|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 18
RESPONDENT: (Prelude): As more or less having been agreed upon this forum ‘words are not just words’ hence it seems of GREAT importance if when using/applying them in human, interaction that utmost care is being taken in choosing them and producing them sequential (making sentences in order to make sense). In this spirit it is that I write and share the following question ‘how realistic is peace on earth for mankind what can be considered to be perceived as major achievement i.e. how long will it <need> to take before Israel and Palestine come to peace agreement? If any agreement at all’. RICHARD: It will take as long as it takes for there to be 6.0 billion occurrences of peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body ... the way to global peace on earth is in your hands and in your hands alone. Needless is it to say that when one is living the already always existing peace-on-earth it matters not if no one else does? * RICHARD: There is neither ‘small me’ (‘I’ as ego) or ‘big Self’ (‘me’ as soul) outside of the human psyche. It is all so simple here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Yes. It’s all so simple the brain needs to understand how it’s own action (on various levels) brings about this sense of an identity. YET the energy that is required for this understanding is extraordinary: that what needs to be grasped maybe utterly simple the grasping itself (as action) is incredible hard. RICHARD: First, it is only ‘all so simple’ here in this actual world ...and, as it is only too easy to unduly complicate and convolute something so simple whilst living in the ‘real world’, it is vital that one knowingly imitates the actual for as far as it is humanly possible. Second, it is a feeling of identity, at root, which is the problem ... and not just ‘a sense of an identity’ . Third, the energy that is required to become free of the human condition is not ‘extraordinary’ (à la Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘immense energy’) as it is the genetically-inherited instinctual energy (the instinctual passions) which fuels the ‘self’-immolation. Lastly, the ‘action’ of becoming free is not ‘incredible hard’ at all ... it is the easiest thing ‘I’/‘me’ will ever do. Deliciously easy. * RESPONDENT: From my own experience with virtual freedom (running the suggested question<HAiETMOBA> with pure intend I can say that for me it seems to work. The question automatically kicks in now and functions as some sort of security switch in my brain. So far it looks like that in my system one of the most persistently being generated identities (being me afraid of going crazy) is adjusted (through apperception). The question is immediately bounced back and processed as ‘I am afraid of going crazy’. Indeed it takes nerves of steel to do this processing because often it results in unexpected ‘involuntary’ movements of the body also my body start sometimes to perform by itself talking aloud or making noises however on many occasions, however on a daily, basis it becomes clear that it is simply a series of spontaneous movements that need to be performed in order to restore the energy balance in the system. Sometimes there is also the spontaneous expression of a loud <WOW>. The remembrance, that Actual freedom (this purpose <peace on earth now [POEN]> has intently been set) and begins with of a sense what virtual freedom may mean, brings about a sense of relaxation to such a degree that it becomes possible to reflect and see what happened. Fear somehow cannot be labelled anymore in terms of an emotion that is uncomfortable to be with instead there is the active inquiry (not exactly analysing however that also seems to be part of the processing) into that what was initially labelled as crazy. <ASC> like enlightenment or so called extraordinary experiences are the way I see it now somehow failures in apperception. So far it looks like Identity ceases to be possible to exist as a permanent form, when the brain begins to understand that it as I, is only thought (patterns of firing a serious of neurons in a sequence). I don’t think this (neurons firing) is a completely random process. I assume that the brain basically on whatever moment is ‘aiming to create a maximum sense of security and/or comfort’. One of the problems here may be that security and comfort standards are largely based on data that are grossly outdated (so not fully integrated in apperception). As these data come mostly from the most earliest stage in human development (childhood). So when looking at the issue fear as a total response of the body-brain system we are not pointing to the so-called fight or run reaction but from, let’s say, a baby’s perspective a total response of the body-brain system to a situation in which a high level of insecurity or discomfort is experienced so in that baby’s brain there is in rather primitive way a me generated (for at least as long as the condition of insecurity lasts). RICHARD: First, pure intent (‘pure intend’ ??) is born out of a pure consciousness experience (PCE) and is thus not a vow or a resolution ... it is an unavoidable effect of having first-hand experience of perfect peace and harmony. Second, apperception only occurs in a PCE (apperception is perception sans identity) or in actual freedom. Third, the doorway to an actual freedom has ‘do not enter insanity lies ahead’ atavistically written upon it (‘I am afraid of going crazy’ ). Fourth, any strange spasms (‘involuntary movements’ ) and so on are side-effects and have no intrinsic value. Fifth, examining precisely what is occurring in oneself (‘analysing’ ) so as to be virtually happy and harmless as soon as is possible is what is implied in running the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’. Sixth, the way that an altered state of consciousness (ASC) brings an end to apperception (in a PCE) is through the re-emergence of ‘me’ as soul (the feeling part of identity) as a grandiose ‘Me’. Seventh, ‘I’ as ego am not ‘only thought’ ... ‘I’ am a feeling-fed thought. Eighth, ‘security and comfort’ happen gratuitously in apperception. Ninth, the instinctual freeze, flee or fight mechanism is not ‘so-called’ at all as it is genetically-inherited (it being evident in other animals as well as the human animal). Tenth, the ‘baby’s perspective’ is a genetically-inherited intuitive feeling-out of the world at large (the atavistic affections). Lastly, the ‘me’ which is generated ‘in a rather primitive way’ in the baby’s brain is the instinctual self common to all animals ... and is located in what has been called the ‘saurian brain’ (at the top of the brain-stem/base of the brain). As reptiles and birds do not have what has been called the ‘mammalian brain’ (let alone a neo-cortex) the bulk of the current brain research which is searching for the source of self in those areas is a futile endeavour. * RESPONDENT: From my own experience I can say that I rather thoroughly have been enquiring into me as an EGO which finally resulted in the observation that basically I am an artist who currently has not been able to apply his many talents in a satisfactory way, should it be necessary as any social overall label to be applied to refer to my self. This ‘artist’ has chosen to call himself an independent explorer into actual freedom. As a fun challenge (I hope) hereby I present an interpretation of my understanding of AF so far as an altruistic contribution for whatever it may be worth. RICHARD: The only ‘altruistic contribution’ worthy of the name (in regards to an actual freedom) is the sacrifice of identity in toto. * RESPONDENT: It is a reinterpretation (more or less in terms of a computer program) composed out of the original 9 character sequence+4 extra characters that I thought might vitalize the sequence (it did for myself). RICHARD: I am only too happy to explain what the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ means in practice in the ‘real world’. What the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom is on about is a virtual freedom (not to be confused with the cyber-space virtual reality) wherein the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) – are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is freed-up to felicitously feel good, felicitously feel happy and felicitously feel excellent for 99% of the time. When one minimises the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings (through running the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ until it is an attitude or approach to life) the affective energy is thus freed-up to power the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (happiness, delight, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on) in conjunction with sensuousness (delectation, enjoyment, appreciation, relish, zest, gusto and so on). Then the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness. It is no more complicated than this: delight is what is humanly possible given sufficient pure intent obtained from the felicity/ innocuity born of the pure consciousness experience. From the position of delight, one can vitalise one’s joie de vivre by the amazement at the fun of it all ... and then one can – with sufficient abandon – become over-joyed and move into marvelling at being here and doing this business called being alive. Then one is no longer intellectually making sense of life ... the wonder of it all drives all intellectual sense away as such delicious wonder fosters the innate condition of naiveté (which is the closest one can get to innocence whilst being a self), the nourishing of which is essential if the charm of it all is to occur. Then, as one gazes intently at the world about by glancing lightly with caressing eyes, out of the corner of one’s eye comes – sweetly – the magical fairy-tale-like paradise that this verdant earth actually is ... and one is the experiencing of what is happening. But try not to possess it and make it your own ... or else ‘twill vanish as softly as it appeared.
RESPONDENT: Could you explain to me Richard what you mean with being in denial. RICHARD: You would be better off asking those who say that I am in denial what they mean ... I really do not know what it is they are going on and on about or why. RESPONDENT: I take it that you have bought it from No. 23 and now are ready to sell out. RICHARD: This is what I wrote at the very beginning of that sequence:
You will see that I am asking for clarification so that it will become clear to me just what it is that certain peoples are trying to tell me. RESPONDENT: The only thing I’m not clear about is what it is that you deny. Are you saying actualism is not a cult ... RICHARD: Yes ... and not only that actualism is not a cult but that actualists are not cultists either. RESPONDENT: ... but you agree that it is as it is now for a very few to see the truth of that? RICHARD: I could make a guess – and this is but speculation – that it may very well be that it is those people who cannot remember, or who have not recently had, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) who are making all the cultism claims.
RESPONDENT: Could you explain to me Richard what you mean with being in denial. RICHARD: You would be better off asking those who say that I am in denial what they mean ... I really do not know what it is they are going on and on about or why. RESPONDENT: I take it that you have bought it from No. 23 and now are ready to sell out. RICHARD: This is what I wrote at the very beginning of that sequence: [Richard]: ‘... as I understand it, from the information provided to this Mailing List by several concerned people, I cannot know that it is a cult because I am in denial ... so, given that you too see that I am in denial (‘I am sure it will be denied’), perhaps you can throw a little light on the matter for me’. You will see that I am asking for clarification so that it will become clear to me just what it is that certain peoples are trying to tell me. RESPONDENT: That sounds to me like a death-lock ... RICHARD: I am none to sure what it is you wish to convey here ... could you elaborate? RESPONDENT: ... and certainly if No. 23 deliberately is being vague about his cult fear claiming to have good reasons for not disclosing anymore information as to his previous memberships of organisations labelled by him as being cults methinks that there is fair risk that this list is moving into the bullshit zone ... RICHARD: I can assure you, for whatever that is worth, that I am entirely sincere in wanting clarification so that it will become clear to me just what it is that certain peoples are trying to tell me. Look, are we not fellow human beings who found ourselves (when we first noticed what was going on) having been born into the human world as it was ... a mess? And do we not all seek to find a way through this mess ... and share our findings with one another? And if I have made a mistake by going public to share my discovery and understanding is it not beneficial that someone else will point that out to me? I can benefit from such interaction as much as the other ... we all benefit. RESPONDENT: ... and if that is so I think Vineeto may be credited for heading into that direction with No. 23. I thought Actualism at least was a non pamper-list ... RICHARD: I cannot speak for Vineeto, of course, but why is it that discussing in detail any issue that anyone may come up with is to be construed as being to pamper them and, by implication, should not be entertained on a Mailing List set-up to investigate and explore all that is standing in the way of freedom ... unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying here, of course. Besides ... why is it that am I not pampering you in responding to any or all the issues you raise?
RESPONDENT No. 12: I found a man in a cafe in Byron who I asked ‘but how do you KNOW nobody else has done what you claim to have done?’ And he answered: ‘I never met anybody like me in all my travels and all my internet correspondence and research’ (or words to that effect; as remembered by me). So I pointed out the obvious: ‘how do you know there is not somebody in Chile? or who lived and died in the 13th century? like you?’. And he looked off into the distance and I forget his answer, but it did not impress me ... . And perhaps he may still have a good explanation for how his particular limited experience corresponds in his own mind to definite knowledge of the entire planet full of people present and past even those with no literary tradition ... he claims omniscience it would seem. And he does not consider he has a delusion of grandeur. And neither do those who it would seem consider it extremely important to themselves to maintain a position from which actualism and the originator of actualism is not fully observed but rather just observed enough to be able to maintain it as a system of belief. RESPONDENT: To me the turning point in my faith in actualism ... RICHARD: Good. I have always advocated dispensing with ‘faith’ altogether (and trust and hope and belief) if one is at all intent on living in the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: [To me the turning point in my faith in actualism] as a group of people ... RICHARD: Hmm ... despite the best efforts of some to turn the writings of various peoples contributing to this Mailing List into a cult-like group (presumably so that they can then justify their identity as being the dissenter’s dissenter or a cult-buster extraordinaire or whatever), this ‘actualism as a group of people’ you have had a ‘turning point’ in your faith about has no existence outside of your skull. RESPONDENT: [To me the turning point in my faith in actualism as a group of people] that are really concerned about creating peace on earth ... RICHARD: If I may point out? There is no need to be concerned about ‘creating peace on earth’ (let alone ‘really concerned’ ) as it is already just here at this place in infinite space ... and it is always just here right now at this moment in eternal time. RESPONDENT: [To me the turning point in my faith in actualism as a group of people that are really concerned about creating peace on earth] came when there was no response from any of the actualist crew to No. 12’s question ... RICHARD: If I may interject once more? Just take a look (further above) to see but one of the many reasons why I do not respond to each and every one of his posts ... I will copy-paste it down here for your convenience:
RESPONDENT: [To me the turning point in my faith in actualism as a group of people that are really concerned about creating peace on earth came when there was no response from any of the actualist crew to No. 12’s question] about as to wether there had been made an improvement on the AF method by adding to the sequence ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ the sequence ‘on our (patafotk update our>this) planet Terra’. So this remains unanswered and I have my reasons for taking this question as an honest question and as such one might expect it would have been honoured with a sincere reply however not so. RICHARD: All my replies are sincere (whether the question and/or questions be honest or not is besides the point) ... it is that I am not capable of responding to absolutely every single query (and nor am I inclined to). RESPONDENT: So indeed this is disappointing ... RICHARD: And the degree of disappointment is inversely proportional to the amount of affective anticipation invested into expectation, of course. RESPONDENT: ... and in my opinion reflecting an attitude which I hesitantly would label arrogance. RICHARD: Why? RESPONDENT: So ... Richard indeed a simple yes or no would have sufficed. RICHARD: I have no intention of being drawn into being the arbiter of something which is only an issue between you and another anyway. RESPONDENT: To me this lacking of response has been greatly undermining your credibility ... RICHARD: Good. I have always advocated the pure consciousness experience (PCE) as being the only credible guide and/or lodestone ... and not me or my descriptions. RESPONDENT: ... and almost put you in the gallery of the rest of the guru’s and non guru’s. RICHARD: Wherever it is that you put me is your own business ... yet all the while I remain, as always, a fellow human being sans identity in toto.
RESPONDENT: To me the turning point in my faith in actualism ... RICHARD: Good. I have always advocated dispensing with ‘faith’ altogether (and trust and hope and belief) if one is at all intent on living in the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: (Not seeking approval) one could say this is progress of an actualism student from your point of view right? RICHARD: I have no ‘point of view’ in regards to an actual freedom from the human condition as I report directly from my on-going experiencing ... and there is no ‘faith’ (or trust or hope or belief) operating here. Nor did ‘faith’ (or trust or hope or belief) enable the already always existing peace-on-earth into becoming apparent ... the perfection of the purity of the pure consciousness experience renders all ‘faith’ (and trust and hope and belief) null and void. Ergo: I always advocate dispensing with ‘faith’ altogether (and trust and hope and belief) if one is at all intent on living in the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body. * RESPONDENT: [To me the turning point in my faith in actualism] as a group of people ... RICHARD: Hmm ... despite the best efforts of some to turn the writings of various peoples contributing to this Mailing List into a cult-like group (presumably so that they can then justify their identity as being the dissenter’s dissenter or a cult-buster extraordinaire or whatever), this ‘actualism as a group of people’ you have had a ‘turning point’ in your faith about has no existence outside of your skull. RESPONDENT: Hmmm ... well it’s difficult to interact/relate/communicate to a group because it is only a virtual thing not actual right? RICHARD: Perhaps the word ‘imaginary’ might better convey the nature of any such ‘actualism as a group of people’ than the word ‘virtual’ ... given that ‘virtual’ means ‘almost as good as’ or ‘nearly the same as’ or ‘in effect comparable to’ and so on. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Yet on the Topica welcome message it is stated: vis: ‘It’s not a little thing we are doing here’ how can one interpreted that in an other way than that there is some collective ‘doing’ going on here and hence the invitation to join a collective? RICHARD: The invitation is to join in a discussion (and implicit in a discussion is two or more people) so as to elucidate/investigate what is happening and share/explore what is conducive in regards to the precipitation of the unilateral event such as the evoking of the already always existing peace-on-earth indubitably is. You are completely on your own anyway ... this ‘a collective’ has no existence outside of your skull. RESPONDENT: However I begin to see that indeed although this is a public happening yet it seems to be necessary to have some focus (directing feedback into a particular direction i.e. the brain of one or more individuals) in order to not become too silly in exchanging verbalities which might become pointless after a certain point. RICHARD: The necessary focus is provided by (a) the perfection of the purity of the PCE pulling one from ahead ... and (b) all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides pushing one from behind. Once one steps onto the wide and wondrous path there is no way out of always being focussed ... which is but one of the reasons why so few dare to care and thus care to dare. * RESPONDENT: [To me the turning point in my faith in actualism as a group of people] that are really concerned about creating peace on earth ... RICHARD: If I may point out? There is no need to be concerned about ‘creating peace on earth’ (let alone ‘really concerned’ ) as it is already just here at this place in infinite space ... and it is always just here right now at this moment in eternal time. RESPONDENT: Ok I’ve come to the point that I see my being disappointed is a good thing because it dismisses me from any responsibility as to create peace on earth because it’s already there. RICHARD: Good. Now one’s inherent amenability can come into play: ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ basically means what is it that is preventing one from living it already ... as it is perpetually just here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time. In other words: why is one settling for second-best when the best is already always here for the living of it now? RESPONDENT: Indeed asking to be ‘really concerned’ is a silly request to my fellow beings as to make a difference to the present world situation we can only change ourself not anybody else. I’m glad I’ve got that understood now. RICHARD: Spot on. ‘I’ can only change one person and one person only: ‘me’. Thus it is impossible to be a guru (by whatever name) in an actual freedom from the human condition. I cannot save anyone. * RESPONDENT: [To me the turning point in my faith in actualism as a group of people that are really concerned about creating peace on earth] came when there was no response from any of the actualist crew to No. 12’s question ... RICHARD: If I may interject once more? Just take a look (further above) to see but one of the many reasons why I do not respond to each and every one of his posts ... I will copy-paste it down here for your convenience: [No. 12]: ‘I found a man in a cafe in Byron who I asked (...) and I forget his answer ...’. RESPONDENT: Ok I see where you come from and though I recognize this as an issue between you and No. 12. I can’t help that my curiosity as to what that answer might have been has been evoked. So do you remember what it was and if so would you disclose that information? RICHARD: I provided that quote as an example-only as to why I do not always respond to each and every one of his posts ... the following is what you wrote and the following is what I am responding to (and not some unrecorded and/or maybe never happened off-list discussion):
* RESPONDENT: [So indeed this is disappointing] and in my opinion reflecting an attitude which I hesitantly would label arrogance. RICHARD: Why? RESPONDENT: Hesitantly because I was not completely sure as to the term arrogance was expressing correctly the quality that I attributed to this situation. RICHARD: Are you really saying that you are ‘not completely sure’ whether or not the lack of response ‘from any of the actualist crew’ correctly indicates the quality of arrogance (synonyms: conceit, haughtiness, vanity, superciliousness, condescension, disdain) in some of the peoples, currently subscribed to this Mailing List, that have the pure intent to evoke the already always existing peace-on-earth into being apparent? * RESPONDENT: So ... Richard indeed a simple yes or no would have sufficed. RICHARD: I have no intention of being drawn into being the arbiter of something which is only an issue between you and another anyway. RESPONDENT: I agree who am to make assumptions as to how you should respond or should have responded to anyone on this list if any response at all. RICHARD: Participation in any discussion on this Mailing List is, of course, entirely voluntary. * RESPONDENT: [To me this lacking of response has ] almost put you in the gallery of the rest of the guru’s and non guru’s. RICHARD: Wherever it is that you put me is your own business ... yet all the while I remain, as always, a fellow human being sans identity in toto. RESPONDENT: I said ‘almost’ I have not yet placed you in any category as for now I just see you as an unidentified fellow being. RICHARD: Would it be of assistance to comprehend that I categorise myself as being an actualist ... and not either a spiritualist (‘the rest of the gurus’ ) or a materialist (‘the rest of the non gurus’ )?
RESPONDENT: [To me the turning point in my faith in actualism] as a group of people ... RICHARD: Hmm ... despite the best efforts of some to turn the writings of various peoples contributing to this Mailing List into a cult-like group (presumably so that they can then justify their identity as being the dissenter’s dissenter or a cult-buster extraordinaire or whatever), this ‘actualism as a group of people’ you have had a ‘turning point’ in your faith about has no existence outside of your skull. RESPONDENT: Hmmm ... well it’s difficult to interact/relate/communicate to a group because it is only a virtual thing not actual right? RICHARD: Perhaps the word ‘imaginary’ might better convey the nature of any such ‘actualism as a group of people’ than the word ‘virtual’ ... given that ‘virtual’ means ‘almost as good as’ or ‘nearly the same as’ or ‘in effect comparable to’ and so on. Viz.: [Dictionary Definition]: virtual: that is so in essence or effect, although not recognised formally, actually, or by strict definition as such; almost absolute. Possessed of certain physical virtues or powers; effective in respect of inherent qualities. Capable of producing a certain effect or result’. RESPONDENT: This is what I got from ‘Atomica’: ‘virtual: An adjective that expresses a condition without boundaries or constraints. It is often used to define a feature or state that is simulated in some fashion’. So an imagined group of which the initiation for this image is a simulation on the internet. RICHARD: Yet as there is no simulated ‘actualism as a group of people’ on the internet, to initiate ‘this image’ of ‘an imagined group’ , the dictionary definition you provide only serves to further emphasise the fact that this ‘actualism as a group of people’ has no existence outside of your skull. RESPONDENT: [This is what I got from ‘Atomica’:] ‘virtual: Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name: the virtual extinction of the buffalo. Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text. Computer Science. Created, simulated, or carried on by means of a computer or computer network: virtual conversations in a chat room’. So an imagined group of which the initiation for this image is a simulation on the internet. RICHARD: There is no virtual group, as a simulation of an actual group, happening on The Actual Freedom Mailing List. RESPONDENT: [This is what I got from ‘Atomica’:] ‘virtual: ‘Middle English virtuall, effective, from Medieval Latin virtualis, from Latin virtus, excellence. When virtual was first introduced in the computational sense, it applied to things simulated by the computer, like virtual memory – that is, memory that is not actually built into the processor. Over time, though, the adjective has been applied to things that really exist and are created or carried on by means of computers. RICHARD: There is no thing that really exists, which has been created or is being carried on by means of computers, that can even remotely be called ‘actualism as a group of people’. RESPONDENT: [This is what I got from ‘Atomica’:] ‘virtual: Virtual conversations are conversations that take place over computer networks, and virtual communities are genuine social groups that assemble around the use of e-mail, web pages, and other networked resources’. RICHARD: There is no virtual community, as a genuine social group, occurring on this Mailing List such as to warrant the phrase ‘actualism as a group of people’. RESPONDENT: [This is what I got from ‘Atomica’:] ‘virtual: The adjectives virtual and digital and the prefixes e- and cyber- are all used in various ways to denote things, activities, and organizations that are realized or carried out chiefly in an electronic medium. There is considerable overlap in the use of these items: people may speak either of virtual communities or of cyber communities and of e-cash or cyber-cash. To a certain extent the choice of one or another of these is a matter of use or convention (or in some cases, of finding an unregistered brand name). But there are certain tendencies. Digital is the most comprehensive of the words, and can be used for almost any device or activity that makes use of or is based on computer technology, such as a digital camera or a digital network. Virtual tends to be used in reference to things that mimic their ‘real’ equivalents. RICHARD: There is no ‘real’ equivalent, to ‘actualism as a group of people’, which is being mimicked here on The Actual Freedom Mailing List. The word actualism refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. I chose the name rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of categories and labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism. My memory of the dictionary definition was obviously somewhat hazy as I see from my records that I first re-formulated it thus:
Some years later someone told me they had heard about a ‘Philosophy of Actualism’. The ‘Encyclopaedia Britannica’ CD reports:
I could not disagree more (he also has a philosophy called ‘Actual Idealism’) ... also, there is a Web Page in the US of A titled ‘Actualism’ which I found via a search engine. But it is religious and spiritual ... which I find strange as the word ‘actual’ commonly means ‘existing in act or fact; practical; in action or existence at the time; present, current and not merely potential or possible’ and usually means being objectively accessible sensately or sensuously. I am yet to find the origin of the dictionary’s definition. * RESPONDENT: Yet on the Topica welcome message it is stated: vis: ‘It’s not a little thing we are doing here’ how can one interpreted that in an other way than that there is some collective ‘doing’ going on here and hence the invitation to join a collective? RICHARD: The invitation is to join in a discussion (and implicit in a discussion is two or more people) so as to elucidate/investigate what is happening and share/explore what is conducive in regards to the precipitation of the unilateral event such as the evoking of the already always existing peace-on-earth indubitably is. You are completely on your own anyway ... this ‘a collective’ has no existence outside of your skull. RESPONDENT: Yes I see what you’re pointing to, yet you would not deny would you that there is a collection of people (the writers on this list) that actually do exist outside my skull otherwise it would not be possible to receive any messages signed i.e. Vineeto, Peter, Gary and so on. Unless these are replies, generated by an extremely advanced simulation program. RICHARD: I certainly would not deny that there are individual flesh and blood bodies reading or reading and writing e-mails on The Actual Freedom Mailing List ... this is what this forum was set-up for. A forum is nothing more and nothing less than a place or an arena (traditionally a square or park in a city or a town) and an opportunity wherein peoples from all walks of life and all persuasions can air and thus share their expertise, knowledge, experience, understandings, theories, ideas, beliefs, fantasies and so on. Just the same as is currently occurring on this Mailing List.
RICHARD: Life is the event which occurs between birth and death. RESPONDENT: Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say: Life is the event which occurs between conception and death. RICHARD: I was keeping it simple ... first breath to last breath. RESPONDENT: However I can imagine one might object to this also, as conception and death are for most of us no actual experiences (as far as I know) hence ‘facts’ of birth and death of oneself can only be determined through inference. One has seen birth happening as well as death therefore one concludes I was born and I will die. So this may give rise to an imagined I that is being born and is going to die. So I wonder how do you experience birth and death in the flesh blood body? RICHARD: I do not ‘experience birth and death in the flesh blood body’ ... I experience birth and death as the flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: How does the flesh blood body know about birth and death? RICHARD: By observing what happens to my fellow human beings and all other carbon-based life forms.
RESPONDENT: Richard, how do you (the flesh and blood aso) know that you are so far the first ‘outside’ the Human condition (throughout history of mankind)? I of course don’t believe that when you write that, as I am a non believer. RICHARD: I have travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life; I have been watching TV, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet) for twenty one years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail. I would be delighted to hear about/meet such a person or such peoples ... so as to compare notes, as it were. RESPONDENT: Now, I know you are supported to present that as a fact, but as a fellow being speaking wondering: what is the discriminating mechanism in your state of Apperceptive Awareness? RICHARD: A freed human intelligence RESPONDENT: In other words: how can you discriminate your fellow beings from not being in that state? RICHARD: Generally speaking, by asking them (or reading what they write) and listening to what they have to say. RESPONDENT: Or is it perhaps that in seeing your fellow beings that you are reminded to as a no longer existing condition applicable to yourself? RICHARD: Yes ... that is what causes me to speak out and make my experience public when I would rather remain anonymous.
RESPONDENT: ... what is the discriminating mechanism in your state of Apperceptive Awareness? RICHARD: A freed human intelligence ... freed of the self-centred fetters of the human condition. RESPONDENT: In other words: how can you discriminate your fellow beings from not being in that state? RICHARD: Generally speaking, by asking them (or reading what they write) and listening to what they have to say. RESPONDENT: Or is it perhaps that in seeing your fellow beings that you are reminded to as a no longer existing condition applicable to yourself? RICHARD: Yes ... that is what causes me to speak out and make my experience public when I would rather remain anonymous. RESPONDENT: Ok thank you very much this answer appeals to me as honest, accurate and correct. [intermezzo this may be difficult to phrase but I’ll make an effort. Keeping in mind that the evaluation still is happening from a ‘Darwinian Perspective’ [Man (quite frankly general speaking here) and the animals, especially the primates, have some few instincts in common … The Descent of Man’, published in 1871 (2nd ed., 1874) by Charles Darwin; Ch. 3] it is fair to say that Actualists support the theory of the disconnected Amygdala as a ‘working’ theory to describe and to explain how you ‘arrived’ in your actual status. RICHARD: I recall having read somewhere (or have maybe seen it on a TV documentary) that there are people who have had their amygdalae removed, or who have damaged amygdalae, yet they are not free from the human condition ... it requires a rather curious decision – and it is a once-in-a-lifetime decision – to ‘self’-immolate in ‘my’ entirety. Going by the physical sensations experienced the physiological event that occurred which precipitated an actual freedom happened at the base of the skull ... somewhere in the top of the brain-stem. RESPONDENT: Thus I prefer to label you to avoid any confusion between the AF-process and your personal experience of Apperception as a FA.Emb.A (formally acknowledged Embodied Authority) on AF: As such I understand and agree that your honest reply [‘I would rather remain anonymous’] deserves serious consideration and is as such considered as a kind request that fellow beings respect this un/expressed preference, popular speaking referred to as the right on privacy at large, and as such will be honoured and respected by this interviewer end intermezzo]. So to continue ... would it be correct to say that you have the ability/capacity to (near)-perfectly perceive any malicious behaviour and sorrowful exposure in fellow beings, as a fleeting identity based on behaviour that has been conceptualised by you and labelled as Malicious and Sorrowful as in [you are reminded to]? RICHARD: Not ‘(near)-perfectly’ perceive, no. As I have already remarked, generally speaking, I ask the other how they are experiencing themselves (or read what they write) and listen to what they have to say ... if they want to fool themselves by trying to fool me then that is their business. It is when I see someone behaving in a manner which is typical to the human condition that I am reminded. RESPONDENT: As to compare notes ‘online’ so to speak: to an important degree is the above description also a rather accurate way of describing the discriminating mechanism with regard to my own state compared to others I meet in the flesh or ‘on line’. RICHARD: The more you investigate yourself the more you will understand how anyone else operates ... essentially all human beings are basically the same in regards to what is commonly called the human condition. RESPONDENT: In other words i.e. opinions/believes are perceived/experienced as identities propelled/fuelled and/or temporarily kept in place by emotion-backed (still Darwinian perspective) thought patterns (I propose to refer to these ‘fleeting identities’ as ‘sub-identities’). RICHARD: Sure, though a person free from the human condition can still have opinions about various matters (for example I am not an expert on everything) ... but such a person no longer believes in them. RESPONDENT: Those opinions/believes are perceived as a ‘poor’ substitute
for human intelligence yet recognised as a means adapted for survival RICHARD: Hmm ... as I cannot see that a child reared by two actually free or virtually free human beings would be pumped full of ‘opinions/beliefs’ your observation can only apply to normal human experience. RESPONDENT: I wonder as to my own process if this can be considered to be an accurate description of a Virtual Freedom as a so to speak pre-phase to an Actual Freedom? RICHARD: A virtual freedom is exemplified by being relatively free of malice and sorrow, via the consistent application of the actualism method, thus one is easily capable of being happy and harmless for 23 hours 59 minutes of the day (an arbitrary figure) ... and it is entirely up to each person as to how they classify themself (I decline to be a probity policeman) as I would have to be a fly on the wall for x-number of months to give any meaningful tick of approval to someone else’s on-going experiencing. Maybe the following will assist you in regards to the discriminating mechanism you are inquiring about: it is a myth that an enlightened being can know another’s every thought and feeling ... contrary to popular belief they are not omniscient.
RESPONDENT: Alan’s Hypothesis is: X=*E*=*AF* [where X stands for the difficulty level to reach/maintain either state]. Vineeto’s Hypothesis is: *E*=*AF*-X. The fundamental formulae E=Mc square will be used to elaborate on the subject. ^Note this E is not the *E* from Alan’s/Vineeto’s hypotheses, but the E from Mr. Albert Einstein’s formulae the fundament of nowadays quantum science^. (In my example C is treated as a constant not relevant to what needs to be proven so can be C =1). So that leaves the equation E=M where M is the mass (kg) of i.e. a flesh and blood body. Lets say X (pure intent <PI> that is needed to become free)=E thus PI=E. In Richard’s system is applicable (M)-(*I*)=M and (*I*)=0 in which M represents the flesh and blood body as a pure Mass of matter/energy. Now in PI we have the level of purity (P) that one has at a certain moment (t) ‘accessible’. According to Richard the purity P is inversely proportional to that *I* is willing to become extinct thus 0. From that it becomes obvious that my pure intent, say over a period of time, is PI/t. So ideally speaking one second of 100% pure intent would blast anyone immediately into Actual freedom. But the crux is that kind of 100% pure intent is not available because the purity of that intent depends (is relative to) on the degree that one had at the time one started with the process of AF. Now if *E* would be *AF* then *E*=M-<*I*> would be a correct expression. However not so because <*I*>= 0 is false. Now unless this would be a negative like i.e. <*I*>=- or -0000,1 or whatever thus as: <*I*> has to be a positive value (according to AF theory). Vineeto’s hypothesis [*E*=*AF*-X] is correct as X the pure intent that is needed is a positive value. Now ‘tongue in cheek’ mode: with regard to the fact that this factor has been mentioned it is said that compared to *AF* *E* is peanuts. So I like X to be called the Peanut Factor which can be readily calculated by checking out enlightenment and find out for oneself the difficulty level of X. ^Note apart from PI pure intent one also could introduce another term relative to the purity (P) namely: a cessation of investigation, as this purity largely depends on the willingness to investigate^. According to Vineeto this (P) has to be ‘kept up’ or ‘cranked up’ (Peter’s sincerity), until the fat lady has sung, so ... it may transpire that the peanut factor may be inversely proportional to the time that the fat lady needs to finish her sung. In other words in PI/t t= time in months/years that is necessary to make P come closer and closer to 100%. Thus at t (Time)=t (time fat lady has been singing) -t (moment that movement into *AF* began) or in worldly time schedule: time/date MY arrival destination at *AF* [so at the moment t (Time) E=B is accurate, one has arrived] (y in years from now) can be calculated: take off (2000)+(t=Xy)=? X is the peanut factor. As X (as private information) is only available at *AF* (because then one knows how long it took to arrive) X is legally speaking indeed the GREAT UNKNOWN as is traditional in science so the challenge is for oneself to find out/discover the value of X for him/herself. RICHARD: At first glance what is glaringly obvious is that the requisite catalyst (naiveté) has not been factored in ... hence the incomplete resolution of the formulae is due to the lack of benediction (which would help to clarify the implicit time-scale error as exemplified by your ‘one second of 100% pure intent’ and et seq. observations) and elucidates why the fat lady has not yet sung. To explain: one can bring about a benediction from the perfection and purity, which is the essential character of the universe, by contacting and cultivating one’s original state of naiveté through the application of sincerity. Naiveté is that intimate aspect of oneself which is the nearest approximation that one can have of actual innocence – there is no innocence so long as there is a rudimentary self – and the constant responsiveness of naive intimacy results in a continuing benediction. This blessing allows a connection to be made between oneself and the perfection and purity. This connection I call pure intent. Pure intent endows one with the ability to operate and function safely in society without the incumbent social identity with its ever-vigilant conscience and its concomitant cynicism. Thus one is reliably rendered relatively innocent (and virtually happy and harmless) by the benefaction of the perfection and purity of this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe and therefore one is no longer alone in this monumental endeavour ... one has all the energy of infinitude at one’s disposal. I look forward with avid interest to any suitably amended formulae so as to ascertain the degree of lived experiencing entailed in classifying oneself virtually free.
RESPONDENT No 27: It almost seems to me that you are claiming that life cannot be ‘meaningful’ as long as there is an ‘I’ around – if ‘I’ stand in the way of meaning. Does the ‘I’ completely obliterate meaning? RICHARD: Yes ... ‘I’ am forever locked-out of this actual world. RESPONDENT: So Richard your answers are affirmative to the questions [life cannot be ‘meaningful’ as long as there is an ‘I’ around – if ‘I’ stand in the way of meaning?] [Does the ‘I’ completely obliterate meaning?]. RICHARD: I see that I answered in the affirmative to the above questions too quickly. A more accurate answer – and a clearer answer – is that the meaning of life cannot be evident as long as there is an ‘I’ around because the ‘I’ completely blocks the meaning of life from being apparent ... the ‘I’ cannot, of course, ‘obliterate’ (destroy, demolish, eliminate, eradicate, annihilate) the meaning of life. Life can indeed be ‘meaningful’ (significant, important, worthwhile, valuable, noteworthy) whilst there is an ‘I’ around ... on the off-chance you may have missed it I will repeat here what I wrote recently in another post: sustaining oneself (and one’s family if there is one) is certainly not pointless. Furthermore there are many meaningful experiences in everyday life: providing shelter (building, buying or renting a home); being married (aka being in a relationship); raising a family (preparing children for adult life); having a career (job satisfaction); achieving something (successfully pursuing a hobby) and so on. However, to rely upon transient experience to provide an enduring meaning to life is to invite disappointment. * RICHARD: Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had written that ‘... ‘I’ was standing in the way of meaning being apparent’ (quite a lot of ‘Richard’s Journal’ was cobbled together from snippets and jottings going back several years and I would write it differently today, as a result of the feedback I have received by writing on the internet, if I were starting from scratch). RESPONDENT: So one might say, Richard, that during one PCE happening you saw that regardless of what you had experienced before, any suspected pointlessness in your presence here on this verdant Planet could be rendered void hence there was only left a meaningful presence of an apperceptive flesh and blood body. RICHARD: Because of the miscommunication I made by shortening the phrase ‘meaning of life’ to the word ‘meaning’ this discussion would be better served if I rephrased your words as follows:
I had not anticipated the ‘meaningless’ and ‘pointless’ implications which stem from using only the word ‘meaning’. RESPONDENT: As being elaborately been pointed out (this being done in i.e. your expose on the AF-site) this ‘I’ that is in the way of meaning ‘being apparent’ is neither a me as a soul nor an I as an ego. RICHARD: I will respond in full: identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) stands in the way of the meaning of life being apparent. RESPONDENT: ^note also has been mentioned that I as a soul is generally experienced in the heart whereas me as an ego is more experienced on a gut level.^ RICHARD: From what I recall – and from what I read about and hear from other people – the ego is generally experienced as being in the head ... the ‘gut level’ phrase, at least in English-speaking countries, is usually used to indicate some deeper instinctual/intuitive feeling of ‘being’ and/or ‘presence’ or a prescient knowing.
CORRESPONDENT No 18 (Part Three) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
