Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions

RICHARD: Here is how I have explained it before:

• [Respondent]: ‘I should like to tell you, that the moment you are speaking about consciousness (...)’.
• [Richard]: ‘(...) When I am speaking about consciousness I am referring to the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun meaning a state or condition) as in being alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose), and when I am talking about pure consciousness I am referring to the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious sans identity in toto – both ego-self (the thinker) and the feeling-self (the feeler) – which means that perception is bare perception (unmediated perception) ... the term ‘apperceptive awareness’ is but another way of referring to this simple perception (aka naďve perception) and being thus direct it is non-separative (not separated from the physical).

Thus there is nothing metaphysical about being apperceptive ... indeed, if anything the normal way of perception – a mediated, or indirect and thus separative, perception – being once-removed from the physical, is arguably already well on the way to being beyond time and space and form’. (August 31 2003).

What is there about that description you are having difficulty in comprehending?

RESPONDENT: Is consciousness material?

RICHARD: As consciousness is the condition of the flesh and blood body being conscious I will leave that one for you to work out for yourself as well.

RESPONDENT: If yes is matter that forms consciousness conscious of itself?

RICHARD: If by this you mean the various elements which constitute a flesh and blood body ... then no.

RESPONDENT: Is consciousness in the body, or the body in consciousness?

RICHARD: Neither ... consciousness is the condition of the flesh and blood body being conscious.

RESPONDENT: If you mix together the elements from whom the body is made in the right analogy, will consciousness take place?

RICHARD: Ha ... the book ‘Frankenstein’ was a fictional novel.

RESPONDENT: You are speaking about PCE’s. What is consciousness?

RICHARD: It is exactly the same as when you asked me exactly the same question – ‘what is consciousness’ – on another occasion. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘What is consciousness?
• [Richard]: ‘Here is how I have explained it before:

• [Respondent]: ‘I should like to tell you, that the moment you are speaking about consciousness (...)’.
• [Richard]: ‘(...) When I am speaking about consciousness I am referring to the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun meaning a state or condition) as in being alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose) ...’. (August 31 2003).

What is there about that description you are having difficulty in comprehending? (September 22 2003).

What is it about that description you are still having difficulty in comprehending?

RESPONDENT: You are explaining me the manifestation of consciousness.

RICHARD: As consciousness is the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious – which is to be alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose) – in what way is that an explanation of ‘the manifestation of consciousness’ and not an explanation of what consciousness is?

RESPONDENT: I had asked you what is consciousness per se, in itself.

RICHARD: As consciousness – the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious – is indistinguishable from what a body is (when it is alive, awake, and sensible) then to suggest that consciousness is something other than that, that which is indeed what it is per se, in itself, just does not make sense.

What is the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious, then, if not what consciousness is per se, in itself?

*

RESPONDENT: When I asked you what is consciousness, you answered to me, to be conscious, no comatose.

RICHARD: This is what I actually wrote:

• [Richard]: ‘the word ‘consciousness’ refers to the state or condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) and to be conscious is to be alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose). (August 31 2003)

RESPONDENT: I am asking you is your consciousness different from mine, in which way?

RICHARD: The condition of this flesh and blood body being conscious is marked by a total absence of any identity whatsoever.

RESPONDENT: I am not comatose.

RICHARD: Obviously not.

RESPONDENT: If you answer me that your consciousness is pure consciousness, then you differentiate between states of consciousness.

RICHARD: The word ‘pure’ in the phrase a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is synonymic with ‘unadulterated’, ‘uncontaminated’, ‘unpolluted’, and so on, thus a PCE is the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious sans an adulterant, a contaminant, a pollutant, and so on ... specifically an identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul).

RESPONDENT: Are you conscious now?

RICHARD: Yes.

RESPONDENT: Conscious of what?

RICHARD: Primarily, of the infinitude this physical universe actually is ... as this flesh and blood body only (sans identity in toto) I am proprioceptively conscious of being just here, right now and, as such, the other somatic perceptions currently in operation – tactile, olfactive, visual, audile – are direct: this skin is savouring the touch, the caress, of the mid-winter ambience; these nostrils are rejoicing in the abundance of aromas and scents drifting fragrantly all about; these retinas are delighting in the profusion of colour and texture and form; these eardrums are revelling in the cadence of tones as their resonance and timbre fills the air.

Further to that this mind, other than the sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being alive as this flesh and blood body, is ambling along in neutral as all the while there is the apperceptive wonder that this marvellous paradise actually exists in all its vast array.

RESPONDENT: How you know you are not in an altered state of consciousness?

RICHARD: Because of eleven years of experiencing, night and day, what an altered state of consciousness (ASC) really is ... as a living reality.

RESPONDENT: Because the one who is in an altered state of consciousness, does not have any means to know it.

RICHARD: As I am not in an ASC your (borrowed) wisdom has no application.

RESPONDENT: What is ‘consciousness’ without thought?

RICHARD: Apperception. Which is the mind’s ability to perceive itself. Thus I am the sense organs: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. Whereas ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world ... the world as-it-is. ‘I’ am condemned to live everlastingly in the land of sorrow and malice, forever lamenting ‘my’ fate. ‘I’ am eternally separate from the benignity of the actual, where the utter absence of any angst and anger at all is infinitely more rewarding than the deepest, the most profound, beauty there is in the real world.

RESPONDENT: What exactly is ‘self-less’ awareness, which apparently can exist without thought?

RICHARD: A total and utter absence – through extinction – of any ‘I’ or ‘me’ (a psychological or psychic entity) having a parasitical residence within this body results in a self-less awareness. Not ‘I’ being aware ... awareness happening of its own accord.

RESPONDENT: What is consciousness for that matter?

RICHARD: Being alive and awake, basically, as opposed to being dead or asleep. A neuro-biological process of being aware of being here on this planet now.

RESPONDENT: Without precisely defining the terms thought, consciousness, awareness, etc ... such statements as above are incomprehensible. Oh yes, like fine poetry, you can read into it your own favourite meaning. But what exactly does Richard mean to say?

RICHARD: One can become happy and harmless by ridding oneself of malice and sorrow. To do so one has to plunge into the source of one’s ‘being’, which is generated by the instinctual passions generated from within the brain-stem ... in the Substantia Nigra (although there is scientific dispute about this as there is about almost all matters scientific). The elimination of ‘being’ itself engenders an astonishing freedom the likes of which have never been before in human history.

RESPONDENT: So, you have a lump of tissue in your head, you claim as one of its attributes something you call ‘pure’ consciousness (as opposed to what?).

RICHARD: Unmediated consciousness as opposed to mediated consciousness.

RESPONDENT: What about it makes it ‘pure’?

RICHARD: An utter absence of any alien ontological entities whatsoever.

RESPONDENT: This consciousness can apparently perceive (whatever that means), and even do so without something called thought (whatever that means).

RICHARD: Yeah, ain’t life grand!

RESPONDENT: What is the neuro-physiological or neuro-psychological state in which the brain is ‘conscious’ without thought?

RICHARD: A marvellous state ... though I call it a condition so as to not confuse it with altered states of consciousness.

RESPONDENT: What facts about the brain and mental states of the brain render this plausible?

RICHARD: What type of facts are you looking for? A problem-free life kind of fact ... or PET scan, NMR scan and CAT scan type of facts? I have been examined by two accredited psychiatrists who have ascertained that I fulfil the criteria for determining depersonalisation, derealisation, alexithymia and anhedonia. One of the psychiatrists – who has been observing me since 1994 – has proposed that this brain is secreting abnormal amounts of Dopamine in the post-synaptic receptors ... such as what happens when someone takes Ecstasy, Cocaine, Heroin or Amphetamines. A psychologist who has followed the course of my condition for about four years has often been desirous of me undergoing scan-type tests ... but I decline to be a guinea-pig for people who are not going to do anything about their own malice and sorrow regardless of the outcome of the tests. It is more than a matter of idle curiosity or academic scholarship. It is all about peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body.

There is also plenty of personal accounts of PCE’s to examine.

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless