Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

RESPONDENT: You have also written that you have no desires (To wish or long for; want. To express a wish for; request).

RICHARD: More to the point ... desire itself, along with the other instinctual passions bestowed by blind nature at conception (such as fear and aggression and nurture), has no existence whatsoever here.

RESPONDENT: Then what prompts you to write to this mailing list?

RICHARD: Put succinctly: fellowship regard.

RESPONDENT: Is there no desire to see the peoples of the world free from the human condition?

RICHARD: None at all.

RESPONDENT: Personally, I don’t understand how one can live without desires. I can fully comprehend having desires and not being attached to them but I find living without them a little hard to digest.

RICHARD: Whereas I find such detachment from oneself (‘I’ am ‘my’ desires and ‘my’ desires are ‘me’) impossible to digest.

RESPONDENT: Richard, lately I’ve noticed during my moments of contemplation I trigger some form of ASC. In this ASC, there is an overwhelming silence in my mind; this contrasts heavily to the normal state of functioning I experience wherein songs constantly play through my head. The disturbing part of the experience is this extreme sense of revulsion and absolute disgust in my stomach, literally a sense of wanting to vomit. Furthermore, there is a sense of meaninglessness.

Now, as far as the silence goes, you’ve mentioned somewhere in the correspondence sections about looking into the mirror after the second experience with your brain stem and asking ‘who’ you were without receiving an answer – the answer not even being the ‘silence that speaks louder than words’ but rather being a response to the question ‘what am I?’ (the answer being the body). I would want to equate this silence I experience with the ‘silence that speaks louder than words,’ for the sense of ‘Self’ is still fully apparent in this moments. But did you ever come across the feeling of disgust?

RICHARD: Oh, yes ... the feeling of disgust/ revulsion/ repugnance/ repulsion is part and parcel of the attraction/ aversion package of desire – genetically-endowed by virtue of its fitness towards ensuring survival – and is quite primal (a smell, for example, goes directly to the brain-stem) to the point it may very well have been, as is evidenced in single-celled/simple-celled creatures, the initial nerve reaction upon which the entire nervous system (which includes the brain proper) develops.

In concert with other instinctual passions that hedonic attraction/ aversion discrimination underpins sympathy/ antipathy ... out of which affinity/ enmity emerges.

RESPONDENT: The only other experience mentioned on the site anywhere is about experiencing a sense of ‘meaningless and purposelessness’ while using the method, and to recall a PCE at that time. Indeed, the three characteristics are nausea, silence, and meaninglessness.

RICHARD: The apprehension of meaninglessness/ purposelessness can, in itself, induce emotional/mental nausea upon a resultant grim foreboding – a desolatory (forsaken, dismal, wretched) or bleak presage – ensuing.

*

RESPONDENT: I’ve yet to have a ‘significant’ PCE so far, though small ones come here and there. I’m actively breaking down the social identity in an attempt to trigger the ‘significant’ PCE. In the meantime, I’m enjoying the deprogramming from society, which is something I’ve done for some time now even before I encountered the AF website. Now with the organized method of AF, I’m able to seriously get down to business – and what a grand business it is.

RICHARD: Aye ... when one gets a handle on it all it can be such fun (as well as immensely rewarding) finding out what makes one tick.

*

RESPONDENT: If nothing else, at least the fact that I’ve triggered any form of ASC means that my social identity has enough of a dent in it for such a thing to happen – a by-product, a landmark, a road sign, if you will. Yet the ASC I mentioned is most certainly worthless in terms of seeking it permanently.

RICHARD: Okay, but do watch out for aversion flipping to its opposite, though, especially via any grim foreboding/bleak presage, inherent to meaninglessness/ purposelessness, slipping into being a dire foreboding – a minatory (ominous, baleful, menacing) or sinister presage – and thence to an awful foreboding ... a reconciliatory (awing, humbling, reverential) or redemptive presage.

I am, of course, only speaking in such a cautionary manner (and from personal experience) simply because you wrote of not finding much about what you were looking for on The Actual Freedom Trust web site.

*

RESPONDENT: Something else extremely intriguing I discovered while going into the instinctual passions was how the further ‘down’ into ‘my’ core I went, the more my senses were flooded with an altered perception of the environment, much like a buzz one gets from drinking, smoking, or getting high.

RICHARD: Yes, the less filtered all experiencing is the more brilliant it all becomes (is).

RESPONDENT: That led me to an interesting idea, that the sense of self in the body is nothing more than a biologically programmed chemical high of the body that simply happens to run full time, usually trapped under innumerable layers of social morals and values.

RICHARD: There is no doubt that identity at root – as a rudimentary feeling ‘being’ (an amorphous affective presence, an inchoate feeler/ incipient intuiter) – can trigger off all manner of chemicals ... yet to conflate cause (a biological programme) and effect (a chemical high) could lead to a treating of the symptoms and not the disease itself.

RESPONDENT: Having understood this, the appeal of having a self severely diminishes.

RICHARD: Sure ... what about the appeal of being a self, though?

RESPONDENT: How can one say that a certain wished-for lifestyle (things to do and places to be) is part of somebody’s unique characteristics or bodily wants and not an identity imagined paradise? e.g. somebody likes and is attracted to the misty, cold and snowy Scotland Highlands yet he lives near the tropics or vice-versa.

RICHARD: As the entire globe is an actual paradise it is simply a matter of feasibility (availability of water, food, and shelter), ease of lifestyle (access to various creature comforts) and preference (the aesthetic appeal of particular scenic attributes for example) as to which part of paradise one lives in ... speaking personally it is a matter of sensibility to live in a warmer clime, rather than a colder one, and a matter of utility to live in the particular country of which I not only speak the language fluently but am very familiar with the legal laws and social protocols its citizens conduct and comport themselves by.

RESPONDENT: Where is the boundary between instinctive drives and bodily needs and desires?

RICHARD: The bodily needs – there are no bodily desires – can be summarised as follows:

(1) air;
(2) water;
(3) food;
(4) shelter;
(5) clothing (if the weather be inclement).

Virtually anything else deemed a need is an instinctive drive (an urge, an impulse, a compulsion) and being affective anything instinctual can be readily distinguished by its emotional/passional nature ... desire, for instance.

RESPONDENT: Is the example above the outcome of one’s instinctive urge to desire or should it be considered a ‘sensible’ bodily desire?

RICHARD: A general rule of thumb is: if it is a preference it is a self-less inclination; if it is an urge it is a self-centred desire.

RESPONDENT: I am not baiting you, this is an honest inquiry into the state you claim to be in, but take it as Thou Wilt.

RICHARD: Hmm ... thy ‘Thou’ will be wilting like all get-out if you read what is being said with both eyes. You will find that what is written is a factual report that clearly explicates how the human condition came about and how to free oneself from it ... and clear description of life in this actual world where peace-on-earth already always is. It is possible.

RESPONDENT: Thank you for explaining your state, I am listening. I am curious, are you without Will?

RICHARD: I am most definitely without ‘Will’. I have discovered a new way to live life on this verdant planet ... which eliminates the need to humble oneself in a degrading surrender and servitude to some imagined deity. Gone now are the days of having to assiduously practice humility and pacifism in an ultimately futile attempt to become free by transcending the opposites ... the traditional and narrow path of denial and fantasy, negation and hallucination.

A wide and wondrous path of blitheness and gaiety is now available for one who wishes to live in the freedom of the actual world.

RESPONDENT: And once again, who is wanting to go beyond?

RICHARD: Whosoever reads this and has it strike a chord.

RESPONDENT: Want is desire.

RICHARD: Yes, the ‘I’ that was revved up desire like ‘he’ had never desired before ... only ‘he’ channelled all of ‘his’ desire into enabling the already always existing peace-on-earth to become apparent through ‘his’ demise. And ‘he’ succeeded.

RESPONDENT: Desire is ego.

RICHARD: Oh yes ... and the ego has a job to do: When ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life.

This is altruism ... pure and simple.

RESPONDENT: And once again, who is wanting to go beyond?

RICHARD: Whosoever reads this and has it strike a chord.

RESPONDENT: Side-stepped again. I was asking what part in YOU is wanting to go beyond.

RICHARD: It would seem that there is a mix-up as to timing and the sequence of events. Briefly, in 1981, ‘I’ as ego went beyond normal (ego death) resulting in the abnormal state; in 1992 ‘me’ as soul went beyond abnormal (soul death) resulting in the third alternative ... which I choose to call an actual freedom.

All I want now is for my fellow human beings to become free of the human condition themselves ... this is my sole reason for writing. You see, peace-on-earth is already always here – here in this actual world – and no one needs to invent it. It is all a matter of entering into it; making it apparent; allowing it to emerge; watching it unfold ... or whatever description. Everyone is either rushing about trying to make an imitation peace ... or sitting back moaning and groaning about the inequity of it all. I did not devise, concoct or contrive this peace-on-earth ... it is already always here – as it already has been and always will be – as we live in a perfect universe. I discovered it, that is all ... and it being so perfect that I wished to inform my fellow human beings of its existence.

What they do with this information is their business.

Because none of this matters much when one is already living in the actual world. In an actual freedom, life is experienced as being perfect as-it-is. One knows that one is living in a beneficent universe ... and that is what actually counts. The self-imposed iniquities that ail the people, who stubbornly wish to remain denizens of the real world, fail to impinge upon the blitheness and benignity of one who lives in the vast scheme of things. The universe does not force anyone to be happy and harmless, to live in peace and ease, to be free of sorrow and malice. It is a matter of personal choice as to which way one will travel. Humans, being as they are, will probably continue to tread the ‘Tried and True’ paths, little realising that they are the tried and failed ways. There is none so contumacious as a self-righteous soul who is convinced that they know the way to live ... as revealed in their ancient and revered sacred scriptures and cherished secular philosophies.

So be it.

RESPONDENT: If I follow what you have said, you are intelligence and the senses. I do not think that the senses have wants, are you saying that intelligence has wants?

RICHARD: I am this physical (sensate and reflective flesh and blood body) being apperceptively aware: with no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul lurking around inside this body stuffing up the works, then this body’s intelligence can operate freely. As it is silly to have to have locks on the doors and bars on the windows and judges and juries and gaols and police forces and military forces and customs officers and so on and so on all maintaining a semblance of law and order at the point of a gun when we could all be living together in peace and harmony then yes, ‘that intelligence has wants’ ... and very sensible, reasonable and practical wants. This kind of thinking and reasoning is what intelligence is very good at when not crippled by ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ and ‘my’ precious feelings. If you are going to object to peace-on-earth just because ‘that intelligence has wants’ ... then you have a long, long way to go before you can even begin to understand what freedom means.

*

RESPONDENT: There was an awareness of the insufficiency of the ‘abnormal’ state that you were in with a desire to change that state.

RICHARD: Prior to 1992 there was a marked awareness that the altered state of consciousness known as spiritual enlightenment was a delusion and that over the last 5,000 years of recorded history – and perhaps 50,000 years of prehistory – this state has been held up as being the summum bonum of human experience. I personally experienced this hallucinatory ‘Deathless State’ to be an institutionalised insanity.

RESPONDENT: Time and anticipation were involved, were they not?

RICHARD: Time and anticipation is involved in all endeavours ... one would never start doing something worthwhile (like enabling peace-on-earth) if one did not expect results.

RESPONDENT: Nay, the seeker just wants.

RICHARD: Not for nothing do I say ‘I’ am desire and desire is ‘me’ (desire is one of the instinctual passions). Yet one can harness this powerful affective energy so as to bring about what one actually longs for: perfect peace and understanding.

*

The injunctions from the bodiless entities (which is what these ‘do not seek’ or ‘do not desire’ psittacisms are) are not easy to put into practice. Speaking personally, the ‘I that was inhabiting this body all those years ago sought like all get-out ... ‘he’ desired peace-on-earth like ‘he’ had never desired anything before. And now I am freed to be here ... each moment again.

RESPONDENT: Yes, two things stand out: pure intent and don’t possess it. I am looking at pure intent to see if I have it and I am on guard to not pursue it or possess it.

RICHARD: You say that ‘two things stand out’ ... yet you slip in a third thing as if I had said it (‘to not pursue it’) when it is really ‘ancient wisdom’ that promotes that view. Speaking personally, the ‘I’ that was pursued it like ‘he’ had never pursued anything before ... ‘he’ made it the number one priority in ‘his’ life. ‘He’ was a married man, with four children, running ‘his’ own business, with a house mortgage to pay off and a car on hire purchase ... in other words: normal. And all the while that ‘he’ pursued it, ‘he’ was working twelve-fourteen hour days, six-seven days a week ... yet ‘his’ pursuit of peace-on-earth took absolute precedence over all other matters and dominated ‘his’ every moment (‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’). I do not see how someone can become free of the human condition without becoming what one’s peers would call ‘obsessed’ (for that is how a 100% commitment is actively discouraged by others) and adopting instead a duplicitous ‘I will not pursue that which I desire’ attitude. It is unbelievably delicious to devote oneself wholeheartedly to such a valuable goal as peace-on-earth ... one starts to feel ‘alive’ for the very first time. Such dedication (‘he’ called it the ‘boots and all’ approach at the time) makes one’s petty life worthwhile after all ... ‘he’ went out in a blaze of glory.

However, you are not the only person adopting this stance of not pursuing it ... there are others on this Mailing List that like to think that by feigning a non-pursuit that they will achieve something. Just how this sleight-of-hand (or should I say sleight-of-mind) is going to be efficacious in bringing about the desired result remains to be seen. Nevertheless, such dissimulation is not unknown ... some Buddhists too, indulge in a similar craftiness. They pretend that they do not desire Nirvana ... in the hope that they will thus achieve it. Some Christians, maintaining that to be alive is to remain a sinner, manifest a spurious humility in order to be worthy of God’s Grace and admission into Heaven whilst all the while saying that they are not worthy. Some Hindus maintain that by not enjoying the fruits of their labour they will gain the ultimate fruit of such labour ... called Moksha. The same sort of sanctimony holds true for many other religions and disciplines.

And so, 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 go on for ever and a day.

RESPONDENT No. 39: Yes, two things stand out: pure intent and don’t possess it. I am looking at pure intent to see if I have it and I am on guard to not pursue it or possess it.

RICHARD: You say that ‘two things stand out’ ... yet you slip in a third thing as if I had said it (‘to not pursue it’ ) when it is really ‘ancient wisdom’ that promotes that view. Speaking personally, the ‘I’ that was pursued it like ‘he’ had never pursued anything before ... ‘he’ made it the number one priority in ‘his’ life. ‘He’ was a married man, with four children, running ‘his’ own business, with a house mortgage to pay off and a car on hire purchase ... in other words: normal. And all the while that ‘he’ pursued it, ‘he’ was working twelve-fourteen hour days, six-seven days a week ... yet ‘his’ pursuit of peace-on-earth took absolute precedence over all other matters and dominated ‘his’ every moment (‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’).

RESPONDENT: Eido Rochi of Dai Bosatsu Zendo once said to us (mid 80s) that if we want enlightenment, we must want it as a drowning man wants air; that the closer we come to it, the more compelling it will be, of itself.

RICHARD: Yes, ‘compelling’ indeed ... once started in earnest (which means launching the sincere 100% commitment that one’s peers will call ‘obsessive’ so as to adroitly avoid having to do so themselves) a thrilling momentum takes over and one is impelled ineluctably to one’s destiny. One is finally out from being under control ... which is perhaps why so many hesitate to take that first and final step.

What an adventure it is to be alive!

RICHARD: Global peace can only come about when there are five point eight billion individual ‘outbreaks’ of peace-on-earth.

Do not hold your breath waiting for global peace.

RESPONDENT: Isn’t that another wishful thinking? Another concept like ‘perfection’? Another goal?

RICHARD: If you do not want peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this body ... then you will never get it. Please, whatever you do, throw faith, belief, trust and hope right out of the window ... along with doubt, disbelief, distrust and despair ... and go for the actuality of peace and perfection ‘boots and all’. Use all of your determination – gather up all the intent you can muster and more – and jump in the deep end without a life-jacket.

Desire it like you have never desired anything before.

RESPONDENT: I have distinct memory of a lot Krishnamurti’s general phrases, words, and meaning. One instance of a Krishnamurti statement was that most people just don’t want ‘it’ (freedom) enough ... to do what it takes to know that freedom. Did you ‘want’ that freedom more than anything else in the world; is that why you left civilization behind and went to the island?

RICHARD: Yes, one has to want it like one has never wanted anything else before ... so much so that all the instinctual passionate energy of desire, normally frittered away on petty desires, is fuelling and impelling/propelling one into this thing and this thing only (‘impelling’ as in a pulling from the front and ‘propelling’ as in being pushed from behind). There is a ‘must’ to it (one must do it/it must happen) and a ‘will’ to it (one will do it/it will happen) and one is both driven and drawn until there is an inevitability that sets in. Now it is unstoppable and all the above ceases of its own accord ...one is unable to distinguish between ‘me’ doing it and it happening to ‘me’.

One has escaped one’s fate and achieved one’s destiny.

RESPONDENT: Now, on another track, I read a little of Professor Steven Reiss’s theory of desires mentioned on the mailing list a few days ago. I agree that the desire for immortality should be added, but what do you think of the rest of his list?

RICHARD: Speaking personally I found the questionnaire to be structured in such a way as to produce the desired (no pun intended) result ... just for starters there is not the option to answer ‘not at all’. Viz.:

• ‘Rate yourself as follows: describes me strongly (+), somewhat (0), or very little (-)’. (www.mtsu.edu/~socwork/frost/crazy/happinesstest.htm).

Needless is it to say I would answer ‘not at all’ to each and every question? Most of the questions are loaded and/or slanted questions designed to elicit desire-based values ... to take the very first one as an example:

1. Curiosity ... I have a thirst for knowledge ... ( ) (www.mtsu.edu/~socwork/frost/crazy/happinesstest.htm).

Question No. 1 turns any interest, in what life has to offer, into a desire-based value by using the word ‘thirst’ (a de facto word for desire) ... and other questions are peppered with similar noms de guerre (‘I love to eat ...’, ‘I love learning ...’, ‘I hate throwing things away ...’, ‘I often seek ...’, ‘I am very concerned ...’, and so on. My guess is that this loaded/slanted structuring is because Mr. Steven Reiss (a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Ohio State University) defines felicity this way:

• ‘Harvard social psychologist William McDougall wrote that people can be happy while in pain and unhappy while experiencing pleasure. To understand this, two kinds of happiness must be distinguished: feel-good and value-based. Feel-good happiness is sensation-based pleasure. When we joke around or have sex, we experience feel-good happiness. Since feel-good happiness is ruled by the law of diminishing returns, the kicks get harder to come by. This type of happiness rarely lasts longer than a few hours at a time. Value-based happiness is a sense that our lives have meaning and fulfil some larger purpose. It represents *a spiritual source of satisfaction*, stemming from our deeper purpose and values. We experience value-based happiness when we satisfy any of the 16 basic desires – the more desires we satisfy, the more value-based happiness we experience. Since this form of happiness is not ruled by the law of diminishing returns, there is no limit to how meaningful our lives can be. (...) Value-based happiness is the great equalizer in life. You can find value-based happiness if you are rich or poor, smart or mentally challenged, athletic or clumsy, popular or socially awkward. Wealthy people are not necessarily happy, and poor people are not necessarily unhappy. Values, not pleasure, are what bring true happiness, and everybody has the potential to live in accordance with their values’. [emphasis added]. (‘Psychology Today’, Jan/Feb 2001, pp. 50-6).

Mr. Vijai Sharma (a Clinical Psychologist of 30 years practice) addresses this self-same point after presenting Mr. Steven Reiss’ thesis:

• ‘Pursuit of right values brings happiness. Pleasure and happiness are often opposite. Hence, pursuit of pleasure for sake of pleasure is bound to create unhappiness in time. Strive for value-based happiness. People who should be called ‘successful’ are those who constantly turn to family, relationships, faith, careers and clean fun and leisure to satisfy their most important desires. When we feel our lives have meaning, which is to fulfil a deeper and larger purpose in the universe,* we experience a spiritual satisfaction. Without spiritual satisfaction, a life is not truly lived*. [emphasis added]. (www.mindpub.com/art387.htm).

He then expands upon what spirituality means to him (as a Clinical Psychologist of 30 years practice) and thus, by extension, to his clients: http://www.mindpub.com/topic71.htm

It also appears that when mathematics enters the picture commonsense is nowhere to be found:

• ‘Reiss, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Ohio State University, has spent five years developing and testing a new theory of human motivation. The result of his research is published in the new book ‘Who Am I? The 16 Basic Desires That Motivate Our Action and Define Our Personalities’ (Tarcher/Putnam, 2000). After conducting studies involving more than 6,000 people, Reiss has found that 16 basic desires guide nearly all meaningful behaviour. The desires are power, independence, curiosity, acceptance, order, saving, honour, idealism, social contact, family, status, vengeance, romance, eating, physical exercise, and tranquillity. (...) How did Reiss come up with the 16 basic desires? He and Susan Havercamp, a former graduate student, generated a list of more than 300 statements that refer to specific desires people might have. Subjects in their studies were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with statements such as ‘I love learning new skills,’ ‘I must avoid pain’ and ‘I would rather lose my life than lose my honour.’ After testing more than 2,500 people, the researchers used a mathematical technique called factor analysis that grouped the responses into 15 fundamental desires. After testing about 3,500 more people a 16th desire (saving) emerged from the factor analysis. (...) Reiss said the research presented in Who Am I? shows that psychologists cannot boil down human experience to just one or two basic desires that we all share equally. He noted that *2 trillion different profiles can be assessed by the Reiss Profiles*. ‘Every person has a unique desire profile,’ he said. [emphasis added]. (www.acs.ohio-state.edu/units/research/archive/whoami.htm).

And just what does ‘2 trillion different profiles’ mean to him? Viz.:

• ‘These desires are what drive our everyday actions and make us who we are’, Reiss said. ‘What makes individuals unique is the combination and ranking of these desires’. (...) Reiss said parents of non-curious children [for example] should realize they will never be able to change their child’s fundamental nature. ‘It’s OK to be non-curious. As long as the child is not flunking and is meeting some minimum standards, parents should ease up on their expectations. By pushing a non-curious child to be more curious, all a parent is doing is ruining their relationship’. *The same goes for any fundamental desire*, according to Reiss. Workaholics may work a lot, not because they have some void or problem in their life, but because they have a naturally strong desire for power and status’. [emphasis added]. (www.acs.ohio-state.edu/units/research/archive/whoami.htm).

In other words: we are all unique/you can’t change human nature/its okay to remain as you are ... and there is, of course, no mention of the third alternative to feel-good (aka hedonistic) or value-based (aka spiritualistic) happiness at all.

Let alone harmlessness.

As a generalisation it seems that somewhere along the line psychology lost the plot (presuming there ever was one) and is, more and more these days, into appeasement (you’re okay/I’m okay/it’s all okay) and pacification via becoming comfortably numb ... to settle for second-best, as it were, by accepting one’s lot in life.

Also, there always was the spiritual dimension to psychology (Mr. Carl Jung’s intuitions for example) which dimension grew exponentially after the ’sixties generation trekked eagerly to the Himalayas, and to other exotic places eastern, to find the permanent drug experience ... and found cultures who had been practicing same for centuries, which (with the benefit of hindsight) has had predictably the self-same results: mystical ‘States Of Being’ that take one out of the physical world of the senses into a dissociative state of unreality ... replete with massive delusions of grandeur (‘I am That/Love/God/Truth/It’).

Put simply: transcendence is an institutionalised insanity masquerading as ultimate wisdom.

RESPONDENT: If you go for a walk, from where is coming this desire to go for a walk?

RICHARD: This is a loaded question and, as such, impossible to answer in its present form (there is life after desire).

RESPONDENT: And if you are making sex where come these erections, out of the blue?

RICHARD: No, engorgement of the genitals comes from tactile stimulation.

RESPONDENT: I again ask you to excuse me for the questions, but I try to understand.

RICHARD: Sure ... it would help your understanding considerably, however, if you were to take note of what I have to report (for example I notice that you have persisted in your ‘the perceiver and the perceived are one thing’ borrowed wisdom in another e-mail recently whilst regurgitating what you told me about the tree’s leaves being green).

There is no ‘observer’ to be the ‘observed’ here in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: It seems to me more logical, that if something like freedom of the instincts ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? An actual freedom from the human condition is a freedom from the instinctual passions – not the instincts per se – plus, of course, the feeling of ‘being’ (usually designated as a ‘state of being’) or ‘presence’ they automatically form themselves into.

RESPONDENT: ... must happen to humankind, then nature knows when and something will take place.

RICHARD: The identity who used to parasitically inhabit this flesh and blood body acted on the observation that an individual life was too short to hang about waiting for blind nature to get its act together (plus the human condition was already in place by being born replete with instinctual passions anyway).

RESPONDENT: Why must depend on you to change your nature?

RICHARD: Because at the current stage of evolution it is ‘you’ – and only ‘you’ – who can determine the fate of one flesh and blood body in particular and humankind in general.

RESPONDENT: Why you call nature blind nature etc and then you speak about beautiful universe unimaginable etc?

RICHARD: The term ‘blind nature’ is a well-known term which refers to the natural process of species propagation being survival of the species most fitted to the environment.

In short: it is not an intelligent process (the cognitive ability to think, recognise, remember, compare, appraise, reflect and propose considered action for beneficial reasons, which other animals cannot do, is intelligence in operation).

As I never speak about ‘beautiful universe’ your related query is a non-sequitur.

RESPONDENT: Do you think that the universe who created you or in your words the universe who is you experiencing its self, is less intelligent that you?

RICHARD: This infinite, eternal, and perpetual universe is not intelligent (except, as far as space exploration has been able to ascertain, as a human being) ... it is far, far more than merely intelligent.

Human beings value intelligence highly, of course, it being what has enabled the species to progress as far as it has thus far ... but to project this highly valued attribute onto the universe at large is anthropomorphism.

RESPONDENT: Do you think that you could explain to Iraqis when bombs are falling about to be free from their being?

RICHARD: Only if the person concerned spoke English (I have but the one language).

RESPONDENT: I find it logical that a jump will take place when is needed.

RICHARD: Nobody is twisting your arm to become free of the human condition ... all that blind nature is on about is survival of the species (and any species will do as far as blind nature is concerned).

Blind nature does not care two hoots about your condition ... the question is: do you?

RESPONDENT: My comments about shopping also were in the same vein. The pleasure of shopping is not merely due to handling pieces of plastic and paper.

RICHARD: The *sensate* pleasure of shopping is ... here is what I previously wrote (only this time juxtaposed with your query/comments):

• [Respondent]: ‘Is it possible that the pleasure you obtain from the senses and the mind (shopping e.g. *is not really a sensate pleasure*, you are just handling pieces of paper and plastic bags, it is imagining how you are going to enjoy these things in the future which is pleasant (at least for most people), is also just a habit pattern, and so a self-inflicted conditioning? [emphasis added].
• [Richard]: ‘... shopping (for example) is indeed a sensate experience ... for what is the very handling of pieces of paper and plastic bags (for instance), then, if not a sensate handling?

First of all, as I am incapable of imagining anything, let alone the future enjoyment of items purchased, it is impossible for me to obtain that kind of pleasure (hedonic pleasure) in any circumstance ... just as it is equally impossible to obtain its polar opposite (hedonic pain).

RESPONDENT: Imagination in this case meant anticipation.

RICHARD: Okay ... given that you (now) use the word ‘anticipation’ in a sentence stating that shopping (for example) is not really a sensate pleasure and that it is the anticipation, of how the purchases are going to be enjoyed at some other place than just here and at some other time than right now, which is what is pleasant at that very moment of handling pieces of paper and plastic bags (for instance), it would appear that what the following dictionaries have to say regarding that word could very well be appropriate. Viz.:

• ‘anticipation: expectant waiting: the feeling of looking forward, usually excitedly or eagerly, to something that is going to happen’. (Encarta Dictionary).
• ‘anticipation: contemplation or consideration in advance; the action of looking forward to something; (esp. eager or pleasurable) expectation.(Oxford Dictionary).
• ‘anticipation: the act of looking forward; especially pleasurable expectation (...) visualisation of a future event or state’. (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary).
• ‘anticipation: the act of anticipating [to look forward to, especially with pleasure; expect]; an expectation’. (American Heritage® Dictionary).
• ‘anticipation: expectancy; pleasurable expectation’. (WordNet 2.0).

As I am incapable of having the feeling of excitedly or eagerly looking forward to and/or having an eager or pleasurable expectation of and/or looking forward with pleasure to anything, let alone the future enjoyment of items purchased, it is impossible for me to obtain that kind of pleasure (affective pleasure) in any circumstance ... just as it is equally impossible to obtain its polar opposite (affective pain).

RESPONDENT: If you say you are incapable of anticipation, it would be altogether remarkable.

RICHARD: Not only am I incapable of (affective) anticipation I am also incapable of (affective) expectation – or any other word of that ilk you may substitute the next time around – and this is indeed altogether remarkable for it means that one is free to enjoy and appreciate the sensate pleasure that shopping actually is ... the direct, immediate, sensuous experiencing (which happens just here, right now, and nowhere and nowhen else).

*

RICHARD: Secondly, where there is no identity whatsoever all conditioning – be it self-inflicted conditioning, familial conditioning, peer-group conditioning, or societal conditioning – has nothing to condition and falls by the wayside (hence choices made are freely made choices and not just habit-patterns).

RESPONDENT: This is similar to the Buddhist position.

RICHARD: Not so ... I specifically said [quote] ‘no identity whatsoever’ [endquote] whereas Mr. Gotama the Sakyan only extinguished the shallower part of the identity (the thinker) which allowed the deeper part (the feeler) to expand unchecked into the fullness of its being.

RESPONDENT: That conditioning leads to the feeling of a separated identity (dependant origination).

RICHARD: As I nowhere say that ‘conditioning leads to the feeling of a separated identity’ (for that feeling is what one is born with) there are now two reasons why it is not similar to the Buddhist position.

RESPONDENT: If conditioning is absent/transcended there is no identity.

RICHARD: As I specifically said where there is no identity all conditioning has nothing to condition (and falls by the wayside), and not the other way around (as you have it), there are now three reasons why it is not similar to the Buddhist position.

RESPONDENT: But let’s discuss this interrelationship of identity and conditioning in another thread.

RICHARD: Why? Mr. Gotama the Sakyan knew naught of these matters that I report, describe, explain.

*

RICHARD: Lastly, the pleasure of shopping here in this actual world is indeed due to handling pieces of plastic and paper (for instance) only there is more to such handling than just the tactile sensation ... much, much more.

RESPONDENT: Of course, tactile sensation is just one form of sensation. My point was that the PRESENT sensations (in all their glory) are not sufficient for the pleasure one gets from shopping/sex. There is a thought process anticipating/remembering future/past sensations which makes shopping/sex so pleasurable (in the normal realm).

I wanted to make a correlation with the sexual pleasure. I can well understand someone not enjoying shopping in the form of anticipating future pleasure. I myself do shopping in the present moment without thinking how I am going to use a certain product (though certainly I choose the product based on my conditioning/tastes).

RICHARD: Where I wrote ‘the pleasure of shopping here in this actual world’ (further above) I was not referring to an identity doing the shopping ‘in the present moment’ (be it either with or without thinking).

RESPONDENT: Thanks for your time and effort. In short, once again: If you get pleasure from sex which is based on mutualness, it is not merely sensate. It involves thought processes.

RICHARD: Perhaps this may help: in the perceptive process sensory perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; cognitive perception is tertiary.

*

RICHARD: Here 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.

RESPONDENT: It is more due to the mental process which assures one of a certain enjoyment of the things just bought.

RICHARD: No, not where identity is no more – as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), where identity is in abeyance, or upon an actual freedom from the human condition (where identity is extinct) – as all pleasure is thus sensate-only ... the direct, immediate, experiencing which happens just here, right now, and nowhere and nowhen else.

RESPONDENT: Thanks for your comments, I really wish to learn.

RICHARD: You are very welcome ... and if all of the above is too much to grasp at once then, if nothing else, this is what is vital to comprehend:

• [Richard]: ‘... most, if not all, of your queries stemmed from you having ‘not been able to find a distinction’ between enjoyment as a normal person and enjoyment sans identity in toto (both the thinker and the feeler)’.