|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Sex
RESPONDENT: [...] And I had made some experiments during my actualism practice and I would appreciate to read your comments regard some facts I discovered in this adventure: [...] 2. My female partner said after some months of practice: ‘Your libido are too much to me!’. But we still married and happy together. So, if you permit one correlated impertinence: Why are you single now? RICHARD: As libido is null and void for me then being sexually active or not is purely a matter of preference. What this means in effect is that sexual congress, because of its utter proximity, has more to do with intimacy than anything else. Now, here is where it becomes quite an intriguing matter because, and as a generalisation only, women tend to place more emphasis on intimacy than men. Indeed, many a woman has bewailed the dearth of men prepared to make the big commitment required for such connubial accord. Yet they are deathly afraid of intimacy – the fear of intimacy is a subject most women have talked to me about – for it means loss of self. And therein lies the rub: the survival instincts can kick in big-time, especially during sexual congress, and the very opposite of the longed-for intimacy takes place (as in pulling-back, turning-away, closing-off, shutting-down, and so on). As peculiar as it may sound, on a purely intellectual level, the very thing peoples most want is the very thing they most fear. When their very survival (as an identity) is at stake all manner of weird behaviour can take place – to the point of utter bizarrerie – as is readily evidenced in the archived correspondence on The Actual Freedom Trust website. I have said before, and will say it again, how actualism is not for the faint of heart or the weak at knee as it requires nerves of steel to delve the stygian depths of the human psyche. Put briefly: unless or until such a woman comes into my purview being single, in this respect, will remain my ongoing status. RICHARD: As libido is null and void for me then being sexually active or not is purely a matter of preference. What this means in effect is that sexual congress, because of its utter proximity, has more to do with intimacy than anything else. Now, here is where it becomes quite an intriguing matter because, and as a generalisation only, women tend to place more emphasis on intimacy than men. Indeed, many a woman has bewailed the dearth of men prepared to make the big commitment required for such connubial accord. Yet they are deathly afraid of intimacy – the fear of intimacy is a subject most women have talked to me about – for it means loss of self. And therein lies the rub: the survival instincts can kick in big- time, especially during sexual congress, and the very opposite of the longed-for intimacy takes place (as in pulling-back, turning-away, closing-off, shutting-down, and so on). RESPONDENT: Very apt observations and understanding. Further more, the survival instincts, can kick in also because of the predator/ prey tendencies that men, inadvertently, display and their aloofness for intimacy. RICHARD: In normal men (and as a generalisation) ... yes, of course. Had I been born a female my response would have been couched in terms of how it is for a man/for men, in regards to sexuality and intimacy, during sexual congress with a woman actually free from the human condition. RESPONDENT: If you will indulge my question: is it possible still to have actual intimacy, even if the partner (man/woman) is evidently inhibited by self and survival instincts? RICHARD: Actual intimacy – no separation (no separative self whatsoever) cannot wax and wane/ come and go/ switch on and off here in this actual world (the world of the senses). Upon an actual freedom from the human condition an actual intimacy is the norm with every body and every thing regardless of whatever their or its current situation and circumstances might be. (Some peoples have looked at me blankly upon being informed there is an actual intimacy with, say, an ashtray or a polystyrene cup or a pebble or whatever). In terms of human sexuality, and due to its utter proximity, sexual congress sans identity/ affections is the exquisite experience of two flesh and blood bodies sensuously delighting in being sensually and sexually aroused. (As there are no identities in actuality I actually interact only with flesh and blood bodies; at times this can be quite disconcerting, to say the least, for any identity feeling itself to be other than illusory). Because it can take an incredible amount of willpower for a pulled-back or turned-away or closed-off or shut-down identity to override (psychosomatically) its bodily arousal, its body’s natural sexuality, the body’s sensual delight, that exquisite experience can continue until such over-riding succeeds in its quite perverse anti-intimacy aim and arousal diminishes, sexuality declines and sensual delight falls away to nought. In short: although reciprocity is never needed there is, of course, a preference for sexual enjoyment and appreciation be mutual. * RICHARD: Put briefly: unless or until such a woman comes into my purview being single, in this respect, will remain my ongoing status. RESPONDENT: You do not prescribe to fellow humans, but do you recommend the above sensible approach rather than ‘experimenting’ with fellow human beings to explore sexuality or actual intimacy? RICHARD: Oh, no ... not at all (that above approach is only in regards to an actual freedom from the human condition). No, on the contrary, exploring sex and sexuality is enormously beneficial: there is no better way, in my experience, for a man and a woman to approach such intimacy than sexual congress. For instance, back when I was a normal man I came close to the loss of self already mentioned on several occasions (in my first marriage) only to instinctively pull-back, out of instantaneous fear at such imminence, as it intuitively seemed she would thus take over my mind and make me her slave for ever and a day. It was not until after the four-hour PCE, which initiated the process resulting in an actual freedom, that it became obvious to me what such loss of self actually meant. Accordingly, I deliberately set out to induce a PCE via giving myself completely to her – totally and utterly – whilst hovering indefinitely on that orgastic plateau which precedes an orgasm (something which I had discovered whilst pubescent). And then ... !Hey Presto! ... no separation whatsoever. (Incidentally, rather than that intuitive fear of thus being her slave coming true it was quite instructive to have her then relate how she had been fantasising about a current heart-throb pop singer all the while I was giving myself to her totally). RESPONDENT: I am aware that PCE and EE are much more possible during sexual intimacy and congress hence the urge to experiment. RICHARD: Yes, indeed so. Both my third wife (de facto) and my second wife (de jure) were very keen to experiment. For instance, my third wife initially set out to explore her ‘wild side’ (to use the jargon) as she was most appreciative of being with a man with no limits – no limiting fear in regards the vast extent, and a near-insatiability at times, of female sexuality. Curiously enough, in the end it was her very own fear (of female sexuality) which set the limits. But, until then rampant sexuality took place morning, noon and night – all throughout the period of writing those millions of words to my fellow human beings – and much was uncovered/ discovered about female sexuality. She has a scale of quality in regards sexual experience: good, very good, great, excellent and magical.
To explain: togetherness is the companionship of doing things together – be it shopping, cooking, having sex, whatever – and pertains to the willingness to be and act in concert with another. A closeness is where the personal boundaries are expanded to include the other into one’s own space; this is a normal type of intimacy. A sweetness is when closeness entrées a lovely delight at the proximity of the other (although it can veer off into affection, ardency, love, oneness). A richness (aka an excellence experience) is where sweetness segues into a near-absence of agency via letting-go of control and one is the sex and sexuality (the beer and not the doer). Magical sex is where sex and sexuality are happening of their own accord – neither beer nor doer extant – and pristine purity abounds (an immaculate perfection). Ain’t life grand! * RICHARD: Curiously enough, in the end it was her very own fear (of female sexuality) which set the limits. RESPONDENT: Interesting. I am curious about the use of the expression ‘fear (of female sexuality)’ – because being with a man without any limits – as in limiting fear as you put it above, is liberating from the fear that female sexual identity suffers videlicet body image, self-esteem, social/ cultural/ moral conditioning induced guilt and shame of being wild etc. RICHARD: My third wife was already liberated from the social/ cultural moral conditionings (such as induced guilt and shame and so on) when she set out to explore her ‘wild side’ ... she was most uninhibited in that respect. What emerged, of course, was her ‘dark side’ (hence my ‘fear of female sexuality’ phrasing when characterising what eventually set the limits). Yet behind or beyond even that lay a much greater fear (giving rise to even greater weird and bizarre behaviour). As it is of such importance I obtained her permission to speak about it (she is currently out of the country for an indefinite period). One fine weekend some time ago we went on a boat-trip upriver; we were at anchor in a semi-remote spot and something happened to her, whilst having sex, which she unknowingly locked-away for nearly two years. And it was during those two years that the pulling-back, turning-away, closing-off, shutting-down, and so on, began to occur more and more (much to her mystification as her sexuality had been rampant). What first came out, during an intense conversation some twenty or so months later, was how she had seen that were she to further explore sexuality and intimacy via sexual congress with me she would surely go insane ... literally (as in a lock-up psychiatric ward). Yet underneath or behind that very real fear lay a fear so vast it can best be called dread (the remembrance of the ‘going insane’ fear gave access to what it was concealing or covering-up). Some three months or so later the final truth emerged: the sex was so wonderful, on that occasion upriver, it was frightening ... and frightening to the nth degree. For here all is immaculate perfection. * RESPONDENT: I have been rendered wordless since I read this. It is utterly and completely incomprehensible to me that such a turning away and shutting down can happen, having tasted the immaculate perfection. RICHARD: It is the very imminence, of immaculate perfection being the irrevocable actuality, which occasions the pulling-back, turning- away, closing-off, shutting-down, and so on, as only extinction lies ahead. (The way in which a PCE comes about is quite different to how an actual freedom happens: the former occurring via abeyance, of identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty, and the latter via extinction of same). Indeed, on many an occasion all those years ago (1981) the identity then inhabiting this flesh and blood body pulled-back in alarum, upon the intensity of pleasure reaching such an ever-spiralling momentum as to be mounting exponentially, only to later on chide himself (when back to normal) for not having the intestinal fortitude to have proceeded whilst the vital opportunity was presenting itself. Put succinctly: this which has been my everyday experiencing for all of seventeen years now – so easily experienceable in a blithe and carefree manner – was discerned back then as being of such a magnitude of intensity that nobody could possibly live that, as an on-going and irrevocable permanency, for more than five-ten minutes at the most ... whereupon physical death must surely happen. (Please remember that abeyance is not extinction; then it might become more clear and less incomprehensible). RESPONDENT: ‘Going insane’ is something I understand and very well applies to, let’s say, someone like me (for I am still working on my female identity, even when I have stripped moral/ cultural conditioning). However, turning away at the brink of such freedom means much more lies ahead. RICHARD: As what the much more which lies ahead, at that moment of imminence, is extinction, then all an identity can
do, in the end, is procrastinate. RESPONDENT: Richard, when talking with a female friend about your Journal she asked the following questions: 1) Were all three people in the three-way relationship with Irene, yourself and Grace engaging in sexual relations ... RICHARD: Yes, although the ménage à trois – ‘an arrangement or relationship in which three people live together’ (Oxford Dictionary) – started out as a platonic association for my current companion. RESPONDENT: ... (i.e. were Irene and Grace sexually active together, etc.)? RICHARD: As I do not have permission from my previous companion to publicly disclose personal information I will not be responding, be it either in the negative or the affirmative, to queries such as that. RESPONDENT: 2) Was there any hint that Irene may have been jealous of your sexual relationship with Grace? RICHARD: No, the fundamental, or pivotal, reason for what ensued is as detailed in ‘Richard’s Journal’ (of which my previous companion has had a copy ever since it was first published) and in various places throughout my correspondence ... to wit: having fallen in love with a person who loved another she energetically transformed that unrequited love into being Love Agapé ... and the rest is history. RESPONDENT: 3) Why, if you had a ‘perfect’ relationship with Irene, would you want to add a third party? RICHARD: This is the way I described how it all began:
My previous companion was, of course, well aware of such an intimacy. Vis.:
In short: the ménage à trois was initiated by, and primarily based upon, an actual intimacy ... and not sex and sexuality. RESPONDENT: I don’t remember this being covered thoroughly in past correspondence and now that I think about it, that is rather surprising to me. RICHARD: Oh? Are you not aware then, that were your female friend’s question to be asked in a world-wide context, rather than from a parochial point of view, it would look somewhat odd ... as in rather unusual or out of place? Mr. George Murdock, an anthropologist by profession, catalogued 853 societies globally: 83.5% of them permitted or preferred
polygyny, with but 16% (mainly western) imposing monogamy by law (yet which, by allowing divorce, permit successive polygamy) and only four
societies, out of the 853 catalogued, permitted polyandry In other words a ménage à deux is not the norm. Re: Question for Richard – Sexual freedom RICHARD to No. 6: As libido is null and void for me then being sexually active or not is purely a matter of preference. What this means in effect is that sexual congress, because of its utter proximity, has more to do with intimacy than anything else. Now, here is where it becomes quite an intriguing matter because, and as a generalisation only, women tend to place more emphasis on intimacy than men. Indeed, many a woman has bewailed the dearth of men prepared to make the big commitment required for such connubial accord. Yet they are deathly afraid of intimacy – the fear of intimacy is a subject most women have talked to me about – for it means loss of self. And therein lies the rub: the survival instincts can kick in big-time, especially during sexual congress, and the very opposite of the longed-for intimacy takes place (as in pulling- back, turning-away, closing-off, shutting- down, and so on). RESPONDENT No. 6: Very apt observations and understanding. Further more, the survival instincts, can kick in also because of the predator/ prey tendencies that men, inadvertently, display and their aloofness for intimacy. RICHARD to No. 6: In normal men (and as a generalisation) ... yes, of course. Had I been born a female my response would have been couched in terms of how it is for a man/ for men, in regards to sexuality and intimacy, during sexual congress with a woman actually free from the human condition. RESPONDENT No. 6: If you will indulge my question: is it possible still to have actual intimacy, even if the partner (man/ woman) is evidently inhibited by self and survival extincts? RICHARD to No. 6: Actual intimacy – no separation (no separative self whatsoever) – cannot wax and wane/ come and go/ switch on and off here in this actual world (the world of the senses). Upon an actual freedom from the human condition an actual intimacy is the norm with every body and every thing regardless of whatever their or its current situation and circumstances might be. (Some peoples have looked at me blankly upon being informed there is an actual intimacy with, say, an ashtray or a polystyrene cup or a pebble or whatever). In terms of human sexuality, and due to its utter proximity, sexual congress sans identity/ affections is the exquisite experience of two flesh and blood bodies sensuously delighting in being sensually and sexually aroused. (As there are no identities in actuality I actually interact only with flesh and blood bodies; at times this can be quite disconcerting, to say the least, for any identity feeling itself to be other than illusory). Because it can take an incredible amount of will power for a pulled-back or turned-away or closed-off or shut-down identity to override (psychosomatically) its bodily arousal, its body’s natural sexuality, the body’s sensual delight, that exquisite experience can continue until such over-riding succeeds in its quite perverse anti- intimacy aim and arousal diminishes, sexuality declines and sensual delight falls away to nought. In short: although reciprocity is never needed there is, of course, a preference for sexual enjoyment and appreciation be mutual. * RICHARD to No. 6: Put briefly: unless or until such a woman comes into my purview being single, in this respect, will remain my ongoing status. RESPONDENT No. 6: You do not prescribe to fellow humans, but do you recommend the above sensible approach rather than ‘experimenting’ with fellow human beings to explore sexuality or actual intimacy? RICHARD to No. 6: Oh, no ... not at all (that above approach is only in regards to an actual freedom from the human condition). No, on the contrary, exploring sex and sexuality is enormously beneficial: there is no better way, in my experience, for a man and a woman to approach such intimacy than sexual congress. For instance, back when I was a normal man I came close to the loss of self already mentioned on several occasions (in my first marriage) only to instinctively pull-back, out of instantaneous fear at such imminence, as it intuitively seemed she would thus take over my mind and make me her slave for ever and a day. It was not until after the four-hour PCE, which initiated the process resulting in an actual freedom, that it became obvious to me what such loss of self actually meant. Accordingly, I deliberately set out to induce a PCE via giving myself completely to her – totally and utterly – whilst hovering indefinitely on that orgastic plateau which precedes an orgasm (some thing which I had discovered whilst pubescent). And then ... !Hey Presto! ... no separation whatsoever. (Incidentally, rather than that intuitive fear of thus being her slave coming true it was quite instructive to have her then relate how she had been fantasising about a current heart-throb pop singer all the while I was giving myself to her totally). RESPONDENT No. 6: I am aware that PCE and EE are much more possible during sexual intimacy and congress hence the urge to experiment. RICHARD to No. 6: Yes, indeed so. Both my third wife (de facto) and my second wife (de jure) were very keen to experiment. For instance, my third wife initially set out to explore her ‘wild side’ (to use the jargon) as she was most appreciative of being with a man with no limits – no limiting fear – in regards the vast extent, and a near-insatiability at times, of female sexuality. Curiously enough, in the end it was her very own fear (of female sexuality) which set the limits. But, until then rampant sexuality took place morning, noon and night – all throughout the period of writing those millions of words to my fellow human beings – and much was uncovered/ discovered about female sexuality. She has a scale of quality in regards sexual experience: good, very good, great, excellent and magical. Good sex relates to togetherness. Very good sex relates to closeness. Great sex relates to sweetness. Excellent sex relates to richness. Magical sex relates to actuality. To explain: togetherness is the companionship of doing things together – be it shopping, cooking, having sex, whatever – and pertains to the willingness to be and act in concert with another. A closeness is where the personal boundaries are expanded to include the other into one’s own space; this is a normal type of intimacy. A sweetness is when closeness entrées a lovely delight at the proximity of the other (although it can veer off into affection, ardency, love, oneness). A richness (aka an excellence experience) is where sweetness segues into a near-absence of agency via letting-go of control and one is the sex and sexuality (the beer and not the doer). Magical sex is where sex and sexuality are happening of their own accord – neither beer nor doer extant – and pristine purity abounds (an immaculate perfection). Ain’t life grand! RESPONDENT: Hello Richard, Fascinating post, Can you please elaborate on: ‘(...) accordingly, I deliberately set out to induce a PCE via giving myself completely to her – totally and utterly (...)’ ? Me and my partner are currently experimenting with freeing our encumbered sexuality with little success so far and your comments might help in pointing us in the right direction. RICHARD: G’day No. 20, First of all, I never did respond to your very first post back in May this year (I was inundated with responses/ reactions I was ill-prepared for and many slipped under my radar). Vis.:
Apart from a belated thank you for your ‘welcome back’ message there is not much else to say so I will attend to your current request for elaboration on going about deliberately setting out to induce a PCE via giving oneself completely to one’s partner – totally and utterly – during sexual congress. As you have inadvertently snipped off a vital component I will re-quote the relevant section here in full for convenience:
It was only a few years ago that I found out that what I had discovered for myself, during an intensive masturbatory period from pubescence (12 years old) to my first wedding night (19 years old), had both names and descriptions ... to wit (unromantic) titles such as ‘edging’, ‘coitus reservatus’, ‘orgasmic brinkmanship’, ‘peaking’, ‘surfing’ (and even ‘male continence’ and ‘coitus sine ejaculatione seminis’). Here are a couple of examples: http://sexuality.about.com/od/tipstechniques/ht/edging.htm; http://tinyurl.com/sexual-edging (Incidentally, once I had regular access to the real thing – a willing hetero-sexual partner as randy as myself – that mono-sexual practice discovered while pubescent, being devoid as it is of intimacy with a fellow human being, rapidly faded away into a vague memory where it languished unrecalled, for around 14 years, until being resurrected for the purpose of giving myself completely, totally and utterly to my first wife). Now, to explain hovering indefinitely on that orgastic plateau which precedes an orgasm it may be of assistance to present it graphically: as an orgasm requires building up to a peak of sexual excitation, before tipping over the other side for a glorious slide down the slope on that other side of the mountain, it can be represented by an upside down ‘V’. As the aim is to prolong that exquisite moment prior to tipping over the other side it requires a slight pulling-back downwards, of sexual excitation when an orgasm is imminent; within seconds, once the sexual excitation stabilises, it can be intensified once more; again, upon an orgasm being imminent, another slight pulling-back downwards, of sexual excitation is required; and once that sexual excitation stabilises, it too can be intensified once more ... and so on and so on and so on. What will happen, upon much delicious practice – ain’t life grand! – is that the slight pulling-back downwards, of sexual excitation when the orgasm is once again imminent, becomes both easier and easier and less and less downwards; eventually there can be an easing back-and-forth, at the moment just prior to the orgasm’s imminence, along an ever-increasingly lengthening plateau at the peak; this can be represented by that upside down ‘V’ having a flat-line where there was once only an apex. Again with much delicious practice – my word life is indeed grand! – that flat-line peak can be lengthened indefinitely as the need to pull-back downwards decreases with experience; eventually there is the aforementioned hovering indefinitely on that orgastic plateau which precedes an orgasm with but the slightest increase/ decrease in sexual excitation; at this stage the upside down ‘V’ with the flat-line plateau – where there was once only an apex – can be representative by that flat-line plateau disappearing off either side of this page (with no sloping sides at either end to represent the slope both up to and down from that indefinitely prolonged peaking plateau). Please note that this disappearance of the slopes is vital as the aim is for there to be only that plateau and neither
climbing up nor sliding down ever happens; there is only the hovering indefinitely on that orgastic plateau when all else drops away. Once this is
established the sex takes care of itself and full attention can be paid to intimacy; with much delicious practice – oh how grand life is! – the
attainment of that endlessly orgastic plateau can be obtained within 60-90 seconds after penile penetration (provided there be sufficient sexual
stimulation just prior such as the oh-so-delicious soixante-neuf Now, the way to have intimacy unfold, in all its luscious wonder, is to be aware all the while (with that unique human ability to be conscious of being sentient) that your sexual partner likes being with you so much that they are willing to spend their most valuable asset – their time – not only being with you but having you inside them/ having them inside you (dependent upon gender) for this most physically intimate way of associating possible. In other words one is always aware, with that second-level awareness, all the while primary consciousness is sexually engrossed, just how precious this opportunity is as – out of all 3.0 billion women/ out of all 3.0 billion men (dependent upon gender) – this fellow human being has chosen you, and only you, to be so intimately entwined with. In short: having sex/ being intimate with her/ with him (dependent upon gender) is very special – so special as to be precious – and this very preciosity readily enables giving oneself completely to one’s partner – totally and utterly – during sexual congress. All this while the hands, fingers, lips, tongue and eyes can roam all about with much delicious kissing, nibbling, nuzzling, fondling, smelling, listening, tasting, touching, looking and all the rest which such a physical embrace, such physical proximity so exquisitely provides for; the neck below the ear- lobe, for instance, is an especial delight and to eventually indulge in never-ending open-mouthed kissing – at the heights of sexual arousal – is to be breathing each other’s breath in a most personal way of gradually depriving the brain of oxygen as to even further increase both arousal and intimate contact (togetherness, closeness, sweetness, richness, actuality). (Meanwhile, back at the sex taking care of itself, that hovering indefinitely on the orgastic plateau has catapulted one into what I chose to call a sexual world: another dimension, as it were, where sex and sexuality is virtually dripping off the walls; a sexual dimension where all you are is an enormous penis/ an enormous vagina (dependent upon gender) which has grown legs and feet to walk to food and drink sources to sustain itself/ yourself, and arms and hands to assist in that process, so as to have yet more and more of what it/ you is/ are here for at this particular moment (endless effortless sexual congress); a rampant sexual dimension where all other people and things have receded into the background; a dripping-with- sex-and-sexuality dimension where there is only this beginningless and endless moment where you both cannot ever possibly have enough of each other; a consummately durationless moment where all there is is you and her/ you and him (dependent upon gender) hovering on that endlessly orgastic plateau of supreme sexuality and intimacy). And then ... !Hey Presto! ... no separation whatsoever. Regards, Richard. * RESPONDENT: Thank you Richard for this elaboration, it’s both fascinating and helpful. I would like to clarify a certain point, when you mention sexuality, do you refer to the sex drive ? RICHARD: Yes, otherwise known as libido – a Latin word meaning ‘lust’ (which is an Old English word for ‘sensuous appetite’ according to the Oxford Dictionary) – or sexual energy ... as distinct from (bodily) sexual arousal. To explain: that sexual energy (as in feeling lusty) is an affective energy – libido, as distinct from sexual arousal, is an instinctual passion otherwise known as desire – whereas bodily arousal (as in genital engorgement, erectile tissue, lubricious fluids and so on) is only sensuous (as in sensate) or, more properly, purely sensual. RESPONDENT: Is this sexual dimension a dimension in which all the affective energy is directed towards the sex drive or is it a sensuous state with no or little affective components? RICHARD: That sexual dimension – a sexual world, so to speak, where sex and sexuality is virtually dripping off the walls; where there is only this beginningless and endless moment; where you both cannot ever possibly have enough of each other; where you cannot tell where the penis ends and the vagina begins/ where the vagina ends and the penis begins; where the distinction betwixt you and her/ betwixt you and him is as if non-existent – is indeed a dimension in which all the affective energy is directed towards the sex drive (or, rather, there is only that sex drive). (As I have already said, in another context (7786 However, and this is important to note, all this is taking place within the (physical) sexual act itself – the sensuous/ sensual bodily arousal condition which I clearly referred to (further above) as the sex taking care of itself – which operates of its own accord once hovering indefinitely on that orgastic plateau has been established. (Where identity is in abeyance, as in a PCE, or extinct, as upon an actual freedom, there is only the sensuous/ sensual bodily arousal condition as libido is null and void when a flesh and blood body is sans identity). RESPONDENT: I ask because I’m not really sure what role the sex drive plays in all this. RICHARD: The instinctual sex drive has a vital role to play in all this; because ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ then it is equally the case that ‘I’ am ‘my’ libido and ‘my’ libido is ‘me’. RESPONDENT: Looking forward to your reply. RICHARD: Good ... I am only too happy to expand on the topic of sexuality and intimacy as it is one of my favourite subjects ... and for a very good reason. Vis.:
The theme of man-woman interaction runs all through ‘Richard’s Journal’, for instance, as expressed right up- front in the Preface (before the Table of Contents). Vis.:
For the sake of emphasis I will repeat the essence of my first quote further above: as man-woman sexuality and intimacy is the
genesis of family it is, thus, the very core of civilisation itself. RESPONDENT: Richard claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone. RICHARD: If you could provide the passage where I said I prefer to have the company of a woman ‘instead of being alone’ it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: That it [the company of a woman] is a privilege etc. RICHARD: The ‘etc.’ is, in fact, none other than delight (see immediately below). RESPONDENT: But the very fact that he would consider it a privilege, that is, something which adds value to his life, belies the claim that the world is perfect as is for an actualist. RICHARD: This is what I actually wrote:
Nowhere did I say that it is something which ‘adds value’ to my life (thus belying that this actual world is perfect) ... and the odd thing is that all what is required is to just simply ask me, if it be not obvious, what I mean by it being a privilege to be living with a female companion. Just look at what your e-mail brought forth:
And on and on it went ... here is your latest:
It is this simple: there are over 3.0 billion females on this planet ... and one of them wants to spend their most irreplaceable commodity (their time) living with me/being with me, twenty four hours a day/seven days a week, for the remainder of their life. Now, that is something special (it is, so to speak, putting one’s money where one’s mouth is big time) ... hence ‘privilege’. To put it all into perspective: I have nothing to offer in the normal sense – no affection/love/adoration, no empathy/sympathy/commiseration, no high-paying career/house/car/money in the bank, no children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren (because of an irreversible vasectomy) – nor anything in the abnormal sense (no charisma/magnetism/radiant transmission outside of the scriptures, no enlightenment/awakenment/self-realisation through an intense master/disciple relationship) ... and nothing to offer in regards a singular dispensation in becoming actually free from the human condition (I cannot set anybody free). In short: a fellow human being likes me as-I-am – with no strings attached/no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive – for what-I-am ... and not for what I can give/do/provide/dispense and so forth. And this is truly marvellous. RESPONDENT: I mean, can there be an icing on a cake, a cake which is infinitely big? RICHARD: Indeed there can be (and dollops of cream on top of the icing as well) ... bucket-loads of it, in fact. Vis.:
And:
* RESPONDENT: My dialogue with Richard started with questioning about sex, but it degenerated into nit-picking over a thought experiment I proposed ... RICHARD: Hmm ... given that you said you would be [quote] ‘very much interested in actualism’ [endquote] if you were to be informed that it was enjoyable, here in this actual world, to kiss a perfumed robot, yet in the very next e-mail stated that you would [quote] ‘find it quite pathological if a person imagined having sex with a dead body/ robot’ [endquote], is it any wonder I drew that blatant dichotomy to your attention? To cavalierly dismiss clarity in communication as being nit-picking RESPONDENT: ... ( which was a mere part of the discussion but which became the focus of his onslaught). RICHARD: If I may point out? ‘Twas you that devoted an entire e-mail to it – snipping out all else which was being discussed – and not me. * RESPONDENT: Also, if you look at Vineeto’s post about how Richard met a woman at a Satsang retreat, you will notice that Richard points out that there is a certain ‘environment’ in the air, what has happened so many times before. RICHARD: Here is the extract from ‘Richard’s Journal’ you are referring to:
I have highlighted the words which you refer to as ‘a certain ‘environment’ in the air, what has happened so many times before’ for reasons which will become clear (below). RESPONDENT: I don’t know how to distinguish this ‘feeling’ from how a normal person feels when he is starting to enter into courtship with a woman. RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following (from the first paragraph in the above extract):
Here is the very next section which immediately follows on from where the above extract ends:
I am using the word ‘immanence’ in its ‘(of God) permanently pervading and sustaining the universe’ Oxford Dictionary meaning for the clearly enunciated reason (in the extract) that the woman who was to become my companion was well-informed, from both the night before and the half-hour just gone by, as to just who it was she was sitting there with under the noonday sun on a deserted white beach. * RESPONDENT: I have serious doubts as to whether Peter, Vineeto and Richard are free from the need for sexual congress. Vineeto claims she is free, Richard too claims the same. RICHARD: May I ask? What is the basis of your ‘serious doubts’ as to whether Richard is free of the instinctual drive to copulate (as in just what is it that I have reported/ described/ explained which would occasion such)? RESPONDENT: But why they choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life? RICHARD: Has it ever occurred to you to ask the obverse question as well (why a person actually free of the human condition would choose a solitary life of nonsexual mono-existence? Just curious. RESPONDENT: Simply a matter of preference? RICHARD: Indeed ... any such choice, being a choice sans the instinctual drive to copulate, is a freely-made choice. RESPONDENT: Doesn’t really sound very convincing. RICHARD: What would really sound convincing, then (according to you)? RESPONDENT: Of course, they don’t need to convince me. But ... RICHARD: If I may interject? You could have simply back-spaced out the words ‘doesn’t really sound very convincing’ before clicking ‘send’. RESPONDENT: .. .[But] as part of the actualist cavalcade, they certainly are open to scrutiny, especially since they make claims that they are (to varying extents) free from the ‘human condition’. RICHARD: Why would you scrutinise that which you do not need to be convinced about ... is all this but a dilettante’s
game to you? RESPONDENT: Richard claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone. RICHARD: If you could provide the passage where I said I prefer to have the company of a woman ‘instead of being alone’ it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: You did not say this in so many words. RICHARD: I did not say this in any words ... here is the only instance I could find where this has ever appeared:
Put simply: it is your imaginary Richard who claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone ... not me. RESPONDENT: But as you claim it is a privilege, obviously you would prefer it to being alone. RICHARD: If I may point out? The e-mail wherein I wrote that it is both a delight and a privilege to be living with a female companion was posted on Friday 22/10/2004 AEST – whereas your (quoted from above) e-mail was posted on Wednesday 06/10/2004 AEST – which means that it was obvious to you 14 days earlier that Richard prefers to have the company of a woman ‘instead of being alone’. RESPONDENT: Isn’t that what calling it a privilege would imply? RICHARD: Even if it did (which it does not) that would not alter the fact that your ‘you did not say this in so many words’ justification, for claiming that Richard claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone, is not to be found in my ‘it is both a delight and a privilege [to be living with a female companion]’ words. * RICHARD: It is this simple: there are over 3.0 billion females on this planet ... and one of them wants to spend their most irreplaceable commodity (their time) living with me/being with me, twenty four hours a day/seven days a week, for the remainder of their life. Now, that is something special (it is, so to speak, putting one’s money where one’s mouth is big time) ... hence ‘privilege’. RESPONDENT: Well, such a commitment is not to be sneezed at, but in what way does availability of this commodity (another person’s time for you) make you more delighted than being alone? RICHARD: The delight, to be living with a female companion, does not come from it being a privilege that a fellow human being wants to spend their most irreplaceable commodity (their time) living with me/being with me, twenty four hours a day/ seven days a week, for the remainder of their life ... the delight is in the day-to-day enjoyment and appreciation of being with/living with that person. It does not provide for ‘more’ delight than being alone/ living alone – there is just as much delight in the day-to-day enjoyment and appreciation in being alone/living alone – as it is the capacity to both enjoy and appreciate which determines the quality of the delight. * RICHARD: To put it all into perspective: I have nothing to offer in the normal sense – no affection/ love/ adoration, no empathy/ sympathy/ commiseration, no high-paying career/ house/ car/ money in the bank, no children/ grandchildren/ great-grandchildren (because of an irreversible vasectomy) – nor anything in the abnormal sense (no charisma/ magnetism/ radiant transmission outside of the scriptures, no enlightenment/ awakenment/ self-realisation through an intense master/disciple relationship) ... and nothing to offer in regards a singular dispensation in becoming actually free from the human condition (I cannot set anybody free). RESPONDENT: Of course, but it must be kept in mind that there is something special about you. RICHARD: Indeed ... as far as I have been able to ascertain no other human is being as-they-are and, thus indubitably, being liked solely for being what-they-are (and not for what they can give/ do/ provide/ dispense and so forth). RESPONDENT: You are an uncommon individual. Association with the rare can be quite gratifying in itself, as can be witnessed all over the world where people pine for a mere vision/handshake of a famous actor/leader. RICHARD: My female companion derives no gratification whatsoever from being with me/living with me because I am an uncommon individual ... any delight she experiences, in this regard, stems from her enjoyment and appreciation of being with/living with me being as-I-am – with no strings attached/no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive – for what-I-am (and not for what I can give/ do/ provide/ dispense and so forth). * RICHARD: In short: a fellow human being likes me as-I-am – with no strings attached/no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive – for what-I-am ... and not for what I can give/ do/ provide/ dispense and so forth. And this is truly marvellous. RESPONDENT: Again, it may be gratifying for them to be living with a man who claims to be the first free man on earth. RICHARD: Again, my female companion derives no gratification whatsoever from being with me/living with me because I am the first free man on earth ... any delight she experiences, in this regard, stems from her enjoyment and appreciation of being with/living with me being as-I-am – with no strings attached/no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive – for what-I-am (and not for what I can give/do/provide/dispense and so forth). RESPONDENT: Is that so very unimaginable? RICHARD: If it is an imaginative discussion you are wanting you are at the wrong address. RESPONDENT: But let’s not talk about what gratifies them. RICHARD: Too late ... we already have. RESPONDENT: The question here was why you would want to spend time (during the day or during the night) with them? RICHARD: The reason why I am currently being with/living with a female companion, both day and night, is because it is both a delight and a privilege. RESPONDENT: And you still haven’t answered that. RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following:
I, for one, can see a clear answer to two direct questions (as in ‘what ...? and ‘why ...?’) ... plus an unambiguous comment on an observation and information related to that comment. * RESPONDENT: I mean, can there be an icing on a cake, a cake which is infinitely big? RICHARD: Indeed there can be (and dollops of cream on top of the icing as well) ... bucket-loads of it, in fact. Vis.: [Co-Respondent]: ‘Isn’t ‘self’ really (and literally) an after-thought? For example, humans instinctively respond to certain situations and then the after-thought actually creates the self? For example, an instinctive response to avert a danger, and then after-thought: ‘I could have died’. The latter, I think, is what constitutes the self. Similarly with pleasurable activities: it is the desire to have more that creates the self. [Richard]: ‘Speaking personally, I have pleasure by the bucket load – and take for granted that there is an endless supply – and no ‘self’ gets created. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Hmm ... I don’t quite agree with the co-respondent that the after-thought creates the self. Maybe ... it needs investigation. But it is craving or need for a certain pleasure which creates suffering, whether or not the ‘self’ enters the picture. RICHARD: As long as there is a craving or need for a certain (hedonic) pleasure then untold bucket-loads of (anhedonic) pleasure will be being kept at bay. * RESPONDENT: My dialogue with Richard started with questioning about sex, but it degenerated into nit-picking over a thought experiment I proposed ... RICHARD: Hmm ... given that you said you would be [quote] ‘very much interested in actualism’ [endquote] if you were to be informed that it was enjoyable, here in this actual world, to kiss a perfumed robot, yet in the very next e-mail stated that you would [quote] ‘find it quite pathological if a person imagined having sex with a dead body/robot’ [endquote], is it any wonder I drew that blatant dichotomy to your attention? RESPONDENT: As I very clearly explained the difference between the two evaluations, i.e. that it is not pathological if a thought-experiment is devised for investigative purposes as opposed to hedonistic/gratification-oriented purposes, I think your re-iteration of the so-called blatant dichotomy does not serve any useful purpose. RICHARD: If you could provide the passage where you ‘very clearly explained’ the difference between the two evaluations it would be most appreciated. * RICHARD: To cavalierly dismiss clarity in communication as being nit-picking is hardly the stuff of an intelligent dialogue. RESPONDENT: I agree. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that, at least, that is clear. * RESPONDENT: ... ( which was a mere part of the discussion but which became the focus of his onslaught). RICHARD: If I may point out? ‘Twas you that devoted an entire e-mail to it – snipping out all else which was being discussed – and not me. RESPONDENT: I repeatedly tried to generalize from the thought experiment so that we could leave it behind (when I mentioned what my real queries were, regarding ego, mutualness etc.) but you again and again turned to the thought experiment which you had claimed you were unable to answer meaningfully. RICHARD: Could it be the reason why I again and again, as you say, turned to it was only because you repeatedly tried to generalise from what I was immediately up-front about, when you first presented it in your third e-mail, as being such an implausible scenario (somewhat akin to licking a dead fish in lieu of cunnilingus) that I could not provide a meaningful reply? As for your ‘real queries’ – and thank you for that acknowledgement – about ego in regards mutuality ... it is this simple: there has, of course, been occasion when I have sensually kissed/had sexual experience with a fellow human being whilst they were sans identity – during a pure consciousness experience (PCE) both ego and being are in abeyance – so there is no necessity to concoct imaginative scenarios ... all you had to was ask. Vis.:
Yet what was your response? None other than this:
Did it never occur to you how come I could say, confidently, that neither person had to be subjectively alive/identity-based (both ego and soul)/be an identity to experience mutuality in sex and sexuality? Vis.:
I do not see how I can be more clear than that. * RESPONDENT: Also, if you look at Vineeto’s post about how Richard met a woman at a Satsang retreat, you will notice that Richard points out that there is a certain ‘environment’ in the air, what has happened so many times before. RICHARD: Here is the extract from ‘Richard’s Journal’ you are referring to: (snip quote). I have highlighted the words which you refer to as ‘a certain ‘environment’ in the air, what has happened so many times before’ for reasons which will become clear (below). RESPONDENT: I don’t know how to distinguish this ‘feeling’ from how a normal person feels when he is starting to enter into courtship with a woman. RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following (from the first paragraph in the above extract): (snip quote). Here is the very next section which immediately follows on from where the above extract ends: [Richard]: ‘(...) this ambience is here, this very moment ... there is no denying of this. There is almost a breathless hush. Who will speak it? Who will say it first? Who will be the one to spell it out, to acknowledge the immanence that is the very air between us? [endquote]. I am using the word ‘immanence’ in its ‘(of God) permanently pervading and sustaining the universe’ Oxford Dictionary meaning for the clearly enunciated reason (in the extract) that the woman who was to become my companion was well-informed, from both the night before and the half-hour just gone by, as to just who it was she was sitting there with under the noonday sun on a deserted white beach. RESPONDENT: You still have not responded to the criticism of your enlightenment that if you felt romantically inclined (or felt a personal love for this woman) then your enlightenment falls short of the standards in this matter. RICHARD: If you would provide the passage where I say I felt romantically inclined (or felt a personal love) for the woman who was to become my companion I may be able to respond constructively to your query. In the meanwhile I will say this: I do not use the word ‘immanence’ lightly ... I was Love Agapé and Divine Compassion – or, rather, there was only That (Love Agapé and Divine Compassion) – when I first met the woman, who was to become my companion, halfway along a deserted white beach. RESPONDENT: How can you classify your own (past) state as enlightenment when comparing with the highest accomplishments in that field, your (past) reactions are to be found wanting? RICHARD: If I may ask? Just what, and where, are they (which are to be been found wanting in regards the highest/ furthest reaches of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment)? * RICHARD: What is the basis of your ‘serious doubts’ as to whether Richard is free of the instinctual drive to copulate (as in just what is it that I have reported/ described/ explained which would occasion such)? RESPONDENT: Because you are indulging in it ... RICHARD: Where did I say I was indulging in the instinctual drive to copulate? RESPONDENT: ... [Because you are indulging in it] and you consider it a privilege. RICHARD: Where did I say I considered it a privilege to indulge in the instinctual drive to copulate? * RESPONDENT: But why they choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life? RICHARD: Has it ever occurred to you to ask the obverse question as well (why a person actually free of the human condition would choose a solitary life of nonsexual mono-existence? RESPONDENT: Because he wouldn’t need it ... RICHARD: If by ‘it’ you mean a person actually free of the human condition would not ‘need’ a life of heterosexual co-existence then why would such a person not choose such a life? Or, to put that the other way, because a person actually free of the human condition does not ‘need’ a life of heterosexual co-existence then why would such a person choose a solitary life of nonsexual mono-existence? RESPONDENT: [Because he wouldn’t need it], and involving another person (who is most likely not free of the human condition) in one’s life is going to involve conflicts, fights, struggles for space, etc. I mean why would one want to live in a fish market instead of around a peaceful garden? RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have lived a life of heterosexual co-existence for many years now and not once have I ever ceased living in the magical fairy-tale-like paradise this actual world is. Here is a clue:
And:
And:
* RESPONDENT: Simply a matter of preference [to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life]? RICHARD: Indeed ... any such choice, being a choice sans the instinctual drive to copulate, is a freely-made choice. RESPONDENT: Doesn’t really sound very convincing. RICHARD: What would really sound convincing, then (according to you)? RESPONDENT: That you are living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress. RICHARD: I see ... do you want me to prove that a person actually free of the human condition does not need a life of heterosexual co-existence by living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress, then? RESPONDENT: Why do you choose to live with a woman, by the way, and not a man? RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following:
Quite simply: my sexual orientation is heterosexual. RESPONDENT: Presuming you were a heterosexual during your human-condition years, it would be remarkable if now you could be happy living with a man or with a child (without any sex involved, of course) instead of a woman. RICHARD: It is indeed remarkable that I can be happy (and harmless) living with a man or with a child – just as I can be living on my own (as detailed much further above) – because, as the never-beginning/ never-ending happiness (and harmlessness) which abounds here in this actual world is unconditional (no conditions at all), it means that any body can. Nobody is standing in anybody’s way except oneself ... your freedom, or lack thereof, is in your hands and your hands alone. RESPONDENT: Is it too much to presume that your choice of your current partner is based upon her gender? RICHARD: Yes – there are too many reasons to spell out here why my freely-made choice was to live with my current companion – however the reason why I am sexually active with her is because of her gender (given that my sexual orientation is heterosexual). Plus if I were to spell-out the reasons I would rather they be on one of those spinning wheels (such as at a fair-ground) so that none are deemed more important than any others simply because of their place on a list. RESPONDENT: What would that imply? RICHARD: Nothing other than that my sexual orientation is heterosexual. RESPONDENT: Wouldn’t that imply that the possibility of sex is still important to you? RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? I did not become actually free from the human condition just so that I could be single/celibate, be a vegetarian/vegan/fruitarian, live on a mountaintop/in a cave/in a jungle/be itinerant, be loving/compassionate/pacifistic, be transcendent/blissed-out/in a trance and ... and any other criteria you may care to provide from the institutionalised insanity popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment which has been the summum bonum of human experience up until now. An actual freedom from the human condition is beyond all that ... this is a new paradigm, as it were, which is being presented. * RESPONDENT: Of course, they don’t need to convince me [that it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life]. But ... RICHARD: If I may interject? You could have simply back-spaced out the words ‘doesn’t really sound very convincing’ before clicking ‘send’. RESPONDENT: What I mean is that you guys are free to live your life the way you want to. RICHARD: Aye ... yet because I do just that (make a freely-made choice to live a life of heterosexual co-existence) you say, on the one hand, that what would sound convincing that it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life would be for me to be living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress, whilst on the other hand say that I do not need to convince you that it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life, but that if I do claim freedom from the human condition I open myself to scrutiny. Here is my question: how would living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress make me open to your scrutiny? Whilst you are considering that I will draw the following to your attention:
RESPONDENT: But if you claim freedom from the human condition etc., you open yourself to scrutiny. RICHARD: Perhaps you mean something like this:
If so, why would it take me to be living with a person, with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress, for it to sound convincing that it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life? * RESPONDENT: .. .[But] as part of the actualist cavalcade, they certainly are open to scrutiny, especially since they make claims that they are (to varying extents) free from the ‘human condition’. RICHARD: Why would you scrutinise that which you do not need to be convinced about ... is all this but a dilettante’s game to you? RESPONDENT: Of course not. I need to be convinced since you guys are claiming something which I am very interested in. If you were just living your life without claiming anything extraordinary, why on earth would I want to be convinced of anything regarding your life? RICHARD: Here is the situation: we have had more than a few discussions now, you and I, wherein I have made it
abundantly clear that 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 that here in this actual world (the sensate world) it is impossible to ever be hedonic (aka ‘a pleasure-seeker’) as the affective
pleasure/pain centre in the brain – as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate Yet you say what would sound convincing that it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life would be for me to be living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress. Quite frankly ... it just does not make sense. RESPONDENT: Richard, I have had long email conversations with you about lust and sexuality. RICHARD: Aye ... and here is the crux of it:
RESPONDENT: This question [regarding sexual touch] has been brewing in me for the past few weeks: I will put this question in many ways: If a woman caresses you on your forearm, will your penis get erect? RICHARD: As the affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain (as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes
quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate
Put specifically: as the affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain is null and void RESPONDENT: If you watch a pornographic movie, will your penis get erect? RICHARD: What part of the word ‘no’ is it that you are having difficulty in comprehending? Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Isn’t the penis getting erect a physical manifestation of sexual desire ... RICHARD: What part of the words ‘all appetitive desires are non-existent’ is it that you are having difficulty in comprehending? Vis.:
RESPONDENT: ... and of the readiness and of wanting to penetrate a woman’s vagina? RICHARD: If what you are asking is whether genital tumescence is indicative of both a willingness and the readiness to engage in heterosexual intercourse then ... yes. RESPONDENT: Doesn’t the penis getting erect co-occur with increased blood pressure, increased heart rate and increased vasodilatation? RICHARD: In the sequence asked ... unknown, no, and yes (as I understand it the release of nitric oxide, synthesised from arginine and oxygen by the enzyme nitric oxide synthase, enables erectile tissue to engorge). RESPONDENT: Can you claim that you enjoy a sexual intercourse without your nerves participating in it, (participation in the sense of the nerves getting tense and then relaxing after orgasm)? RICHARD: I do not ever claim anything ... all my reports/ descriptions/ explanations of life here in this actual world are exactly that (reports/ descriptions/ explanations of what actually happens). RESPONDENT: Does your breathing remain calm throughout the sexual act? RICHARD: The rate of respiration, as in any physical activity, is directly proportional to the degree of vigour
involved.
RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard’s Text ©The
Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
