Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

RESPONDENT: I actually do have an active connection to pure intent ...

RICHARD: A rule-of-the-thumb check as to whether an ‘active connection’ currently manifesting is of the quality of the consummate nature inherent to pure intent, as reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, is by having the capacity at-that-moment to experientially ascertain, thereby, the verity of (for example) the following postscriptum.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: (...). P.S.: Also, briefly, in regards to your ‘armed rebellion’ observations: please be assured that not only will there be a ‘bloodless revolution’ (i.e., non-destructive) but it will be a non-disruptive transition as well – e.g., no food-shortages or fuel-shortages; trains, coaches, planes, ships, and so on, still operating, no loss of creature-comforts, &c., &c. – when the global spread of actual freedom/ actualism eventually takes place’. ~ (Message № 19801).

In other words, it is the consummate nature (i.e., the impeccable quality) of the overarching benevolence and benignity inherent to the utter purity of the pristine perfection welling ever-fresh as the vast and utter stillness of this universe’s spatial, temporal and material infinitude which informs, experientially, that a global spread of this completely original consciousness (a totally new way of being conscious) would, ipso facto, be both a non-destructive and non-disruptive transition.

Furthermore, there would also be the capacity at-that-moment to similarly apprehend, experientially, how it can now be said – as I happened to mention on a couple of occasions during the pre-arranged foregathering here, earlier this year, of half-a-dozen subscribers to this forum – that due to the overarching benevolence and benignity being demonstrably available immanently in human consciousness, nowadays both masculinely and femininely, and thus potentially accessible per favour naïveté regardless of spatial extension, there is no longer any reason why there cannot be a global spread of the already always existing peace-on-earth in our lifetimes. (More on this in those Footnotes № 5 and № 6).

In general, however, the usual way of verifying whether an ‘active connection’ currently manifesting is indeed pure intent as reported/ described/ explained is to find oneself being sincerely naïve, at the very least, if not to be naïveté itself (i.e., naïveté embodied as ‘me’) – and to be naïveté itself is to be the closest one can come to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’ (innocence is where ‘self’ is not) whereby one is both likeable and liking for herewith lies tenderness, sweetness and togetherness, closeness – whereupon one is walking through the world in a state of wide-eyed wonder and amazement, simply marvelling at the magnificence of this physical universe’s absoluteness and delighting in its beneficence, its largesse, as if a child again (guileless, artless, ingenuous, innocuous), with a blitheness and a gaiety yet with adult sensibilities (whereby the distinction betwixt being naïve and being gullible is readily separable), such that the likelihood of the magical fairy-tale-like paradise, which this verdant and azure planet actually is, becoming ever-so-sweetly apparent is almost always imminent.

RESPONDENT: ...(currently manifesting as a greater confidence in the effortless, benign intelligence that the PCE shows to be a genuinely viable alternative way-of-being) ...

RICHARD: Given you are now on record, with your unqualified sanctioning of [quote] ‘the effortless, benign intelligence that the PCE shows to be a genuinely viable alternative way-of-being’ [emphases added] as per the second item of four things you know to be true, is this now highly visible public acknowledgement – that what ‘the PCE shows’ is ipso facto ‘genuinely viable’ thereupon (such as to ‘know to be true’ by yourself, directly, for yourself) – to be taken as an annulment of that entire 30^th Oct 2010 ‘Dharma Overground Forum’ thread you entitled ‘Alexithymia: Absence of Feelings or Blindness to Feelings’ wherein you publicly maligned ‘the PCE’ itself, by thereafter associating it with that psychiatric condition officially designated as being symptomatic for chronic psychotic disorders, over a nigh-on thirteen month period (until the 17^th Nov 2011)?

Viz.: www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1201014

*

After all, what use is an ‘effortless, benign intelligence’ then – as a ‘genuinely viable alternative way-of-being’ that is – if that intelligence could not determine whether there be either an ‘Absence of Feelings’ or a ‘Blindness to Feelings’ even whilst thus being ...ha... not nocent sans nisus during those pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) you provided a bulleted summary of in that thread?

(Let alone upon an actual freedom from the human condition – where there are not only days, weeks, months and years but decades, even, to determine same in all manner of situations and circumstances, both leisurely and energetic, by both first person and third party means – but that is a topic most fruitfully discussed, of course, by the residents of Terra Actualis).

(...)

RESPONDENT:... so I actually have no need to be wary of feeling good for its own sake.

RICHARD: Indeed not ... besides which ‘feeling good for its own sake’ – as in, ‘it feels good to be feeling good’, that is – is conducive to engendering more, and not less, of what is rather plaintively depicted by that ‘a good time was had by all’ catch phrase (popularised in 1937 as the title of a book of poems by Ms. Stevie Smith) ... namely: a communal feeling of well-being (a.k.a., ‘community spirit’).

As in ‘the life and soul of the party’, for instance, there being nothing quite like a glum and/or grumpy party-pooper to cast a pall over festivities.

One of the very first things realised by the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body, all those years ago, was (per favour the indelibly-imprinted four-hour PCE of then-recent memorialisation) that the best thing ‘he’ could do for other people, at all times and in all places, was to cease forthwith being a miserable and malicious blighter, on whatever justifiable occasion it might be, and instead be someone always pleasant and thus engaging to be with, in all situations and circumstances, with the ultimate aim of having the overarching benevolence and benignity of the PCE become apparent, in the everyday/ workaday world, for evermore.

*

A further point to ponder: it must be patently obvious, surely, that there be a vast difference betwixt selfless caring (literally so, actually selfless, actually caring) and the self-centric caring of the real-world – that ubiquitous pathematic caring; that affective, sympathetic, empathetic feeling of caring/ of feeling cared for affectively, sympathetically, empathetically; that endearing feeling-caring of heart-felt solace and commiseration; that deeply-felt comforter and consoler of billions upon billions of feeling-beings – inasmuch as to affectively, sympathetically, empathetically care for and/or be cared for affectively, sympathetically, empathetically is to also be an enabler for, and a perpetuator of, those billions upon billions of feeling-beings, inclusive of your very own ‘being’ of course, to be keeping on, for ever and a day, being hurt, hurting, and hurtful.

RICHARD: (...). Yet innocence as a liveable actuality – an actual innocence (not the pseudo-innocence of those ‘State of Grace’ and ‘Blank Slate’ fabulations) in other words – is entirely new to human experience/ human history. [...]. Not surprisingly, the word innocent (as in, ‘harmless’, ‘innoxious’; ‘sinless’, ‘guiltless’; ‘artless’, ‘naive’; ‘simple’, &c.) stems from the same root as the word nocent (as in, ‘harmful’, ‘hurtful’, ‘injurious’; ‘guilty’, ‘criminal’, &c.) does ... namely: the Latin nocēns, nocent-, pres. part. of nocēre, ‘to harm’, ‘hurt’, ‘injure’, with the privative ‘in-’ affixed as a prefix (i.e., in- + nocent). Viz.:

• innocent (in′ȱ-sënt), a. and n. [‹ ME. innocent, innosent, ‹ OF. (also F.) innocent = It. innocente, ‹ L. innocen(t-)s, harmless, blameless, upright, disinterested, ‹ in- priv. + nocen(t-)s, ppr. of nocere, harm, hurt: see nocent]. ~ (Century Dictionary and Cyclopaedia).
• nocent (nō′sënt), a. and n. [‹ L. nocen(t-)s, ppr. of nocere, harm, hurt, injure]. I. a. 1. hurtful; mischievous; injurious; doing hurt: as, ‘nocent qualities’. 2. guilty; criminal; nocently (adv.): in a nocent manner; hurtfully; injuriously [rare]. ~ (Century Dictionary and Cyclopaedia).

RESPONDENT № 4: I actually do have an active connection to pure intent ...

RICHARD: A rule-of-the-thumb check as to whether an ‘active connection’ currently manifesting is of the quality of the consummate nature inherent to pure intent, as reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, is by having the capacity at-that-moment to experientially ascertain, thereby, the verity of (for example) the following postscriptum.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: (...). P.S.: Also, briefly, in regards to your ‘armed rebellion’ observations: please be assured that not only will there be a ‘bloodless revolution’ (i.e., non-destructive) but it will be a non-disruptive transition as well – e.g., no food-shortages or fuel-shortages; trains, coaches, planes, ships, and so on, still operating, no loss of creature-comforts, &c., &c. – when the global spread of actual freedom/ actualism eventually takes place’. ~ (Message № 19801).

In other words, it is the consummate nature (i.e., the impeccable quality) of the overarching benevolence and benignity inherent to the utter purity of the pristine perfection welling ever-fresh as the vast and utter stillness of this universe’s spatial, temporal and material infinitude which informs, experientially, that a global spread of this completely original consciousness (a totally new way of being conscious) would, ipso facto, be both a non-destructive and non-disruptive transition.

Furthermore, there would also be the capacity at-that-moment to similarly apprehend, experientially, how it can now be said – as I happened to mention on a couple of occasions during the pre-arranged foregathering here, earlier this year, of half-a-dozen subscribers to this forum – that due to the overarching benevolence and benignity being demonstrably available immanently in human consciousness, nowadays both masculinely and femininely, and thus potentially accessible per favour naïveté regardless of spatial extension, there is no longer any reason why there cannot be a global spread of the already always existing peace-on-earth in our lifetimes. (More on this in those Footnotes № 5 and № 6).

In general, however, the usual way of verifying whether an ‘active connection’ currently manifesting is indeed pure intent as reported/ described/ explained is to find oneself being sincerely naïve, at the very least, if not to be naïveté itself (i.e., naïveté embodied as ‘me’) – and to be naïveté itself is to be the closest one can come to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’ (innocence is where ‘self’ is not) whereby one is both likeable and liking for herewith lies tenderness, sweetness and togetherness, closeness – whereupon one is walking through the world in a state of wide-eyed wonder and amazement, simply marvelling at the magnificence of this physical universe’s absoluteness and delighting in its beneficence, its largesse, as if a child again (guileless, artless, ingenuous, innocuous), with a blitheness and a gaiety yet with adult sensibilities (whereby the distinction betwixt being naïve and being gullible is readily separable), such that the likelihood of the magical fairy-tale-like paradise, which this verdant and azure planet actually is, becoming ever-so-sweetly apparent is almost always imminent.

[...remainder of email elided...].

[4]the pure intent reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust web site: Viz.:

[... ...].

• [Richard]: “(...). One can bring about a benediction from that perfection and purity which is the essential character of the universe by contacting and cultivating one’s original state of naiveté. Naiveté is that intimate aspect of oneself that is the nearest approximation that one can have of actual innocence – there is no innocence so long as there is a rudimentary self – and constant awareness of naive intimacy results in a continuing benediction. This blessing allows a connection to be made between oneself and the perfection and purity as is evidenced in a PCE. 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. Thus reliably rendered virtually innocent and relatively harmless by the benefaction of the perfection and purity, one can begin to dismantle the now-redundant social identity. The virtual magnanimity endowed by pure intent obviates the necessity for a social identity, born out of society’s values, to be extant and controlling the wayward self with a societal conscience”. (Richard, List B, No. 31, 21 July 1998)

[... ...].

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

[5]being demonstrably available immanently in human consciousness, nowadays both masculinely and femininely. Viz.:

May 25 2013

RESPONDENT № 25: I find it particularly interesting that with more recent experiences of becoming free, for example Peter, Vineeto, and others you’ve related – there was no wall of fear or dread. The process was ‘matter of fact,’ ‘simple,’ ‘easy.’

RICHARD: That is because they all became (newly) free via the well-publicised *epoch-changing opening in human consciousness* designated as the ‘direct route’ on the “A Long-Awaited Public Announcement” web page on The Actual Freedom Trust website. [emphasis added].

Here are the very first words on that web page:

• “The directors of The Actual Freedom Trust take great pleasure in making public knowledge of a direct route at the end of the wide and wondrous path (now both gentrified and rendered secure) to an actual freedom from the human condition – a down-to-earth manumission [from Latin manumittere, lit. ‘send out from one’s hand’, and meaning release from slavery; release from bondage or servitude; set free] hitherto only available dangerously via spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment ...”. (Announcement 1).

RESPONDENT № 25: How can current actualists bypass such acute experiences of dread [as the awakened/ enlightened ‘Richard’ had] on the ‘path’ to freedom?

RICHARD: By tapping into pure intent – nowadays also personified in its feminine aspect (its masculine aspect became personified 30+ months after 1992) – hitherto only accessible via a PCE. (Richard, List D, No. 25a, 25 May 2013).

*

February 06 2012

RESPONDENT № 17: Does the experiencing of the vastness and stillness of the universe bring on the ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’ which then brings on the ‘sweetness’? Iow, does ‘experiencing the vastness and stillness’ of the universe come first?

RICHARD: (...) that ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’, which the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago experienced and named ‘pure intent’, *became immanently accessible* to some select associates during a specific situational setting called ‘The Second Convivium Gathering’, in late 2009/ early 2010, and was variously experienced by them as a “palpable sweetness” , for instance, and an “infinite tenderness” , for example, and has been more generally described as “being bathed in intimacy”. [...].

Thus to answer your first question: the direct (as in, immediate or unmediated) experiencing of the vast stillness of this physical universe’s infinitude – where the word stillness refers to there being no movement of time whatsoever (as in ‘this moment has no duration’) – is the way in which the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago became consciously aware of pure intent because, back in those days, there had not yet been someone of sufficient naïveté to enable that immaculate perfection to become purity personified. (Richard, List D, No. 17, 6 February 2012).

Which means that, these days, when that “palpable sweetness” (for instance) is experienced it is that ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’ being experienced, by virtue of that immaculate perfection having *become manifest in the everyday world* as a flesh-and-blood body only, as they are both one and the same thing in essence. [emphases added].

MARTIN: Hi Richard, from what I understand, pure intent is the over-arching benevolence and benignity which can be experienced temporarily in a PCE, and is still experienced by an actually free person but now on an ongoing basis (and that benevolence and benignity inheres to the purity and perfection of the vast stillness of the infinitude of the universe - that vast stillness being the stillness / non-movement of time). Naivete can result in a benediction (which acts as a connection with the purity and perfection mentioned above), but which can result in an immanent manifestation / variation of this pure intent as a “palpable sweetness” an “infinite tenderness” or “being bathed in intimacy”.

RICHARD: G’day Martin,

The first half of your second sentence obviously refers to the 1998 extract in Footnote № 4 further above – in regards to bringing about a benediction from the perfection and purity as experienced during a PCE – and the latter part is referring to the 2012 extract, in Footnote № 5 just above, about nowadays being able to experience that same benedictive/ liberative perfection and purity (which prior to late 2009/ early 2010 was available/ accessible only during a PCE) by virtue of it having become personified/ having become manifest in the everyday world and, thus, having become available immanently/ having become accessible in human consciousness.

Inadvertently running the two differing experiences together, with your “but which...” second half, is what has confused the issue somewhat.

MARTIN: I’m curious what made you equate these two experiences (the two forms of pure intent) as being “both one and the same thing in essence”?

RICHARD: The short answer: as that which each particular *then-existent identity* was experiencing (i.e., that immaculate perfection and purity personified) via those differing ways each feeling-being has of experiencing it, whilst interacting intensively in late 2009/ early 2010, is identical (as in, “one and the same thing in essence”, that is) to that very-same immaculate perfection and purity which was previously experienceable only in a PCE – albeit then directly experienceable as-it-is due to *identity being in abeyance* – then no such equating is needed.

Also, it is inherent to the benedictive/ liberative nature itself, of that immaculate perfection and purity personified which they were having those differing experiences of, that it be the one and the same thing, in essence, as that immaculate perfection and purity which was previously experienceable, albeit directly, only in a PCE.

It is, of course, primarily by virtue of this apperceptive flesh-and-blood body typing these words being the personification, the manifestation in the everyday world, of that immaculate perfection and purity which they were experiencing in those differing ways, that it is intimately knowable/ intrinsically ascertainable that it be identical, in essence, to that immaculate perfection and purity which the identity in residence all those years ago formed an active connection with, per favour numerous PCE’s, and which ‘he’ named pure intent.

(I have couched my central involvement in those events in that long-winded way – as in, “this apperceptive flesh-and-blood body typing these words”, that is – so as to pre-empt an involuntary automorphism operating due to my words and writings unavoidably being heard or read in a self-centric manner).

*

I will take this opportunity to clarify some ambiguity which may have accrued to this most important term due to varying ways I have referred to it, over the years, in different contexts and in response to different co-respondent’s world-views.

(I notice, during a computer-search of every word of mine publicly available, how my usage developed a certain looseness, over the years, due to my being too accommodating in differing contexts and/or to another’s ability to comprehend).

In regards to understanding the term’s agency aspect – the word intent (from Latin intendere: lit. to stretch (out); extend; direct toward) implies an agent with both the capacity to form an objective and the means to effect same as well – it will be helpful to first draw to notice an earlier section, in this email you are responding to, where I referred to pure intent thisaway:

• [Respondent No. 4]: “The other aspect [...elide 50 words...] and without an active connection to pure intent”.

• [Richard]: “This other aspect [...elide 148 words...] be it with or without an intimate connection betwixt the pristine-purity of an actual innocence and the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté (i.e., pure intent)”. (Message № 19928).

And because an actual innocence is entirely new to human experience/ human history, as reported at the top of this page, then the following text (wherein I also liken that “intimate connection” to a metaphorical ‘golden thread’ or ‘clew’) from 2009 is worth reviewing for some background information.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: “(...). The ultimate source of an actualist’s pure intent is, of course, the pristine purity of the innocence which prevails in the pure consciousness experience (PCE). For those who are unable to recall/ unable to trigger a PCE there is the near-purity of the sincerity which inheres in naiveté – the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’ – which naiveté is an aspect of oneself locked away in childhood through ridicule, derision, and so on, that one has dared not to resurrect for fear of appearing foolish, a simpleton, in both others’ eyes and, thus, one’s own. (Because ‘naïve’ and ‘gullible’ are so closely linked – via the trusting nature of a child in concert with the lack of knowledge inherent to childhood – in the now-adult mind, most peoples initially have difficulty separating the one from another).
Now, as ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’, then seeing the fact that it is plainly and simply ‘my’ choice as to how ‘I’ experience this moment – the only moment one is actually alive – is a first step leading to its discovery. [...elide 938 words detailing step-by-step how to develop a vital interest/ a vested interest and, thus, a sincere/ naïve intent and, thereby, how to be allowing apperception to freely happen...]. As to be apperceptive is to be having a PCE then the ultimate source of pure intent – the pristine purity of the innocence which prevails there – is now freely available.

!Open Sesame!

Incidentally, just before/ just as the PCE starts to wear off, if one unravels (metaphorically) a ‘golden thread’ or ‘clew’, as one is slipping back into the real-world, *an intimate connection is thus established betwixt the pristine-purity of an actual innocence and the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté*.

At least, that is the way it worked for the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body, all those years ago, inasmuch ‘his’ recall of PCE’s was a naïve remembrance [i.e., rememoration & presentiation; see Message № 19775 for context], rather than a cognitive memory, and ‘he’ thus experienced a constant pull, each moment again, into the immaculate perfection of the actual world ... and thus away from the contaminated imperfection of the real-world.

Being a ‘fatal attraction’, so to speak, it rendered the entire process virtually effortless”. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, No. 13, 21 May 2009)

In this context, then, as the term ‘pure intent’ refers to an intimate connection betwixt the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté and the pristine-purity of that actual innocence which is inherent to living life as a flesh-and-blood body only (i.e., sans identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty) then the benedictive/ liberative impetus, or agency as such, stems from and/or flows from that which is totally other than ‘me’/ completely outside of ‘me’ (this factor is very important as it is vital that such impetus, such agency, be not of ‘me’ or ‘my’ doings) and literally invisible to ‘me’ ... namely: that flesh-and-blood body only being thus apperceptively conscious (i.e., apperceptively sentient).

Now, as a flesh-and-blood body is the same-same stuff as the very stuff of the universe itself – inasmuch each and every one of its constituent elements, all of which are as old as the universe is as matter itself is neither created nor destroyed, come out of the ground in the form of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is digested, in conjunction with the air inhaled and the water swallowed and the sunlight absorbed —then what one is, as an apperceptive flesh-and-blood body, is the universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being; as such this ‘perpetuus mobilis’ universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.

And this is truly wonderful.

This intimate experiencing of an immaculate perfection and purity welling ever-fresh as the vast and utter stillness of this universe’s spatial, temporal and material infinitude is of a distinctive quality in that an impeccable benevolence and benignity (intrinsic to those properties as in pertaining to the very nature of absoluteness as qualitative‌ values) is all-pervading.

Around a decade ago I laid-out the properties, qualities and values inherent to the universe in a vaguely technical manner.

Viz.:

September 30 2005
RICK: Richard, could you list as many characteristics as possible that you would ascribe to the universe, please. Such as benign, infinite, wonderful, marvellous, eternal, a veritable perpetuus mobilis etc. As many as possible would be neat to look see. I’m just curious to read what the universe is and therefore what it isn’t from a pure consciousness experiencer.

RICHARD: The fundamental characteristic, or nature, of the universe is its infinitude – specifically having the properties of being spatially infinite and temporally eternal and materially perdurable – or, to put that another way, its absoluteness; as such it is a veritable perpetuus mobilis (as in being self-existent/ non-dependent and/or self-reliant/ non-contingent and/or self-sufficient/ unconditional and/or self-generating/ unsupported).

Having no other/ no opposite this infinitude and/or absoluteness has the property of being without compare/ incomparable, as in peerless/ matchless, and is thus perfect (complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate).

And this is truly wonderful to behold.

Being perfect this infinitude and/or absoluteness has the qualities (qualia are intrinsic to properties) of being flawless/ faultless, as in impeccable/ immaculate, and is thus pure/ pristine.

And which is indubitably a marvellous state of affairs.

Inherent to such perfection, such purity, are the values (properties plus qualities equals values) of benignity – as in, ‘of a thing: favourable, propitious, salutary’ – and benevolence (as in, ‘being well-disposed, beneficent, bounteous’, and so on) and which are values in the sense of ‘the quality of a thing considered in respect of its ability to serve a specified purpose or cause an effect’ ~ (definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary).

And that, to say the least, is quite amazing. Richard, Actual Freedom Mailing List, Rick, 30 September 2005

Hence my short answer, rearranged and enhanced somewhat, should now make more sense: being the personification, or the manifestation in the everyday world, of this universe’s absoluteness/ of its infinitude itself, it is intimately knowable/ intrinsically ascertainable that it is implicit to the benedictive/ liberative nature, of what my fellow human beings experienced whilst interacting intensively in late 2009/ early 2010, that those differing experiences be of the one and the same thing, in essence, as was previously experienceable only in a PCE.

MARTIN: Do other actually free people experience benevolence and benignity on an ongoing basis?

RICHARD: Upon a full actual freedom from the human condition, where one is that very benevolence and benignity personified, it is part-and-parcel of being aware/ of being conscious; with a basic actual freedom – such as my first 30+ months and Vineeto’s first 9+ months – there is that awareness/ that consciousness, of literally being benevolence and benignity, on occasion. One of the handful of daring pioneers living the basic actual freedom, for instance, has expressively referred to such occasions as being “the universe on steroids” (if that conveys something of its magical quality).

MARTIN: Has that replaced the experiences of palpable sweetness?

RICHARD: Upon a full actual freedom ... yes (essentially); living a basic actual freedom ... no.

I say “essentially” as there are occasions, when interacting intensively with fellow residents of Terra Actualis, where a particularly exquisite form of that ambrosial intimacy (sweetness, tenderness, togetherness, gentleness, softness, and so on) – with the nature of being utterly precious and first referred to by Grace as a ‘preciousness’ beyond compare – is most wondrously dynamic. These particularly marvellous occasions, being situational and not developmental, are part-and-parcel of life here in the fairytale-like magical paradise this verdant and azure planet actually is.

MARTIN: Or do temporary experiences of a palpable sweetness still arise (and if so is this in the absence of an ongoing experience of benevolence and benignity)?

RICHARD: This is where inadvertently running those two differing experiences together (with that “but which...” latter half of your second sentence much further above) has confused the issue; these “temporary experiences of a palpable sweetness”, in those Footnote № 5 emails, are specifically about the experiences which those particular feeling-beings had of personified purity and perfection – (i.e., an active pure intent was established per favour the (masculine) personification of that which was previously available/ accessible only in a PCE when identity is in abeyance) – all the while still remaining existent as resident identities.

Hence them having the “palpable sweetness”, the “infinite tenderness” the “being bathed in intimacy” type of experiences – rather than the “over-arching benevolence and benignity” experience of a PCE – as identity is in abeyance, during a PCE, whereas to be naïveté itself is when naïveté is embodied as ‘me’.

It is quite a remarkable state of affairs ... and totally unexpected.

Viz.:

February 11 2012
RICK: Were you, are you surprised at all by ‘the quickening’ and by the circuit connection formed between yourself and Vineeto when her freedom came to its ultimate consummation?

RICHARD: The first manifestation of ‘the quickening’ (on the 16th of November 2009) took me completely by surprise – totally and absolutely – as there had been no indications, no intimations whatsoever, that anything of that nature would happen; what you read on The Actual Freedom Trust website prior to that (about me being a normal person living a normal life, apart from being sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto that is, and having no interest in ‘guru-circuit’ peoples trooping through my front door [in hopeful expectation of an uplifting affective/ psychic ‘energy-field’ of some sorts], and so on and so forth) is precisely in accord with my, then, ongoing experiencing over all those years.

The second manifestation, starting 10-days after Vineeto became essentially the same as me (how I have been, on my own, all these years) did not come as a surprise – nor that significant existential event itself – as some-such outcome as that was our intent. I was very pleased, however, to no longer have to contain that immensity, that energetic immanence, which is of such a potency, of such a strength, as would previously (on some occasion) render me utterly passive, completely immobile and scarcely able to bear with it. (Richard, List D, Rick, 11 February 2012).

MARTIN: Also, is there any relation in your opinion between these forms of pure intent and what you call “the quickening”?[1]. Thanks. [1][Richard]: “...it is of a quality of such fineness that a fine-champagne-bubbles type of word my second wife (de jure) made up all those years ago – ‘tintling’ – seems to be most apt”. [endquote].

RICHARD: Indeed so ... thus far that calorific energy/ electrochemical potency, which feeling-being ‘Grace’ dubbed “the quickening” when ‘she’ arrived back from New Zealand in late 2009 and similarly initiated its activation, to full effect whilst intensively interacting, has been a feature peculiar to me, in its active operation, although there is no reason why a similar activation would not occur with regards Vineeto were a similarly motivated fellow human being to interact in a like manner.

In fact it would be odd if it did not (I am no fan of ‘freak of nature’ hypotheses).

Although the data-pool is way too small (a handful of cases), to reliably draw information from, there are enough indications already to suggest that the suitably motivated feeling-being – having become so vitally interested in and oriented solely towards the sensate world/ the actual world as to be naïveté itself (essentially, being out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being, with all of that embodied ‘being’ on board) and thus having a 100% exclusive focus on that one thing (i.e., their destiny) and that one thing alone – will thereby be psychosomatically exciting the ‘action potentials’, of virtually every excitable cell constituting the physical body unwittingly embodying that ‘being’, which excited cells generate an electrical field such as to innervate its activation in the corresponding excitable cells of this flesh-and-blood body, by that or as that very intensity of interacting.

I have declined to speculate any more than this quite spare skeleton of an hypothesis – my knowledge of electromotive force, for instance, is too meagre to proceed further anyway – but after nigh-on 23 years of being sans identity in toto/ sans the entire affective faculty (which includes, of course, its epiphenomenal psychic facility) I can categorically rule out any operant affective vibe and/or psychic current whatsoever.

‘Tis all quite magical in its effect, though.

RESPONDENT: G’day Richard, I’m a bit confused about Pure Intent here – since it is a life-force, does it exist only in living organisms ? Basically I’m confused with the usage of the word life-force because it is pretty obvious that Pure Intent is not just in living organisms but all the matter of the universe.

RICHARD: G’day No. 32,

No, not only as living organisms – as in, flora and fauna, that is – but as matter as well (which is what the constituent elements of all flora and fauna are, anyway, as per that “same-same stuff as the very stuff of the universe itself” articulation⁽*⁾ in the email you are responding to).

__________

⁽*⁾Jul 6 2015

RICHARD: "(...). In this context, then, as the term ‘pure intent’ refers to an intimate connection betwixt the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté and the pristine-purity of that actual innocence which is inherent to living life as a flesh-and-blood body only (i.e., sans identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty) then the benedictive/ liberative impetus, or agency as such, stems from and/or flows from that which is totally other than ‘me’ and/or completely outside of ‘me’ (this factor is very important as it is vital that such impetus, such agency, be not of ‘me’ or ‘my’ doings) and literally invisible to ‘me’—namely: that flesh-and-blood body only being thus apperceptively conscious (i.e., apperceptively sentient). Now, as a flesh-and-blood body is the same-same stuff as the very stuff of the universe itself—inasmuch each and every one of its constituent elements, all of which are as old as the universe is as matter itself is neither created nor destroyed, come out of the ground in the form of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is digested, in conjunction with the air inhaled and the water swallowed and the sunlight absorbed —then what one is, as an apperceptive flesh-and-blood body, is the universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being; as such this ‘perpetuus mobilis’ universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful". (Richard, List D, Martin, 6 July 2005).

The expression “life-force” – originally one of several English translations of the French “élan vital” coined by Mr. Henri-Louis Bergson (1859-1941), in his 1907 book ‘Creative Evolution’, as a hypothetical explanation for the driving force of evolution (élan = impetus, impulse, momentum) – has become a generic term meaning more-or-less whatever a writer/ a speaker chooses to have it refer to. For example, some 1920’s vitalism proponents gave “élan vital” a pronounced mystico-spiritual meaning (as denoting what is known as ‘prāṇa’ in Sanskrit) whereas latter-day evolutionists, geneticists for instance, were dismissive of any ‘driving-force’ hypothesis (in a similar way to the early 1900’s theoretical physicists’ dismissal of a luminiferous aether being the medium whereby radiant energy propagates through space).

As the word ‘life’ itself – just like the word ‘nature’ for instance – is also utilised in a generic (non-specific) way, on occasion, I am reminded of the following brief exchange.

Viz.:

October 05 2003
RESPONDENT № 50: In a PCE everything is magically animate, doing what it’s doing, in a backdrop of infinite depth and stillness.
RICHARD: Hmm ... “doing what it’s doing” is about as informative as ‘a rose is a rose’: in actuality (as evidenced in a PCE) it is stunningly apparent that everything is the perfection of the purity which infinitude is and, as such, is perfection personified.
RESPONDENT № 50: No principle, no agenda.
RICHARD: Ahh ... there is an agenda inasmuch as everything growing (aka ‘life’) is growing in purity as that perfection personified.
RESPONDENT № 50: ‘Life’ or liveliness is the way everything exists.
RICHARD: As maybe 99.99% (an arbitrary figure) of the universe is inanimate then “life” is not “the way everything exists”. For example, when some people talk to me about ‘nature’ they become somewhat bemused when I suggest that, as far as space exploration has been able to ascertain, there is no nature on the moon ... meaning that what life actually is is what flora and fauna are and not what rocks are.
Now, if by ‘nature’ a person means absolutely everything (as in “life” is the way “everything exists”) then the glass ashtray on my desk (being mainly silica) is as much ‘nature’ as the trailing plant cascading down from the shelf above the desk next to mine ... yet when I offer such a person a drink from a polystyrene cup they tell me it is not natural.
Generally speaking, materialism has that rocks are dead, lifeless (yet only something that was alive can ever be dead) whereas what actualism is on about is the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. (Richard, Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 50, 5 October 2003).

Thus when I first wrote, some 20-odd years ago in ‘Richard’s Journal’, that “pure intent is a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of...&c...” it is the dynamic factor implicit in the above “matter is not merely passive” observation that the generic term “life-force” refers to (élan vital=lit. vital impetus).

I could have as easily written something like: “pure intent is a palpable potency; an actually occurring stream of...&c...”, for instance or, for another example, “pure intent is a palpable puissance; an ever-fresh permeation of ...&c...”, because what is being conveyed by those words is the invigorative quality, or dynamic nature, of that [quote] “immaculate perfection and purity welling ever-fresh as the vast and utter stillness of this universe’s spatial, temporal and material infinitude” [#19982] which I spoke of intimately experiencing when this ‘perpetuus mobilis’ universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.

Viz.:

• [Richard to № 47]: “(...) what one is, as an apperceptive flesh-and-blood body, is the universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being; as such this ‘perpetuus mobilis’ universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.
And this is truly wonderful.
This intimate experiencing of an immaculate perfection and purity welling ever-fresh as the vast and utter stillness of this universe’s spatial, temporal and material infinitude is of a distinctive quality in that an impeccable benevolence and benignity (intrinsic to those properties as in pertaining to the very nature of absoluteness as qualitative‌ values) is all-pervading”. ~ (Message № 19982).

And those “qualitative values” referred to are detailed in the following passage where, around a decade ago, I laid-out the properties, qualities and values inherent to the universe in a vaguely technical manner.

Viz.:

• [Richard to Rick]: “(...) Having no other/ no opposite this infinitude and/or absoluteness has the property of being without compare/ incomparable, as in peerless/ matchless, and is thus perfect (complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate).
And this is truly wonderful to behold.
Being perfect this infinitude and/or absoluteness has the qualities (qualia are intrinsic to properties) of being flawless/ faultless, as in impeccable/ immaculate, and is thus pure/ pristine.
And which is indubitably a marvellous state of affairs.
Inherent to such perfection, such purity, are the values (properties plus qualities equals values) of benignity – as in, ‘of a thing: favourable, propitious, salutary’ – and benevolence (as in, ‘being well-disposed, beneficent, bounteous’, and so on) and which are values in the sense of ‘the quality of a thing considered in respect of its ability to serve a specified purpose or cause an effect’ ~ (definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary).
And that, to say the least, is quite amazing”. (Richard, Actual Freedom Mailing List, Rick, 30 September 2005).

‘Tis a great adventure we are all engaged in, eh?

Regards
Richard

P.S: Given your long-standing issue regarding what you have previously referred to as “the benevolence aspect”, of the actual world/ the universe itself, I will take this opportunity to remind you of the postscriptum to a 2013 post of mine, specifically addressed to your concerns in this regards, as its import may become more apparent on a second read-through.

Viz.:

June 14 2013

Re: Few humble words from Justine

RICHARD: G’day No. 32, [...elided 159 words...]

P.S.: Pleased to read your ‘Resuming actualism practise’ post (#13xxx) ten days ago and look forward to your further contributions.

Re your query about ‘the benevolence aspect’ of the actual world: perhaps if you were to think of it in a similar way to what is expressed in the phrase ‘a benevolent climate’, for instance, it might start to make sense.

Here are a few random samples from an Internet Search:

• [quote]: ‘... an ideal combination of fertile soil, high altitude and a benevolent climate ...’ [endquote].

• [quote]: ‘These destinations, and the benevolent climate, attract national and international visitors ...’ [endquote].

• [quote]: ‘... could not understand why residents of Southern California settled for widespread use of deciduous trees and shrubs when a benevolent climate could ...’ [endquote].

• [quote]: ‘The year-round agriculture and benevolent climate gives distinct seasonal character to this area ...’ [endquote].

• [quote]: ‘Abundant natural resources with benevolent climate is the primary source of this historical prosperity ...’ [endquote].

Of course, I mean it in much more than a ‘conducive to life’/ ‘conducive to growth’ sense ... oft-times expressed by me as ‘I am swimming in largesse’, for example, so as to convey the super-abundance of life, here, in this pristine paradise which this verdant and azure planet is in actuality. Viz.:

• [Richard]: (...) this actual world, the world of the senses, is indeed characterised by benevolence and benignity (there is neither cruelness nor horrors in actuality). However, in the real world, the world of the psyche, any such kindly disposition – as in being well-disposed, bountiful, liberal, bounteous, beneficent (aka benevolent) and being favourable, propitious, salutary (aka benign) – being not readily apparent, as in directly experienceable, requires naiveté for its intellectual ascertainment.

I am, of course, using the word ‘kindly’ in its Oxford Dictionary ‘acceptable, agreeable, pleasant; spec. (of climate, conditions, etc.) benign, favourable to growth’ meaning ... and which I generally express by saying I am swimming in largesse.

For example:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘In the PCE, there is a clear sense that something of momentous importance is happening, at least it seemed that way for me. The excellence experience, if not labelled such, might seem to be an experience of exceptional clarity and lucidity. With the PCE, words like bounteousness, bursting, pouring forth, vibrant, clear, alive, animate, come to mind.

• [Richard]: ‘The words ‘exceptional clarity and lucidity’ strikes me as being a very good description of the distinction when compared with ‘bounteousness, bursting, pouring forth’ and so on as I am swimming in largesse’. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, Gary, 15 August 2000)

Or even more specifically:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Does this [allowing a PCE to happen] take nerves of steel?

• [Richard]: ‘No, apart from spontaneous PCE’s (most common in childhood) it takes happiness and harmlessness: where one is happy and harmless a benevolence and benignity that is not of ‘my’ doing operates of its own accord ... and it is this beneficence and magnanimity which occasions the PCE.

The largesse of the universe (as in the largesse of life itself), in other words’. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 44d, 30 September 2003)

In short: I do not use the words benevolent/ benevolence and benign/ benignity as antonyms to the words malevolent/ malevolence and malign/ malignity (such as to require reconciliation) as the latter exists only in the human psyche. (Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 25j, 9 February 2006)

RICHARD: Footnote № 4: the pure intent reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust web site: Viz.:

• [Richard]: “(...). One can bring about a benediction from that perfection and purity which is the essential character of the universe by contacting and cultivating one’s original state of naïveté. *Naïveté is that intimate aspect of oneself that is the nearest approximation that one can have of actual innocence – there is no innocence so long as there is a rudimentary self – and constant awareness of naïve intimacy results in a continuing benediction. This blessing allows a connection to be made between oneself and the perfection and purity as is evidenced in a PCE. 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. Thus reliably rendered virtually innocent and relatively harmless by the benefaction of the perfection and purity, one can begin to dismantle the now-redundant social identity. The virtual magnanimity endowed by pure intent obviates the necessity for a social identity, born out of society’s values, to be extant and controlling the wayward self with a societal conscience”. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 31, 21 July 1998)

RESPONDENT: My understanding of this is that pure intent is the connection to the perfection and purity. Pure intent is not the perfection and purity.

RICHARD: G’day № 17,

(I re-inserted the text you quoted back into its context, above, simply for ease of reference and with your selection highlighted).

As I have previously likened the connection, betwixt naïve intimacy and that benedictive perfection and purity, to a metaphorical ‘golden thread’ or ‘clew’ – which I both commented on (parenthetically) and quoted in this very email you are responding to – does it not strike you as a trifle odd, upon considered reflection, that the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago (who coined that term) would call an allegorical ball of yarn and etcetera “pure intent”?

In other words, and keeping with the allegory for the nonce, unless that ‘clew’ be imbued/ suffused with the overarching benevolence and benignity (i.e., pure intent) it will remain but a lowly ball of yarn and etcetera and not attain to the status of ‘golden thread’.

Put simply, it may be as much a function of the way sentences are structured – containing as they do both a grammatical subject and object with various types of joining words betwixt the two – that it apparently can be read by some peoples as if it be the connective (i.e., “a thing that connects” ~ Collins English Dictionary) which is the pure intent.

RESPONDENT: Others here seem to be misinterpreting this and saying that pure intent is perfection and purity. Am I correct about this?

RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way: to be connected to the perfection and purity, which is the essential character of the universe itself, by contacting and cultivating one’s original state of naïveté – as that 1998 online extract in the above Footnote № 4 clearly conveys – is to be experientially connected (as in, “the state of being connected” ~ Webster’s College Dictionary) to that benefactive life-force, that ever-fresh welling of benevolence and benignity, per favour naïve intimacy (and consistent awareness of that naïve intimacy results in a continuing benediction).

And, as that extract goes on to convey, it is that benedictive perfection and purity which endows one with the ability to operate and function safely in society, without the incumbent social identity with its ever-vigilant conscience (being thus reliably rendered virtually innocent and relatively harmless by the continuance of that benefactive pure intent), in a way in which intellection/ mentation/ cerebration can never effect ... namely: experientially.

In other words, the living experience, the moment-to-moment experiential ‘tapping-into’ or ‘locking-onto’ the pristine purity of an actual innocence – which the flesh-and-blood body known generically as “[Respondent]” (albeit forever invisible to feeling-being ‘[Respondent (Nickname)]’ and all ‘his’ feeling-being interlocutors) is already living anyway – is to be ‘tapping-into’ or ‘locking-onto’ that palpable life-force, that actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity, already personified as flesh-and-blood bodies only (i.e., sans identities in toto/ their entire affective faculties) in actuality.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: “Incidentally, just before/ just as the PCE starts to wear off, if one unravels (metaphorically) a ‘golden thread’ or ‘clew’, as one is slipping back into the real-world, an intimate connection is thus established betwixt the pristine-purity of an actual innocence and the near-purity of the sincerity of naïveté.

At least, that is the way it worked for the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body, all those years ago, inasmuch ‘his’ recall of PCE’s was a naïve remembrance [i.e., rememoration & presentiation; see Message № 19775 for context], rather than a cognitive memory, and ‘he’ thus experienced a constant pull, each moment again, into the immaculate perfection of the actual world ... and thus away from the contaminated imperfection of the real-world.

Being a ‘fatal attraction’, so to speak, it rendered the entire process virtually effortless”. (Richard, List D, No. 13, 21 May 2009)

*In this context*, then, as the term ‘pure intent’ refers to an intimate connection betwixt the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté and the pristine-purity of that actual innocence which *is inherent to living life as a flesh-and-blood body only* (i.e., sans identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty) then the benedictive/ liberative impetus, or agency as such, *stems from and/or flows from that which is totally other than ‘me’/ completely outside of ‘me’* (this factor is very important as it is vital that such impetus, such agency, be not of ‘me’ or ‘my’ doings) *and literally invisible to ‘me’* ... namely: *that flesh-and-blood body only being thus apperceptively conscious (i.e., apperceptively sentient)*. [emphases added]. (Richard, List D, No. 47, 6 July 2015).

The directors of The Actual Freedom Trust expressed it all quite succinctly, in the following manner several years ago, when it became known that a certain closet-spiritualist who, having taken the connective (i.e., the thing that connects) to be pure intent, had publicly declared to all and sundry on the ...um... the Drama Overboard phantasy-phoresy how pure intent was [quote] “now gone - extinguished” [endquote].

Ha ... ‘tis just as well pure intent itself forfends that scenario ever coming to pass, eh?

Viz.:

• [quote]: “There really is no substitute for taking notice of what is freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust website.

And, speaking of which, the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust hereby recommend, publicly, that Tarin taps into that palpable life-force, that actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity, which originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself, because to be actually free from the human condition is to be that pure intent ... as in, to be that benevolence and benignity *as a flesh-and-blood body only*.

Put succinctly: there is no other way, than to be that, because there is no other actual freedom from the human condition (than being that)”. [emphasis in original]. (Announcement page).

Speaking of that flesh-and-blood body known generically as “[Respondent]”, perhaps the following exchanges, from another forum in 2001-2002, might jog some useful memories for you. [...]

*

Simply as a matter of chronologically-related interest: as that 1998 online extract, in the now much further above Footnote № 4, is sourced from the second-last article in ‘The Actualism Journal’ – ‘Societal Values are a Psychological Method of Control’ – then I can vouch for it having been written in late 1996. I started writing the first of those articles in late 1994 – the first twelve were written whilst I was living in a beach-front apartment located in an area of Australia known as the “Gold Coast” in the state of Queensland – and then took an 18-month hiatus before recommencing in mid-1996, after having relocated to Byron Bay in the state of New South Wales, with the last four articles being added-on in early-to-mid-1997.

The reason why I mention these dates is because, on page 38, ‘Richard’s Journal’, 1st. Ed. (page 40, 2nd. Ed.), in Article 4, ‘Pure Intent produces Total Dedication’, the following text appears (written two years earlier in late 1994).
Viz.:

• [Richard]: “My companion and I could not continue to live as before. I was already living in an Altered State Of Consciousness (ASC) and my companion had had – when we were still living on opposite sides of this earth – personal experiences of moments of perfection. These pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) which usually occur in a ‘peak experience’, as they are sometimes called, change one’s lives forever. In a PCE everything is seen, with unparalleled clarity, to be already perfect ... that humans are all living in perfection ... if only one would act upon one’s seeing. (...). They leave a lasting impression upon one ... which can take the form of a pure intent. *Pure intent is a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of benignity that originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe*. It is no longer a matter of choice ... it is an irresistible pull”. [emphasis added].

Thus up-front and out-in-the-open as soon as the term pure intent is introduced it is defined thataway. Then, shortly afterwards on page 55, 1st. Ed. (page 57, 2nd. Ed.), in Article 7, ‘The Social Identity is a Belief not a Fact’, the following text appears.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: “One knows, from the perfection of freedom from ‘human nature’ as evidenced in the PCE, that it is possible to live the actuality that is already always here. What ‘I’ do is unreservedly allow ‘my’ eventual demise to occur. It is not for the faint of heart or the weak of knee ... but *pure intent, born out of the connection between one’s inherent naïveté and the perfection of the infinitude of this physical universe*, will provide one with the necessary intestinal fortitude. And once embarked upon the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom, you are not on your own: *this perfection is with you all the way* ... but if you waver, you are indeed doing it on your own”. [emphases added].

All-up there are eleven reports/ descriptions/ explanations as to what pure intent is, including the above three, of which that 1998 online extract, in the much further above Footnote № 4, is the last.

And, as a related addendum, so as to assist in ‘joining the dots’: around 16 months or so after Devika (my de jure second wife) transmogrified into Irene (since deceased, leaving me a widower; nowadays a widower twice-over) she commenced a brief email exchange with feeling-being ‘Peter’ and feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ and I responded to the sections they either did not know the day-to-day truth of or, at that stage, have the requisite on-going experiential knowledge of (such as what extended and full-blown PCE’s provide).

The following section is particularly apposite in regards the key to success in attaining an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom.

• [Irene to Vineeto]: “To me freedom means to be free from the human conditioning (i.e. the belief in the man-made mistakes in their interpretations of being human and of nature in general). That what I had called ‘virtual freedom”.
• [Richard to Irene; 11th Oct 1998]: “Except that virtual freedom is derived from what Richard lived from March to September in 1981 [i.e., out-from-control/ different-way-of-being] and was epitomised by being as happy and harmless as was humanly possible for twenty three hours and fifty nine minutes a day. (...) I had experienced the universe’s perfection – *personified in a four-hour peak experience* – and just knew that it was possible to achieve peace-on-earth in this life-time as this body.

To live a virtual freedom one knowingly and deliberately imitates the actual insofar as is possible given that one is still human. It is *the pure intent to ingenuously live the actual* that imbues virtual freedom with its feeling of perfection and subsequent delight and joy. To be without *this connection betwixt naiveté and the perfection of the infinitude of this very material universe [i.e., this actual universe]* then any freedom loses its dynamism, its lustre, its brilliance, its vivacity ... its very here and now aliveness.

If you now wish to put a different slant on what you lived in the latter half of your time with me, then that is your business ... but maybe you could give it a different name so as to not confuse people. Just as a suggestion, perhaps you could use some other term ... like ‘relative freedom’ or something?”. [emphases added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom Mailing List, Irene, 11 October 1998).

To summarise: perhaps if you were to think of pure intent as being both (simultaneously) the palpable life-force and that (experiential) “state of being connected” it might make more sense, to start off with, as the experience is of them being one-and-the-same-thing ... to wit: an indistinguishable composite; as in, no such grammatically-induced subject-object connective dichotomy).