Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

November 01 2003

RESPONDENT: Richard, when I first came across Actualism I promised myself I would find a reasonable objection to which you would unreasonably reply. All I needed was a fact that would contradict your description of the Actual so I could continue on my way to either pursuing unrequited love – among other addictions – and/or all sorts of therapy. Reading U.G. Krishnamurti even cheered me up for a while, as he reinforced my belief that I wasn’t missing out on much. My life sucked and I knew where I was heading to, where it might have ended, yet I would rather continue suffering – sweet sorrow – than admit to the possibility of change; although I welcomed hope, and that is where the cycle of believing and doubting Actualism began. I recall at one point I had the option to feel and be convinced that my objections were worthy and sensible and so continue hanging on to my beliefs, completely closing the possibility of a third alternative, and go back to living a normal or spiritual life. I remember how uncomfortable it was for me at the beginning not being able to find something that would contradict your words, I sooo wanted you to be wrong, however my common sense would not allow me to make silly objections; and it was the altruism I felt, my regard for others, which finally made me stick around. I am more than pleased to have taken the time and effort to see what you’re all about … and it has turned out to be the most important and fruitful decision of my life.

RICHARD: On the subject of being convinced that the objections be worthy and sensible ... many years ago, in face-to-face conversations on the topic of being happy and harmless, sometimes, after going round and round the same nonsense to no avail, I would suggest to my fellow human being that we put what is being discussed into the realm of wishful thinking, a fantasy as it were, and suppose a childhood fairy complete with twinkling wand were to drop by, or a genie were to pop out of a bottle, or whatever, and put to them the opportunity to be either happy (never mind being harmless in this exercise as the aim was to make it as uncomplicated as possible) for the remainder of their life or be unhappy – and whichever they were to choose it would be immediately granted with full irrevocable effect – then which would they choose?

Not altogether unsurprisingly the other would invariably say they would choose to be happy, of course (whilst looking at me as if I were some kind of idiot), yet when I would then say that very opportunity is just here, right now, each moment again in actuality, for life itself is indeed a magical wonderland granting happiness and harmlessness by the bucket-load, they would look at me as if I were some kind of trickster (for extracting from them what they really wanted by devious means) and could become quite irked.

Eventually I abandoned such a course of action as being counter-productive.

On the subject of silly objections ... many years ago, in face-to-face conversations on the topic of being happy and harmless, my then companion would oft-times observe, after yet another fellow human being had departed after sitting on my verandah or in my lounge-room for an hour or so, that the more I continued being factual, in the discussion, the more silly the objections had become until, on more than a few occasions she observed, some of the more wilder expostulations were teetering on the edge of being insanity operating.

And all because what I was saying was actual.

*

RESPONDENT: On another note, I was talking over with a friend yesterday at lunch about music and its relation to emotions. We both agreed that music – whatever kind – does not necessarily evoke an affective response in, for example, alexithymic/anhedonic people, very young children or someone way into the path of Actual Freedom or Actually Free. However, my friend assured me that if a certain type of music (classical, violin, piano) is played then it has to have some type of an effect on the human brain. I know that the very act of listening has an effect on the brain but do you experience anything else besides?

RICHARD: No, not at all ... and I did have a few classical pieces in my record collection all those years ago (mainly rhapsodies, overtures, and suites). The following passage is how I have described the anhedonic actualism experience:

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

Coupled with the inability to affectively feel pleasure is, of course, the inability to affectively feel pain (as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate) even though most, if not all, definitions of anhedonia only say ‘the inability to feel pleasure’ ... actualism, being most definitely not hedonism, can never be sadistic, masochistic, or sadomasochistic.

RESPONDENT: Non-affective stimulation of some kind?

RICHARD: No stimulation (other than the physical delectation as described above) at all ... just the same as watching voluptuous movies (sexually-explicit x-rated videos), for example, or a succulent feast being prepared in living colour in a cooking programme on lifestyle television, for another.

The affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain is null and void.

September 11 2004

RESPONDENT No. 60: Taking a walk in the country the other day, I was mulling over a few aspects of actualism (...)

RESPONDENT No. 49: (...) I too was having some thoughts on AF the other day. Specifically on how Richard refers to the rise of IQ in relation to AF.

RESPONDENT No. 60: Is that so?

RICHARD: No, it is not so ... I have never referred to anything of the sort.

RESPONDENT No. 60: I haven’t noticed Richard saying anything about IQ.

RICHARD: A computer search of all I have ever written returned the following two (2) hits: (...)

RESPONDENT: Some computer searches can be very picky… so if you try typing I. Q., or I (dot) (space) Q (dot), you would also find that you once wrote – [Richard]: ‘Your I. Q. (Intelligence Quotient) will increase in direct proportion to your I. Q. (Interest Quotient) because unless one is vitally interested in peace on earth one will never even begin to free the crippled intelligence from the debilitating passions bestowed by blind nature’. [www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-intelligence.htm].

RICHARD: Well, well, well ... I had forgotten I wrote that (I have written so much I have lost track of what I said and where I said it).

RESPONDENT: It is obvious to me what you meant by this, that a body’s innate intelligence increases in direct proportion to its altruism and/or pure intent and/or actual caring, but it can be misunderstood by others.

RICHARD: Yes, although in the context of the exchange the quote originates from what I also meant was rather more prosaic than that ... because this is what I was responding to:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Let us agree to disagree. Because I have not the prerequisite Interest Quotient’.

Thus it is more a play on words than anything else ... this was my response:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... I have not the prerequisite Interest Quotient’.
• [Richard]: ‘Try watching/reading the news bulletins with whatever media you have access to and use your highly valued affective feelings – emotions and passions and calenture – to really, deeply, primally feel all the anguish and animosity inherent in all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides that parades across billions of T. V. screens daily. And try watching/reading the ‘animals in the wild’ programs so as to see where the human animal shares this common ancestry of fear and aggression and nurture and desire.
Your I. Q. (Intelligence Quotient) will increase in direct proportion to your I. Q. (Interest Quotient) because unless one is vitally interested ...’. [snip].

Perhaps it is misleading to have it included in the selected correspondence section on intelligence because, although it might be arguable that IQ increases/decreases proportional to interest/disinterest, my response was somewhat opportunistic (taking the opportunity to make the point that unless one is vitally interested nothing of consequence is likely to occur).

I see that a couple of months later I had already modified my (above) response when corresponding with another:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I don’t long for perfect peace and understanding. I want pleasure, instant gratification. Give me the magic lamp and I will ask for nothing else. It is possible that I am not free because my seeking is of a shallow kind. But I am incapable of seeking anything else.
• [Richard]: ‘Try watching and/or reading the news bulletins with whatever media you have access to and use your affective feelings – emotions and passions and calenture – to really, deeply, primally feel all the anguish and animosity inherent in all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides that parades across billions of T. V. screens and newspapers daily. And try watching and/or reading the ‘animals in the wild’ programs so as to see where the human animal shares this common ancestry of fear and aggression and nurture and desire.
Your capacity to seek will increase in direct proportion to your I. Q. (Interest Quotient) because unless one is vitally interested in peace on earth one will never even begin to free the crippled intelligence from the debilitating passions bestowed by blind nature. Yet becoming vitally interested is but the preliminary stage ...’.

RESPONDENT: I suppose it was of your earlier writings ...

RICHARD: Yes ... circa August 1999 (on a spiritual mailing list) and, as I recall, the subject of IQ testing and its limitations as a measure of intelligence was a hot topic at the time.

RESPONDENT: ... from which I have additionally and indirectly learnt that (in contrast to your later writings) clarity in communication also increases in direct proportion to others clearly wanting to communicate.

RICHARD: Indeed so.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Continued on Mailing List ‘D’: No. 7