In short, I was run by both an ego and a soul; I did not want to look at my instinctual passions or
my sorrowful and malicious feelings or my corrupted thoughts or identity-controlled actions and behaviour at all.
In short, I became very feminine indeed.
In short, could man and woman live together in peace and harmony twenty four hours a day.
What kind of peace are you talking
about?
RICHARD: The utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude
this eternal and infinite universe actually is.
RESPONDENT: Who made peace with who?
RICHARD: There is no ‘who’ – ‘who’ can never, ever be at peace – it is me
as-this-body that is peace personified ... and no one else, as far as I can ascertain, is experiencing this. And, as this peace is so perfect,
it does not require anybody else’s cooperation ... mutuality and reciprocity in relationship neither adds to perfection nor does their
absence detract from perfection.
RESPONDENT: Were you both perfect?
RICHARD: What is with this ‘were’ business? The identity in toto (both ‘I’ as
ego and ‘me’ as soul) is extinct ... annihilated, expunged, liquidated, extirpated. As dead as the dodo but with no skeletal remains.
There is no phoenix to arise from the ashes ... there are no ashes.
This is final, complete and total.
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: Richard, I’m interested to know how
knowing and experiencing your partner changed over the years, as it probably closely mirrors the changes in your condition. I know that love
allows one to enter into direct contact with the other’s being and thus experience him/her.
RICHARD: As I have been here all along my experiencing/knowing has been essentially the same
all the while (I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world) ... to wit: an actual intimacy/an apperceptive awareness.
However, as you are obviously enquiring about how the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body
all those years ago experienced/knew ‘his’ first wife (for 15 years as a normal ‘being’ and for 2 years as an abnormal ‘Being’)
and ‘his’ second wife (for 6 years as an abnormal ‘Being’) then the experiencing/knowing took two main forms ... egoistically (for 15
years) and holistically (for 2 + 6 years).
RESPONDENT: Holistically as in whole or holly? What do you mean by
whole?
RICHARD: The word ‘holistically’ comes from the Greek ‘holos’ (whole, entire)
meaning ‘complete, whole; completely, wholly’. Vis.:
• ‘holistically (adv.): as a whole [complete, comprising or involving all parts, aspects, etc.]’.
(Oxford Dictionary).
However, I am meaning the word ‘holistically’ – essentially as opposed to ‘atomistically’
(to be divided into separate and disparate elements) – in its popular metaphysical sense ... as the following will convey:
• ‘Holistic – as in Holistic Model of Reality or holistic awareness, etc., to refer to any
experience or philosophical understanding that is based on Oneness as in One Consciousness as the Source, substratum or foundation of reality.
Also, inclusiveness of all dimensions from subtle to dense’. (www.synchronicity.org/Glossaryp.html).
*
RESPONDENT: I don’t know how to put it more to the point ... do
you now know/experience your partner’s character (the third I so-to-speak), the actual person?
RICHARD: Aye ... just as I have all along.
RESPONDENT: So, it can be said that you experience the third I
(actual character) of any other person you come in contact with ...
RICHARD: I was responding as much to your ‘the actual person’ description as to that way
of putting it.
RESPONDENT: ... immediately or only after some time spent with that
person?
RICHARD: I experience the actual person immediately ... their actual character, being both
hereditarily and environmentally determined, becomes more apparent the more the experiencing continues.
RESPONDENT: Given the fact that every ‘other’ is different, it
must be fun meeting people. What I don’t understand is why you say that no body is special ... yet it is clear that your current partner is
a special person and maybe not only to you ... different from the rest by some character traits that you prefer/like. Or maybe you meant
something else by ‘special’.
RICHARD: Yes ... presumably you are referring to this (re-posted earlier this year):
• [Richard]: ‘It is impossible to not like somebody, whatever the mischief is they get up to,
as an actual intimacy does not switch on and off and operates unilaterally in regards every man, woman and child without exception ... nobody
is special because everybody is special simply by being alive as a flesh and blood body’.
That was in response to about how I am with children/how I treat children ... I have responded with
similar in regards a query about friends:
• [Richard]: ‘(...) it is impossible to not like someone whatever the mischief is they get up
to ... an actual intimacy is impossible to switch off. (...) it is impossible to have ‘friends’ as an actual intimacy operates
unilaterally in regards every man, woman and child without exception ... no body is special because every body is special’.
The same, or similar, applies to both a choice companion and select associates.
*
RESPONDENT: Is someone’s actual character original (in the sense
that it’s an unique combination of elements)?
RICHARD: Yes ... both hereditarily and environmentally.
RICHARD: Yes ... both hereditarily and environmentally.
RESPONDENT: Are your preferences in regards to choosing/living with
a partner mainly influenced by this ...
RICHARD: Indeed so ... my current companion has no equal.
RESPONDENT: No equal ... in what area?
RICHARD: In the area your [quote] ‘this’ [endquote] referred to, of course ... to
somebody’s actual character being original (in the sense that it is an unique combination of elements both hereditary and environmental).
Even identical twins are not exactly alike in that area.
*
RESPONDENT: ... or simply by your heterosexual orientation (any
partner will do, as you experience intimacy with any body)?
RICHARD: This flesh and blood body’s sexual orientation simply determines what gender a
potential companion will be; as an actual intimacy is with every body (and every thing/every event) it is that person’s character/
disposition/ constitution/ temperament which appeals.
As does their vital interest in an actual intimacy for themselves, of course.
RESPONDENT: I see ... do you find in the actual world human
characters/ dispositions/ constitutions/ temperaments that do not appeal to you or even you personally dislike?
RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to rephrase the passage you partly referred to (further above) by
way of example? Vis.:
• [example only]: ‘It is impossible to not like somebody, whatever that person’s
character/disposition/constitution/temperament may be, as an actual intimacy does not switch on and off and operates unilaterally in regards
every man, woman and child without exception ...’. [endquote].
Similarly, it is impossible for anybody, whatever that person’s
character/disposition/constitution/temperament may be, to not appeal.
RESPONDENT: A preference is a discriminatory process ...
RICHARD: Here is what that word can mean:
• ‘discriminatory: discriminative [having the quality or character of observing or making
distinctions with accuracy; showing discrimination, discerning]; esp. practising or evincing racial, sexual, or similar discrimination (Oxford Dictionary).
Thus I would rather say that a preference is discriminative – in that it is a process which
involves observing distinctions accurately – as the word ‘discriminatory’ has popular connotations such as those especially expressed
(racism, sexism, ageism, and so on) ... and the example I most often give is that of preferring to sit upon cushion (if available) than
directly on the brick pavers of a patio or the such-like.
In other words, a preference sensibly-based upon creature-comforts.
RESPONDENT: ... it means assessing the quality of something over
something else ...
RICHARD: Given that the word ‘quality’ (from the Latin ‘qualis’ meaning ‘of what
kind’) literally means ‘character, disposition, nature, constitution, make-up’ a preference for a like-minded companion (to use a
colloquial phrase to convey congruity) means assessing both their character/disposition/constitution/temperament and where their interests lie
– and in what order of priority such interests take – in terms of compatibility.
RESPONDENT: ... does the quality of people’s actual character
vary?
RICHARD: No, what does vary is different persons’ actual
character/disposition/constitution/temperament (and their vital interest of course).
RESPONDENT: Is this not the recipe for creating a personal
hierarchy in terms of taste?
RICHARD: A preference for *a companion*, whose
character/disposition/constitution/temperament and vital interest coincides with one’s own (as in having correspondence), is in no way a
recipe for creating a personal hierarchy, in terms of taste or otherwise, amongst peoples at large.
Speaking personally ... I take people as they come (as in literally accepting them as-they-are).
RESPONDENT: The current and democratic thoughts (i.e.
multiculturalism, relativism) are quite against hierarchies, but for me they are an intrinsic aspect of life and are linked with judgement and
quality, not to mention the possibility for evolution ... I don’t mean hierarchy in the sense of a power structure. A western style society
is functionally more advanced/beneficial than its Arab/Chinese counterpart.
RICHARD: As you have moved away from what my experiencing/knowing of my companion is, and
what my preferences in regards to choosing/living with same are, into the topic of humankind itself, and societies in particular, the
following part of a thread may be of interest:
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You say ‘equity and parity is the key to success’.
• [Richard]: ‘Yes, the ‘theory of mind’ signifies both equity and parity to be involuntarily automatic in any social situation.
[Dictionary Definition]: equity: even-handed dealing; fairness, impartiality; unbiased. [Dictionary Definition]: parity: on a par;
equivalence; similarity; correspondence. The question is: what is preventing this spontaneous recognition of being fellow human beings from
flowing-on into all areas in common?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘The notions of equity and parity are seemingly at the core of democratic institutions, with the idea that ‘all men
are created equal’ and that there are certain ‘natural’ rights of human beings, stemming from the thinking of philosophers like John
Locke.
• [Richard]: ‘I questioned whether all humans are born equal ... there are talents one has which leads to an ease in the acquisition of
skills that another has to struggle to master and vice versa. The rapid shuffling of the DNA molecules at conception (before the doubling
takes place) leads to a disparity betwixt one foetus and another. The same applies to physical stature (muscularity, stamina and so on) which
all combine to produce a staggering array of differences ... and none of this I have detailed so far has anything to do with where one is born
(climate) or in what era (progress) let alone social inequality such as what class of society one is born into (educational and career
opportunities) and so on. As for ‘natural rights’ ... without question there are none: there is only ‘human rights’. And ‘human
rights’ are a human construct – an agreement between human beings to conduct themselves in a certain way in relation to other human beings
– and are designed to counter the insalubrious effects of the instinctual passions bestowed upon all sentient beings by blind nature via
genetic inheritance. A ‘right’ is a legal entitlement ascribed to a person or persons with a reasonable or just claim to the terms of that
agreement. A ‘right’ is therefore something ‘given’ by humans to humans – and to a certain extent to other animals – but what is
given can be taken away ... at the point of a gun. There are no ‘rights’, in actuality, other than what human beings agree on ... and ‘rights’
have to be enforced at the point of a gun, anyway.
Any philosophical thinking (such as that of Mr. John Locke) which starts with a false premise is going to produce an elaborately false outcome
(the falseness of which is concealed in the mass of concepts required to prop up the entire edifice). That there is some useful notions
scattered hither and thither gives the thesis an air of respectability.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Equity. Parity. Are these just high-minded ideals, political theories divorced from the reality of everyday life in
human societies?
• [Richard]: ‘Yes and no (and I am not being tricky here) in that yes, they are ‘just high-minded ideals’ when applied as a
discipline, a practice, a duty ... and no, they are not ‘divorced from the reality of everyday life’ when they come spontaneously,
involuntarily, of their own accord.
In a word: artlessly.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Naturally, there is a dark side of democratic institutions that is well known: the history of oppression and slavery,
actual slavery, political and economic slavery, that democratic ideals, cleverly managed, conceal. And there is the actuality that we are
quick to the trigger, to pick up a machine gun or a grenade launcher when the music stops and infringe on the ‘rights’ of others in
territorial conquests or economic competition.
• [Richard]: ‘And here you have put your finger on the nub of the issue: the spontaneity of equity and parity that comes with the
recognition of being fellow human beings is hijacked, subverted, sabotaged.
And by what?
(...)
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘So, where do equity and parity come into the picture?
• [Richard]: ‘Only unilateral action will do the trick.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Are these just hollow ideals?
• [Richard]: ‘No ... or, rather, they were not for me, anyway.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Do they have any actual meaning in our lives?
• [Richard]: ‘My experience says: if you want it too it will have meaning in your life ... and bucket-loads of meaning into the bargain.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I would appreciate you expanding on these words.
• [Richard]: ‘This was my position all those years ago: just as I cannot change the weather to ensure a sunny day on the beach, how can I
live with equity and parity in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are?’
All-told the thread spans several e-mails ... yet that last sentence is the essence of it.
RESPONDENT: After so much of what you write about
the wonderfulness of living, etc., I inject ‘he obviously hasn’t had to deal with a teenager’. Don’t write me back that you are
blissfully swimming in a house full of them.
RICHARD: No, I do not have a house full of children
. I am a fifty year old
father of four adult children and seven grandchildren from my first marriage. My current companion and I are, by choice, childless and will
stay so ... enough is enough! I am also retired and on a pension, so I am able to thoroughly enjoy all the household tasks if only simply
because this is made so much easier now that the children are grown up. However, I know full well what is involved in raising teenagers ... I
raised teenagers myself. In fact, when my first marriage ended in 1983, I became a single parent, looking after three children (the oldest son
having already left home and got work) and I raised a teenage son and two daughters on my own.
Actually, I had a wonderful time. I never sent any of my children to full-time school until aged
eleven-twelve (so as to avoid the inevitable indoctrination cunningly disguised as socialisation) and taught them at home instead. With the
freedom from authority that this brings the children and I were able to be ‘best friends’, in those latter years of parenthood, as I was
thus able to experience them as fellow human beings living this life for the very first time. Consequently I had no need to be a
disciplinarian, which is the invidious position parents usually place themselves in, as in my early years. Being radical as I am, we travelled
all over the east coast of Australia for some years before heading west and, after some time there, going to India. By this time my
second-eldest son had ‘left home’ and obtained work and my youngest daughter decided to live with her mother. Thus my nine year old
daughter accompanied me on an exhilarating trip through Singapore, Madras, Delhi and up into the Himalayas where we rented a stone hut about
one hundred kilometres from the Nepalese/Tibetan border in Northern India. She thoroughly enjoyed everything.
I currently live on the most easterly point of the Australian seaboard in a small village called
Byron Bay. I have an affinity for the small-town life as I was born and raised on a dairy farm in the south-west of Australia.
RESPONDENT: Seriously, I am really interested in what you are saying.
RICHARD: I am genuinely glad to hear this, because I write not only for myself but for my
fellow human being. This is my position: We are all fellow human beings who find ourselves here in the world as it was when we were born. We
find war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and corruption to be endemic ... we notice that it is intrinsic to the human condition ...
we set out to discover why this is so. We find sadness, loneliness, sorrow, grief, depression and suicide to be a global incidence ... and we
gather that it is also inherent to the human condition ... and we want to know why. We all report to each other as to the nature of our
discoveries for we are all well-meaning and seek to find a way out of this mess that we have landed in. Whether one believes in re-incarnation
or not, we are all living this particular life for the very first time, and we wish to make sense of it. It is a challenge and the adventure
of a life-time to enquire and to uncover, to seek and to find, to explore and to discover. All this being alive business is actually happening
and we are totally involved in living it out ... whether we take the back seat or not, we are all still doing it. I, for one, am not taking
the back seat.
Despite of the fact that every single human being has had at least one pure consciousness
experience (PCE) in a peak experience – and usually more – in their lifetime, they somehow can not differentiate between that experience
of apperception (wherein ‘I’, the thought and felt ‘being’, temporarily quits the scene and the actual world becomes apparent) and
their pre-conceived notions that everyday reality is an illusion disguising some metaphysical ‘Greater Reality’. The Glamour and the Glory
and the Glitz of the Altered State Of Consciousness has a tenacious grip upon the minds and hearts of a benighted humanity. It is indeed
strange, to the point of being bizarre, that so many persons will turn their backs on the purity of the perfection of being here – of being
alive – at this moment in time. Here in this actual world, which is where this flesh and blood body is living anyway, is the peace that
everyone says they are searching for. All that is required is that one comes to one’s senses – both literally and metaphorically – and
spend the rest of one’s life without malice and sorrow. One will then be blithe and benign.
RESPONDENT: Richard, another question thread from
same friend: 1) How old were your children when you became enlightened and how did that event affect them and their/your relationship?
RICHARD: The eldest was around fourteen years old, the second eldest thirteen, the second
youngest six years old, and the youngest five; at the time they were all affected differently, and to varying degrees, ranging from
incomprehension to indifference; my relationship changed from one of parentage to one of friendship (and they all appreciated that immensely
... as exemplified by the youngest often saying how glad she was that the ‘bossy-boots dad’ was gone).
RESPONDENT: 2) How old were your children when you became actually
free and how did that event affect them and their/your relationship?
RICHARD: They would have been, respectively, about twenty five years of age, twenty four,
eighteen and seventeen; at the time none of them were affected as they were not around to notice anything (they were all scattered far and
wide living their own lives); my association – there is no relationship in actuality – with them is no different than with any other
fellow human being ... and which fellowship regard they all have, to varying degrees, had some perplexity in accommodating themselves to (as
exemplified by the second-youngest saying, at age twenty two or thereabouts, that she sometimes wished she had had a normal father as, unlike
her then girlfriends who were getting married and having children of their own, she had ‘inherited’ a quest to pursue and could not settle
down).
RESPONDENT: 3) What is your current involvement with your
offspring?
RICHARD: The same as with any other of my fellow human beings.
To explain: when a person – any person – no longer has familial ties or kinship bonds to pull
or be pulled by then any interaction, if there be any, is a freely made choice arising out of common interests ... indeed, even though my own
progenitors are both still alive I never have reason to call them by telephone nor ever go to visit.
There is nothing mysterious about it ... it is more or less the same as not interacting with that
elderly couple Mr./Ms. Smith, of High Street, Any-Town, with whom I also have no interests in common with.
RESPONDENT: 4) If someone were to ask your offspring about you,
what might they say?
RICHARD: I really do not know ... plus it would depend upon which one them it was who was
asked (and, quite possibly, on how they were feeling about me at the time).
RESPONDENT: How do they view you and an actual freedom from the
human condition?
RICHARD: I have neither asked how they (any of them) view me nor how they (any of them) view
an actual freedom from the human condition.
RESPONDENT: I remember a correspondence where you said something
like: ‘it took 5 years to unravel the legacy of Richard the identity in relation to ‘his’ family’.
RICHARD: I found two references to my then-children which include the word ‘legacy’ ...
here is the one you are referring to:
• [Richard]: ‘Speaking personally, ‘I’ lost everything: ‘my’ wife, ‘my’ children,
‘my’ business, ‘my’ house, ‘my’ car ... the lot. But, most importantly, I lost ‘me’ ... and they were ‘his’ wife,
children, business, house, car and so on, anyway ... not mine. I inherited all ‘his’ stuff when ‘he’ disappeared, and I took five
years to taper-off all of ‘his’ legacy. Nowadays, being me as-I-am, I have an entirely new life that is infinitely better ... vastly
superior. That lifestyle was ‘his’ choice, not mine, and suited ‘his’ temperament only’.
And here is the other one ... perhaps more relevant to what your female friend is enquiring about:
• [Richard]: ‘... for the first 34 years of my life I was sane (the ordinary, normal, common,
or everyday sanity of people in general all over the world) and peace-on-earth was nowhere to be found; for the next 11 years I was in a
transformed state of being (which I gradually came to realise was an institutionalised insanity) called The Absolute or Truth, God, Being,
Presence, Self, and so on, which was exemplified by love – Love Agapé – compassion, bliss, rapture, ecstasy, euphoria, goodness, beauty,
oneness, unity, wholeness and a timeless, spaceless, formless immortal otherness which was a peace that passeth all understanding ... yet all
the while peace-on-earth was still nowhere to be found.
By ‘institutionalised’ I mean altered states of consciousness that have become institutions over the aeons: instituted as being states of
consciousness which are universally accepted as the summum bonum of human existence ... a model to either live by, aspire to, become, or be.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘(...) How are you with children, after you became insane?
• [Richard]: ‘For most of the 11 years I was more than loving with children, more than compassionate, as I was love, I was compassion ...
or, better put, there was only love, there was only compassion.
At least one of the children in my care, custody and control at the time (I was a single parent for a number of years) bears the legacy of
that era to this very day due to the powerful influence of such intense affection.
(...) These days children are, like everybody else, my fellow human beings and fellowship regard epitomises all interaction: with the
cessation of the institutionalised insanity, and its pathetic intimacy, an actual intimacy lies open all around.
It is impossible to not like somebody, whatever the mischief is they get up to, as an actual intimacy does not switch on and off and operates
unilaterally in regards every man, woman and child without exception ... nobody is special because everybody is special simply by being alive
as a flesh and blood body’.
RESPONDENT: I am interested in a more in-depth explanation of this
topic by yourself.
RICHARD: Okay ... nationalism, and thus patriotism with all its heroic evils, is an
amplified form of tribalism: tribalism is an augmentation of clanism; clanism, being familistical, is but a much larger extension of the
extended-family; and the extended-family stems, of course, from where blood is the thickest it can ever possibly be than water ... to wit: the
core family group itself.
Now, although the root cause of war itself is the instinctual passions in action, the primary
impulse for warfare at large is, more often than not, none other than kinship bonds (or any extension thereof no matter how attenuated in
modern-day nations) and yet the ties of consanguinity are widely held in high esteem, almost to the point of being subject to taboo, and thus
generally exempt from an investigation into the human condition (as is evidenced from time-to-time both on this mailing list and others, for
example, by derogatory comments about the way I interact with the fellow human beings who happen to be my progeny).
Here in this actual world, where everybody is special simply by being alive as a flesh and blood
body, kinship ties/family bonds are nowhere to be found ... which means that, not only is the root cause of war eliminated, the fundamental
impulse for warfare at large, generally speaking, has been similarly eradicated.
It is all so simple, here.
RESPONDENT: From actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf68b.htm#06May05a. [Richard]: ‘For most of the 11 years I was more than loving with children, more than compassionate,
as I was love, I was compassion ... or, better put, there was only love, there was only compassion. At least one of the children in my care,
custody and control at the time (I was a single parent for a number of years) bears the legacy of that era to this very day due to the
powerful influence of such intense affection’. [endquote]. Can you elaborate on this?
RICHARD: I have already elaborated (in the original e-mail exchange which that above quote
was excerpted from). Vis.:
[Richard]: ‘For most of the 11 years I was more than loving with children, more than
compassionate, as I was love, I was compassion ... or, better put, there was only love, there was only compassion. At least one of the
children in my care, custody and control at the time (I was a single parent for a number of years) bears the legacy of that era to this very
day due to the powerful influence of such intense affection.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘And what might that legacy be?
• [Richard]: ‘A sense of mission to search for The Absolute (or Truth, God, Being, Presence, Self, and so on), which is exemplified by
love – Love Agapé – compassion, bliss, rapture, ecstasy, euphoria, goodness, beauty, oneness, unity, wholeness and a timeless, spaceless,
formless immortal otherness which is a peace that passeth all understanding, of course.
The powerful influence of such intense affection in a child’s formative years takes some shaking off ... it almost amounts to an imprinting’.
RESPONDENT: What was the influence/effect of your parenting during
that era on the child you mention?
RICHARD: As mentioned at the beginning of that e-mail you found the above quote in the
relationship had changed, during that era, from one of parentage to one of friendship ...
RESPONDENT: Do you think this change benefited your children ...
RICHARD: No, I know that it did ... if nothing else it was much more fun.
Essentially, all what is required of any progenitor is to ensure that their off-spring are
adequately equipped for adulthood (are able to effectively operate and function independently in the environment they are born into).
RESPONDENT: ... is it any better to be a friend to one’s child
than a parent?
RICHARD: It certainly is ... just for starters: being much more fun it readily promotes open
learning (children are congenitally curious).
RESPONDENT: If so, in what ways? I have already read this part: [quote] ‘(and they all appreciated that immensely ... as exemplified by the youngest often
saying how glad she was that the ‘bossy-boots dad’ was gone)’ [endquote].
RICHARD: By not being either authoritarian (as distinct from
authoritative) or disciplinarian a child’s innate inquisitiveness is not stifled – and many such educators have bemoaned the lack of
motivation in their subject students – inasmuch curiosity’s concomitant keenness for discovery provides more than enough incentive.
Apart from being innately curious children are also inherently imitative – as indicated by the
term ‘role-model’ – and it should not take genius to suss out the advantages friendship has over parentship (or any other form of
kinship for that matter).
*
RICHARD: ... and (as also mentioned in that same e-mail) at age twenty two or thereabouts
she said that she sometimes wished she had had a normal child/father relationship as, unlike her then girlfriends who were getting married and
having children of their own, she had ‘inherited’ a quest to pursue and could not settle down.
RESPONDENT: Do you know what happened to the quest she inherited,
presumably, from your enlightened years?
RICHARD: Having openly and frankly discussed the events of her formative years on both that
occasion and another a year or two later – plus having given her a copy of ‘Richard’s Journal’ and the address of The Actual Freedom
Trust web site – there is every possibility that it has been shaken off.
RESPONDENT: What has that drive led her to investigate?
RICHARD: I do not know – being now an adult for many years she lives her own life
completely independent of her erstwhile father – but going by what I recall, from the age twenty two or thereabouts conversation, she had
investigated what some spiritual/mystical peoples have had to report ... specifically, and not surprisingly, where it pertained to love (in
all its forms and variations).
GARY: Specific questions that arise might be the
following: do you belong to any groups or organizations of any kind?
RICHARD: I neither belong to any public organisation, club, guild, or fraternity/sorority by
whatever description, nor go to parties, bars, dances, or any other similar social venue ... neither do I play competitive sports, support any
team or player, or even watch any such sporting events.
GARY: Do you have a more active social life now or less active?
RICHARD: An entirely different social life: no integration is required as the world as-it-is
endows any activity with all its completion ... a plenitude that far exceeds any social event which seeks to divert the jaded from their
creeping ennui.
GARY: What happened to you socially when you self-immolated?
RICHARD: I have tended to be individualistic all my life – although I could party-on with
the best of the revellers on occasion – so, basically, all that happened socially was that gregariousness, or the urge to socialise, has
vanished completely ... just as sexual congress sans the libidinous impulse is a luscious intercourse so too is social congress without the
gregarian urge a delightful interaction.
All in all an estimable situation.
RESPONDENT: 2. My female partner said after some
months of practice: ‘Your libido are too much to me!’. But we still married and happy together. So, if you permit one correlated
impertinence: Why are you single now?
RICHARD: As libido is null and void for me then being sexually active or not is purely a
matter of preference. What this means in effect is that sexual congress, because of its utter proximity, has more to do with intimacy than
anything else.
Now, here is where it becomes quite an intriguing matter because, and as a generalisation only,
women tend to place more emphasis on intimacy than men. Indeed, many a woman has bewailed the dearth of men prepared to make the big
commitment required for such connubial accord.
Yet they are deathly afraid of intimacy – the fear of intimacy is a subject most women have
talked to me about – for it means loss of self.
And therein lies the rub: the survival instincts can kick in big-time, especially during sexual
congress, and the very opposite of the longed-for intimacy takes place (as in pulling-back, turning-away, closing-off, shutting-down, and so
on).
As peculiar as it may sound, on a purely intellectual level, the very thing peoples most want is
the very thing they most fear. When their very survival (as an identity) is at stake all manner of weird behaviour can take place – to the
point of utter bizarrerie – as is readily evidenced in the archived correspondence on The Actual Freedom Trust website.
I have said before, and will say it again, how actualism is not for the faint of heart or the weak
at knee as it requires nerves of steel to delve the stygian depths of the human psyche.
Put briefly: unless or until such a woman comes into my purview being single, in this respect, will
remain my ongoing status.
RESPONDENT: If you will indulge my question: is it
possible still to have actual intimacy, even if the partner (man/ woman) is evidently inhibited by self and survival instincts?
RICHARD: Actual intimacy – no separation (no separative self whatsoever) cannot wax and
wane/ come and go/ switch on and off here in this actual world (the world of the senses). Upon an actual freedom from the human condition an
actual intimacy is the norm with every body and every thing regardless of whatever their or its current situation and circumstances might be.
(Some peoples have looked at me blankly upon being informed there is an actual intimacy with, say,
an ashtray or a polystyrene cup or a pebble or whatever).
In terms of human sexuality, and due to its utter proximity, sexual congress sans identity/
affections is the exquisite experience of two flesh and blood bodies sensuously delighting in being sensually and sexually aroused.
(As there are no identities in actuality I actually interact only with flesh and blood bodies; at
times this can be quite disconcerting, to say the least, for any identity feeling itself to be other than illusory).
Because it can take an incredible amount of willpower for a pulled-back or turned-away or
closed-off or shut-down identity to override (psychosomatically) its bodily arousal, its body’s natural sexuality, the body’s sensual
delight, that exquisite experience can continue until such over-riding succeeds in its quite perverse anti-intimacy aim and arousal
diminishes, sexuality declines and sensual delight falls away to nought.
In short: although reciprocity is never needed there is, of course, a preference for sexual
enjoyment and appreciation be mutual.
*
RICHARD: Put briefly: unless or until such a woman comes into my purview being single, in
this respect, will remain my ongoing status.
RESPONDENT: You do not prescribe to fellow humans, but do you
recommend the above sensible approach rather than ‘experimenting’ with fellow human beings to explore sexuality or actual intimacy?
RICHARD: Oh, no ... not at all (that above approach is only in regards to an actual freedom
from the human condition).
No, on the contrary, exploring sex and sexuality is enormously beneficial: there is no better way,
in my experience, for a man and a woman to approach such intimacy than sexual congress.
For instance, back when I was a normal man I came close to the loss of self already mentioned on
several occasions (in my first marriage) only to instinctively pull-back, out of instantaneous fear at such imminence, as it intuitively
seemed she would thus take over my mind and make me her slave for ever and a day.
It was not until after the four-hour PCE, which initiated the process resulting in an actual
freedom, that it became obvious to me what such loss of self actually meant.
Accordingly, I deliberately set out to induce a PCE via giving myself completely to her – totally
and utterly – whilst hovering indefinitely on that orgastic plateau which precedes an orgasm (something which I had discovered whilst
pubescent).
And then ... !Hey Presto! ... no separation whatsoever.
(Incidentally, rather than that intuitive fear of thus being her slave coming true it was quite
instructive to have her then relate how she had been fantasising about a current heart-throb pop singer all the while I was giving myself to
her totally).
RESPONDENT: I am aware that PCE and EE are much more possible
during sexual intimacy and congress hence the urge to experiment.
RICHARD: Yes, indeed so.
Both my third wife (de facto) and my second wife (de jure) were very keen to experiment. For
instance, my third wife initially set out to explore her ‘wild side’ (to use the jargon) as she was most appreciative of being with a man
with no limits – no limiting fear in regards the vast extent, and a near-insatiability at times, of female sexuality.
Curiously enough, in the end it was her very own fear (of female sexuality) which set the limits.
But, until then rampant sexuality took place morning, noon and night – all throughout the period of writing those millions of words to my
fellow human beings – and much was uncovered/ discovered about female sexuality.
She has a scale of quality in regards sexual experience: good, very good, great, excellent and
magical.
Good sex relates to togetherness.
Very good sex relates to closeness.
Great sex relates to sweetness.
Excellent sex relates to richness.
Magical sex relates to actuality.
To explain: togetherness is the companionship of doing things together – be it shopping, cooking,
having sex, whatever – and pertains to the willingness to be and act in concert with another.
A closeness is where the personal boundaries are expanded to include the other into one’s own
space; this is a normal type of intimacy.
A sweetness is when closeness entrées a lovely delight at the proximity of the other (although it
can veer off into affection, ardency, love, oneness).
A richness (aka an excellence experience) is where sweetness segues into a near-absence of agency
via letting-go of control and one is the sex and sexuality (the beer and not the doer).
Magical sex is where sex and sexuality are happening of their own accord – neither beer nor doer
extant – and pristine purity abounds (an immaculate perfection).
Ain’t life grand!
*
RESPONDENT: I am aware that PCE and EE are much more possible
during sexual intimacy and congress hence the urge to experiment.
RICHARD: Yes, indeed so.
Both my third wife (de facto) and my second wife (de jure) were very keen to experiment. For
instance, my third wife initially set out to explore her ‘wild side’ (to use the jargon) as she was most appreciative of being with a man
with no limits – no limiting fear – in regards the vast extent, and a near-insatiability at times, of female sexuality.
RESPONDENT: Yes. That is what most women will look forward to.
RICHARD: Aye, yet when that opportunity is freely accessible – as an ever-available living
actuality – all manner of weird behaviour can take place (to the point of utter bizarrerie).
Now, obviously I am not going to go into details as my reports are circumscribed by the fact that
the persons concerned are both readily identifiable and still alive (I have no such constraints when talking about just myself) but as the
subject is of primary importance – man-woman sexuality and intimacy is the genesis of family and thus the very core of civilisation itself
– there is too much at stake for me to take my unique insight to the grave/ pyre/ whatever.
To explain: I have had three wives – with each marriage spanning more than a decade – as three
different persons (a normal person, a mystical person and a freed person).
In my first marriage I was both a normal person (at first masculinist then later feministic) and a
spiritually enlightened/ mystically awakened person.
In my second marriage I was first an enlightened/ awakened person then later an actually freed
person.
My third marriage was solely as a person actually free from the human condition.
Hence me being well-placed to know what nobody else can know.
Plus, in the five celibate years between my first and second marriages, I was the single parent of
young daughters (at first two girls then later one girl) and gained much understanding at that grass-roots level.
Also many women during that period – at least a score if not more – most insistently proposed,
via blatant sexuality, either a ménage a deux or a ménage a trois. (Love Agapé is the most potent aphrodisiac ever to be invented).
Lastly, as a boy I only had girls as playmates (all the children in the near neighbourhood, in the
remote farming community where I was born and raised, were female) and all through my life I have always preferred female company ... to the
point of much mocking and ridicule for being thus considered effeminate (to use a more polite word).
Most importantly: I like women – they are simply marvellous creatures when at their best – and,
being such victims of their own emotions and passions, are both ripe for and deserving of liberation.
Especially so as, where the women go, there go men too (eventually).
RESPONDENT: And social conditioning pulls tight strings on this ‘wild
side’ and mankind finds it most threatening – to social institutions of family, religion, marriage etc.
RICHARD: Indeed ... and womankind, having internalised what mankind finds most threatening,
can be the most fierce advocates of those ‘tight strings’ (both to themselves and to their kind).
However, there more to it than what mankind finds most threatening ... much, much more.
RESPONDENT No. 6: If you will indulge my question:
is it possible still to have actual intimacy, even if the partner (man/woman) is evidently inhibited by self and survival instincts?
RICHARD: Actual intimacy – no separation (no separative self whatsoever) cannot wax and
wane/ come and go/ switch on and off here in this actual world (the world of the senses). Upon an actual freedom from the human condition an
actual intimacy is the norm with every body and every thing regardless of whatever their or its current situation and circumstances might be.
(Some peoples have looked at me blankly upon being informed there is an actual intimacy with, say,
an ashtray or a polystyrene cup or a pebble or whatever).
In terms of human sexuality, and due to its utter proximity, sexual congress sans identity/
affections is the exquisite experience of two flesh and blood bodies sensuously delighting in being sensually and sexually aroused.
(As there are no identities in actuality I actually interact only with flesh and blood bodies; at
times this can be quite disconcerting, to say the least, for any identity feeling itself to be other than illusory).
RESPONDENT: Your comment about ‘As there are no identities in
actuality I actually interact only with flesh and blood bodies’ – was extremely useful in detecting some slippery and subtle
identification in my interactions with others.
RICHARD: Good ... (as I am never annoyed there is never any need for giving vent). Another
poster offered their experience on it recently (Message X)
when observing how an intuitive resistance to non-recognition as ‘me’
is even more powerful than the fear of engulfment.
My second wife would oft-times say to others how it was not always easy to live with me as ‘she’
was totally ignored (in ‘her’ view) by me. (Please note it is an impossibility to ignore anything at all which has no existence in
actuality and how I do pay lip-service, just as I am now, to the apparent existence of any identity feeling itself to be real). What my second
wife was really referring to is the total absence of any supportive identity rapport/ affective connection.
As this was amply corroborated by my third wife, it is a primary consideration when contemplating
any potential man-woman type of association which comes into my purview (in my experience the ménage a trois provided what a ménage a deux
cannot).
RESPONDENT: Did your third wife discontinue the
actualism process?
RICHARD: She informs me that she is just as interested in an actual freedom as before and
cannot conceive ever not being so.
The primary reason why we are both residing in our own abodes is because to have remained living
under the same roof – with all of what is implied in that – would have been detrimental to her continued progress.
RESPONDENT: Hmmm ... another case of the bird needing to leave the
nest, eh?
RICHARD: No, on the contrary (‘needing to leave the nest’ was an analogy for my second
wife going her own way) there is no flying away at all as she informs me that she is just as interested in an actual freedom as before and
cannot conceive ever not being so.
Residing in our own abodes, whilst still maintaining our association (albeit platonic) by having
regular weekly contact, at the very least, plus telephonic communication in between, is primarily to do with breaking an impasse brought about
by the very intimacy implied by living under the same roof/ eating at a communal table/ sharing the marital bed.
All what is required to be living communally with me is to have an out-from-control/
different-way-of-being virtual freedom as a status quo (rather than a still-in-control/ same-way-of-being modus operandi).
She is totally in accord with this determination (she came up with that ‘same way of being’
phrase herself) as she has had umpteen experiences which demonstrate how the issue is all about being still-in-control/ the same-way-of-being
(aka the known, the habitual, the familiar and, thus, safe way of being).
My favourite description of this comes from her where, very early on in our association in one
outstanding PCE (and as soon at it became apparent) I was quick to ask her: ‘what happened to that concerned woman sitting on the couch who
I was talking to just a minute ago?’ ‘Oh, her’, quoth she, without batting an eyelid, ‘she’s full of problems!’ The day proceeded
famously from then on.
RICHARD: [...] [...] she has had umpteen experiences which demonstrate how
the issue is all about being still-in-control/the same- way-of-being (aka the known, the habitual, the familiar and, thus, safe way of being).
My favourite description of this comes from her where, very early on in our association in one
outstanding PCE (and as soon at it became apparent) I was quick to ask her: ‘what happened to that concerned woman sitting on the couch who
I was talking to just a minute ago?’ ‘Oh, her’, quoth she, without batting an eyelid, ‘she’s full of problems!’ The day proceeded
famously from then on.
RESPONDENT: I appreciate the fascinating glimpse into the
interaction between you and your third wife. I can relate to her last line ‘she’s full of problems!’ as I have said/wrote similar things
about ‘[Respondent]’ to my ex-wife and a friend when having a very pure peak experience. I said ‘While ‘[Respondent]’ could talk
about your present lover with you, it would be painful to ‘him’ where for me it is experienced as two individuals just talking about life
without the felt sense of all the past history between ‘us’.’ Even to this day, my capacity of talking to her about her lover (the man
she left me for) is an excellent marking stick for whether or not I’m on the wide and wondrous path.
RICHARD: Ahh ... that is quite familiar.
Over the years I have oft-times discussed my third wife’s marriage (de facto) with her husband as
two individuals just talking about whatever issue she was currently engaged by as there is no other person – psychiatrist, psychologist,
therapist, counsellor, whatever – she could have a useful discussion with. (As I have discussed domestic issues on many an occasion with
peoples from various walks of life it is essentially no different for me to be like that).
‘Twas the same with my second wife: she would sometimes say there was no one she could turn to in
order to facilitate an understanding of how a marriage (de jure) with a man like no other person living or dead (as far as can be ascertained)
could be lived in an optimum manner. (The optimum manner when still in the human condition is an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being
virtual freedom, of course, but there was no counsellor of any description who could advise her of that).
Actual Freedom
Homepage
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless
Design,
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer
and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity
