Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions

Richard, if you experience no affective feelings, does it necessarily mean there are no hormonal substances (of the type scientists associate with feelings) in your body?

RICHARD: It is handy to bear in mind, on occasions such as this, that a scientist is an identity inhabiting a flesh and blood body ... for instance a couple of months ago another subscriber to this mailing list posted a link to a transcript of an interview with Mr. Joseph LeDoux – he has training/ expertise in both neuropsychology and neurobiology – who has the following to say (towards the end):

• ‘I want to understand several aspects of emotion that we have very poor understanding of now. The first part we’re beginning to understand pretty well, which is how the initial aspect of an emotional reaction is elicited. In other words, how you jump back from a bus as it’s approaching, and only afterwards consciously realize that you’ve jumped back, and only then feel afraid. We understand that reactive system in pretty good detail. But what we don’t understand is the system for emotional action’. (www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ledoux/ledoux_p5.html).

Yet towards the beginning of the interview he is classifying the autonomic reflexes, such as the startle response referred to above as the ‘reactive system, as ‘emotion systems’ (such as the ‘fear system’) – as distinct from ‘feelings’ (such as ‘fear feelings’) – and ties feelings with consciousness and language development ... then says that feelings are probably the wrong thing to focus on when emotions are studied! Vis.:

• ‘... emotion systems, like the fear system, didn’t come about to create feelings (like the feeling of being afraid when in danger). I think feelings came much later in evolution. All animals have to be able to detect and respond to danger, regardless of the kind of cognitive architecture they have. This is as true of bees and worms and snails, as it is of fish, frogs, birds, rats, and people. Fear conditioning, by the way, occurs in all animals. And in all those that have an amygdala, the amygdala appears to be the key. The list at this point includes reptiles, birds, and a host of mammals, including humans. I think it’s safe to say fear behaviour preceded fear feelings in evolution. If so, feelings are probably the wrong thing to focus on when we study emotions. In this sense, animals were unconscious, unfeeling, and non-linguistic before they were conscious, feeling, and linguistic’. (www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ledoux/ledoux_p2.html).

This pretty well sums it all up:

• ‘... where do conscious feelings come into emotions? How do we get a deeper understanding of emotional feelings? We all want to know where feelings come from and how they work. So much of the work in the past started with feelings and tried to back into the problem and didn’t get anywhere, which is why I start at the bottom and work up to feelings’. (www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ledoux/ledoux_p5.html).

To be quite frank he is confused about what he is talking of: the autonomic reflexes – which he describes as the ‘reactive system’ in the first quote and as ‘emotion systems’ (such as to be found in ‘fear behaviour’) in the second – operate perfectly well in this flesh and blood body  even though all the affections – be they feelings, emotions, passions, calentures, by whatever categorisation – are nowhere to be found ... the entire affective faculty is extinct.

And the reason for all this confusion in scientific circles? I refer you to the following:

• [Respondent]: ‘And from what stuff are we made of (our identities) anyhow that it cannot be determined by any magnetic scanning?
• [Richard]: ‘Primarily the identity within is the affections (the affective feelings) – ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ – as the instinctual passions form themselves into a ‘presence’, a ‘spirit’, a ‘being’ ... ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself. MRI scans, and all the rest, cannot detect a phantom being, the ghost in the machine. (...) Put expressively the affective feelings swirl around forming a whirlpool or an eddy (which vortex is the ‘presence’, the ‘spirit’, the ‘being’): mostly peoples experience ‘self’ as being a centre, around which the affective feelings form a barrier, which centre could be graphically likened to a dot in a circle (the circle being the affective feelings) which is what gives rise to the admonitions to break down the walls, the barriers, with which the centre protects itself.
Those people who are self-realised have realised that there is no ‘dot’ in the centre of the circle ... hence the word ‘void’.

I put it in that expressive way because it is not possible to separate out the feeler from the very feelings he/she is – just as it is impossible to separate the whirlpool or the eddy (the vortex) from the swirling stuff which is the cause of it as, for example, a whirlpool or an eddy (a vortex) of water or air is the very swirling water or air (the one is not distinct from the other) – hence ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’.

If you have followed all the above thus far you will find the following informative:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘So the feelings are innative to the human being, that means they are actual. Instead the feeler is a real entity, but not actual.
• [Richard]: ‘... just because the genetic-inheritance of the instinctual passions is actual – deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), being a nucleic acid in which the sugar component is deoxyribose, is a chemical substance – does not necessarily mean that a feeling engendered by that genetic software programme, such as the feeling of fear for example, is actual – any more than the fearer it automatically forms itself into by its very occurrence is actual – especially as you go on to say that the feeler is a real entity but not actual (which implies that the fearer is not the fear – as in ‘I’ am *not* ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are *not* ‘me’ – which, at the very least, smacks of denial if not detachment/disassociation or even full-blown disidentification from one’s roots).
Now, I could go on from this to say that the feeling is a movement, a motion, and not a thing, as there is no such happening as a stationary (static) feeling and that it is this very movement or motion of the feeling in action when it occurs which automatically forms the feeler (such as in the whirlpool of water/air analogy above) but, again, it would be far more fruitful if you were to intimately examine all this, by feeling it out for yourself rather than just thinking about it, and if you were to actually do so – literally feel it for yourself – you will surely find out, just as ‘I’ did all those years ago, that you are your feelings (as in ‘I’ *am* ‘my’ feelings) and your feelings are you (as in ‘my’ feelings *are* ‘me’).
The actualism method is an experiential method ... not an intellectual method (an analytical method, a psychological method, a philosophical method) or any other self-preserving method of inaction.

All the confusion, in the scientific circles, stems from a very simple thing: a phantom being, the ghost in the machine, is trying to (scientifically) study phantasms, the ghostly affections in the machine, neither of which have any existence in actuality.

RICHARD: All the confusion, in the scientific circles, stems from a very simple thing: a phantom being, the ghost in the machine, is trying to (scientifically) study phantasms, the ghostly affections in the machine, neither of which have any existence in actuality.

RESPONDENT: What I have to comment in regard to the above is that I distinguish two innate unintelligent reactive systems, one based on the instinctual passions (affective in nature, giving rise to emotions that translate in the ‘fight, freeze, flight’ response of the body) and one based solely on bodily reactions (the ‘startle’ response when touching a hot plate). The difference is that one is the ‘quick and dirty’ way and the other is the ‘quick and clean’ way, but the aim is survival nevertheless. So, what you’re saying is that the body can very well react, defend and survive to danger by generating a quick reaction without the ‘psychic’ survival program. Okay, but in doing so does it use the same hormones/chemicals as the ‘quick and dirty’ way?

RICHARD: I refer you to the following:

• [Richard]: ‘A classic example of this [the automatic response known as the reflex action or the startle response] occurred whilst strolling along a country lane one fine morning with the sunlight dancing its magic on the glistening dew-drops suspended from the greenery everywhere; these eyes are delighting in the profusion of colour and texture and form as the panorama unfolds; these ears are revelling in the cadence of tones as their resonance and timbre fills the air; these nostrils are rejoicing in the abundance of aromas and scents drifting fragrantly all about; this skin is savouring the touch, the caress, of the early springtime ambience; this mind, other than the sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being alive as this flesh and blood body, is ambling along in neutral – there is no thought at all and conscious alertness is null and void – when all-of-a-sudden the easy gait has ceased happening.
These eyes instantly shift from admiring the dun-coloured cows in a field nearby and are looking downward to the front and see the green and black snake, coiling up on the road in readiness to act, which had not only occasioned the abrupt halt but, it is discovered, had initiated a rapid step backwards ... *an instinctive response which, had the instinctual passions that are the identity been in situ, could very well have triggered off freeze-fight-flee chemicals*.
There is no perturbation whatsoever (no wide-eyed staring, no increase in heart-beat, no rapid breathing, no adrenaline-tensed muscle tone, no sweaty palms, no blood draining from the face, no dry mouth, no cortisol-induced heightened awareness, and so on) as with the complete absence of the rudimentary animal ‘self’ in the primordial brain the limbic system in general, and the amygdala in particular, have been free to do their job – the oh-so-vital startle response – both efficaciously and cleanly (...)’. [emphasis added]. (‘Re: Feelings; Wednesday 1/12/2004 AEDST).

RESPONDENT: I ask this as I can see the difference between an actual danger (a snake, a hot plate, a thief) and an imagined danger (when fear is the culprit, i.e. after watching a horror movie alone) ...

RICHARD: It makes no difference, whilst there is an identity in situ, whether a danger be current, being remembered, being watched/read about via media, being informed about face-to-face, or being fantasised about.

RESPONDENT: ... but I also wonder what happened to all those actual (physical) hormones linked to the psychic program in your body. Did they vanished (the body stopped producing them) or are they still present but inactive (disconnected from the brain circuitry)?

RICHARD: As, normally, such chemicals are produced on demand, as it were, it is neither of the above – there has to be a catalytic activation process in order for them to come into existence – but rather the catalyst is null and void.

RESPONDENT: These hormones clearly allow for spectacular feats of the body when the situation demands, physical actions that are impossible in normal circumstances.

RICHARD: You may find the following informative, then:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I’d be interested in hearing whether Richard (...) still experience rushes of adrenaline.
• [Richard]: ‘I do not experience rushes of adrenaline.
(...)
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘[You have said you] could still defend yourself quite easily if attacked on the street. Where does that ‘force’ or ‘power’ required come from since it’s not ‘aggression’?
• [Richard]: ‘The straightforward necessity of acting appropriate to the situation and the circumstance ... if someone attacks somebody they are knowingly initiating a course of action contrary to the legal laws and the social protocol and can rightfully expect whatever consequences which may ensue as a result of their actions.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I guess I’m searching for some distinction between the feeling of aggression and forcefulness. Also between passionate excitement and enthusiasm and actual being fully engaged.
• [Richard]: ‘Perhaps a personal anecdote will throw some light upon the subject of being fully engaged: some years ago whilst in a supermarket my wife and I had a pack stolen from the shopping trolley we were using when our backs were turned; I saw a young man disappearing along the aisle with our pack and on out through the turnstile; I went off after him at a brisk pace, negotiated the turnstile easily, and moved out through the self-opening doors; there was an ornamental garden between me and the car-park wherein off in the distance the young man could be seen heading away; I cleared the garden in one leap – seeing each and every plant and flower in detail as I sailed over it – and soon caught up to him as, glancing over his shoulder and seeing me coming, he headed for a crowded mall to the left ... and eventually regained the pack without a fight or even any display of intimidation. Upon returning to the supermarket I passed by the garden, through the pathway provided, and noticed by its width that I would not ordinarily be able to leap over it ... necessity provides all the calorific energy required.
He was a big, muscular young man such that I would not wish to enter into a ring with as I would be bound to come off second-best in any such organised sport. He knew that he had crossed the line in regards to the legal laws and social protocol and fully expected to pay the price for his actions ... his bluff and bluster collapsed like a leaky balloon when confronted in the mall with the straightforward request for the return of property not belonging to him.
Interestingly enough I was not even breathing heavily.

As I remarked previously (towards the top of this page) it is handy to bear in mind, on occasions such as this, that a scientist is an identity inhabiting a flesh and blood body.

RESPONDENT: There is a qualitative difference in my experience between ‘pure’ fear, when one is instinctual fear and the everyday feelings produced by the instinctual passion of ‘fear’ (like anxiety). The latter seem to be false and imaginary after an experience of real fear, so there is an important difference in intensity (even time seems to flow at a different speed to the point of standing still) between the centre of the vortex/tornado and the outer floating debris (everyday feelings).

RICHARD: The following will be of interest:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘There are examples from people that are attacked by tigers or lions and they survived and they said that after the attack they didn’t feel anything no fear no pain they were like in another dimension.
• [Richard]: ‘Aye ... and instances of this gave the ‘me’ who was inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago encouragement to proceed along ‘his’ path to freeing this flesh and blood body of the instinctual passions which ‘he’ was.
To explain at some length for clarity of communication: I had read an account, many years before, by a farmer’s son who was awarded a Victoria Cross for extreme bravery in the face of the enemy (the highest award, under the British awards system, for a conspicuous courage of a nature such that only 1,348 have been awarded since 1856). As I recall his platoon was pinned down by machine-gun fire from a concrete bunker and there was no way forward to keep up with the advancing line on either flank until it was knocked out. According to the citation he showed courage above and beyond the call of duty by charging single-handedly across open ground under withering fire and lobbing a hand grenade into the pill-box. His own report of the incident, many years later, gave me pause to think and consider. He said that he was no hero and that bravery did not come into it. He said that something changed in him, as he lay pinned down with his mates behind whatever cover they could find, experiencing intense fear. He said that all of a sudden he moved past fear into a super-real world of heightened awareness and absolute calm. He found himself running toward the offending enemy position with bullets whistling about his ears ... and he felt no fear at all: ‘fear did not exist here in this other world’ he said (or words to that effect). He said he did not deserve such high recognition for valour because ‘it was not me who charged the pill-box’ (or some-such words).
It is relevant at this point to mention that more than a few Victoria Crosses are awarded posthumously.
I also watched an account on television, by a U.S. naval pilot flying off carriers during the battle of Midway, and other battles that followed, where he spoke of himself and other pilots experiencing fear prior to take-off. He said that, instead of trying to overcome fear like his buddies, he would ‘go into the fear itself’ (direct quote). He would encourage it to grow and increase in intensity until, sitting strapped into the pilot’s seat as the plane catapulted down the flight-deck, the very intensity of terror would propel him into ‘another world of utter calm’ (or words to that effect) wherein all his senses were heightened and he was spontaneously super-alert ... without any effort. He was able to conduct his designated sortie with outstanding assurance, born out of the enhanced clarity of his unafraid state of being ... until he came back to the ship and – having landed safely – would slip back into the normal world and start compulsively shaking with delayed-action fear at the enormity of what he had just done. I watched intently as this now-old man described his war-time exploits that earned him his country’s foremost military decoration for ‘conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life, above and beyond the call of duty’ (the Congressional Medal of Honour, instituted in 1861, and marked ‘Valour’).
I took it all in with rapidly growing fascination and the thrilling realisation that I already knew of this unafraid state of being from my personal history where, being in a war-zone as a youth, my life became a living nightmare ... literally. I was trapped in an horrific world of revulsion and repugnance, dread and foreboding, and in order to escape from the savage barbarity of the situation *my mind somehow created a new ‘reality’ built out of the extremities of animalistic fear, which hallucination I would nowadays call ‘unreality’*. Thus, back then in a ‘kill or be killed’ country, I withdrew into a place where all is (apparently) placid and peaceful that was not unlike being in the centre of a cyclone – all about rages fear and hatred, anger and aggression – but in ‘there’ all was (seemingly) calm and quiet.
Thus I knew from experience that it is possible to generate an unreality (dissociate) in order to evade the grim and glum ‘real-world’ reality. 26 years later I came to realise that the ‘Greater Reality’ was nothing but another evasion – the mystical realm is a culturally revered dissociative hallucination – and that completion was already actually just here right now ... and had always been actually just here all along.
There are three world’s altogether ... the natural ‘reality’ that 6.0 billion people live in and the super-natural ‘Reality’ that .000001 of the population live in ... and this actual world. I call it actual because it is the world of this body and these sense organs only ... and nary a god or goddess or a devil or a demon to be found. Both the grim and glum ‘real world’ and the glamorous and glorious ‘Greater Reality’ vanished when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul became extinct.
I would not – and could not – live a lie. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: Just curious, what reactions have/would you experience on a roller-coaster ride?

RICHARD: Ha ... many, many years ago, when I first went down to sea on ships as a callow youth, I was so nauseous whilst crossing the Coral Sea in a force-five gale I swore I would never ride on a roller-coaster ever again and, to this very day, I never have.

Just as a matter of interest: rides such as that are designed to produce a (cortisol/adrenalin-based) thrill – just as, for a couple of instances, newspaper headlines and thriller movies are – and, needless to say, as this flesh and blood body is incapable of producing those chemicals, such artificially-induced thrills hold no attraction whatsoever.

Also, and as a matter of even more interest, a body suffused with cortisol and adrenalin for extended periods – such as in a stressed-out existence in the fast-paced modern-day world of commerce – is a body with a (ever-increasingly) deteriorated immune system such as to lead to it being readily susceptible to infectious diseases ... of specific note, for instance, the various types of heart diseases, cancers, and so forth, which are so prevalent today in industrial-technological societies.

In short: a generalised anxiety, and other forms of self-inflicted ‘stress’ which the identity induces, leaves the body quite vulnerable.

RESPONDENT: (...) what you’re saying is that the body [sans the instinctual passions which are the identity] can very well react, defend and survive to danger by generating a quick reaction without the ‘psychic’ survival program. Okay, but in doing so does it use the same hormones/chemicals as the ‘quick and dirty’ way?

RICHARD: I refer you to the following: [snip a description of no hormones/chemicals being generated in such a situation].

RESPONDENT: I ask this as I can see the difference between an actual danger (a snake, a hot plate, a thief) and an imagined danger (when fear is the culprit, i.e. after watching a horror movie alone) ...

RICHARD: It makes no difference, whilst there is an identity in situ, whether a danger be current, being remembered, being watched/read about via media, being informed about face-to-face, or being fantasised about.

RESPONDENT: ... but I also wonder what happened to all those actual (physical) hormones linked to the psychic program in your body. Did they vanished (the body stopped producing them) or are they still present but inactive (disconnected from the brain circuitry)?

RICHARD: As, normally, such chemicals are produced on demand, as it were, it is neither of the above – there has to be a catalytic activation process in order for them to come into existence – but rather the catalyst is null and void.

RESPONDENT: What do you mean by a ‘catalyst’?

RICHARD: This:

• [Respondent]: ‘... the psychic program in your body’.

I was answering your query as asked.

RESPONDENT: An outside situation like the one described at the supermarket?

RICHARD: No ... and neither the coiled snake situation described on a country lane either (neither event generated hormones/chemicals such as cortisol and adrenalin).

RESPONDENT: I understand from that description that your body produced an extra quantity of caloric energy and no hormonal substances. Does your body produce any hormones at all and if yes, what type of?

RICHARD: This is what I do know via self-observation: as there is no identity (no psyche) whatsoever in this flesh and blood body there are no instinctual passions (no fear, no aggression, no nurture, no desire) either – ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ – thus no such hormones as cortisol and adrenalin are being produced.

As I show no symptoms, for just one example, of diabetes insipidus (a pathological endocrine condition characterised by extreme thirst and excessive production of very dilute urine) – which indicates I am not lacking the arginine vasopressin hormone – then various other hormones are indeed being produced.

Here is your original question:

• [Respondent]: ‘Richard, if you experience no affective feelings, does it necessarily mean there are no hormonal substances (*of the type scientists associate with feelings*) in your body? [emphasis added].

And here is a (by no means exhaustive) list of hormones in the human animal:

• Hormones of the pituitary gland: somatotropin (STH); prolactin; adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH); thyrotropin (TSH); follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH); luteinizing hormone (LH) or interstitial-cell-stimulating hormone (ICSH); melanocyte-stimulating hormone (MSH); arginine vasopressin or antidiuretic hormone (ADH); arginine vasotocin; oxytocin; isotocin; glumitocin; mesotocin.
• Hormones of the thyroid gland: thyroxine (T4); triiodothyronine (T3); calcitonin; parathormone (PTH).
• Hormones of the pancreas: insulin; glucagon.
• Hormones of the adrenal glands: epinephrine (adrenaline); norepinephrine (noradrenaline); cortisol; corticosterone; aldosterone.
• Hormones of the reproductive system: oestrogen (estradiol, estrone, estriol); progestin (levonorgestrel, progesterone); testosterone; dihydrotestosterone; androsterone; androstenedione.
• Hormones of the digestive system: gastrin; secretin; cholecystokinin/pancreozymin (CCK-PZ).

As I have never heard of/read about the arginine vasopressin hormone, for just one example, being a hormonal substance [quote] ‘of the type scientists associate with feelings’ [endquote] it would appear you are straying somewhat from the topic you introduced, eh?

RESPONDENT: Richard – I see a few flaws in your description of a lack of adrenaline (now called epinephrine).

RICHARD: Here is the essence of that description:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) Interestingly enough I was not even breathing heavily’.

And here is the essence of the earlier description:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) There is no perturbation whatsoever (no wide-eyed staring, no increase in heart-beat, no rapid breathing, no adrenaline-tensed muscle tone, no sweaty palms, no blood draining from the face, no dry mouth, no cortisol-induced heightened awareness, and so on) as with the complete absence of the rudimentary animal ‘self’ in the primordial brain the limbic system in general, and the amygdala in particular, have been free to do their job – the oh-so-vital startle response – both efficaciously and cleanly (...)’.

If you can point out the ‘few flaws’ you see in either of those descriptions I will be most interested.

RESPONDENT: First of all, can you detect exactly the forms of the molecules that flow through your body?

RICHARD: No ... and, given that ‘molecules’ (just like ‘atoms’) are mathematical models of the universe, neither can anybody else. Moreover, as I am an actualist, and not a scientist, my reports/descriptions/explanations are experiential, not scientifical, and any reference I may make to matters scientific on occasion are secondary.

Did you not take in the import of what [quote] ‘via self-observation’ [endquote] conveys in my further above explanation? Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘This is what I do know *via self-observation*: as there is no identity (no psyche) whatsoever in this flesh and blood body there are no instinctual passions (no fear, no aggression, no nurture, no desire) either – ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ – thus no such hormones as cortisol and adrenalin are being produced’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: Also, I am not sure what scientific claims you are consulting ...

RICHARD: I am not consulting any scientific claim in either the later or the earlier description ... they are, quite clearly, self-reports. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) Interestingly enough I was not even breathing heavily’. [endquote].
• [Richard]: ‘There is (...) no wide-eyed staring, no increase in heart-beat, no rapid breathing, no adrenaline-tensed muscle tone, no sweaty palms, no blood draining from the face, no dry mouth, no cortisol-induced heightened awareness, and so on (...)’. [endquote].

I was sailing over a supermarket garden-bed/strolling along a country lane ... I was *not* in a laboratory somewhere, wired to some machine, on either occasion.

RESPONDENT: ... [I am not sure what scientific claims you are consulting] but studies done by Schacter provide strong evidence for the conclusion that epinephrine is NOT linked to specific emotions.

RICHARD: You may have missed what I wrote in my initial response in this thread:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘(...) From the above phrase [referring to the arising of instinctually-sourced feelings producing a hormonal chemical response] I understand that feelings (out-sourced by the instinctual program) produce hormonal substances, not the other way around. From the TV documentaries I’ve watched, it is because of the physical hormonal substances in the body that certain good/bad feelings arise. Scientists have managed to identify and link certain hormonal substances to particular feelings, giving the impression that a feeling cannot arise without an associated body-produced ‘chemical’.
• [Richard]: ‘It is handy to bear in mind, on occasions such as this, that a scientist is an identity inhabiting a flesh and blood body ... for instance a couple of months ago another subscriber to this mailing list posted a link to a transcript of an interview with Mr. Joseph LeDoux – he has training/expertise in both neuropsychology and neurobiology – who has the following to say towards the end: (...)’ [snip remainder].

In essence what you are doing is singling out one person, with training/expertise in some ‘-ology’ or another, among many such persons ... only to have me research what that person has to say (in lieu of you conducting a ‘self’-investigation).

RESPONDENT: I suggest you research the studies of this man.

RICHARD: I have had all manner of peoples advise me to research all manner of things since I first went public on the internet in 1997 ... each and every one of them conveniently overlooking the fact that, being already actually free of the human condition, I have no personal interest whatsoever in doing anything of the sort.

RESPONDENT: One of the most important conclusions he made is that if a person could be persuaded that the arousal they received (from ep. injections) was not due to an emotional factor, they would not experience it as emotional.

RICHARD: To use a modern colloquialism: that would have to be a no-brainer if there ever was.

RESPONDENT: Furthermore, epinephrine signals cells to increase cAMP levels, Triacyglcerol mobilization, and glyconeogenesis, all needed for increased energy availability. This IS the signal for more energy: you still insist that ‘necessity’ gave you the energy you needed?

RICHARD: I never insisted upon it in the first place – I provided a report/a description/an explanation out of my direct experience – and, not only did I experience no feelings/emotions/passions whatsoever, neither was there any receival of an adrenaline arousal at all (as expressed in, for example, phrasing such as ‘rushes of adrenaline’ or ‘an adrenaline hit’ and ‘an adrenaline junkie’ and so on).

Neither was there any cortisol-induced heightened awareness either – each and every thing specifically looked at, here in this actual world, is already seen in detail – and, as time does not move in actuality, neither did time all-of-a-sudden stand still either.

Incidentally (in regards adrenaline injections): whenever I have a dental injection to anaesthetise the jaw, these days, I make sure the dentist uses a procaine mixture which does not contain adrenaline, which most such mixtures do, because its effect is to set-off a psychotropic episode (lasting up to 5-6 hours).

As does caffeine (a chemical cousin to cocaine).

*

RESPONDENT: You have still not addressed the silliness of this claim: [Richard] ‘This is what I do know via self-observation: as there is no identity (no psyche) whatsoever in this flesh and blood body there are no instinctual passions (no fear, no aggression, no nurture, no desire) either – ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ – thus no such hormones as cortisol and adrenaline are being produced’. [endquote].

RICHARD: As you have not established that there is, in fact, any ‘silliness’ to my (reposted just above) report/description/explanation I would suggest you refrain from adding such commentitious nouns to your assertions as they have the effect of turning them into loaded assertions. Here is an example of an assertion that can be responded to as-is (without preliminary qualifications):

• [example only]: ‘You have still not addressed the flaw I see in your description of a lack of adrenaline’. [end example].

I have indeed addressed the flaw you say you saw ... to wit: not only did I experience no feelings/emotions/passions whatsoever, *neither was there any receival of an adrenaline arousal at all* (as expressed in, for example, phrasing such as ‘rushes of adrenaline’ or ‘an adrenaline hit’ and ‘an adrenaline junkie’ and so on).

I phrased it that way because this is what I was responding to:

• [Respondent]: ‘... if a person could be persuaded that *the arousal they received* (from ep. injections) ...’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: I have previously stated: [Respondent] ‘Furthermore, epinephrine signals cells to increase cAMP levels, Triacyglcerol mobilization, and glyconeogenesis, all needed for increased energy availability. This IS the signal for more energy: you still insist that necessity gave you the energy you needed?’ [endquote]. That is, according to empirical evidence obtained by modern biochemistry, adrenaline is NEEDED for any kind of energy increase in the body: to get up from the couch, to move your arm from resting, etc.

RICHARD: If I may point out? According to empirical evidence obtained by modern biochemistry – provided that what you say just above is accurate – it is an increase of cAMP levels (Cyclic Adenosine MonoPhosphate ultimately controls the level of fructose-2,6-bisphosphate, the most potent allosteric regulator of glycolysis and gluconeogenesis, through the action of cAMP-dependent protein kinase to interconvert PFK-2 and fructose-2,6-bisphosphatase by phosphorylation), Triacyglcerol mobilisation (TAGs are storage lipids stored mostly in adipose, or fat, cells and tissues, which are highly concentrated stores of metabolic energy), and Glyconeogenesis (the formation of glycogen from glucose which, in skeletal muscle, is used to provide a source of ATP, a nucleotide derived from adenosine that occurs in muscle tissue and which is the major source of energy for cellular reactions, to power myofibrillar contraction), which is needed for any kind of energy increase in the body ... to get up from the couch, to move one’s arm from resting, etcetera.

*

RESPONDENT: It [adrenaline] is the signal to make more energy to do these things.

RICHARD: Adrenaline is the signal in normal human beings (provided that what you say further above is accurate) ... yes; in a human being sans identity/instinctual passions ... no. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... not only did I experience no feelings/emotions/passions whatsoever, neither was there any receival of an adrenaline arousal at all (as expressed in, for example, phrasing such as ‘rushes of adrenaline’ or ‘an adrenaline hit’ and ‘an adrenaline junkie’ and so on). Neither was there any cortisol-induced heightened awareness either ...’.

RESPONDENT: May I ask, what signal transduction pathways do you utilize if you want to move?

RICHARD: At a guess (and having no training/expertise in this area at all it can only ever be a lay-person’s speculation) it could be neurohormonal – a process first observed in 1975 in the course of investigations into the mechanism of the action of morphine and other analgesics – as the neurosecretory cells, being structurally typical of the nervous rather than of the endocrine system, have a long evolutionary history of translating neural signals into chemical stimuli.

I first became cognisant of this subject by necessity nearly a quarter of a century ago when my first wife, having had the entire hypophysis cerebri surgically removed because of a spreading tumour, was able to have the brain itself map new pathways, as it were, so as to reconstitute the production of all but two of the nine hormones which had ceased generation upon such radical, and life-saving, surgery (she has to ingest the other two orally to this very day).

The surgeons/physicians I consulted with at the time were at pains to explain that much had been discovered about hormones and hormone production only in the preceding twenty years (this was in 1983) and the neurohormonal mechanism was one of these discoveries: essentially what happens is that neurohormones originate in the hypothalamic region of the brain and pass along nerve-cell extensions (axons) to be released into the bloodstream at special regions called neurohemal organs. A second group, called releasing hormones, also originates in the hypothalamus but are transmitted within the neural cells to a second locus in the brain, from which they pass in the bloodstream to the adenohypophysis. A third group, which, includes the encephalins and other endorphins, manifests their neurohormonal activity by an indirect process involving a site (other than the secretory neuron) in the central nervous system and have, at the very least, some relation to appetite control, the release of sex hormones, and the adverse effects of shock.

Be that as it may: whatever the process is (being an actualist, not a biochemist, my report/description/explanation is experiential, not scientifical), the one thing I do know is that the human brain is remarkably adept at finding ways to map pathways and thus it comes as no surprise to me, given the experience of my then wife, that not only muscular movement but increased muscular activity as well – as required by the situation and circumstance – can still occur despite the total extinction of the instinctual passions/the identity in toto (and thus the fright-freeze-fight-flee instinctual reaction).

In fact this body operates a whole lot better sans cortisol/adrenaline ... and this has been the case, night and day, for just over twelve years now.

*

RICHARD: Obviously some other avenue of triggering-off increases in cAMP levels, Triacyglcerol mobilisation, and Glyconeogenesis (provided that what you say further above is accurate) is occurring in this flesh and blood body, non?

Because this is what I do know via self-observation: as there is no identity (no psyche) whatsoever in this flesh and blood body there are no instinctual passions (no fear, no aggression, no nurture, no desire) either – ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ – thus no such hormones as adrenaline (and cortisol) are being produced.

RESPONDENT: I think you may have missed my initial intent of replying to this thread – what I meant to convey with Schacter’s studies was that adrenaline is not necessarily affective.

RICHARD: This is what you wrote (in your initial response):

• [Respondent]: ‘... I am not sure what scientific claims you are consulting but studies done by Schacter provide strong evidence for the conclusion that epinephrine is NOT linked to specific emotions’.

I got your intent that (you have also concluded that) adrenaline is not necessarily affective loud and clear ... what you may have missed is it was not me that said adrenaline is ‘linked to specific emotions’ but some (unnamed) scientists on some (unidentified) television documentaries another subscriber to this mailing list watched. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘The arising of instinctually-sourced feelings produces a hormonal chemical response in the body, which can lead to the false assumption that they are actual’. (actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/feelings.htm). From the above phrase I understand that feelings (out-sourced by the instinctual program) produce hormonal substances, not the other way around. From the TV documentaries I’ve watched, it is because of the physical hormonal substances in the body that certain good/bad feelings arise. *Scientists have managed to identify and link certain hormonal substances to particular feelings*, giving the impression that a feeling cannot arise without an associated body-produced ‘chemical’. Richard, if you experience no affective feelings, does it necessarily mean there are no hormonal substances (of the type scientists associate with feelings) in your body? [emphasis added].

What Peter is saying in the quote is that, because the arising of instinctually-sourced feelings produces a hormonal chemical response in the body (as in, for instance, the fright-freeze-fight-flee reaction), the affective feelings are falsely assumed to be actual when they are not ... as is evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) where no such feelings exist.

RESPONDENT: You can have adrenaline flowing to signal energy needs without an affective response.

RICHARD: This is what you went on to say (in your initial response):

• [Respondent]: ‘One of the most important conclusions he [Mr. Schacter] made is that if a person could be persuaded that the arousal they received (from ep. injections) was not due to an emotional factor, they would not experience it as emotional’.

Just because a person in a laboratory somewhere has an (adrenaline-typical) arousal from an injection of adrenaline it does not demonstrate that it is not the hormonal chemical response which produces the (instinctually-sourced) feelings: it simply demonstrates that it is handy to bear in mind, on occasions such as this, that a scientist is an identity inhabiting a flesh and blood body ... just as you are.

Your conclusion, based upon Mr. Schacter’s conclusion based upon what happened in a laboratory, that I can have ‘adrenaline flowing to signal energy needs without an affective response’ is an assumption so egregious as to be staggering in its magnitude for a person who has advised, in a previous e-mail, that they are a chemist.

RESPONDENT: In light of this, your logic is flawed: ‘... thus no such hormones as adrenaline (and cortisol) are being produced’. You cannot conclude such a thing from the fact that you are free of any identity – there is no support for such a correlation.

RICHARD: If I may point out? The ‘light’ you are appealing to, in order to justify your assumption that my reasoning is flawed, is a preposterous – ‘having last what should be first; inverted’ (Oxford Dictionary) – conclusion and, in view of this thread, which you bought into at your own choosing, being about that very thing (that it is back-to-front to assert that the affective feelings are caused by the hormonal reaction), it is an ignorant assumption into the bargain.

RESPONDENT: Fine, you are free of ‘feelings’ ...

RICHARD: It is indeed ‘fine’ to be free, not only of feelings but the identity they form themselves into, as the immediate result is, not only the marked absence of an adrenaline-typical arousal, but a remarkable dearth of the trait so common to many an identity/feeling-encumbered person (which includes scientists) ... to wit: jumping to conclusions which conveniently ignore their role, as a feeling-formed identity, in what occurs.

For what is implicit in saying that – if one could be persuaded that an adrenaline arousal is not necessarily affective, as in not sourced in the instinctual passions, and thus adrenaline can flow to signal increased muscular activity without an affective response – is one need not root out the (deemed to be not-instinctual) passions after all in order to bring to an end all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so on, and thus ensure peace and harmony.

In short: disassociate the feelings from arousal (by first linking them to arousal and not the other way around) via proving one’s hypothesis, that there is no such correlation, in a laboratory situation with an (artificially) injected substance and ... !Voila! ... QED (case closed).

RESPONDENT: ... [Fine, you are free of ‘feelings’] – You have already said that it is a no-brainer that epinephrine can be increased without an affective response, but now ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? This is the exchange you are referring to:

• [Respondent]: ‘One of the most important conclusions he [Mr. Schacter] made is that if a person could be persuaded that the arousal they received (from ep. injections) was not due to an emotional factor, they would not experience it as emotional’.
• [Richard]: ‘To use a modern colloquialism: that would have to be a no-brainer if there ever was.

What I have ‘already said that it is a no-brainer’ to is that if a person could be persuaded that the arousal they received from an injection of adrenaline was not due to an emotional factor they would not experience it as emotional ... and not that epinephrine (aka adrenaline) ‘can be increased without an affective response’ as you make out.

And the reason why I said ‘that would have to be a no-brainer if there ever was’ is because most, if not all, truisms are ... for example:

• [example only]: ‘If a person could be persuaded that the pain they received from a stubbed toe was not due to an emotional factor they would not experience it as emotional’. [end example].

Truisms can be so trite ... for needless is it to add that an injection-sourced arousal is not, of course, a (instinctually-sourced) feeling arousal?

RESPONDENT: ... [You have already said that it is a no-brainer that epinephrine can be increased without an affective response, but now] you are just inventing metabolic pathways to avoid correcting your explanation of the state of your body.

RICHARD: Perhaps if the latter part of your sentence was put into the context of what I actually said ‘that would have to be a no-brainer if there ever was’ to then something which will stand you in good stead, not only as a responsive correspondent but as a considerate chemist as well, might become obvious. Vis.:

• [example only]: ‘You have already said that it is a no-brainer, that if a person could be persuaded that the arousal they received from an injection of adrenaline was not due to an emotional factor they would not experience it as emotional, but now you are just inventing metabolic pathways to avoid correcting your explanation of the state of your body’. [end example].

Put simply: it is your (borrowed) explanation regarding the condition of this body which you are avoiding the correction of that is the issue ... to wit: asserting that the metabolic pathways utilised by normal human beings are still operational in a body actually free from the human condition.

Have you ever considered what the phrase ‘peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, for this flesh and blood body’ would mean if it did not include the absence of, not only the instinctually-sourced feelings/identity, but the chemicals they/it persuade the body to produce which results in behaviour both personally insalubrious and socially reprehensible?

Just curious.

RICHARD: It is indeed true that ... (a) I did not experience any feelings/emotions/passions whatsoever (in the two daily-life situations previously described in detail) ... and (b) I did not receive any adrenaline arousal at all (as expressed in your ‘the arousal they received (from ep. injections)’ phrasing) ... and (c) there was no cortisol-induced heightened awareness either ... and (d) each and every thing specifically looked at, here in this actual world, is indeed already seen in detail ... and (e) time did not all-of-a-sudden stand still either (as time does not move in actuality) ... and (f) the effect of a dental injection of procaine containing adrenaline did set off a psychotropic episode (lasting up to 5-6 hours) ... and (g) so too does caffeine, a chemical cousin to cocaine.

All these 7 points have been variously verified by others, on many an occasion, either by close observation of me (and I have, of course, been subject to the most detailed scrutiny possible by many peoples in all manner of situations and circumstances for more than a decade now) or via their own experience during a pure consciousness experience (PCE).

RESPONDENT: ... If this is true than what happens when you eat meat?

RICHARD: If I may point out? This is what I am responding to:

• [Respondent]: ‘One of the most important conclusions he [Mr. Schacter] made is that if a person could be persuaded that the arousal they received (*from ep. injections*) was not due to an emotional factor, they would not experience it as emotional’. [emphasis added].

Is there not a presumption implicit to this latest query of yours that there is essentially no difference between taking adrenaline orally (into the digestive system) and taking it intravenously (directly into the blood-stream) ... plus further assuming that there is sufficient quantity of adrenaline in a typical serving of muscle-meat to have an effect anyway?

Did Mr. Schacter conduct laboratory tests upon subjects ingesting adrenaline orally?

Are you aware that, apart from the obvious humane concerns, the main concern by the meat-packing industry in regards to the muscle-meat of animals subject to stress is the rate of pH decline (due to the effect of a lactic acid and water build-up prior to slaughter not being dispersed as carbon dioxide and water, because of the lack of oxygen in a dead creature, as would normally happen when glucose is converted to energy)? For example:

• ‘To understand the effects of stress on final meat quality, it is important to understand the relationship of glycogen and lactic acid to pH decline in meat after slaughter. An animal which has not been stressed will have normal levels of glycogen in its body. When the animal is slaughtered and exsanguinated, the metabolic process continues, however there is no longer circulating oxygen. Without the presents of oxygen, the breakdown of glycogen/glucose results in a build-up of lactic acid which then causes a drop in pH of the meat. The final quality of meat is greatly affected by the rate of pH decline in the meat after slaughter. If there was a great lactic acid build-up before slaughter, the pH of the meat declines too quickly after slaughter and a Pale, Soft, Exudative (PSE) condition may develop. As suggested by the name, the affected meat is pale, soft, and fluid may drip from the surface. At the other extreme, if the animal is glycogen depleted before slaughter the pH may not drop quickly enough after slaughter because there is not enough lactic acid produced. In this case the meat will be very dry and dark in colour. This condition is known as Dark Firm Dry (DFD) meat. An additional problem with this type of meat is that it is more susceptible to spoiling since it lacks the lactic acid which normally helps retard growth of micro-organisms after slaughter’. (http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/meat_quality/mqf_stress.html).

I have not, of course, conducted an exhaustive research yet even so I have been unable to find any documented evidence that there is any adrenaline, in sufficient quantity to have a adrenaline-typical arousal effect, in muscle-meat ... all I could find were (undocumented) assertions from vegetarian/vegan sources that this be the case.

RESPONDENT: Meat that certainly has some degree of said hormones, because epinephrine is flowing constantly in animals, particularly strong when they are being killed.

RICHARD: If you could provide a reliable, documented, source for this it would be most appreciated as all I could find was a ‘Med-Line’ abstract which stated that the duration of crating for chickens (nine per crate) had no influence on plasma CORT (corticosterone) levels, epinephrine and norepinephrine concentrations, initial pH, colour, or texture of breast and thigh meat samples, although crated chickens held in a dark quiet place, as contrasted to those which were not, did have significantly lower corticosterone levels and initial pH of the thigh meat (muscle-meat) but not of the breast meat ... which results (due to the correlation between CORT levels and hue values) suggested to the experimenters that higher pre-slaughter stress levels in chickens could influence the colour of thigh meat even though overall meat quality was not affected.

RESPONDENT: And the last time I checked, epinephrine is not destroyed upon cooking.

RICHARD: If you could provide the source which you last checked it would be appreciated ... but even more so would be a source which shows that orally ingested adrenaline survives intact the entire digestive process (specifically the salivary enzymes, the stomach acids and enzymes, the intestinal secretions, the bile duct juices and the pancreatic acids) and especially including its safe passage through the liver so as to enter the blood-stream in the same manner as an intravenous injection.

RESPONDENT: So you would have an adverse reaction to epinephrine when you know you are getting it ...

RICHARD: I did not know I was getting adrenaline in the procaine mixture injected by the dentist in question: it was the ensuing psychotropic episode which led to ... (a) the dentist informing me of this fact (and, I might add, being most curious about was happening) ... and (b) henceforth administering a procaine mixture sans adrenaline (with no resultant effect).

Further to the point: a psychotropic episode is not, repeat not, an adrenaline-typical reaction (otherwise referred to by you as ‘arousals’ and, further below in this e-mail, as ‘spikes’ and by others as ‘rushes of adrenaline’ or ‘an adrenaline hit’ and so forth).

RESPONDENT: ... [you would have an adverse reaction to epinephrine when you know you are getting it], but not when you do not know you are ingesting it?

RICHARD: You would have to be living on another planet in order to be able to assume I never knew about the topic of adrenaline in meat ... especially so as I live in a seaside village (Byron Bay) which is notorious virtually world-wide for its over-representation of health quacks and nutrition ninnies.

RESPONDENT: This reeks of a belief to me.

RICHARD: You can, of course, have it reek of whatever you like ... such reeking, however, will not miraculously transform it into fact no matter how tightly you pinch your nostrils and/or screw-up your visage in disgust.

*

RESPONDENT: All epinephrine is is a signal for increased energy production – if you need more energy, you will tell your cells this by the hormone known as epinephrine.

RICHARD: Aye ... I got it loud and clear, the first time around, that this is what happens in normal human beings.

RESPONDENT: In fact, it is even debatable whether or not a human heart can even function in the absence of epinephrine.

RICHARD: As I have no interest in debating such an issue you will have to take it up with others who are more interested in discussing ever-increasing minutiae in lieu of addressing the substance of the issue ... to wit: what I know, via self-observation, that there was no heavy breathing/no perturbation whatsoever – no wide-eyed staring, no increase in heart-beat, no rapid breathing, no adrenaline-tensed muscle tone, no sweaty palms, no blood draining from the face, no dry mouth, no cortisol-induced heightened awareness, and so on, (such as, for instance, no hair standing on end) – as compared with your assertions that this flesh and blood body is still producing adrenaline anyway because that is what you know, via text-book learning, about normal human beings.

RESPONDENT: Face it Richard, you may not experience ‘spikes’ in your levels of epinephrine, but you use it all the same to preform bodily functions.

RICHARD: Hmm ... as the word ‘spikes’ is, presumably, another way of saying [quote] ‘arousals’ [endquote] I will insert it in your earlier sentence. For example:

• [example only]: ‘I think that if you are AF then you would not experience these spikes, we are in agreement here. [end example].

Are you saying that you agree there was no spike received (as contrasted, for example, to the spike received upon having an injection of procaine, at a dentist’s surgery, containing a small percentage of adrenaline ... which spike can itself be compared with no such spike being received, these days, upon having an injection of procaine containing no adrenaline at all)?

Please note that I am talking out of experience and not theory.

RESPONDENT: Otherwise, get medical assay tests done to provide evidence to the contrary ...

RICHARD: Oh? Yet another person insisting I be a laboratory guinea-pig for them (even though I say again and again that actualism is experiential and not scientifical), eh?

*

RESPONDENT: Just for the record, does your heart rate EVER change? If you don’t know, it is certainly quite simple to find this out.

RICHARD: I see that I have provided the following information:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard, you have said that caffeinated coffee sets off a psychotropic experience for you. Can you elaborate please?
• [Richard]: ‘... I am also hypersensitive to adrenaline. (...).
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Is this true for all humans?
• [Richard]: ‘Not that I am cognisant of ... the normal symptoms of caffeine intoxication are restlessness, nervousness, excitement, insomnia, flushed face, diuresis, gastrointestinal complaints, muscle twitching, rambling flow of thought and speech, cardiac arrhythmia, and psychomotor agitation. [For example]: Caffeine (...) *causes the release of the hormone epinephrine*, which in turn leads to several effects such as higher heart rate, increased blood pressure, increased blood flow to muscles, decreased blood flow to the skin and inner organs, and release of glucose by the liver. In addition, caffeine, similar to amphetamines, increases the levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine in the brain. (...) Caffeine intoxication can lead to symptoms similar to panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine). Some years ago, whilst undergoing caffeine intoxication, *I attended an out-patients clinic and had all the vital signs tested – blood pressure, pulse rate, and so on – all of which were found to be normal and nor were there any palpitations, agitations, and so on, either* ... let alone anxiety and/or panic. [emphasises added].

Moreover my second wife, a qualified nursing-sister, would of-times check me for pulse rate, and so forth, on differing occasions when I would report no such sensations as are typical of adrenaline/cortisol arousals, as she was puzzled as to why all the normal characteristics of such chemically-induced arousals were not present in typical fright-freeze-fight-flee situations ... so I am well-aware of what is happening for this heart, these lungs, this skin, these hair follicles, and so on, in any situation in which these things are specifically taken notice of.

Only yesterday afternoon, for instance, both during and for a short while after sawing and carrying and stacking wood, there was some shortness of breath and an accompanying beading of perspiration along with a slight increase in heart-beat ... and at least three factors need to be taken into consideration ... (a) it is full summer where I currently reside (an area described as being ‘sub-tropical’) ... (b) I live an indolent life-style (way past merely ‘sedentary’) ... and (c) I use tobacco regularly (such as to evoke surprise from medical practitioners in regards blood-pressure being un-changed).