Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions

RICHARD: By being here, right now, as this flesh and blood body. A feeling is not a fact; it is an identity’s interpretation of the actual and to be standing back and expressing a feeling – to feel an emotion or be passionate about life – is nowhere near the same as being here now as an actuality. In actually being just here – right now – one is completely involved, utterly concerned; being here now is total inclusion. One demonstrates one’s appreciation of life by partaking fully in existence ... by letting this moment live one (rather than ‘living in the present’) so that one is the doing of what is happening. One dedicates oneself to the challenge of being here now as the universe’s experience of itself.

Initially one is deathly afraid to actually be here now, as it can feel rather rudely raw ... one feels more naked and exposed than taking off one’s clothing in the market place. However, feeling rudely raw about the prospect of being here now is not the same as actually being here now ... feelings are notoriously unreliable for ascertaining a fact. Being here now is to be at the place in infinite space and eternal time where all is pristine. This pristine place is this, the actual world ... and it is already always here. This actual world is original; unmarred, uncorrupted, unspoiled, spotless, fresh and perpetually new. It is alarming to feel this immaculateness – it is frightening in its immediate intimacy – which is why one backs off, initially denying its very existence. What happens though, if one takes the risk to actually be here now – instead of standing back and feeling it out in order to make up one’s mind – is that one discovers that oneself is also pristine.

Then one is actually benevolent (harmless), actually concerned (happy) for all peoples ... no one is special. There is a vast gulf betwixt feeling benevolent (with feelings such as pity, sympathy, empathy, compassion and so on) and actually being benevolent (free of malice). Similarly, the concern one feels for others (worry, distress, anxiety, grief, anguish, torment and all the rest) is far removed from the actual interest one has in one’s fellow human being’s welfare (free of sorrow).

RESPONDENT: What do you say to your grandchildren when they are hurt, desolate, crying?

RICHARD: The same as I say to any body and every body – no body is special – which is: all mental-emotional-psychic suffering is an unnecessary and self-inflicted wound. Any mental-emotional-psychic viciousness on the part of another, first and foremost, lies in the heart of the ‘giver’ and inevitably turns in on itself as existential sorrow. Thus, in the final analysis, it is the ‘giver’ who suffers the most intimately. As for the ‘receiver’ of any nastiness, it is entirely up to them what they do with it ... apart from physical brutality, no-one can force their cruelty on another without the other’s acquiescence and compliance.

It is a truly and remarkably free world we live in.

RESPONDENT: Richard, I am currently perplexed about ‘caring’. You distinguish between ‘feeling caring’ and ‘actually caring’. I think I understand the distinction for the most part – ‘feeling caring’ is caring based upon emotion – ‘feeling’ that one cares, and ‘actually caring’ is something that happens ONLY in a PCE or when one is actually free. Now, this results in the somewhat shocking statement that the only people who actually care are those in pure consciousness.

RICHARD: Aye, it can indeed be a shock to realise that, for all the protestations of being caring, no one trapped in the human condition actually cares. However, apart from galvanising one into action, it is a liberating realisation as it releases one from the bonds that tie.

There are always strings attached in affective caring.

*

RICHARD: ... faking care is not the distinction being referred to as the person feeling caring is being true to their feelings. It is not their fault that the truth is insincere.

RESPONDENT: I see now that ‘faking care’ isn’t what you mean by ‘feeling caring’. I’m curious, what would it take to be sincere? Is all feeling caring insincere – or are you saying that the person being true to their feeling of caring could be sincere by realizing that their caring is ‘self’ centred? Is it only possible to be sincere if one is actually free? Or ‘imitating’ the actual? Could you say more about what you mean – ‘It is not their fault that the truth is insincere’. What exactly is insincere about feeling that one cares for another? Is all feeling caring insincere? Or is insincerity due to one’s ignorance of the actual genesis of feeling caring? If all feeling caring is actually insincere – then it doesn’t seem we ‘beings’ have any choice about it, do we? If this is the case, the path to actual freedom would be becoming as sincere as possible, yet one couldn’t be completely sincere until once actually free. Is this how you see it? Or is one ‘imitating’ the actual also sincere – since they know all feeling caring is ‘self-centred’? Thus, anyone could be sincere just by realizing the ‘self-centeredness’ of feeling caring.

RICHARD: Unless a realisation is actualised, meaning that it operates spontaneously each moment again, it remains just that ... a realisation.

All I am indicating by saying that the truth is insincere is that, as the truth holds the promise of an after-death peace for the feeling being inside the flesh and blood body (as in ‘The Peace That Passeth All Understanding’), the truth is not sincere in regards to bringing about peace on earth ... which peacefulness is what caring is all about.

In short: feeling caring is incapable of delivering the goods.

As being sincere in the context under discussion is to have the pure intent to enable peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, it would therefore take a perspicuous awareness of what is unadulterated, genuine, and correct (seeing the fact) to be sincere ... rather than an instinctive feeling of what is unadulterated, genuine, and correct (intuiting the truth). The feeling of caring (be it a pitying caring, a sympathetic caring, an empathetic caring, a compassionate caring or a loving caring), being primarily the feeling being inside one flesh and blood body caring for the feeling being inside another flesh and blood body (or for an anthropomorphised feeling being called mother earth for instance), is insincere by its very nature. And to realise that such feeling caring is a ‘self’-centred caring – and thus corrupt and/or tainted – is the first step towards sincerity.

Anybody can be sincere (about anything) – all it takes is seeing the fact (of anything) – and in this instance the perspicacity born out of the pure consciousness experience (PCE) ensures sincerity in regards to enabling the already always existing peace-on-earth into becoming apparent. The basis of such sincerity lies in comprehending the fact that caring starts with oneself – if one is incapable of caring for oneself one cannot care about others (or anything for that matter) – lest it be a case of the blind leading the blind.

There are two forms of ignorance about the genesis of the affective feelings: nescience and ignoration – wherein the former is to be incognisant of the root cause and the latter is to be disregardant of the root cause – and the latter has much to do with what is often expressed as ‘you can’t change human nature’ (only recently on another mailing list the sentence ‘we can’t change biological predisposition’ was pithily presented as if it were a valid reason not to discuss the genetic inheritance of aggression). Meaning that, apart from fanciful notions about genetic engineering, it is generally held that as human nature (biology) cannot be changed therefore biology cannot be the root cause of all the ills of humankind ... or so the bizarre rationale goes.

Obviously part of the first step towards sincerity is the acknowledgement of blind nature’s legacy.

*

RICHARD: ‘I’ cannot experience the actuality of being caring ... ‘I’ can only experience the feeling of being caring. For example, the last time I visited my biological parents (1984) I was told ‘we worry about you’ ... which fretful feeling of apprehension/anxiety is, to them, being caring. They mean well, of course, as do most people.

RESPONDENT: So, all affective caring stems from separation – the need to ‘solve’ isolation and loneliness.

RICHARD: Yes, it does stem from separation – from being a separative identity – and it does have the effect of ‘solving’ (not dissolving) isolation and loneliness, albeit temporarily, but further to the point affective caring verifies, endorses, and consolidates ‘me’.

Not only am ‘I’ thus authenticated, sanctioned, and substantiated ... ‘my’ presence has meaning.

*

RESPONDENT: Are you saying this [taking care of other people and things] only happens in a selfish sort of way? That all feeling caring is selfish – therefore not really caring at all?

RICHARD: I would rather say ‘self’-centred than ‘selfish’ ... when someone is touched by another’s suffering, as in being moved sufficiently to stimulate caring action, it is their own suffering which is being kindled and quickened. Thus feelings are being aroused, which motivate the activity of caring, and taking care of the other works to assuage the aroused feelings (as well as working to help the other of course). Shall I put it this way? They are missing-out on experiencing the actuality of the caring action, the helpful activity itself, which is taking place.

RESPONDENT: OK, so ‘self’-centred caring (feeling caring) actually works to eliminate one’s own suffering?

RICHARD: Not ‘eliminate’ ... mitigate, alleviate, lessen, diminish.

RESPONDENT: Even so, the other person suffering is getting cared for.

RICHARD: Aye ... the other person does get physically taken care of but both persons miss out on the direct experience of the caring action, the helpful activity itself, which is taking place.

RESPONDENT: So properly caring for the other person is a prerequisite for ‘assuaging’ one’s own aroused feelings.

RICHARD: Yes ... else there be feelings of guilt, compunction, shame, ignominy and so on.

RESPONDENT: Isn’t this actually caring about the other person?

RICHARD: The physical act of caring – the helpful activity itself – is certainly happening but actually caring (an inseparate regard) is not ... there is only feeling caring (a unifying solicitude) occurring.

RESPONDENT: Admittedly, it is caring via one’s own feeling, but one actually does care about the other, since it is only through proper care of the other that one’s own feelings are ‘assuaged’.

RICHARD: No, one does not actually care about the other – one feels that one cares about the other – which is not to deny that ‘proper care’ does occur ... it is remarkable what physical assistance is achieved despite all the hindrances.

RESPONDENT: I’m never quite sure how to take the word, ‘actually’ when you use it – whether it’s sometimes the normal usage – or whether it’s always the ‘actualism’ usage. For example, I am tempted to say that even when one is empathetic and works to resolve another’s suffering – then one actually cared about their suffering – about the other person – again admittedly, via one’s own suffering, yet there is caring taking place – but it’s not actual caring (in the ‘actualism’ usage).

RICHARD: When empathy works to resolve another’s suffering an empathetic caring occurs – this is not under dispute – but it is occurring as a feeling activity ... in the form of affective vibes and/or psychic currents. However, it is only occurring in the real world – there is no empathetic caring here in this actual world – which is a salutary point few comprehend.

For instance, some ‘born-again’ people bailed me up in the street some time ago in order to save me from their devil (only they called it ‘The Devil’ so as to make their fantasy universal): as the conversation waxed they grew more and more intense, their words became loving words, their eyes became radiant eyes, their faces became soft and suffused with a glowing shade of pink, and if my companion had been with me at the time she could have verified, as she has on other occasions, that feeling vibes and psychic currents were swirling and eddying all about.

Eventually they gave up as they could not ‘reach’ me (aka establish a feeling connection).

RESPONDENT: I’m still trying to pin down exactly how feeling caring is an ‘illusion’ of caring. I’m still tempted to think that one does care even in empathy – though not in the actualist sense. Does the illusion come in where one thinks that that sort of caring is (or can be) not self-centred?

RICHARD: That is partly so – an unselfish ‘self’ is still a ‘self’ nevertheless and is perforce ‘self’-centred in all its activities – but there is also the factor of just who it is that is caring for who it is that is being cared for to take into account. In other words: it is an illusory identity inside one body which is caring for an illusory identity in another body. Which is what the born-again people in the above example were (futilely) attempting to do ... and I say ‘futilely’ because there is no entity inside this flesh and blood body to be stroked by their blandishments.

Or to be goaded by intimations of perdition, of course.

RESPONDENT: And in your conversations, more often than not, the impression is that of a prick, not a caring human being.

RICHARD: As I said at the beginning: I have been discussing these matters with my fellow human being for 25 years now and have had that particularly insidious argument (an argument which rests upon no evidence whatsoever but relies solely upon intuition and imagination) presented to me on many an occasion.

This is one of those occasions.

If I might ask: have you actually read the conversation in question – spanning at least 34 e-mails – from beginning to end? Have you familiarised yourself with the preceding discussions which took place prior to that particular exchange? Are you thus cognisant of where my co-respondent was coming from, what their stated agenda on that occasion was and, therefore, where they were heading to?

Also, are you aware that they reappeared on the mailing list almost a year later and were caught red-handed upon having resorted to fraudulency and outright mendacity?

Just curious.

*

RICHARD: Also, are you aware that they reappeared on the mailing list almost a year later and were caught red-handed upon having resorted to fraudulency and outright mendacity?

RESPONDENT: That is besides the point under discussion right now ...

RICHARD: The point under discussion is seeing [quote] ‘the big picture’ [endquote] is it not? Have you read every e-mail my co-respondent at that time wrote to this mailing list? Did you follow-up every URL they posted? Did you access every book reference they quoted? Did you look for and read what they wrote on other forums (where the focus is not the same as this mailing list)? Do you keep all their correspondence in an easily accessible folder so as to refresh your memory as to what they have said and thus, where they are coming from, what their agenda is, and where they are heading to?

You see, the difference between you and me is that I actually care about my fellow human being and will leave no stone unturned, if that be what it takes, to understand them, to comprehend why they say what they do, so as to facilitate clarity in communication ... I like my fellow human being and prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later.

Now, you can say your impression is that Richard is [quote] ‘a prick’ [endquote], and [quote] ‘not a caring human being’ [endquote], but have you ever considered that were it to actually be the case both The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List would not exist? I am retired and on a pension and am free to live virtually any lifestyle within my means yet I sit here at my computer hour after hour, day after day, year after year, being quite often the recipient of derision, disparagement, scorn, mockery, disdain, belittlement, vilification, denigration, contempt, castigation, disapprobation, denunciation, condemnation and discrimination (as evidenced by bad-mouthing, backbiting, slander, libel, defamation and a whole range of slurs, smears, censures, admonishments, reproaches, reprovals, and so on). I have had my credit card strung out the max, over the years, in order to establish and maintain all the words and writings pertaining to both an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice on-line so as they be accessible totally free of charge for anyone at all to access and it is only in the last year or so that the whole enterprise has come anywhere near to being self-supporting ... and thus freeing up any surplus cash so as to pay off a modest home to live-out my declining years in.

And the same applies for Peter and Vineeto, by the way, but they are not currently the target of vilification.

*

RICHARD: You see, the difference between you and me is that I actually care about my fellow human being ...

RESPONDENT: I presume you want to say that I do not ‘actually care about my human being’ whereas you do. Do you have any evidence to back up your above claim about me?

RICHARD: Unless you are now either actually free from the human condition or currently having a pure consciousness experience (PCE) there is no way you can be actually caring .

RESPONDENT: Where have you perceived my uncaring attitude towards my fellow human beings? Just curious.

RICHARD: I never said anything about you being (affectively) uncaring ... I distinctly said that the difference between you and me is that I *actually* care.

RESPONDENT: What is the difference in saying ‘I feel’ for my mother, and ‘I care’? Main Entry: 2care: Function: verb: 1 a : to feel trouble or anxiety b : to feel interest or concern (care about freedom).

RICHARD: You have asked me before about this and I responded then by saying that one can actually care as contrasted to feeling that one cares ... and there is a world of difference between the two.

As for the dictionary meaning: dictionaries give alternate meanings to a particular word and different dictionaries can give differing meanings than in other dictionaries and I notice that you have selected two of the several meanings ascribed to the word ‘care’ in the Merriam-Webster ... whereas I would have chosen their [quote] ‘to be concerned about or to the extent of’ [endquote] meaning so as to convey what I personally mean by it. The Oxford also gives various meanings ... the ones that I would choose are [quote] ‘an object or matter of concern; a thing to be done or seen to; attention, heed, regard, inclination’ [endquote].

Regarding this word – and the other words I use to describe the qualities of experiencing life as this flesh and blood body only – it is sobering to come to understand that all of the 650,000 words in the English language were coined by peoples nursing malice and sorrow and love and compassion to their bosom ... hence most of the expressive words have an affective component. When I first began describing my on-going experience to my fellow human beings I chose words that had the least affective connotations ... coining too many new words would have been counter-productive.

Consequently, the etymology of words can be of assistance in most cases to locate a near-enough to being a non-affective base to start from ... taking the word ‘care’ as an example it will be seen that etymologically the word comes from the Old English ‘caru’ meaning ‘charge’ or ‘oversight’ (‘charge’ as in the Latin ‘carricare’ from ‘carrus’ meaning ‘wagon’ – thus ‘carry’ – and ‘oversight’ as in ‘overseeing’) and basically means ‘an object or matter of concern’ as in ‘a thing to be done or seen to’ or ‘protective overview’ or ‘guardianship’. The only way to make it a particular feeling is by linking it with the Gothic and Germanic word ‘kara’ meaning ‘grief’ or ‘lament’ (as derived from ‘karar’ meaning ‘bed of sickness’). In popular use it appears to mean worrying about the other.

Incidentally, the word ‘consideration’ is from the Latin ‘considerare’ meaning ‘examine’ (perhaps from the Latin ‘sider’ or ‘sidus’ meaning ‘constellation’ or ‘star’) and basically means ‘the action or fact of examining and taking into account of anything as a reason or motive with regard for the circumstances of another’ ... in popular use, however, it generally means ‘don’t hurt my feelings’.

It is pertinent to comprehend that dictionaries are descriptive (and not prescriptive as are scriptures) and reflect more about how words came about, how they have changed, and how they have expanded into other words, rather than what they should mean. I tend to provide dictionary definitions only so as to establish a starting-point for communication ... from this mutually agreed-upon base each co-respondent can apply their own specific nuance of meaning to words as are readily explainable and mutually understandable (such as I do with ‘real’ and ‘actual’ and with ‘truth’ and ‘fact’, for example). Generally I can suss out what the other means by a word via its context and both where they are coming from and what they are wanting to establish ... if not I ask what they are meaning to convey.

Ain’t life grand!

RICHARD: Oh, I am well aware that you live in some abstract world and paste that metaphysicality over the world as-it-is. Whereas I live in this actual world of the senses ... and paste nothing over it. However, it is not impersonal – as you maintain – for people are consistently hurting each other in the ‘Land of Lament’. 160,000,000 people killed in wars this century alone ... all because they will not take the malice and sorrow of the human species personally.

KONRAD: May I ask you a question? Since you say this so often about this ‘160,000,000 people killed in wars this century alone ...’, since you make such a big thing about being without feelings, in what way can this fact be significant to you, if you have no feelings about this fact?

RICHARD: Quite simply: We are all fellow human beings and because I am free from malice and sorrow I can happily and harmlessly experience all of us people with undiminished enjoyment and unqualified delight. This ensures an on-going and uninhibited magnanimity and benevolence ... meaning that I can only wish the utter best for everyone and anyone. So I do not need feelings to consider it senseless that humans kill each other. However, in regard to feelings: back in June 1966 at aged nineteen in a foreign country – when there was an ‘I’ inhabiting this body complete with a full suite of feelings – a Buddhist monk killed himself in a most gruesome way. There was I, a callow youth dressed in a jungle-green uniform and with a loaded rifle in my hand, representing the secular way to peace. There was a fellow human being, dressed in religious robes dowsed with petrol and with a cigarette lighter in hand, representing the spiritual way to peace.

I was aghast at what we were both doing ... and I sought to find a third alternative to being either ‘human’ or ‘divine’.

This was to be the turning point of my life, for up until then, I was a typical western youth, raised to believe in God, Queen and Country. Humanity’s inhumanity to humankind – society’s treatment of its subject citizens – was driven home to me, there and then, in a way that left me appalled, horrified, terrified and repulsed to the core of my being with a sick revulsion. I saw that no one knew what was going on and – most importantly – that no one was ‘in charge’ of the world. There was nobody to ‘save’ the human race ... all gods were but a figment of a feverish imagination. Out of a despairing desperation, that was collectively shared by my fellow humans, I saw and understood that I was as ‘guilty’ as any one else. For in me – as is in everyone – was both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ ... it was that some people were better than others at controlling their ‘dark side’. However, in a war, there is no way anyone can consistently control any longer ... ‘evil’ ran rampant. I saw that fear and aggression and nurture and desire ruled the world ... and that these were instincts one was born with.

Thus started my search for freedom from the Human Condition ... and my attitude, all those years ago was this: I was only interested in changing myself fundamentally, radically, completely and utterly. Twenty six years later I found the third alternative ... and it is my delight to share this discovery with my fellow humans. What they do with this is entirely up to them.

What are you doing with it, Konrad?

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

RICHARD: Nobody is twisting your arm to become free of the human condition ... all that blind nature is on about is survival of the species (and any species will do as far as blind nature is concerned). Blind nature does not care two hoots about your condition ... the question is: do you?

RESPONDENT: Actually blind nature cares about me, that’s why it gave me the condition.

RICHARD: If being born as such passions as fear and aggression and nurture and desire is what the word ‘cares’ means to you then so be it.

RESPONDENT: Blind nature cares about species, that’s why I told you that when it find out that is the right time will evolve the whole species.

RICHARD: And in the meanwhile, as you are going to do nothing about the passions that you are, such as the fear you say you need more than ever today, all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides, and so on, will keep on keeping on.

As will all the crocodile tears being wept at all the (self-inflicted and thus unnecessary) misery and mayhem.

RESPONDENT: Richard, on www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf44a.htm, you write the following:

• [Respondent]: ‘Why you have a companion and you don’t change one every day?
• [Richard]: ‘Primarily because of fellowship regard ... and specifically because of how my current companion is.
• [Respondent]: ‘You don’t have any feelings for her, so what a difference makes?
• [Richard]: ‘A whole lot of difference ... just for starters I actually care, rather than merely feel that one cares, and thus have genuine consideration for her integrity. Plus I have no interest whatsoever in toying with my fellow human being, anyway, no matter who they are’. [endquote]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44a, 10 July 2003).

Can you explain further?

RICHARD: Sure ... I was responding an e-mail which started with the following question:

• ‘In which way one person that lost his being and ego, is different than a robot?’ (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44a, 10 July 2003).

I do not read/ watch science fiction but as I get these type of questions from time to time, from peoples who either conveniently overlook or are oblivious to what is known as ‘theory of mind’, I have gradually been made aware of various ‘Star Trek’ characters, for instance, and it is pertinent to point out that the stuff of science fiction (creations of imagination) is entirely different to actuality ... a writer replete with identity/ feelings trying to visualise life sans identity/feelings can, it would seem, only conceive of a robotic/ automated android-like organism speaking in a flat, monotone voice and devoid of both a sense of humour and any caring/consideration for other sentient creatures (aka fellowship regard).

To ask why not change companions every day, as if by having no affective feelings it makes no difference just who it is, is to cavalierly disregard the integrity (aka the soundness of character, the honesty, the sincerity) of, not only my current companion, but each and every one of those (365 per year) fellow human beings ... adroitly assuming, of course, as my co-respondent presumably did, that a steady stream of females would indeed be knocking on my door each morning wanting admission as soon as the previous day’s female-in-residence departed for places unknown (an instinctually-driven archetypal male-fantasy if there ever was).

Not to mention, of course, the (presumed) total lack of integrity on my part ... but, then again, a robotic-like automaton would be devoid of same anyway, eh?

RESPONDENT: In what way does her integrity suffer if you change your partner?

RICHARD: It is not case of having another’s integrity suffer – it is a case of (presumably) having so little regard/no regard at all for another’s integrity that they could be changed daily – and it speaks volumes for the parlous state of the human condition that such a scenario would even be entertained for a moment ... let alone typed-out and sent to me.

RESPONDENT: Also, how would you changing your partner ‘toy’ with your fellow human being?

RICHARD: The part of the exchange you quoted at the top of this page followed immediately on from this:

• [Respondent]: ‘I have two parrots in a cage home, and I see them flirting and playing. You said that you are not able for flirting but able for sex.
• [Richard]: ‘You must be referring to this:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Do you joke, laugh, flirt (...)?
• [Richard]: ‘I like to joke, yes and I laugh a lot ... there is so much that is irrepressibly funny about life itself. I have no ability to flirt, however, as my libido is nil and void ... yet I have an active sexual life (...)’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 7, 24 January 1999).

• [Respondent]: ‘I can’t understand that. I really can’t.
• [Richard]: ‘The word ‘libido’ (Latin meaning ‘desire’, ‘lust’) is the psychiatric/ psychoanalytic term for the instinctual sex drive, urge, or impulse, and the word ‘flirt’ refers to behaving in a superficially amorous manner, to dally sexually with another ... what is so difficult about understanding that, sans the instinctual passion to procreate (and nurture) the species, the ability to be sexually amorous (either superficially or deeply) ceases to exist?
With no passions driving behaviour one is able to treat the other as a fellow human being ... and not a sex-object’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, 44a, 10 July 2003).

Here is what a dictionary has to say about flirting:

• ‘flirt: behave in a superficially amorous manner, dally; she’s always flirting with the boys, toy with, trifle with, make eyes at, ogle, lead on; philander with, dally with’. (Oxford Dictionary).

For one to actually care, rather than merely feel that one cares, means that one is incapable of toying with/trifling with/dallying with one’s fellow human being ... let alone one’s live-in companion.

RESPONDENT: Actualism won’t spread like a chain letter till we ‘actually care’ enough to learn how to observe and examine human instincts without ‘investigating’ them as though they are criminal.

PETER: Your comment ‘till we ‘actually care’ enough’ caught my eye as I recently had a wide ranging conversation with someone about the topic of caring and sensitivity. We soon fell to swapping stories about certain events in our lives which proved to be significant in widening our outlook from purely self-centred to including a concern for the antagonism and despair that we both saw as inherent to the human condition. I particularly enjoyed the conversation, not only because my friend was willing to relate his stories but also that it set me thinking about the topic in general. As such I thought it worthwhile to share some of my stories of the significant events that served to set me caring about what is often called the ‘plight of humanity’.

I, for one, care enough about peace on earth to actually do something about bringing an end to my malice and my sorrow – that’s what I call actually caring.

RESPONDENT to Richard: Your inability to discern the difference in impact between individuals dying daily of old age accident disease or ignorance, and this on-going horror as millions of human beings try to deal with a mass tragedy on a scale never experienced in our lifetimes reveals you to be a callous and mentally dissociated sick human being.

PETER: I thought it might be an opportune moment to continue our conversation on the topic of actual caring given that you have weighed in on the current ‘lets-put-the-boot-into-Richard-because-he-doesn’t-care’ posts to the list.

And just to remind you of some of what you said to me in reply –

[Respondent]: Well thanks for that Peter, I appreciate the effort. So often AFers assume no one else is capable of comprehending that actual, practical caring is minus the self-indulgent warm fuzzies and that neither does it kowtow to protect the self or others from the [dreaded] facts.

Quite a change to see you step off the AF pedestal and simply share instead of preach or coach, even though there is still an element of it in your reply. No doubt the ulterior motive is to get me to engage in dialogue, so you can indulge your favorite pass-time, arguing. Not a hope. I will share this though, as I am free to.

From my observations Peter, Vineeto and yourself come across as a little simple to put it mildly. You both seem to have a type of mentality that is very easily impressed, therefore easily psychologically infested/corrupted. <…> Now this particular virus [Richard’s] is a rather insidious one since it seems to delete or translocate the play function and present as a serious case of cloned mannerisms.

I shan’t pretend that ‘its got me beat’ why an instinctually aggressive self would want to emulate Richard’s moronically alienating debating techniques for it is after all only the survival instincts at work. <…>

On close inspection, although Actualism claims to be 180 degrees in the opposite to spiritualism, it also does an about face by focus on the self thereby inflating its naaasty behaviour, as evidenced by the three of you and therefore peace is not at the top of its agenda either. <…>

… there is a serious short-sightedness and lack of generosity in AFers so I for one (and most probably many others) will continue each day to share, minus the AF aggro, what I learn here and without one reference to this motley site ever passing my lips. Re: actually caring 7.12.2004

When I read your reply it became clear to me that your idea of sharing is radically different to mine, which is why I didn’t bother to continue the conversation at the time.

As you can see, these events – or rather clearly seeing the facts that were there for the seeing in these events – acted as spurs along the path of becoming free of malice and sorrow. And if I can just return to your comment that instigated this thread –

[Respondent to Vineeto]: Actualism won’t spread like a chain letter till we ‘actually care’ enough to learn how to observe and examine human instincts without ‘investigating’ them as though they are criminal. Re: Investigating Feelings, 4.12.2004

– what you may have noticed from this post is that I do not ‘observe and examine human instincts … as though they are criminal’, I observe and examine them by simply taking a clear-eyed look at the facts of the human animal instincts in action.

RICHARD: Seeing that you have brought the conversation to an end, I would like to express my appreciation for your taking the time, in a discussion with me spanning 10 E-Mails, to give your attention to the most fundamental issues pertaining to human life on earth today.

RESPONDENT: I wonder whether this is sarcasm or what? Seems like it could be.

RICHARD: Indeed not ... I am entirely sincere. I like my fellow human beings and wish only the best for them ... each and every one. Hence this discussion and other public dialogues of the same nature and with the same topic. To wit: peace-on-earth, as this flesh and blood body, in this lifetime.

It is not possible to have an honest, candid and frank discussion until both parties place their cards on the table. Now that you have done so we can proceed with expedition – and without resorting to time-wasting and petty undergraduate debating techniques à la standard internet protocol – if that be of mutual agreement. If not, I will simply use a copy of this page (anonymously) as an established starting point in another discussion with another person on another day ... which is why I am particularly appreciative that you were able to consider, clarify and publicly state both your affirmation and seal of approval to these extremely important issues.

It demonstrably shows other people that I am not making all the details of this mysticism up, you see.

*

RESPONDENT: Right, like you believe that or respect it. Ha, ha. The truth is Richard, if you actually believed that, we would be having a whole different conversation.

RICHARD: If I may interject? I neither need to ‘believe that’ nor ‘respect it’ as I have so far only had dialogues with two self-acknowledged realised beings, in a public forum on the internet such as this, whilst I have had hundreds of discussions on-line with wannabe angelic beings ... therefore it is indeed rare.

As for a ‘whole different conversation’ ... they both responded by attempting to defend the indefensible somewhat the same as you are.

RESPONDENT: One doesn’t even need to be telepathic or self-realized to see your insincerity.

RICHARD: I beg to differ ... I am entirely sincere. Because I actually like my fellow human beings, and not merely feel that I do, then I wish only the best for them ... each and every one.

I actually care, you see, and not merely feel that I care.

RICHARD: It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): one felt good previously; one is not feeling good now; something happened to one to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling; one finds out what happened; one sees how silly that is (no matter what it was); one is once more feeling good.

RESPONDENT: Just as an example, Richard? I was feeling good till today morning. When I came to office today at 9.30am, I came to know that I have been dismissed due to a false complaint of a co-worker. I am not feeling good, in fact I am feeling shaken and insecure and thinking hard as to how to take care of my family. I am not vengeful or spiteful towards the complainant. For the life of me I can’t see how this sudden state of insecurity or of worry about my financial future is ‘silly’. I am considering it a justifiable reaction to a crisis. Hence, I am feeling as-is (worried, insecure and nervous). Any comments?

RICHARD: Just for starters:

1. In what way is feeling shaken going to take care of your family?
2. In what way is feeling insecure going to take care of your family?
3. In what way is feeling worried going to take care of your financial future?
4. In what way is feeling nervous going to take care of your financial future?

Now, you also report [quote] ‘thinking hard’ [endquote] ... in what way is feeling shaken/ feeling insecure/ feeling worried/ feeling nervous going to enable you to sensibly and thus judiciously think, reflect, appraise, plan, and implement the considered activity which such a situation, as being dismissed in such circumstances as being falsely complained about, quite obviously requires?

In other words would not feeling good, as you were prior to today morning, be much more conducive to intelligence operating in such an optimum manner?

If so, then what is standing in the way of feeling good again, as you were prior to today morning, is nothing else other than your shaken/ insecure/ worried/ nervous consideration that feeling shaken/ feeling insecure/ feeling worried/ feeling nervous is a justifiable reaction to a crisis.

Surely there is nothing, but nothing, which can ever sensibly justify having one’s intelligence being run by feelings?

RICHARD: I have no intuitive or imaginative faculties whatsoever ... that all disappeared in 1992. I am incapable of the activity of believing ... let alone believing in something.

RESPONDENT: You are not a machine (computer) are you? Do you have a heart?

RICHARD: A physical heart that pumps blood, yes ... a ‘bleeding heart’ as in piteous sentimentality, no. You see, I actually care about my fellow human being ... not merely feel that I care.

RESPONDENT: By heart I did not mean a physical heart nor a ‘bleeding heart’ (which, by the way, is an image you have).

RICHARD: Yet it is not ‘an image that I have’ (can you not upgrade your retorts to the level of a sincere discussion?) but an expression of a factual reality for 6.0 billion peoples. They feel that they care about all the misery and mayhem instead of actually caring. If they actually cared there would be action ... and that action would not be of ‘my’ doing.

It would be the ending of ‘me’ and all ‘my’ subterfuge and trickery.

CLAUDIU: Hi Alan. In 23080, you wrote:

• [Alan]: “As the last thing I want to do is mislead anyone (it would be helpful for any future post I may make if anyone points out where I might have misled) [...]”. (Message 23080, Sun, 3 Jul 2016).

As you said it would be helpful, I am only too happy to oblige and to point out how you are indeed continuing to mislead your fellow human beings, the latest post you wrote (Message № 23179; 24 Jul 2016) being only the latest example. The essential structure of your post is to intersperse reports from your experience with quotes from Vineeto, thus associating her genuine experiences and proper use of terms with your own and implying that you are experiencing the same thing/ the words you are using refer to the same things. [...three quotes & reports elided...]. However, it is clear that what you experience and refer to with the term “near-actual caring” is not the experience the term properly refers to. The following snippets from the quotes you provided help demonstrate the essential difference:

• [Vineeto]: “The key component for both of us had been caring, a caring as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster. [...] my caring for him meant whittling away my identity as much as possible in order to give him *(and me)* the intimacy *we both* yearned for”. [emphases added]. (Direct Route, James, 17 January 2010).

• [Vineeto]: “I sat in this group, as one of many, and my sole interest was that everyone present *(including me as one of those present)* enjoyed themselves/ obtained the maximum benefit from our meeting”. [emphasis added]. (Direct Route, James, 16 January 2010).

By contrast, what you experienced and are now misleadingly recommending to your fellow human beings is nothing but that hoary spiritual “putting the other before oneself”:

Needless to say, this will never result in the genuine article that is an actual freedom from the human condition.

ALAN: And anyone with a modicum of sensibility (not obscured by personal feelings) will easily appreciate that what I was referring to (near actual caring) and what Richard was referring to (caring for the other as an ongoing modus operandi and the basic instinct of nurture in action) are two completely different things. This is especially obvious given the qualifiers I included – with no reserve, no holding back anything whatsoever – which is not the case in the “caring” which Richard was discussing. (Message № 23190; Tue, 26 Jul 2016)

[...remainder of post elided...].

SRINATH: I thought that the final step i.e. self-immolation, could indeed be construed as a putting of others before self.

RICHARD: G’day Srinath,

First of all, what follows is the text starting at the top of the web page which Claudiu linked to further above – in regards to what he described as “this putting the other before oneself” topic – as part of his engaged response to Alan’s “placing the other’s happiness before my own” depiction of what “giving myself 100% to another” means to Alan when put into practice.

Viz.:

R: Most Religions and Spiritual Paths advocate putting the other before oneself ... it is their way of preventing selfishness – which they assume to be identical with self-centredness. Yet it is self-centred to want to be a ‘good’ person and therefore gain one’s post-mortem reward in some after-life. Immortality for the self has to be classified as being the ultimate self-centredness. Self-centredness is translated as egotism ... is there such a word as ‘soultism’? There should be!
Let us have a look at the practice of putting the other before oneself: Take us four sitting here – and presume we are all ‘good’ people – and I am not going to be ‘selfish’ at all. Therefore I am going to totally look after (Q) ... I will put her before me in all circumstances. Now, (Q) is also a ‘good’ person and she is not going to be ‘selfish’ either ... so she is going to put Q(1) before herself. However, you have also been brought up with this religious and humanitarian concept of putting the other before oneself ... therefore you will put Q(2) before yourself ... and Q(2) will be putting me before himself. We have come a full circle; do you see the nonsense that is going on? Because the end result of putting the other first is that eventually you get looked after anyway. If we all just stop this charade and start looking after ourselves then we will be a lot better off. It makes much more sense.
Q: Then nobody owes anybody anything ...
R: There is no investment.
Q: ... and nobody owes me anything, either.
Q(2): There is no relationship.
R: No relationship ... right! It is a free association. (Richard, Audio-Taped Dialogues, Putting the Other before Oneself).

As you can see the topic is essentially about being self-centred – with especial attention upon that term referring to each and every ‘self’ being both ego-centric and soul-centric – in respect to the religio-spiritual practice of countering selfishness, which religio-spiritualists generally equate to self-centredness, via putting each and every other ‘self’ before one’s own ‘self’ (a.k.a. being an unselfish ‘self’).

Now, the incident to which Claudiu responded thusly was when feeling-being ‘Alan’ placed the affective happiness of feeling-being ‘Joan’ before the actual happiness of flesh-and-blood Alan (otherwise depicted as “giving myself 100% to another” in Message № 23179) being apparent 24/7 by forgoing ‘his’ second attempt at ‘self’-immolation, there-and-then, due in the main to feeling-being ‘Alan’ already being about an hour late for their prearranged rendezvous.

In other words, feeling-being ‘Alan’ prioritised the (potential) affective happiness of feeling-being ‘Joan’ – a conditioned happiness, dependent upon the situation and circumstances, and of a temporary nature – over the (potential) actual happiness of flesh-and-blood Alan – an unconditioned happiness, due solely to being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only, and of a permanent nature – which happiness also has the priceless advantage of having no trace of any malice whatsoever to later supplant it.

(Incidentally, note well how no mention is made of the then-current affective happiness of feeling-being ‘Alan’ – voice-recorded at-the-time as being “I am *so happy and excited* that I am going to meet the person I am closest to on the intimacy scale (...) I know it is going to be *a very enjoyable* day” [emphases added] – having the obvious potential of being at least sustained, at that then-current level, if not even further enhanced).

Furthermore, and given that Alan portrays that prioritising of affective happiness over an actual happiness as being a “near actual caring” further above, it is pertinent to point out that an actual caring is epitomised by an ever-present preference for the self-imposed suffering of one’s fellow human being to come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later.

For instance:

• [Richard]: “(...) the difference between you and me is that I actually care about my fellow human being and will leave no stone unturned, if that be what it takes, to understand them, to comprehend why they say what they do, so as to facilitate clarity in communication ... I like my fellow human being and prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No.74f, 2 February 2006).

Thus the “caring as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” that Vineeto wrote about (as quoted by Claudiu much further above) – which appears to have become known as a ‘near-actual caring’ these days – is self-evidently a caring which prioritises an actual happiness over an affective happiness any day of the week (else it be a gussied up real-world caring masquerading as a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster).

And now that the incident in question has been brought to its due notice then your above thought – as in, “I thought that the final step i.e. self-immolation, could indeed be construed as a putting of others before self”, that is – can be addressed in an applied fashion.

SRINATH: Otherwise what would be the reason for calling it biological altruism? A mother who throws herself in front of a train to protect her baby is clearly doing this.

RICHARD: Here is a typical example of what is to be found on The Actual Freedom Trust web site in regards to ‘self’-immolation, in toto, and the word ‘altruism’.

• [Richard]: “There is an intrinsic trait common to all sentient beings: self-sacrifice. It manifests in humans in the way that ‘I’ will passionately defend ‘myself’ and ‘my group’ to the death if it is deemed necessary. All of ‘my’ instincts – the instinctive drive for biological survival – come to the fore when psychologically and psychically threatened, for ‘I’ am confused about ‘my’ presence, confounding ‘my’ survival and the body’s survival. Nevertheless, ‘my’ survival being paramount could not be further from the truth, for ‘I’ need play no part any more in perpetuating physical existence (which is the primal purpose of the instinctual animal ‘self’). ‘I’ am no longer necessary at all. In fact, ‘I’ am nowadays a hindrance. With all of ‘my’ beliefs, values, creeds, ethics and other doctrinaire disabilities, ‘I’ am a menace to the body. ‘I’ am ready to die (to allow the body to be killed) for a cause and ‘I’ will willingly sacrifice physical existence for a ‘Noble Ideal’ ... and reap ‘my’ post-mortem reward: immortality.
This is called altruism ... albeit misplaced.
Thus when ‘I’ willingly and irremunerably ‘self’-immolate in toto – both psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make *for this body and that body and every body* ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life”. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 60, 3 December 2003).

And again:

• [Richard]: “The word altruism can be used in two distinctly different ways – in a virtuous sense (as in being an unselfish/ selfless self) or in a zoological/ biological sense (as in being diametrically opposite to selfism) – and it is the latter which is of particular interest to a person wanting to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, as it takes a powerful instinctive impulse (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinctive impulse (selfism) ... blind nature endows each and every human being with the selfish instinct for individual survival and the clannish instinct for group survival (be it the familial group, the tribal group, or the national group). By and large the instinct for survival of the group is the more powerful – as is epitomised in the honey-bee (when it stings to protect/ defend the hive it dies) – and it is the utilisation of this once-in-a-lifetime gregarian action which is referred to in my oft-repeated ‘an altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice/ ‘self’-immolation, in toto, *for the benefit of this body and that body and every body*”. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 83, 7 February 2005).

The only way in which the above text [quote] “could indeed be construed as a putting of others before self” [endquote] is by having the word “others” quite uncharacteristically refer to ‘this body and that body and every body’. For example:

• [example only]: ‘I thought that the final step i.e. self-immolation, could indeed be construed as a putting of this body and that body and every body before self’ [end example].

Here, then, is the 64-dollar question to ponder: did feeling-being ‘Alan’ put ‘his’ body and the body inhabited by feeling-being ‘Joan’ and every other body on the planet before feeling-being ‘Alan’ in that incident whereby ‘he’ placed the affective happiness of feeling-being ‘Joan’ before the actual happiness of flesh-and-blood Alan (otherwise depicted as “giving myself 100% to another” in Message № 23179) by forgoing ‘his’ second attempt at ‘self’-immolation there-and-then?

*

Lastly, as a feeling-being does not give themself 100% to another feeling-being via placing that other feeling-being’s happiness before their own then it is most certainly misleading to present that age-old religio-spiritual practice of ‘putting the other before oneself’ as if it were the way to go about doing so.

More to this point: it is a matter of public record that on the first occasion in which the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago was finally able to give ‘himself’ completely to a woman – totally and utterly – she was so busy fantasising about a current heart-throb pop singer she never even noticed there was no longer any aspect of that ‘me’ hiding from view and/or holding aloof in an ultra-cautious and/or ever-futile reserve (as in, who or what on earth had ‘he’ been saving ‘himself’ for all that long while).

Viz.:

• [Richard]: “(...) 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)”. (Richard, List D, No. 6, 10 November 2009 and (Richard, List D, No. 20, 9 December 2009).

You will surely notice how giving oneself 100% is all about the ending of self-centredness – self-centred as in being both ego-centric and soul-centric – and has nowt to do with placing another’s happiness before one’s own [a.k.a. being an unselfish ‘self’].

SRINATH: For starters it I have been using the term ‘near-actual caring’ as a proxy for ‘more innocuous caring’ ...

RICHARD: And thus does the watering-down process begin – even while the pioneer of what that specialist term refers to is still alive – and by which process thus does identity prevail.

As Vineeto’s reports/ descriptions/ explanations of a near-actual caring are scattered throughout her ‘Direct Route Mail-Out’ emails some background details presented numerically will aid clarity in communication.

1. When feeling-being ‘Vineeto’s everyday feeling of caring first shifted into what has since become known as a near-actual caring the qualitative difference was so marked in its effect ‘she’ initially mistook it to be an actual caring (as per ‘her’ memories of PCE’s).

2. This shift occurred when ‘she’ transitioned from ‘her’ pragmatic, methodological virtual freedom into being out-from-control – a dynamic, destinal virtual freedom – for the remaining four-and-a-half weeks of ‘her’ life (albeit with a melodramatic three-day out-of-control interlude towards the end).

3. Due to ‘her’ naïve intent to be as intimate and without prejudice as possible – which, in conjunction with the absence of self-centredness/ self-centricity that is part-and-parcel of being out-from-control had resulted in the actualism method segueing into the actualism process – ‘her’ cheerful and thus willing concurrence allowed pure intent to dynamically pull ‘her’ evermore unto ‘her’ destiny. (Hence the “dynamic, destinal virtual freedom” nomenclature).

4. This moment-to-moment experiencing of a caring which is not self-centred/ self-centric provided ‘her’ with the experiential convincement that actualising such caring, via ‘self’-immolation, was the only solution to the human condition; this ‘hands-on’ understanding as a dynamically present feeling-being – an impressively distinct contrast to having been abeyant during PCE’s – left ‘her’ with absolutely no choice (lest ‘she’ be forever “rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic”).

5. Since a near-actual caring is, of course, epitomised by a vital interest in the suffering of all human beings coming to an end, forever, as a number one priority, then ‘her’ single-minded focus was essentially centred upon the most immediate way of ensuring this long-awaited global event could begin to take effect the soonest ... to wit: bringing ‘her’ own inevitable demise, at physical death, forward into a liminal imminence.

6. Because the means ‘she’ elected to utilise towards these ends was the near-actual intimacy which goes hand-in-hand with a near-actual caring (per favour that afore-mentioned absence of self-centredness/ self-centricity which typifies being out-from-control) it is apposite to defer to what Vineeto herself wrote on the 20th of January 2010, only fifteen days after her pivotal moment/ definitive event, as its refreshingly simple directness speaks for itself.

Viz.:

• [Vineeto]: “(...). Further it was obvious for me that it would be Richard who would facilitate and trigger my transition into an actual freedom because he was the most obvious person with whom a near-actual intimacy would change into an actual intimacy – simply because Richard had been my guide and mentor for the last 13 years and particularly so for the period since I stepped out-from-control.
As I have written to James recently –

‘The final clue was again about caring, a caring as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster. Only when I cared enough to give all of ‘me’ to another person, to give them what they want most, was I then ready to give it to the one I cared for most, the one I was closest to, and then I was able to leave all remnant concerns and inhibitions of my identity behind.
And that’s what happened”. (Direct Route, James, 17 January 2010).

(Direct Route, No. 20, 20 January 2010).

(Incidentally, her words “to give them what they want most” refers to my oft-expressed emphasis on the necessity of a female replicating my condition – for those oh-so-vital ‘core of civilisation itself’ reason spelled-out elsewhere on my portion of the web site – and it speaks volumes, to those males having reservations about going all the way due to the popular wisdom that what women want is loving relationships, that in the handful of daring pioneers women out-numbered men by a 4-to-1 ratio).

SRINATH: ...[I have been using the term ‘near-actual caring’ as a proxy for ‘more innocuous caring’] i.e. an affective caring that is more innocuous/ harmless than say an out-and-out emotional fusion with another person.

RICHARD: I will first draw your attention to the following:

• [Richard to Srinath]: “Furthermore, and given that Alan portrays that prioritising of affective happiness over an actual happiness as being a “near actual caring” further above, it is pertinent to point out that an actual caring is epitomised by an ever-present preference for the self-imposed suffering of one’s fellow human being to come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later. For instance: [...quote elided...]. Thus the “caring as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” that Vineeto wrote about (...) is *self-evidently a caring which prioritises an actual happiness over an affective happiness any day of the week* (else it be a gussied up real-world caring masquerading as a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster). [emphasis added]. ~ (Message № 23198, 28 July 2016).

Thus, as an actual caring is epitomised by an ever-present preference for the self-imposed suffering of one’s fellow human being to come to an end forever, sooner rather than later, then why would a near-actual caring not *self-evidently be a caring which prioritises an actual innocuity over an affective innocuity any day of the week* but would instead be, for example, a gussied up “affective caring that is more innocuous/ harmless than say an out-and-out emotional fusion with another person” masquerading as a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster?

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity