a mountaintop/in a cave/in a jungle/be itinerant, be loving/compassionate/pacifistic, be transcendent/blissed-out/in a trance and ... and any other criteria you may care to provide from the institutionalised insanity popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment which has been the summum bonum of human experience up until now.

RESPONDENT: May I remind you, we were originally talking about this very institutional insanity called enlightenment (Vineeto’s original post about your meeting on the beach) which you claimed for yourself?

RICHARD: No ... we were originally talking about your [quote] ‘serious doubts’ [endquote] as to whether Richard was free of the instinctual drive to copulate ... only you put it this way:

• [Respondent]: ‘I have serious doubts as to whether Peter, Vineeto and Richard are free from the need for sexual congress. Vineeto claims she is free, Richard too claims the same.

As both Peter and Vineeto are entirely capable of speaking for themselves I am, of course, responding to your ‘serious doubts’ about me ... and I did not become actually free from the human condition just so that I could be single/celibate, be a vegetarian/vegan/fruitarian, live on a mountaintop/in a cave/in a jungle/be itinerant, be loving/compassionate/pacifistic, be transcendent/blissed-out/in a trance and ... and any other criteria you may care to provide from the institutionalised insanity popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment which has been the summum bonum of human experience up until now.

RESPONDENT: But I would like to make one other point. Celibacy cannot per se be considered part of enlightenment. An actualist, a normal person can also choose to be celibate without any deep reasons. Just for convenience, maybe.

RICHARD: And is the obverse (being sexually active) also valid where you live ... or is it a one-way street?

RESPONDENT: Richard, when talking with a female friend about your Journal she asked the following questions: 1) Were all three people in the three-way relationship with Irene, yourself and Grace engaging in sexual relations ...

RICHARD: Yes, although the ménage à trois – ‘an arrangement or relationship in which three people live together’ (Oxford Dictionary) – started out as a platonic association for my current companion.

RESPONDENT: ... (i.e. were Irene and Grace sexually active together, etc.)?

RICHARD: As I do not have permission from my previous companion to publicly disclose personal information I will not be responding, be it either in the negative or the affirmative, to queries such as that.

RESPONDENT: 2) Was there any hint that Irene may have been jealous of your sexual relationship with Grace?

RICHARD: No, the fundamental, or pivotal, reason for what ensued is as detailed in ‘Richard’s Journal’ (of which my previous companion has had a copy ever since it was first published) and in various places throughout my correspondence ... to wit: having fallen in love with a person who loved another she energetically transformed that unrequited love into being Love Agapé ... and the rest is history.

RESPONDENT: 3) Why, if you had a ‘perfect’ relationship with Irene, would you want to add a third party?

RICHARD: This is the way I described how it all began:

• [Richard]: ‘... my current companion shared a house in a large coastal city with my previous companion before either of them ... (1) ever met me ... and (2) moved to the seaside village where I reside. My previous companion and I, whilst living together, happened to meet the woman who was to become my current companion when strolling along a village street one day and stopped to chat (as peoples everywhere are wont to do): in the midst of the conversation the woman who was to become my current companion experienced what she described, as it was occurring, as an intimacy closer than she had ever had with herself ... which closeness prompted her to move in with me and my then companion (her previous house-mate).

My previous companion was, of course, well aware of such an intimacy. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘As to [an actual intimacy with every body and every thing and every event] I wonder if you could give any description as to this hmm experience of ‘intimacy with every body and every thing and every event’.
• [Richard]: ‘Perhaps the words my current companion used, when experiencing an actual intimacy upon serendipitously meeting me in the street one day in 1996 (which experience prompted her to move in with me and my then companion), would convey it in a way you may be able to relate to ... she described it as a closeness which was more intimate than she had ever experienced with her own self.
Or, for another description, my previous companion likened it to being closer than her own heartbeat was to her’.

In short: the ménage à trois was initiated by, and primarily based upon, an actual intimacy ... and not sex and sexuality.

RESPONDENT: I don’t remember this being covered thoroughly in past correspondence and now that I think about it, that is rather surprising to me.

RICHARD: Oh? Are you not aware then, that were your female friend’s question to be asked in a world-wide context, rather than from a parochial point of view, it would look somewhat odd ... as in rather unusual or out of place?

Mr. George Murdock, an anthropologist by profession, catalogued 853 societies globally: 83.5% of them permitted or preferred polygyny, with but 16% (mainly western) imposing monogamy by law (yet which, by allowing divorce, permit successive polygamy) and only four societies, out of the 853 catalogued, permitted polyandry. (Source: Murdock, G. P. Ethnographic atlas: a summary. Ethnology 6:109-236.).

In other words a ménage à deux is not the norm.

RESPONDENT No. 68: Richard, when talking with a female friend about your Journal she asked the following questions: 1) Were all three people in the three-way relationship with Irene, yourself and Grace engaging in sexual relations ...

RICHARD: Yes (... snip detailed response ...)

RESPONDENT No. 68: 2) Was there any hint that Irene may have been jealous of your sexual relationship with Grace?

RICHARD: No (... snip detailed response ...)

RESPONDENT No. 68: 3) Why, if you had a ‘perfect’ relationship with Irene, would you want to add a third party?

RICHARD: This is the way I described how it all began (... snip detailed response ...)

In short: the ménage à trois was initiated by, and primarily based upon, an actual intimacy ... and not sex and sexuality.

RESPONDENT No. 68: I don’t remember this being covered thoroughly in past correspondence and now that I think about it, that is rather surprising to me.

RICHARD: Oh? Are you not aware then, that were your female friend’s question to be asked in a world-wide context, rather than from a parochial point of view, it would look somewhat odd ... as in rather unusual or out of place? Mr. George Murdock, an anthropologist by profession, catalogued 853 societies globally: 83.5% of them permitted or preferred polygyny, with but 16% (mainly western) imposing monogamy by law (yet which, by allowing divorce, permit successive polygamy) and only four societies, out of the 853 catalogued, permitted polyandry. In other words a ménage à deux is not the norm.

RESPONDENT: Sorry, I cannot follow.

RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way? The fact that I have been involved at least twice in a (male-female) ménage à deux – ‘an arrangement or relationship in which two people live together’ (Oxford Dictionary) – prior to my current living arrangement features on quite a few occasions on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... and yet no-one has gone out of their way to ask whether those two-way arrangements included sexual congress.

Could it be that words like ‘marriage’ and ‘wife’, carrying with them the nuptial connotation that conjugality/ connubiality is, primarily, sexually-initiated/ sexually-based, engender a tacit assumption such to render any such query superfluous to the mind of the (mainly western/ westernised) reader/ listener?

And could it also be that the very term ‘ménage à trois’ might conjure up images in the mind of an undiscerning reader/ listener of some libidinous polygynist, devoid of any morals/ ethics/ principles/ values whatsoever, rutting their days away in sexual depravity?

RESPONDENT: When it fits into your case you support it with ‘the norm’ ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? As I am currently living in a male-female ménage à deux (which is to be not supported by the norm) your ‘when’ assertion makes no sense at all.

RESPONDENT: ... but otherwise the norm is just abnormal for you (= human Condition).

RICHARD: As your conclusion is based-upon/drawn-from a nonsensical premise it is, perforce, also senseless ... a senselessness, by the way, twice-removed from what really is the case.

But, then again, most rhetorical devices designed for (cheap) effect are.

Just for the record: the human condition is so much the norm as to be ubiquitous – blind nature hereditarily bestows instinctual passions upon all human beings at conception without exception – thus far from equalling abnormality it is, being a natural occurrence and therefore globally endemic, entirely normal ... so normal, in fact, as to give rise to expressions such as ‘you can’t change human nature’, and so forth.

Which could very well be why such queries as those, both further above and in another e-mail, arose in the mind of my co-respondent’s female friend.

RESPONDENT: What interests me most about this ‘condition’ is how life is actually experienced. In your case, you have expressed some hints about the bodily functioning. You say that you have no libido, yet you can engage in sex. The obvious question arises: Do you become ‘aroused’ without any mental component (i.e. do you find yourself with an erection when a partner expresses some desire to engage in sex) or what?

RICHARD: Here in this actual world it is impossible to ever be hedonic as the affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain – as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate – is null and void.

You may find the following self-explanatory:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Is it correct to say that ‘actual sex’ is non-erotic?
• [Richard]: ‘As the word ‘erotic’ usually means ‘of or pertaining to sexual love; amatory, esp. tending to arouse sexual desire’ (Oxford Dictionary) ... yes; where the word ‘erotic’ means erogenous – ‘of a part of the body: sensitive to sexual stimulation; capable of giving sexual pleasure when touched or stroked’ (Oxford Dictionary) – then ... no’.

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... if you are making sex where come these erections, out of the blue?
• [Richard]: ‘No, engorgement of the genitals comes from tactile stimulation’.

RESPONDENT: Do the sensations of sexual congress have a different quality than previously in the entity state?

RICHARD: As sensations are physical they are no different than when an identity inhabited this flesh and blood body all those years ago ... the experience of same, being direct, is vastly different.

RESPONDENT: Would the idea of masturbation ever arise?

RICHARD: Having lived with a female companion since 1992 there has been no occasion where, being but a substitute for the real thing, it would ... there is (presumably) no reason why it would not, though, were the situation to be different. 

RESPONDENT: If a man touched your nipples or your lips or any other erogenous zone would you experience pleasure?

RICHARD: If any body – be it human, dog, monkey, and so on, and so forth, of either gender, or any age, shape, size, appearance, race, ethnicity, and social status – were to touch, stroke, caress, lick, suck, nuzzle, or in any other way set out to stimulate me in an erotic manner, then erogenous pleasure would (presumably) be experienced.

RESPONDENT: And if so what does that imply?

RICHARD: I am none too sure that it implies anything (other than the absence of prejudice already mentioned).

RESPONDENT: Does the fact that animal or man can arouse you mean that you are not heterosexually oriented as you said in some post where you were discussing your sex life and companionship?

RICHARD: First of all, virtually any flesh and blood body would experience erogenous pleasure when stimulated in an erotic manner. Vis.:

• ‘erogenous: (of a part of the body) sensitive to sexual stimulation; capable of giving sexual pleasure when touched or stroked’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Second, I now comprehend just what implication it was you were fishing for ... and, as I understand it, there are various devices on the market which would (presumably) also bring about erogenous pleasure – and (probably) of a similar nature to that stimulated by the living creatures listed above – yet there is no way that would mean my sexual orientation was not heterosexual.

Or, put differently, were my sexual orientation to have been homosexual, and a female (of any age, shape, size, appearance, race, ethnicity, and social status) was to then stimulate me in an erotic manner, the erogenous pleasure experienced would in no way mean that my sexual orientation was not homosexual.

Last, but by no means least, there is a vast difference between hedonic pleasure, where arousal means desire, and anhedonic pleasure, where arousal remains sensate only ... in this actual world (the world of the senses) it is impossible to ever be hedonic (desirous) as the affective pleasure/ pain centre in the brain – as in the pleasure/ pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate – is null and void.

*

RESPONDENT: How can you say you have any sexual orientation at all?

RICHARD: As I understand it, and this is a vaguely recalled generalisation, both gender and sexual orientation are set in place whilst a foetus – from memory around the tenth/ twelfth week for a male and the twelfth/fourteenth week for a female – due to either the presence or absence of testosterone, in conjunction with other hormones, as determined by the type of chromosomes endowed at conception.

Be that as it may ... the extirpation of the entire affective faculty/identity in toto (and thus libido or sexual desire) does not eliminate sexual orientation.

RESPONDENT: Does the flesh and blood body called Richard have a preference companions that wear skirts and have smaller bone structure?

RICHARD: No, sexual orientation is not a preference.

RESPONDENT: Your input on this matter is important to me as I am facing issues around my sexual (homosexual) identity/reality since AF.

RICHARD: Neither heterosexuality or homosexuality (or bisexuality/ transsexuality for that matter) are a product of identity as other animals display variations in sexual orientation as well ... being born and raised on a farm I have personally witnessed, for just one example, cows in oestrous (aka on heat) sniffing, licking, nuzzling, rubbing and mounting each other (known colloquially as ‘bulling’).

Nor are various sexual practices either, by the way, as I have also seen, for instance, a doe goat quite obviously enjoying fellatio with a buck goat and ‘water sports’ (aka golden showers), for another example, are also very common as urine often contains, especially when on heat, sexually stimulating pheromones.

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless