# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Near-Actual Caring RESPONDENT: All is in unity and perfect ... even the fly on the manure pile is Divine. RICHARD: Oh yes ... so ‘divine’, in fact, that in India (where human ordure is oft-times deposited on top of the ground) this ‘divine’ fly spreads ‘divine’ virulence through ‘divine’ neighbourhoods causing unnecessary ‘divine’ pain and ‘divine’ suffering. In 1984 I visited India to see for myself and spent nearly three months living in the slums of what was then called Madras. The sight of tiny children with unnecessarily bloated bellies and protruding eyes all covered with unnecessary pestilent running sores lying on their unnecessary death-beds on the rubbish-strewn sidewalks tore at my ‘divine’ heart and on down to the depths of my ‘divine’ being (I was the full suite of transcendent feelings back then) and I knew that this ‘divine’ nonsense had gone on long enough. This is how the mind starts seeing itself ... for that is when I actually started to care about my fellow human ... not merely transcendentally feel that I care. Re: Near Actual Caring 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”: • [Alan]: “‘My’ final commitment and “giving myself 100% to another” – *placing the other’s happiness before my own*, with no reserve, no holding back anything whatsoever – was to give up what ‘I’ thought was ‘my’ chance to achieve an actual freedom at that moment in time”. [emphasis added]. (Message #23179). The silliness of this putting the other before oneself is explicated in detail on the Actual Freedom Trust website in the transcript of the Audio-Taped Dialogue aptly titled “Putting The Other Before Oneself”. (Richard, Audio-Taped Dialogues, 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’]. * Incidentally, neither will being in love do the trick either (as was amply demonstrated by the instigator of the ‘mother of all kerfuffles’ back in January 2012). (Richard, List D, No. 6, 19 December 2011). * Re: Near Actual Caring CLAUDIU [to Alan]: (...). 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). [...remainder of post elided...]. RICHARD [to Srinath]: (...). Furthermore, and given that Alan portrays that prioritising of affective happiness over an actual happiness as being a “near actual caring”, 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). [...remainder of post elided...]. (Richard, List D, Srinath, 28 July 2016) SRINATH: Excellent science article on empathy which I found very relevant to my work. Also it aligns with near-actual caring: Attachment: Nautilus – Issue 35: Boundaries: How to Avoid Empathy Burnout [by Jamil Zaki; April 7, 2016; "Caregivers can benefit by understanding a patient’s pain without feeling it themselves"]. .... but not the last self-love bit which came out of the blue! [bracketed insert added]. (Message № 232xx; Slack Digest 03Aug16; 02:29 PM) ADDENDUM: Actually I’m seeing that the article for the most part doesn’t align with near-actual caring or naive intimacy. But it does advocate not taking on emotional contagion, pragmatism and boundaries – which I suppose are sensible real world ways of care-giving. (Message № 232xx; Slack Digest 04Aug16; 02:22 AM) G’day Srinath, As the above article on ‘Empathy Burnout’ (a near-cousin to ‘Compassion Fatigue’) which you link to, and publicly commend as being an [quote] “excellent science article” [endquote] on the ‘Nautilus Magazine’ web site, was composed by an assistant professor of psychology – whose research focuses on the cognitive and neural bases of social behaviour at the Stanford Social Neuroscience Laboratory – it would surely take nothing short of a miracle for any such social behaviourist to write anything at all which even for the least part [quote] “aligns with” [endquote] what Vineeto wrote of as constituting “a caring as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” on the 17th of January 2010 (as quoted by Claudiu in Message № 23185 and re-presented in my Message № 23198 (Richard, List D, Srinath, 28 July 2015) to you as per the top of this page) let alone via them craftily redefining what the word empathy means. Essentially, what the author describes as [quote] “a third way” [endquote] to the self-preservation of becoming empathetically calloused, with its blunted responsiveness, and the crushing risk which the burden of empathically caring imparts – which third way he specifically references as being [quote] “detachment” [endquote] mind you – is a therapeutic distancing technique similar to and/or drawn from and/or based upon [quote] “Buddhist-inspired compassion meditation training” [endquote] whereby savvy social behaviourist-type therapists and counsellors consciously shed a pattern of feeling the other’s emotional pain (which vicarious-feeling is what the word empathy has referred to ever since it was coined, in 1908, to translate the 1858 German word Einfühlung into English) and replace it with patterns of motivation and even positive emotion ... to wit: “a key feature of successful therapy is therapists’ communication of warmth and understanding toward their patients”. A non-empathic warmth, that is, engendered by an intellectual understanding drawn from impressions based upon verbal and visual cues alone. The following half-a-dozen or so paragraphs from that ‘Empathy Burnout’ article more or less convey these essential aspects (with over a dozen key features highlighted, for convenience in referencing those essential aspects, and explanatory info inserted within curled brackets). Viz.: • [Assist. Prof. Jamil Zaki]: “Caregivers can benefit by understanding a patient’s pain *without feeling it themselves*. (...). *Patients thrive from emotional connection with nurses, social workers, and therapists*, but helpers who provide this connection can wilt under its force. The stress of caring can lead to astonishing levels of job turnover. According to one review, 30 to 60 percent of social workers in high-impact sectors, such as child abuse, leave their jobs each year. When caregivers flame out at such rates, it opens cracks in the continuity of care, through which patients frequently fall. Even helpers who do stay often harden themselves to their patients’ emotions. Medical students report lower levels of empathy as their training progresses. Health-care professionals underestimate patients’ suffering and even display blunted physiological signs of empathy for pain. Many helpers feel that they face a double bind. They can preserve themselves by growing emotional callouses and blunting their responses to those in need. Or they can throw themselves into building connections with their patients and risk being crushed by the weight of caring. New research suggests *a third way*. Caregivers need to be empathetic, but empathy is not one thing. Both neuroscience and psychology have uncovered an important distinction between two aspects of empathy: emotion contagion, which is *vicariously sharing another person’s feeling*, and empathic concern, which entails *forming a goal* to alleviate that person’s suffering. Whereas contagion involves *blurring the boundary between self and other*, concern requires *retaining or even strengthening such boundaries*. Learning to practice one but not the other could be the best example of how caregivers can simultaneously look out for patients and for themselves. (...). Many helpers have rededicated themselves, through organisations such as the Secondary Trauma Resource Centre, to help their colleagues maintain a healthy lifestyle. Their efforts connect with research suggesting that helpers’ success hinges on their ability to experience concern while avoiding contagion {i.e., while avoiding vicariously sharing another person’s feeling; a.k.a., empathy}. When other people’s emotions flood into us, it can make it harder for us to help them. Patients, after all, are often too distressed to realise what might aid them; that is not a condition the helper should emulate. As one clinician put it, “Once you are *in the shoes of your patient*, you cannot possibly be of any help”. Rene McCreary {a counsellor also working in the Kansas City area} describes the state she strives for in her interactions with patients: “I try not to metabolise [sic] their trauma, which allows me to hear what they have to share and not become what they have to share ... I need to be as irrelevant as possible, and *keep the experience about them*”. Allison Basinger {a deeply religious person who visits local middle and high schools, to educate students about unhealthy relationships and teen dating violence, under the auspices of a Kansas City-area organisation which supports teenage survivors of domestic violence} takes *a different approach to detachment*, trying to model for patients how much better they might feel after treatment: “I try to be the face of resilience, to show them how things could be for them”. Research suggests that these strategies can offer an antidote to burnout {i.e., via avoiding empathy}. In the 1980s, the psychologist Katherine Miller and her colleagues suggested that a key feature of successful therapy is therapists’ communication of warmth and understanding toward their patients. She found that concern facilitates such communication, whereas contagion {i.e., empathy} interferes with it. Therapists’ ability to *separate themselves* from their patients’ suffering {i.e., separate themselves from empathy via avoiding vicariously sharing another person’s feeling} also staved off secondary trauma. (...). In one remarkable demonstration of such empathic tuning, the neuroscientist Tania Singer engaged a group of subjects in *Buddhist-inspired compassion meditation training*. (...). Singer and her colleagues scanned participants’ brain responses to others’ distress before and after the meditation training. Before, people demonstrated physiological signs of contagion – for instance, engaging parts of their brain associated with *feeling pain* {i.e., vicariously sharing another person’s feeling; a.k.a., empathy} when watching others experience it. After the training, however, they *shed this pattern* {i.e., they shed empathy} and instead exhibited a pattern of brain activity more commonly associated with motivation and even positive emotion. Singer believes this type of training might allow helpers to “tune” empathy toward concern, working with it but not allowing it to take them over (...)”. [emphases and curly-bracket inserts added]. [http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/how-to-avoid-empathy-burnout]. As your reassessment now has you seeing how the article [quote] “for the most part” [endquote] does not align with a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster – a caring which prioritises an actual happiness over an affective happiness any day of the week (inasmuch 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) – it is somewhat intriguing to contemplate just what constitutes the least part, of the above scholastical research by Mr. Jamil Zaki (all duly referenced by the in-accord judgments of Ms. Allison Basinger, Ms. Rene McCreary, Ms. Katherine Miller, Ms. Tania Singer, et aliae), which evidently still remains aligned in your eyes. Incidentally, despite stating upfront that “patients thrive from emotional connection with nurses, social workers, and therapists”, the central theme of this article which you commend as being [quote] “very relevant to my work” [endquote] is all about depriving those patients of what they thrive upon – that “emotional connection” popularly known as empathy (as in, “vicariously sharing another person’s feeling”, that is) but artfully designated “emotional contagion” in academe – and providing said patients with what the caregivers thrive on, instead, via a remarkably deft sleight-of-hand vis-à-vis what the word empathy has referred to since it was coined 108 years ago (so as to translate into English what the German Einfühlung has meant for 158 years). Here is a possible reason why: • [Assist. Prof. Jamil Zaki]: “Helping professionals – in fields such as social work, psychotherapy, and hospice care – are the emotional counterparts to first responders {i.e., fire-fighters, police officers and emergency medical technicians}, gravitating toward experiences the rest of us avoid. (...). Surveys of career helpers find they are *more likely* to report family histories of abuse or substance dependence than professionals in finance, music, and science”. [emphases and curly-bracket insert added]. (http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/how-to-avoid-empathy-burnout). Hence also the high rates of ‘empathy burnout’, of course, as the relationship betwixt helper and helpee – as per the ‘Helper Therapy Principle’ (proposed as “an age-old therapeutic approach” by Dr. Frank Riessman; pp. 27-32, ‘Social Work’, Vol 10‹2›, 1965) – is oft-times of a symbiotic nature. * Given that psychiatry has had at least 150+ years to demonstrate its efficacy in dealing with human suffering – without a single recorded success in bringing such suffering to an end, forever, in any human being anywhere in the world – it is surely an exercise in futility to even think for a moment (let alone type-out a commendation and click ‘send’) that an assistant professor researching social behaviour at the Stanford Social Neuroscience Laboratory would have anything at all to contribute to a discussion about a caring which is entirely new to human experience/ human history. By way of illustration, here is an instance of what feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ had in mind regarding “a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” (which you represent with the “near-actual caring” term). First, a select quote: June 19 1999: • 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. • Co-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. • Co-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” (...) 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. (Richard, List B, No. 25a, 19 June 1999). Hence it came to pass one fine evening that feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ realised, with a profound visceral impact, how ‘she’ had never actually cared – although ‘she’ certainly felt caring (in fact ‘she’ had a deeply-ingrained and ongoing feeling of caring about all the misery and mayhem) – and upon that realisation transforming itself into an actualisation (as per the intimacy-yearning process detailed in the ‘Direct Route Mail-Out № 05 email part-quoted at the top of this page) it activated “a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” and there was indeed action which was not of ‘her’ doing ... to wit: the ending of ‘her’ and all ‘her’ subterfuge and trickery (just to stay in keeping with the above wording purely for effect). Thus Vineeto is emphatic that unless this “near-actual caring” term refers to “a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” with a marked-action effect, such as is illustrated above, it is to no avail to utilise such terminology. The other example provided (at the top of this page) similarly instances a marked-action effect of “a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” inasmuch ‘she’ was sitting amongst a group of people, as one of many, wherein ‘her’ sole interest was that everyone present, including ‘herself’ as one of those present, enjoyed themselves and obtained the maximum benefit from their meeting due to an abeyance of the ‘doer’ and the ascendancy of the ‘beer’ (i.e., an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom). Needless is it to add that instances such as these are beyond the ken of social behaviourist-type therapists and counsellors (and especially those who slyly avoid ‘empathy burnout’ via shedding the very empathy their patients thrive on)? * SRINATH: Excellent science article on empathy which I found very relevant to my work. Also it aligns with near-actual caring: Attachment: Nautilus – Issue 35: Boundaries: How to Avoid Empathy Burnout [by Jamil Zaki; April 7, 2016; "Caregivers can benefit by understanding a patient’s pain without feeling it themselves"]. .... but not the last self-love bit which came out of the blue! [bracketed insert added]. (Message № 232xx; Slack Digest 03Aug16; 02:29 PM) ADDENDUM: Actually I’m seeing that the article for the most part doesn’t align with near-actual caring or naive intimacy. But it does advocate not taking on emotional contagion, pragmatism and boundaries – which I suppose are sensible real world ways of care-giving. (Message № 232xx; Slack Digest 04Aug16; 02:22 AM) As the above article on ‘Empathy Burnout’ (a near-cousin to ‘Compassion Fatigue’) which you link to, and publicly commend as being an [quote] “excellent science article” [endquote] on the ‘Nautilus Magazine’ web site, was composed by an assistant professor of psychology – whose research focuses on the cognitive and neural bases of social behaviour at the Stanford Social Neuroscience Laboratory – it would surely take nothing short of a miracle for any such social behaviourist to write anything at all which even for the least part [quote] “aligns with” [endquote] what Vineeto wrote of as constituting “a caring as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” on the 17th of January 2010 (as quoted by Claudiu in Message № 23185 and re-presented in my Message № 23198 (Richard, List D, Srinath, 28 July 2015) to you as per the top of this page) let alone via them craftily redefining what the word empathy means. [...elided...]. Given that psychiatry has had at least 150+ years to demonstrate its efficacy in dealing with human suffering – without a single recorded success in bringing such suffering to an end, forever, in any human being anywhere in the world – it is surely an exercise in futility to even think for a moment (let alone type-out a commendation and click ‘send’) that an assistant professor researching social behaviour at the Stanford Social Neuroscience Laboratory would have anything at all to contribute to a discussion about a caring which is entirely new to human experience/ human history. [...remainder of post elided...]. (Richard, List D, Srinath, 6 August 2016) SRINATH: Richard, I had originally not read the article too carefully, which is why I withdrew it. RICHARD: G’day Srinath, Ha ... it would be handy for me to bear in mind, then, for future reference, that commendatory sets of words such as “Excellent science article on [an aspect of psychiatry] which I found very relevant to my work” that are followed by an equivalency set of words such as “Also it aligns with [an aspect of actualism]” are meretricious ways of conveying that you have “not read the article too carefully” (let alone its purportedly equivalent actualism counterpart), eh? All joking aside ... whilst the vested interest in finding an equivalency in one’s own area of expertise is readily understandable – especially when it is the end result of many years of specialist studies, in the higher institutes of learning, of the accrued knowledge distilled from the painstakingly-gained experience of all the acknowledged experts in the field, with progressively tougher examinations to pass so as to obtain the necessary accreditation for gainful employment in the professions (and partake of the lucrative emoluments available thereat) – the very fact of actualism being entirely new to human experience/ human history clearly indicates that the paradigmatic shift essential for comprehension necessarily precludes finding equivalency in areas of expertise already within human experience/ human history. Also, and as it is germane to what prompted me to compose my initial post in the first place, this is an apt place to advise that what the words [quote] “withdrew it” [endquote] convey to a reader is at odds with what the words [quote] “for the most part” [endquote] conveyed in that follow-up chat-message you allude to. Viz.: • [Srinath]: “Actually I’m seeing that the article *for the most part* doesn’t align with near-actual caring ...”. [emphasis added]. (Message № 232xx; Slack Digest 04Aug16; 02:22 AM). If, in fact, you had indeed withdrawn it then your follow-up chat-message would have looked something like this; • [example only]: “Actually I’m seeing that the article doesn’t align with near-actual caring ...”. [end example]. And had that actually been the case there would have been no post from me on the topic (and neither would this current to-ing and fro-ing of emails be occurring) as the self-centred/ self-centric – and thus naturally self-justifying/ self-perpetuating – professionally-oriented theses generated so proliferatively by social behaviourist-type therapists, counsellors, and their ilk, cannot possibly add anything of an illuminative nature to a discussion about a caring which is notable by the marked absence of self-centredness/ self-centricity (and thus actively self-annulling/ self-terminating) in its operation. SRINATH: Yup, should definitely have not clicked ‘send’. RICHARD: Okay, and by this you make it unmistakably clear you are now seeing that the article in its entirety – and not only for the most part – does not align with a near-actual caring. In other words, there is no corresponding other part – a ‘for the least part’ as it were – of the article which is in alignment. (As far as I am concerned this would have been the end of the matter – and any remainder simply a case of attending to the detail which iconoclastic posts have a tendency to spawn ad minutiae – but because the general thrust of your responses, below, is indicative of still considering aspects of professional caring to be relevant to a near-actual caring, this post has become far more extensive than might otherwise have been the case). SRINATH: To explain: I jumped to the conclusion that the article was referencing aspects of caring that other empathy researchers have talked about and which I was previously aware of e.g. perspective taking, theory of mind, problem solving etc. RICHARD: I see ... so the real reason you advised that the article “aligns with” near-actual caring, in your first chat-message, was because of those particular aspects of caring – namely [quote] “perspective taking, theory of mind, problem solving etc.” [endquote] – which you were previously aware of and not because of what the article is actually about. (More on this, further below, where you reintroduce those particular aspects of professional caring along with two URLs whence the names to what your etcetera represents can be obtained). By the way, as the article is titled “How to Avoid *Empathy* Burnout” and sub-titled “Caregivers can benefit by understanding a patient’s *pain* without *feeling* it themselves” it is quite a feat to jump to a conclusion which does not include what is expressly presented thereby as its central theme – namely: how empathy burnout, which stems from caregivers affectively feeling their patient’s emotional/ passional pain, can be avoided by obtaining such understanding via non-empathic means – as it is an exceptionally frank summary of the article’s prolix contents. SRINATH: I then realised that most of the article wasn’t about this at all and mostly it was focussed on blocking oneself from feeling caring, sympathy and Buddhist compassion – as you pointed out – and changed my mind. RICHARD: What I actually pointed out was that the article focussed exclusively on avoiding “Empathy Burnout” by consciously shedding empathy, adopting detachment, and replacing that shed pattern of feeling the other’s emotional pain with patterns of motivation and even positive emotion. Or, in Assistant Professor Jamil Zaki’s own words, the article is solely about “How to Avoid Empathy Burnout” via caregivers “understanding a patient’s pain without feeling it themselves” – without “vicariously sharing another person’s feeling” that is – and then “forming a goal to alleviate that person’s suffering” via that non-empathic understanding. And here are those very words of his (made bold for convenience) exactly as quoted above: • [Assist. Prof. Jamil Zaki]: “*How to Avoid Empathy Burnout*. Caregivers can benefit by *understanding a patient’s pain without feeling it themselves*. (...). Both neuroscience and psychology have uncovered an important distinction between two aspects of empathy: emotion contagion, which is *vicariously sharing another person’s feeling*, and empathic concern, which entails *forming a goal to alleviate that person’s suffering*”. [emphases added]. (http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/how-to-avoid-empathy-burnout). I also pointed out how the central theme of the article was depriving those patients of what they thrive on – that “emotional connection” popularly known as empathy (as in, “vicariously sharing another person’s feeling”, as above) but artfully designated “emotional contagion” in academe – and providing said patients with what the caregivers thrive on instead (i.e., a non-empathic “warmth and understanding” drawn from impressions based upon verbal and visual cues alone). 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? SRINATH: I would like some guidance on this and I’ve discussed in later in the post. RICHARD: As a general rule-of-thumb, then, always be aware of the propensity for watering-down unequivocal reports, descriptions and explanations meticulously conveyed with precise meaning given to terminology – a propensity rife within the human condition – via many and various rationalisations and/or justifications and/or simplifications and/or appropriations and/or arrogations and/or confabulations and/or deconstructions (and all manner of such ‘self’-survival shenanigans too numerous to list). SRINATH: Regarding ‘the least part’ of how this article has anything to do with near-actual caring (or more accurately something down the track from near-actual caring) ... RICHARD: To interject purely on a point of order: as your reassessment had you seeing [quote] “that the article for the most part doesn’t align with near-actual caring” [endquote], in that follow-up chat-message of yours, it necessarily implied you were, therefore, seeing that the other part, the least part of the article, does align with near-actual caring. Thus I would have expected your above sentence to begin something like this: • [example only]: “Regarding ‘the least part’ of how this article does align with near-actual caring...” [end example]. As there is a distinct difference between being in alignment (in correspondence and/or concordance and/or tallying) with, or matching, a near-actual caring and merely having “anything to do” with it – plus, least of all, being more accurately depicted as “something down the track” from it – you are substantially watering-down the impact your “for the most part” words had in that follow-up chat-message of yours. (I will say it again for emphasis: were it not for the impact your “for the most part” words occasioned there would have been no post from me on the topic and neither would this current to-ing and fro-ing of emails be occurring). SRINATH: ...[Regarding ‘the least part’...] it had to do specifically with the empathy burnout bits and not misguidedly taking on another person’s feelings as a means to helping them. RICHARD: What your words convey most of all is that the other part – the least part of the article which you were seeing does align with near-actual caring – had to do specifically with an assumption on your part that a near-actual caring is a non-empathic caring. Also, I cannot help but notice how the very act of empathy itself – vicariously feeling what another person feels about themself (about their situation: their past, their present, their prospects; plus the circumstances besetting them and their lot in life itself), so as to viscerally know and affectively comprehend the emotional/ passional makeup of their current state-of-being, rather than forming an intellectual understanding drawn from impressions based upon verbal and visual cues alone – is considered by you to be acting “misguidedly” as a means to helping them. (And I say “considered by you” advisedly as nowhere in that article is the very act of empathy itself criticised but, rather, it refers repeatedly to the effect an empathic rapport can have – often called secondary trauma – upon the empathiser due to their own unresolved issues being triggered. As it is widely-known that it is people with unresolved issues who are more inclined to gravitate toward the helping professions – plus the article specifically states that “Surveys of career helpers find they are more likely to report family histories of abuse or substance dependence than professionals in finance, music, and science” – the optimal solution is, of course, to screen-out the helper thus afflicted rather than discard the empathy which the helpee thrives on). Now, as the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago was in an out-from-control virtual freedom for something like five months – although not named as such back then, of course, nor thought of in those terms – I can readily report how ‘he’ was more empathetic during that period than ‘he’ ever had been in all ‘his’ 34 years of existence. So much so, in fact, that I would be inclined to characterise a near-actual caring as an acutely-empathic caring. This acutely-empathic characteristic of the near-actual caring which prevails in the out-from-control way of being is, by virtue of not being self-centred/ self-centric, universal in its scope. As such there is no way the (self-centred/ self-centric) professional caring depicted in that article [quote] “aligns with” [endquote] a near-actual caring as that universality itself is the very potency required to effect the universal solution to the human condition – the ‘self’-sacrificial extirpation of blind nature’s instinctual passions by the feeling-being formed thereof cheerfully and thus willingly ‘self’-immolating for the benefit of this body and that body and every body – as contrasted with a personal (re)solution within the human condition, of otherwise unresolved issues, in those cases of successful helper-helpee transactions by way of the empathic rapport the helpee thrives on. SRINATH: Obviously if this was just a repressive blocking out action, then it would have not be harmless. In this case even any proposed alignment of this article with innocuity is off the mark. RICHARD: Hmm ... as these are the 4th and 5th times, so far, you have used the words harmless and innocuity (or innocuous) in relation to near-actual caring an impression is being conveyed that the main distinction, for you, betwixt actually caring and affectively caring is the absence of malice in the former and the presence of same in the latter. Here is how you expressed it in regards to near-actual caring (from further above): • [Srinath]: “I have been using the term ‘near-actual caring’ as a proxy for ‘more innocuous caring’...” [endquote]. The question which immediately arises is: a “more innocuous caring” than ... than what? Than a less innocuous caring? Less innocuous than what? Than an innocuous caring? Is there such an item as a non-innocuous caring that it need be qualified thataway? As in a nocuous (i.e., malicious) type of caring? In all those years when an identity was in residence in this flesh-and-blood body I cannot recall any instance of ‘him’ being nocuously (i.e., maliciously) caring ... let alone such as to initiate aspirations of developing a “more innocuous caring” (i.e., a more harmless type of caring). Nor can I think of anyone I know about, personally, who is nocuously (i.e., maliciously) caring ... the very word ‘caring’, in and of itself, implies benignity; being considerate, being helpful, being of a beneficial nature, being well-wishing (a.k.a. benevolent), and the such-like. SRINATH: Further to my point about any ‘least part’ validity, if the original definition of empathy is retained as you pointed out then empathy can largely be substituted for ‘feeling caring’, ‘emotional contagion’ or even sympathy ... RICHARD: And there is that watering-down process in action again (whereby the words empathy and sympathy, for the most obvious example, can become interchangeable in your eyes). * Nevertheless, I will first provide a ‘technical point’ explication of both why I wrote of [quote] “a remarkably deft sleight-of-hand vis-à-vis what the word empathy has referred to since it was coined 108 years ago (so as to translate into English what the German Einfühlung has meant for 158 years)” [endquote] and why I provided that word’s etymology, and its literal meaning, and not any one or any number of dictionary definitions ... to wit: the English ‘empathy’ is an accurate translation of the German ‘Einfühlung’ which, in turn, is an accurate translation of the Greek ‘empatheia’ inasmuch they all refer to ‘in’ + ‘feeling’ (pathos=feeling) as in, ‘feeling-in’ or ‘feeling-into’. Therefore, not only do terms such as “perspective taking” and “theory of mind” and “problem solving” *not* refer to what the word empathy has referred to since it was coined in 1908 (so as to translate into English what the 1858 German Einfühlung meant) nor does that deceitfully-misnamed “empathic concern” (i.e., “forming a goal to alleviate that person’s suffering”) refer to it, either. Put succinctly: unless empathy involves ‘in + feeling’ (i.e., feeling-into) there is no empathic rapport and any names or titles – such as ‘Cognitive Empathy’, for an obvious example, in those aspects of professional caring that are the real reason you advised that the article “aligns with” near-actual caring – which thereby advertise the presence of that empathy the helpee thrives on yet are totally devoid of same are not only misnamed but are deceitful as well (and outrageously so, in fact, as it borders on malpractice). * Now, back to your rendering of the words empathy and sympathy largely interchangeable: here is the etymology, and literal meaning, of the latter word from the same source. Viz.: • sympathy (n.), ‘affinity between certain things’, from Middle French sympathie (16c.) and directly from Late Latin sympathia, ‘community of feeling’, ‘sympathy’, from Greek sympatheia, ‘fellow-feeling’, ‘community of feeling’, from sympathes, ‘having a fellow feeling’, ‘affected by like feelings’, from assimilated form of syn-, ‘together’ (see syn-; viz.: word-forming element meaning ‘together with’, ‘jointly’; ‘alike’; ‘at the same time’, also sometimes completive or intensive, from Greek syn (prep.) ‘with’, ‘together with’, ‘along with’, ‘in the company of’) + pathos, ‘feeling’ (see pathos; viz.: ‘quality that arouses pity or sorrow’; 1660s, from Greek pathos, ‘suffering, feeling, emotion, calamity’, literally ‘what befalls one’, related to paskhein, ‘to suffer’, and penthos ‘grief, sorrow’). ~ (Online Etymology Dictionary). As the word sympathy (‘syn’ + ‘feeling’) literally means ‘together-feeling’ or ‘jointly-feeling’ or ‘feeling-alike’ – as in, two feeling-beings feeling the same, or similar, feelings – it is distinctly different to the word empathy (‘in’ + ‘feeling’) literally meaning ‘feeling-in’ or ‘feeling-into’ (as in, one feeling-being vicariously feeling another’s feelings). And so endeth another attempt at watering-down what a particular word or term specifically refers to. SRINATH: ... and then any claims of alignment with harmlessness is null and void. RICHARD: Hmm ... here is that “alignment with harmlessness” criteria again (only this time in respect to watered-down meanings of words). SRINATH: Perhaps expanding the meaning of empathy is a ‘crafty re-definition’ as you say. RICHARD: Oh, there is no “Perhaps” about it ... in view of how both the title and the sub-title of the article are composed it is indeed crafty. ’Tis a bait-and-switch trick (and possibly with the added bonus of being ‘click-bait’ as well) insofar as the bait is ‘Avoid Empathy Burnout’ – a noble aspiration – and the switch is ‘shed empathy’ (only first re-define it to mean “emotion contagion”) rather than resolve the therapists’ unresolved issues which occasion their burnout via repeated triggering of same. Given that ‘contagion’ has undesirable connotations – as in ‘contagious diseases’ for instance – then to liken empathy to a carrier of infections (whereby the helper is direly ‘infected’, as it were, by the disease-stricken helpee via the empathic connection forged as a necessary part of the therapeutic process) is to render therapy virtually useless because ... (1.) the helpee is deprived of the empathy they thrive on ... and (2.) the helper, viewing the helpee as a potential infectious agent, keeps them at arm’s length (emotionally) ... and (3.) the helper has unresolved issues clouding their area of (supposedly) professional expertise ... and (4.) the helper’s diagnosis and, thus, prognosis, is further compromised by being engendered via a non-empathic intellectual understanding drawn from impressions based upon verbal and visual cues alone. SRINATH: On the other hand, words are always evolving from their original usages. RICHARD: Which is why I provided that word’s etymology, and literal meaning, and not any one or any number of dictionary definitions (which also provide a record of usage changes over time; its 1858 usage, for instance, was in respect to aesthetics). I have had over 35 years, now, of interacting with errant egos – plus nigh-on 25 years of dealing with slippery souls – and have learned through experience that judicious pre-emption saves a lot of unnecessary to-ing and fro-ing of emails. SRINATH: Often there isn’t even a consensus from the start ... RICHARD: As there was consensus from both the 1858 start of the German ‘Einfühlung’ (‘in’ + ‘feeling’) and the 1908 start of the English ‘empathy’ (‘in’ + ‘feeling’) that is beside the point in this case. SRINATH: ... never mind their etymological root meaning. RICHARD: You may very well “never mind” the root meaning, if you so choose, of the English ‘empathy’, the German ‘Einfühlung’, and the Greek ‘empatheia’, but I do mind it ... and mind it well. 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 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. SRINATH: More specifically, terms in scientific research, have to be defined much more strictly and standardised for application. RICHARD: Yet even though the title “How to Avoid *Empathy* Burnout” and sub-title “Caregivers can benefit by understanding a patient’s *pain* without *feeling* it themselves” were written by an assistant professor of psychology – the words “by Jamil Zaki” and the date “April 7, 2016” feature immediately below – whose research focuses on the cognitive and neural bases of social behaviour, at the Stanford Social *Neuroscience* Laboratory, he did not use the word empathy in any such “defined much more strictly and standardised for application” manner as it is patently obvious he was using it in the way it has been referred to since it was coined 108 years ago (so as to translate into English what the German Einfühlung has meant for 158 years) ... namely: ‘in’ + ‘feeling’. Incidentally, if the contents of that article are representative of what constitutes [quote] “scientific research” [endquote] these days then the educational standards of the higher institutes of learning leave a lot to be desired. SRINATH: If – as many researchers have pointed out, and which this article has only touched on in a narrow way – ‘empathy’ has become a catch-all and poorly operationalised term, which collapses within it: theory of mind, affect, cognitive perspective taking, mentalization etc. – then it seems that at least some of these domains that scientists consider (incorrectly or not) under the rubric of ‘empathy’ are compatible with near-actual caring. RICHARD: First of all, I cannot help but notice that you have shifted from saying the above “aligns with” near-actual caring to now saying it is “compatible with” near-actual caring. Nevertheless, as those aspects of professional caring are the real reason you advised that the article “aligns with” near-actual caring, in your first chat-message, it is obviously necessary to access those URLs to discover what your “etc.” represents – both immediately above (viz.: “theory of mind, affect, cognitive perspective taking, mentalization etc.”) and much further above (viz.: “perspective taking, theory of mind, problem solving etc.”) – so as to be as fully informed as possible as to what you are referring to. As no such professional caring terms, as above, are to be found at the second URL the following is what features at the first URL. Viz.: • [Ms. Misuchi Sakurai]: “The process of Empathy includes 6 different pieces, which often times overlap one another and can be quite confusing to differentiate between. These six pieces can be put into two categories. One is the cognitive level and the other is the emotional level. Within the scope of the cognitive level, the three pieces are: theory of the mind, perspective taking, and cognitive empathy. On the emotional level, the three pieces are: identification, emotional contagion, and ‘true empathy’”. [https://empathicperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/emotional-contagion-vs-empathy-4/]. Arranged numerically, in the sequential order presented above, purely for the ease of comparison: 1. theory of the mind. 2. perspective taking. 3. cognitive empathy. 4. identification. 5. emotional contagion. 6. ‘true empathy’. As only three of your (combined) examples feature in those six aspects of professional caring, above, a comparative listing in that same sequential order is as follows: 1. theory of mind. 2. cognitive perspective taking. 3. mentalization. 4. 5. 6. 7. affect. 8. problem solving. (I am presuming, of course, that by “mentalization” you were referring to her “cognitive empathy” term and, as your “affect” and “problem solving” terms did not match those items listed 1-to-6, further above, I have arbitrarily numbered them 7 and 8 for want of any other option. And, speaking of which, I do find it cute how right after after declaring that “terms in scientific research have to be defined much more strictly and standardised for application” you immediately demonstrate a singular lack of not only standardisation, as per № 3, but strictness as well inasmuch “affect” is so vague as to mean almost anything related to the affections and “problem solving” can, and does, have a wide range of application in all manner of disciplines). Anyway, as those six aspects of professional caring are, of course, self-centred/ self-centric – and thus self-justifying/ self-perpetuating by nature – then the real reason you advised that the article “aligns with” near-actual caring, in your first chat-message, adds nothing of an illuminative nature to a discussion about a caring which is notable by the marked absence of self-centredness/ self-centricity (and thus actively self-annulling/ self-terminating) in its operation. Nor is there anything else presented at either of the two URLs – not even one single solitary item – which “aligns with” near-actual caring, either, and no matter how diligently a reader might peruse the material made public knowledge there, under the rubric ‘empathy’, they would emerge from their studies not one whit wiser that such an extraordinary caring even exists (let alone its demonstrated effectiveness in ending suffering, forever, for the remainder of their life). SRINATH: ...[it seems that at least some of these domains that scientists consider (incorrectly or not) under the rubric of ‘empathy’ are compatible with near-actual caring] i.e. A near actually caring or even an actually caring person will be able to use perspective taking, problem solving to help someone more effectively – without the distorting effects of sympathy, commiseration, affect etc. RICHARD: Hmm ... this leaves me wondering, of course, as to whether or not the “etc.” after those three named items incorporates empathy itself as a distorting effect for professional carers. Bearing in mind that one of those duly accredited “scientists” wrote that ‘How To Avoid Empathy Burnout’ article – and given the inclusion of “sympathy” as one of the three named distorters of professional caring – it quite likely does. In regards to your assertion that an actually caring person will be able to use ‘Perspective Taking’ to help someone more effectively I will first re-present here what is presented as the third trait, listed under that very title, at the first URL. Viz.: • [Ms. Misuchi Sakurai]: “Perspective Taking is the ability to see things from a point of view other than one’s own. In this description, there are a number of different traits. (...). The third [trait] is when a person can see through another person’s eyes and view their own thoughts, *feelings*, and behaviours from the other person’s perspective. They also recognise that others can do the same (...)”. [emphasis added]. [https://empathicperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/emotional-contagion-vs-empathy-4/]. As an actually free person cannot possibly see through another person’s eyes and view their own “feelings” from that other person’s perspective – there are, of course, no such “feelings” to view from any specified perspective – nor recognise that others can look through the actually free person’s eyes and view their own “feelings” thereby either (an actually free person neither looks through eyes nor is able to view that which has no existence in actuality) this is evidentially yet another instance where you have “not read the article too carefully” (let alone its relevant actualism counterpart), eh? If I might suggest? Rather than make assertions, about how even an actually caring person will be able to use that ‘Perspective Taking’ aspect of professional caring – which those duly accredited “scientists” consider under the floating signifier ‘empathy’ – to help someone more effectively, why not try giving those web pages, at those URLs you sent this particular actually caring person to, a thorough read-through from his perspective first? In other words: pourquoi pas prêcher par l’exemple, mettre en pratique ce que l’on prêche? (why not lead by example, put into practice what we preach?) * Now that I have your attention I will say again here, with added emphasis this time around, the essential point of my initial post: given that psychiatry has had at least 150+ years to demonstrate its efficacy in dealing with human suffering – *without a single recorded success in bringing such suffering to an end, forever, in any human being anywhere in the world* – it is surely an exercise in futility to even think for a moment (let alone type-out unexamined assertions and click ‘send’) that those duly accredited “scientists” would have anything at all to contribute to a discussion about a caring which is entirely new to human experience/ human history. Or, couched in terms of the ‘Perspective Taking’ aspect of that professional caring you so obviously favour over all else, the impressively experiential ‘perspective’ of near-actual caring is the choiceless convincement that the only solution to human suffering is the actualising of an actual caring via ‘self’-immolation. Viz.: • [Richard]: “4. This moment-to-moment experiencing of a caring which is not self-centred/ self-centric provided feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ 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”)”. [endquote]. (Richard, List D, Srinath2, #near-actual-caring) SRINATH: Apologies if I have missed answers to the questions below, that you may have already given. I have found it hard to answer any of these definitively. Q1) I have been using near-actual caring as a ‘dimension of caring’ or a scale where there is a certain quality of caring that increases in-step with increasing naiveté, intimacy and decreasing agency. RICHARD: There is no scale involved – there are no degrees of near-actual caring – just as there is no scale involved in an actual caring (a person actually free from the human condition is automatically an actually caring person by virtue of being sans identity in toto and, thus, is the purity and perfection of infinitude personified). Similarly, an out-from-control feeling-being is automatically as near to actually caring as a feeling-being can be per favour the absence of self-centredness/ self-centricity and, thus, in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent to be dynamically operative. SRINATH: But I may have missed that it was intended originally as a distinct ‘high-point’ for an identity. RICHARD: It is not “intended” (be it “originally” or otherwise), period – as in some ideal ethical or moral state, planned or devised and arrived at by training or discipline or skill acquisition or whatever – as it is, rather, what ensues upon transitioning from a still-in-control virtual freedom to an out-from-control virtual freedom. SRINATH: Am I to understand that it is the absolute zenith of caring that a feeling being can experience ... RICHARD: As the word “zenith” implies some sort of scale it would be more useful to consider just what an extraordinary state of being it is where the absence of self-centredness/ self-centricity allows the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent to dynamically operate in both word and deed. SRINATH: ... and that it is a necessary condition for self-immolation to take place? RICHARD: There is no “necessary condition” for ‘self’-immolation to take place – and it is so dead easy to become actually free it is, literally, all much ado about nothing – other than being sure it is what one wants to have happen due to its irrevocability. SRINATH: If so it may be better to use the term more harmless caring, ... RICHARD: Again, the question immediately arises: a “more harmless caring” than ... than what? Than a less harmless caring? Less harmless than what? Than a harmless caring? Is there such an item as a non-harmless caring that it need be qualified thataway? As in a harmful (i.e., malicious) type of caring? SRINATH: ...[it may be better to use the term] innocuous caring, ... RICHARD: As the term “innocuous caring” implies a non-innocuous type of caring to distinguish it from, in that manner, is there such an item? As in a nocuous (i.e., malicious) type of caring? SRINATH: ...[it may be better to use the term] naive caring for caring that stops short of near-actual caring? RICHARD: Going by the contents of that article – and particularly those aspects of professional caring numbered 1-to-6 further above – there is certainly a difference between the sophisticated caring of the trained professionals and the unsophisticated caring which ensues when in a consistent state of wide-eyed wonder, amazement, marvel, and delight (i.e., naïve sensuosity) such as to constitute the term ‘naïve caring’. Howsoever, as to be in that consistent state of wide-eyed wonder, amazement, marvel, and delight (i.e., naïve sensuosity) is to be out-from-control – in an ongoing different-way-of-being known as a dynamic, destinal virtual freedom – then such ‘naïve caring’ which ensues (otherwise known as a near-actual caring) can hardly be described as a caring “that stops short of near-actual caring” as they are one-and-the-same item. SRINATH: Is it reasonable to consider a harmlessness scale of sorts where the beginnings of harmless is on one end and near-actual caring is on the other? RICHARD: The word harmless, in actualism lingo, refers to the innocuity which ensues in the absence of malice – just as the word happiness refers to the felicity which ensues in the absence of sorrow – and it is only in either a PCE (where the feeling-being is abeyant) or upon an actual freedom (where the feeling-being is extinct) that there is a total absence of malice and sorrow. It is possible, though, to be virtually harmless (virtually malice-free) in the meanwhile. A virtual freedom is described as being as happy and harmless (as free from sorrow and malice) as is humanly possible, come-what-may, whilst remaining a ‘self’. There are two types of virtual freedom – a pragmatic, methodological virtual freedom (where application of the actualism method has become ‘second nature’ so to speak) and a dynamic, destinal virtual freedom (where the actualism method has segued into the actualism process) – and it is the latter, an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom, that near-actual caring features. So, essentially, you are asking about a “scale of sorts” where the still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom (which is where “the beginnings of harmless” occurs) is on one end and the out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom (which is where “a near-actual caring” takes place) is on the other end. As a scale of any sort requires gradations from the one end to the other end – and there are no gradations between the pragmatic, methodological virtual freedom and the dynamic, destinal virtual freedom (between being still-in-control and being out-from-control) – your “Is it reasonable to consider...” query is a non-sequitur. SRINATH: Q2) If, for example, I am experiencing an EE with increased naivete and a naive intimacy for someone AND in such a situation care about this person with diminished affect, would it be fair to say that I have a caring in line with near actual caring, but more distal or down the track for it? RICHARD: Just for starters: if you are experiencing a naïve intimacy with another during an excellence experience (EE), with increased naïveté, it would save you a bit of typing by referring to it as an IE (an intimacy experience). Viz.: • [Richard]: “As for your query regarding how the intimacy experience (IE) differs from an excellence experience (EE): qualitatively they are much the same, or similar, insofar as with both experiences there is a near-absence of agency – the beer rather than the doer is the operant – whereupon *naïveté has come to the fore*, such as to effect the marked diminishment of separation, and the main distinction is that the IE is more people-oriented, while the EE tends to be environmental in its scope. In other words, with an EE the ‘aesthetic experience’ feature, for instance, or its ‘nature experience’ aspect, for example, tends to be more prominent, whilst with an IE the ‘fellowship experience’ characteristic, for instance, or its ‘convivial experience’ quality, for example, comes to the fore. In either type of near-PCE – wherein the experiencing is of ‘my’ life living itself, with a surprising sumptuosity, rather than ‘me’ living ‘my’ life, quite frugally by comparison, and where this moment is living ‘me’ (instead of ‘me’ trying to live ‘in the moment’) – the diminishment of separation is so astonishing as to be as-if incomprehensible/ unbelievable yet it is the imminence of a fellow human’s immanence which, in and of itself, emphasises the distinction the most. For instance, the degree of intimacy experienced with minera, flora and fauna upon strolling through some botanical gardens with either near-PCE occurring – as in, with rocks, trees and birds, for example – is to the same gradation as when in a social setting such as a typical sitting room situation (as in, with ashtrays, flowers and humans, for instance) yet it is the ‘fellow human being’ element which exemplifies the already astounding diminishment of separation which ensues upon the blessed onset of this *near-innocent intimacy of naïveté*. [emphases added]. (Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 28 January 2016). Then your query would look something like this: • [example only]: “If, for example, I am having an IE and care about this person with diminished affect, would it be fair to say that I have a caring in line with near actual caring, but more distal or down the track for it?” [end example]. Nevertheless, I am none too sure what “and care about this person with diminished affect” refers to because in both an EE and an IE – either of which are so close to being a PCE as to be known as near-PCE’s (as in the quoted text above) – both the ‘bad’ feelings (malice and sorrow) and the ‘good’ feelings (love and compassion) are so “diminished” anyway as to be virtually non-existent (else it not be an IE or EE) and the ‘congenial’ feelings (felicity and innocuity) are, thereby, maximal. Thus I would expect your query to look something like this: • [example only]: “If, for example, I am having an IE and am thus caring about this person with maximal felicity and innocuity, would it be fair to say that I have a caring in line with near actual caring, but more distal or down the track for it?” [end example]. However, I am having some difficulty following your “but more distal or down the track for it” train of thought. For example (regarding “but more distal...”): • distal (adj.): 1. (anatomy) situated away from the centre of the body or from the point of attachment; [e.g.]: “The distal end of the tibia”; “Axons distal to the injury will degenerate”; 2. (geology) relating to or denoting the outer part of an area affected by geological activity; [e.g.]: “The distal zone”; “In distal areas, a layered sedimentary unit appears under the chaotic unit”; (adv.): distally; [e.g.]: “Body or contour feathers are pennaceous distally”; “The muscle may be divided, with the second belly attached distally to the radius (near the tuberosity), or even the ulna”. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary). • distal (adj.): 1. situated away from the point of attachment or origin or a central point especially of the body; 2. of, relating to, or being the surface of a tooth that is next to the tooth behind it or that is farthest from the middle of the front of the jaw; (adv.): distally. ~ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). • distal (adj.): 1. anatomically located far from a point of reference, such as an origin or a point of attachment; 2. situated farthest from the middle and front of the jaw, as a tooth or tooth surface; (adv.): distally. ~ (American Heritage Dictionary). • distal (adj.): 1. (of a muscle, bone, limb, etc) situated farthest from the centre, median line, or point of attachment or origin; (adv.): distally. ~ (Collins English Dictionary). • distal (adj.): 1. situated away from the point of origin or attachment, as of a limb or bone; 2. directed away or farthest from the sagittal plane or midline of the face, along the dental arch; (adv.): distally. ~ (Webster’s College Dictionary). • distal (adj.): 1. situated farthest from point of attachment or origin, as of a limb or bone; 2. directed away from the midline or mesial plane of the body. ~ (Princeton’s WordNet 3.0). For instance (regarding “...or down the track”): • down the track: at an unspecified future point in time; down the line; [e.g.]: “If, down the track, you find you still aren’t understanding the course, feel free to contact me and we’ll go over the material one-on-one”. ~ (Farlex Dictionary of Idioms). • down the track: (idiomatic) further along, in terms of time or progress; [e.g.]: “I would like to support your proposal, but I can’t guarantee how I’ll feel down the track”. ~ (Wiktionary English Dictionary). • Question: “Does ‘down the track’ have the same meaning as ‘down the road’? Context: “The lawyer says in some cases parents buy the house off their kids to pay off the bank, then rent the house to them in the hope they will be able to repurchase it down the track”. • Answer: “Yes. Exactly the same. They both mean “in the future”. Quite frankly, I don’t understand why people don’t just say “in the future”. They have to use analogies”. [https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090712050134AAnFcqj]. Thus the “...but more distal or down the track for it” part of your query seems to refer to two quite distinct phenomena (with the former referencing anatomical, dental, or geologic features and the latter referring to either time or progress). All of which leaves me with the [quote] “a caring *in line with* near actual caring” [emphasis added] portion of your query – wherein the highlighted ‘in line with’ phrasing appears to be quite similar to your [quote] “aligns with” [endquote] terminology – as the crux of the matter. As a near-actual caring is unique (due to both the absence of self-centredness/ self-centricity and its dynamically destinal character) no other type of caring – no matter how many types you may conceive of – can ever be in line with it as it is in a different paradigm. SRINATH: [Keeping in mind that a near-actual caring represents the apogee of caring as an identity and not merely caring in a more innocuous manner]. RICHARD: As the word “apogee” is but a variant on your usage of ‘zenith’ further above – and your “more innocuous” implies ‘less innocuous’, ‘innocuous’, and ‘nocuous’ types of caring – I will pass on your “Keeping in mind...” monition. SRINATH: Q3) I take that it would not be possible for someone who has a high degree of agency – say when they are feeling good or great to experience a near actual caring? RICHARD: As the term ‘agency’ of necessity implies an agent (i.e., a doer) when used in reference to human beings then it is the presence or absence of that agent (i.e., that doer) which determines whether or not a near-actual caring occurs and not some “degree of agency” (be it higher or lower; greater or lesser; larger or smaller) by which you presumably mean the degree of involvement of the agent (i.e., the doer) on some scale, as is your wont, ranging from passive to active. * To explain further: when out-from-control – out from being under control of the ‘controller’; that self-centred/ self-centric ‘doer’ (i.e., the ‘doer’ of deeds; the ‘actor’ of acts; the ‘speaker’ of words; the ‘thinker’ of thoughts; the ‘feeler’ of feelings) – the primary impetus of agency is the benevolence and benignity of pure intent being dynamically operative via the full concurrence of the ‘beer’ of those deeds, acts, words, thoughts, feelings (i.e., being the experiencing of same, as a state-of-being, as opposed to doing them). And the words “primary impetus of agency” (‘impetus’ as in, “being dynamically operative”, that is) are used advisedly as, with the ‘doer’ abeyant and the ‘beer’ ascendant, the modus operandi of this mutual agency is indeterminable due to an incapacity to distinguish between the one and the other. I have written about this quite extraordinary state of affairs before (albeit expressed as “unable to distinguish between ‘me’ doing it and it happening to ‘me’” due to those words of mine being read/ heard by a ‘doer’ and not a ‘beer’). Viz.: January 04 2006 • [Richard]: (...); just one short step and !poof! it is all over, done with, finished ... the end. ‘Twas all an illusion/ delusion ... I have been here, all along, simply having a ball. • [Respondent № 106]: How short is that step? • [Richard]: That step is of an unmeasurable shortness due to *an incapacity to distinguish between ‘me’ doing it and it happening to ‘me’* ... as mentioned only recently in an e-mail to another: • [Richard]: “... one has to want it like one has never wanted anything else before ... so much so that all the instinctual passionate energy of desire, normally frittered away on petty desires, is fuelling and impelling/ propelling one into this thing and this thing only (‘impelling’ as in a pulling from the front and ‘propelling’ as in being pushed from behind). There is a ‘must’ to it (one must do it/ it must happen) and a ‘will’ to it (one will do it/ it will happen) and one is both driven and drawn until there is an inevitability that sets in. Now it is unstoppable and all the above ceases of its own accord ... one is *unable to distinguish between ‘me’ doing it and it happening to ‘me’*. One has escaped one’s fate and achieved one’s destiny”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Rick, 4 January 2006). [emphases added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 106, 4 January 2006). And again, via the spoken word (where ‘R’ = Richard; ‘Q’ = Devika; ‘Q(1)’ = Peter) back in 1997, where words such as ‘impetus’ and ‘momentum’ feature interchangeably, the term ‘cause and effect’ is utilised to good advantage, and a third alternative is referenced in regards to being “neither controlled nor uncontrolled”. Viz.: R: (...). How is it for you? Q(1): There is this whole process happening. It’s fascinating because it is so overwhelming to realise ... I have one realisation after another rushing through me ... things are going so fast. Q: Yet it’s going over time and it is you who sets the pace, nobody else sets the pace you go at. And the circumstances allow you opportunities. R: A momentum takes over once one sets it all in motion, however. Q: Oh yes. You make a curious decision to ‘do it’ and a momentum takes over. You realise you’ve embarked already. R: Once you have that impetus going you can not ‘un-set’ the pace. Q: Another pace takes over and you find that you have already been doing it. This is so good, for you have no choice in the matter. It’s like ‘I am not doing this’. R: This means one is already committed to finding out. It is not that you make a commitment ... one can always break a commitment after a lot of soul-searching ... this one you can not break. There is no pulling back ... which is why most people do not want to start. Once one has started, one can not stop. It is a one-way trip. That is the thrilling part of it. [...elided...]. Q: You can’t leave it alone any more ... or rather: it doesn’t leave you alone. R: Yes, that is when that momentum is rolling. You are not setting the pace any more. (...). One feels alive, vital, dynamic. Things happen. One can no longer distinguish between me doing it and it happening to me. They happen simultaneously ... cause and effect are left behind in the Land of Lament. It is absolutely thrilling. [...elided...]. Q(1): I have this sensation in my body ... a rushing feeling. R: Is it thrilling? Q(1): Yes, definitely. It’s a rush. R: I had a rush many a time over the years and I would sometimes think: ‘My god, what am I doing?’ Q: ‘I’m out of control’. [Laughter] R: Then I would think: ‘They warned me about this!’ and ‘Don’t do this’. [More laughter] Yet it is not ‘out of control’. It is ‘out from control’ ... out from being ‘under control’. One is neither controlled nor uncontrolled. It is a third alternative. (Richard, Audio-Taped Dialogues, Compassion Perpetuates Sorrow). Lastly, because the terms ‘doer’ and ‘beer’ are utilised in religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical literature to refer to ‘ego’ and ‘soul’, respectively, it is apposite to point out here that those terms are *not* being used thataway when referring to the doer being abeyant, and the beer ascendant, in either a near-PCE – else IE’s and EE’s would instead be ASC’s (i.e., egoless) and thus not near-PCE’s – or when in an out-from-control virtual freedom. The following exchange (also back in 1997) explicates why this ‘doer = ego’ and ‘beer = soul’ attribution is experientially contraindicated inasmuch agency is inextricably part-and-parcel of being a sentient creature. Viz.: • [Richard]: “(...). Thus it is the sense of identity that is the root cause of suffering (sorrow and malice). Not just one half of the identity – the ego – but the other half – the soul – as well, is at fault. Thus not only must the self dissolve but the Self must psychologically self-immolate also. After all, the soul – along with the ego – is the culprit, for all sorrow and malice stem from the continued belief in their reality. When the ego – the self – dissolves, one’s sense of identity remains intact. Instead of identifying as the ego – the self – one now as an Enlightened Being identifies as the soul – the Self. (...). Thus I asked myself the question: If ‘I’ as ego (the self) wreak havoc, could it be that ‘I’ as soul (the Self) am the cause the continued suffering?” • [Respondent № 11]: “The doer-ship of actions belongs to the ‘I’ as ego. I can follow that. If the doer-ship of actions belongs to the ‘I’ ego (presumably mind) then how can the cause of suffering be the soul (the Self) which is not the doer-ship of actions (because who already state that the ‘I’ ego is)?” • [Richard]: “But “the doer-ship of actions” after the transcendence of ‘I’ as ego (the self) is ‘I’ as soul (the Self). That is the nitty-gritty of the problem ... and it has kept humankind in thralldom for aeons. It has got you too. For sure, ‘I’ as ego am no longer “the doer-ship of actions” ... now the ‘Supreme Soul’ is. But ‘I’ am the ‘Supreme Soul’, therefore ‘I’ (an identity) am the doer. No matter how godly ‘I’ am, ‘I’ am the problem”. (Richard, List A, No. 5a, No.11). (I have gone into the topic of agency way beyond the scope of your query so as to forestall the most obvious questions arising had I left it at my one-paragraph response). SRINATH: Is it possible for someone who is in an EE and not out-from-control to experience near actual caring during the duration of the EE? RICHARD: No ... being out-from-control (sans the self-centred/ self-centric controller, a.k.a. doer, and thus in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent to be dynamically operative) is the critical criterion you have evidentially been looking for throughout this email exchange. • [Correction]: As to be having an EE (or an IE) is to be out-from-control then the critical criterion, which you have evidentially been looking for throughout this email exchange, is the ascendant beer being in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent being dynamically operative (whereby the actualism method segues into the actualism process) and pulling one evermore unto one’s destiny”. (See Claudiu’s feedback, Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 15 August 2016). SRINATH: Q4) Can someone in a PCE have near-actual caring ... RICHARD: As the entire affective faculty is in abeyance in a PCE (else it *not* be a PCE) it is simply not possible, period, for the caring inherent to a PCE to be anything other than an actual caring. SRINATH: ... or does the identity have to present and not in abeyance? RICHARD: Yes ... you are aware, are you not, that an identity and its feelings are one-and-the-same item (as in the ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ expression which returns 112 hits on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site)? Furthermore, you are aware, are you not, that a PCE is a direct experience of an actual caring? As a PCE provides an experiential understanding of what an actual caring is – and that direct experiencing is streets ahead of any of my descriptions and explanations – it is the benchmark par excellence. As such it is the quintessential point of reference upon which all terms of reference – and especially, for example, a near-actual caring – can be reliably and confidently sourced. In the meanwhile, I will leave you with what I wrote, much further above, about the first time feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ experienced a near-actual caring as it very effectively conveys just how extraordinary a near-actual caring is. • [Richard]: “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)” [endquote]. (Richard, List D, Srinath2, #near-actual-caring). Re: The Intimate Ambiance Experiment Audio Recordings CLAUDIU: G’day Richard, Something caught my eye on a second read-through of your latest email: • [Richard]: [...] the primary descriptors of being out-from-control is that it is of the nature of either an ongoing, and thus constantly dynamic, excellence experience (EE) *or a similarly dynamic intimacy experience (IE)*. [...] Now, as the primary descriptors of being out-from-control is of it being in the nature of either a constantly/ consistently dynamic EE *or IE*. [...]. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 24 January 2016). Particularly, the mention of intimacy experience, as something distinct from an excellence experience, and yet being intimately related to that which is known as being out-from-control. Yet a google search through the Actual Freedom Trust site shows only three distinct phrases where you mentioning intimacy experiences, besides the above, all of which incidentally appear on your Selected Correspondence page regarding the Dynamic, Destinal Virtual Freedom: • [Richard]: Now, this pristine ambience is conducive to a sincere actualist activating their potential – albeit temporarily – as in some form of an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being (*to whatever degree of intimacy they be comfortable with at the time*). Furthermore, experience has shown that *these intimacy experiences* can be contagious, so to speak, for other sincere actualists also present as the atmosphere generated affectively/ psychically by the first to be out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being can propagate a flow-on effect, on occasion. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, No. 14a, 4 December 2009). And: • [Richard]: An obvious out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom is an on-going excellence experience (EE) *but an on-going intimacy experience (IE) may very well be the most likely state* as an EE, being so close to a PCE as to be barely distinguishable is not so likely to readily occur sooner rather than later. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, No. 12, 9 December 2009). And: • [Richard]: Fourth, as any being out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being (and there are varying degrees *of such intimacy experiences*) implicitly requires pure intent – which renders the necessity for morals/ ethics/ values/ principles null and void – it is certainly not the territory a fledgling actualist (to use your phraseology) has any business venturing into precipitously. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, No. 12, 9 December 2009a). To compare, Google provides 13 (non-unique) results for both <site:actualfreedom.com.au ‘intimacy experience’> and <site:actualfreedom.com.au ‘intimacy experiences’>, while providing 90 (non-unique) results for the same with ‘intimacy’ replaced with ‘excellence’. Could you go into more detail as to what intimacy experiences are, how they differ from excellence experiences, and what role they play in being out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being? Did they feature in feeling-being ‘Richard’s wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom? * • [Richard]: In other words, someone genuinely out-from-control is constantly (i.e., consistently) ‘feeling excellent’, come-what-may, by the very nature of what that term refers to. [...] Moreover, as ‘not being out-from-control’ also implies ‘not having a near-actual caring’ either [...]. (Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 24 January 2016). Incidentally, this may be a good a time as any to publicly state that, based on re-evaluation derived from recent correspondences, as during the time I previously considered I may have been out-from-control, I was not consistently feeling excellent, come-what-may, I can now say I have never genuinely experienced being out-from-control... and, as such, nor can I say I have ever experienced a near-actual caring. Cheers, Claudiu RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, In the same way that excellence experiences (EE’s) were a notable feature of feeling-being ‘Richard’s virtual freedom experiencing circa March-September 1981, although of course not named as such back then, so too did intimacy experiences (IE’s) play a similarly significant role even though increasingly overshadowed by the insistent emergence of love – and, especially, Love Agapé – in the later months due to a marked lack of precedence and, thus, of any praxeological publications (nowadays made freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site) on the distinction betwixt the near-innocent intimacy of naïveté and the affectional intimacy of romance lore and legend. Just as the term ‘excellence experience’ came from feeling-being ‘Grace’ – who was exacting in evaluating ‘her’ differing ways of being a ‘self’ so as to not illude herself that ‘she’ was more progressive than was really the case – so too did the expression ‘different-way-of-being’. What gradually became more and more apparent was that a prevailing feature of ‘her’ differing ways of being was the degree of intimacy involved. The gradations of ‘her’ scale were, basically, good, very good, great, excellent, and magical perfect – whereby, in regards to intimacy, ‘good’ related to togetherness (which pertains to being and acting in concert with another); ‘very good’ related to closeness (where personal boundaries expand to include the other); ‘great’ related to sweetness (delighting in the pervasive proximity, or immanence, of the other); ‘excellent’ related to richness (a near-absence of agency; with the doer abeyant, and the beer ascendant, being the experiencing is inherently cornucopian); and ‘magical’ ‘perfect’ related to actuality magicality (neither beer nor doer extant; pristine purity abounds and immaculate perfection prevails) – all of which correlate to the range of naïveness from being sincere to becoming naïve and all the way through being naïveté itself to an actual innocence. [naming errors stemming from the original 10th of November 2009 post corrected]. The term ‘intimacy experience’ became part of the actualism lingo after a particularly instructive event in late spring, 2007, when at anchor upriver whilst exhorting feeling-being ‘Grace’ to no longer reserve that specific ‘way-of-being’ for those memorable occasions when ‘she’ was alone with me and to extend such intimacy to also include ‘her’ potential shipmates in order to dynamically enable the then-tentative plans for a floating convivium – which were on an indefinite hold at that time – to move ahead expeditiously (this was in the heady context of feeling-being ‘Pamela’ having already entered into an on-going PCE a scant five days beforehand due to ‘her’ specifically expressed concerns to me over the lack of intimacy between actualists). At some stage during this intensive interaction feeling-being ‘Vineeto’, who had been intently following every nuance, every twist and turn of the interplay, had what ‘she’ described as a ‘shift’ taking place in ‘her’ whereupon the very intimacy being thus exigently importuned came about for ‘her’ instead. To say ‘she’ was astounded with the degree of intimacy having ensued is to put it mildly as ‘her’ first descriptive words were about how ‘she’ would never have considered it possible to be as intimate as this particular way of being – an intimacy of such near-innocence as to have previously only ever been possible privately with ‘her’ sexual partner in very special moments – when in a social setting as one of a number of persons partaking of coffee and snacks in a sitting room situation. Intuitively seizing the vital opportunity such intimate experiencing offered ‘she’ took over from me and commenced interacting intensively in my stead – notably now a one-on-one feeling-being interchange – and within a relatively short while feeling-being ‘Grace’ was experiencing life in the same, or very similar, manner as feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ (hence that 4th of December 2009 report Richard, List D, No. 14a, of mine about how these intimacy experiences are potentially contagious, so to speak, for other sincere actualists as the atmosphere generated affectively-psychically can propagate a flow-on effect). As for your query regarding how the intimacy experience (IE) differs from an excellence experience (EE): qualitatively they are much the same, or similar, insofar as with both experiences there is a near-absence of agency – the beer rather than the doer is the operant – whereupon naïveté has come to the fore, such as to effect the marked diminishment of separation, and the main distinction is that the IE is more people-oriented, while the EE tends to be environmental in its scope. In other words, with an EE the ‘aesthetic experience’ feature, for instance, or its ‘nature experience’ aspect, for example, tends to be more prominent, whilst with an IE the ‘fellowship experience’ characteristic, for instance, or its ‘convivial experience’ quality, for example, comes to the fore. In either type of near-PCE – wherein the experiencing is of ‘my’ life living itself, with a surprising sumptuosity, rather than ‘me’ living ‘my’ life, quite frugally by comparison, and where this moment is living ‘me’ (instead of ‘me’ trying to live ‘in the moment’) – the diminishment of separation is so astonishing as to be as-if incomprehensible/ unbelievable yet it is the imminence of a fellow human’s immanence which, in and of itself, emphases the distinction the most. For instance, the degree of intimacy experienced with minera, flora and fauna upon strolling through some botanical gardens with either near-PCE occurring – as in, with rocks, trees and birds, for example – is to the same gradation as when in a social setting such as a typical sitting room situation (as in, with ashtrays, flowers and humans, for instance) yet it is the ‘fellow human being’ element which exemplifies the already astounding diminishment of separation which ensues upon the blessed onset of this near-innocent intimacy of naïveté. And that latter point – the felicitous advent of naïve intimacy – is another way the IE differs from the EE inasmuch if a near-PCE is initiated via intensive interaction with a fellow human being/ with fellow human beings it takes on the properties of an intimacy experience (IE) whereas if the near-PCE is triggered via interacting intensively with the world at large (as in, an aesthetic experience, a nature experience, a contemplative experience, for example) it takes on the properties of an excellence experience (EE). The role they play in an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom (entitled ‘The Dynamic, Destinal Virtual Freedom’ on that web page to distinguish it from the still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom entitled ‘The Pragmatic, Methodological Virtual Freedom’) is, essentially, in enabling the actualism process to take over. In effect, the actualism process is what ensues when one gets out from being under control, via having given oneself prior permission to have one’s life live itself (i.e., sans the controlling doer), and a different way of being comes about (i.e., where the beer is the operant) – whereupon a thrilling out-from-control momentum takes over and an inevitability sets in – whereafter there is no pulling back (hence the reluctance in having it set in motion) as once begun it is nigh-on unstoppable. Then one is in for the ride of a lifetime! * Re: Near Actual Caring CLAUDIU: Hi Richard, Another query, related to my previous one on how to go out-from-control. You wrote: • [Srinath]: Is it possible for someone who is in an EE and not out-from-control to experience near actual caring during the duration of the EE? • [Richard]: No ... being out-from-control (sans the self-centred/ self-centric controller, a.k.a. doer, and thus in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent to be dynamically operative) is the critical criterion you have evidentially been looking for throughout this email exchange. (Richard, List D, No. Srinath2, 13 August 2016). This answer leaves me uncertain as to what an excellence experience is as compared to an out-from-control virtual freedom. (Message 23301) RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, Yes, although the words [quote] “being... in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent to be dynamically operative” [endquote] are what distinguishes the ongoing excellence experience (EE) known as an out-from-control virtual freedom, from an EE itself, the way it is worded – and certainly when read as a standalone Q&A isolated from all the explanations to that effect which precede it – the words “...and thus...” do indeed make for uncertainty. Thank you for pointing this out ... I will amend the paragraph accordingly. But first, just to make it all clear upfront, an excellence experience (EE) – which, just like an intimacy experience (IE), is so close to a pure consciousness experience (PCE) as to be known as a near-PCE – can happen regardless of one’s modus vivendi. In other words, just as it is possible for someone whose manner of living/ way of life is yet to have feeling good (i.e., a general feeling of well-being) established as a bottom-line of on-going experiencing, come-what-may, to have either an EE or IE (wherein the doer is abeyant and the beer ascendant), be they spontaneous or induced, from time-to-time – just as they can have a PCE itself (where identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty is abeyant) – so too can a person yet to be able to describe their modus vivendi as either “feeling as happy and harmless (as free of sorrow and malice) as is humanly possible” or “feeling excellent/ perfect for 99% of the time” such as to be designated “a pragmatic, methodological virtual freedom” (a.k.a. “a still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom”). Indeed, anyone at all can have an IE or an EE – or even a PCE – at any time in their life (albeit totally ignorant of any such nomenclature and what they actually signify). What sets the ongoing near-PCE known as “a dynamic, destinal virtual freedom” apart from ever other way of life/ manner of living is, as is expressed in that paragraph, by being in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent being dynamically operative – whereby the actualism method segues into the actualism process – such as to be pulling one evermore unto one’s destiny. And here is why the actualism process is imperative: • [Richard]: “(...) the out-from-control/ different-way-of-being term, in actualism lingo, specifically refers to the actualism process superseding the actualism method – meaning the controlling doer is abeyant (hence: ‘out-from-control’) and a naïve beer is ascendant (hence: ‘different-way-of-being’) – whereby the benignity and benevolence of pure intent increasingly renders the otherwise essential societal moeurs (a.k.a. ‘mores’) redundant, whilst simultaneously precluding anomie [a.k.a. ‘lawlessness’] ...”. (Richard, List D, Andrew, 28 February 2016). CLAUDIU: Elsewhere you’ve written that an out-from-control virtual freedom is known as an ongoing EE: • [Richard]: “(...) The virtual freedom being referred to in ‘Richard’s Journal’ is, of course, the full-blown experiencing of it: an out-from-being-under-control and, thus, different way of being nowadays known as an ongoing excellence experience”. (Richard, Selected Correspondence, PCE). You’ve also written (in an email to me) how an excellence experience is one with a near-absence of agency – with the doer abeyant and the beer ascendant (snipped for brevity): • [Richard]: “Just as the term ‘excellence experience’ came from feeling-being ‘Grace’ [...] so too did the expression ‘different-way-of-being’. What gradually became more and more apparent was that a prevailing feature of ‘her’ differing ways of being was the degree of intimacy involved. The gradations of ‘her’ scale were, basically, good, very good, great, excellent, and perfect – whereby, in regards to intimacy, ‘good’ related to [...] ‘very good’ related to [...] ‘great’ related to [...] ‘excellent’ related to richness (*a near-absence of agency; with the doer abeyant, and the beer ascendant, being the experiencing is inherently cornucopian* [i.e. an EE(?)]); and ‘perfect’ related to magicality (neither beer nor doer extant; pristine purity abounds and immaculate perfection prevails [i.e. a PCE]). [...] As for your query regarding how the intimacy experience (IE) differs from an excellence experience (EE): qualitatively they are much the same, or similar, insofar as *with both experiences there is a near-absence of agency – the beer rather than the doer is the operant* [...]”. [emphasis and square-brackets added]. (Richard, Selected Correspondence, Excellence). Further, in your most recent email here you use these same descriptors to describe an out-from-control virtual freedom: • [Richard]: “To explain further: when out-from-control – out from being under control of the ‘controller’; that self-centred/ self-centric ‘doer’ (i.e., the ‘doer’ of deeds; the ‘actor’ of acts; the ‘speaker’ of words; the ‘thinker’ of thoughts; the ‘feeler’ of feelings) – the primary impetus of agency is the benevolence and benignity of pure intent being dynamically operative via the full concurrence of the ‘beer’ of those deeds, acts, words, thoughts, feelings (i.e., being the experiencing of same, as a state-of-being, as opposed to doing them). And the words “primary impetus of agency” (‘impetus’ as in, “being dynamically operative”, that is) are used advisedly as, *with the ‘doer’ abeyant and the ‘beer’ ascendant*, the modus operandi of this mutual agency is indeterminable due to an incapacity to distinguish between the one and the other”. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, Srinath, 13 August 2016). As the critical criterion of whether a feeling-being can experience near-actual caring is “being out-from-control”, being out-from-control is described as a state “with the ‘doer’ abeyant and the ‘beer’ ascendant” and also as “an ongoing excellence experience”, and an excellence experience is described as there being “a near-absence of agency – the beer rather than the doer is the operant” (and earlier ‘excellent’ on ‘Grace’s scale being described as relating to “a near-absence of agency; with the doer abeyant, and the beer ascendant"), would it not therefore be the case that a feeling-being having an excellence experience *is* automatically experiencing near-actual caring? RICHARD: Again, although the above words [quote] “...the primary impetus of agency is the benevolence and benignity of pure intent being dynamically operative *via the full concurrence of the ‘beer’*...” [emphasis added] do indicate what distinguishes the ongoing EE known as an out-from-control virtual freedom, from an EE itself, the manner in which that Q&A is worded – and certainly when read as a standalone paragraph isolated from all the explanations to that effect which precede it – it does indeed make for uncertainty. CLAUDIU: If not – and this would be the most interesting part – then what is the vital distinction between an EE and an out-from-control virtual freedom such that a near-actual caring features in the latter but not the former? RICHARD: The vital distinction is the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to infinitude – which has nothing to do with any affective felicity and innocuity – being dynamically operative due to the cheerful and thus willing concurrence of the beer. For instance (from 2005): • [Richard]: “The actualism method is not about undermining the passions ... on the contrary, it is about directing all of that affective energy into being the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (that is, ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself) in order to effect a deliberate imitation of the actual, as evidenced in a PCE, so as to feel as happy and as harmless (as free of malice and sorrow) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’. Such imitative felicity/ innocuity, in conjunction with sensuosity, readily evokes amazement, marvel, and delight – a state of wide-eyed wonder best expressed by the word naiveté (the nearest a ‘self’ can come to innocence whilst being a ‘self’) – and which allows the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to the infinitude, which this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is, to operate more and more freely. This intrinsic benignity and benevolence, which has nothing to do with the imitative affective happiness and harmlessness, will do the rest. All that was required *was ‘my’ cheerful, and thus willing, concurrence*. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 60f, 29 September 2005). CLAUDIU: If yes, then was it simply Srinath’s phrasing of someone “who is in an EE and not out-from-control” that led to the “No ...” reply? (i.e. in that case it is not the case that someone in an EE is “not out-from-control” as to be in an EE is to be out-from-control, albeit fleetingly?) RICHARD: Given that it was a case of not being able to answer the question as-asked – to be having an EE (or an IE) is indeed to be out-from-control – then the word “No...” negates the entire query. A minimally-tweaked version would look something like this: • [Question]: “Is it possible for someone who is in an EE and not out-from-control to experience near actual caring during the duration of the EE?” • [Answer]: “No ... being out-from-control (sans the self-centred/ self-centric controller, a.k.a. doer) – plus being in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent to be dynamically operative – is the critical criterion you have evidentially been looking for throughout this email exchange”. It is more informative, though, to first set the query straight: • [Srinath]: “Is it possible for someone who is in an EE and not out-from-control to experience near actual caring during the duration of the EE?” • [Richard]: “As to be having an EE (or an IE) is to be out-from-control then the critical criterion, which you have evidentially been looking for throughout this email exchange, is the ascendant beer being in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent being dynamically operative (whereby the actualism method segues into the actualism process) and pulling one evermore unto one’s destiny”. (Richard, List D, No. Srinath2, 13 August 2016). Again, I appreciate your feedback. CLAUDIU: What a great time to be alive! RICHARD: Ahh ... ’tis good to know that. Re: Near Actual Caring RICHARD: (...) 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. (Richard, List D, Srinath, 28 July 2016) MARTIN: Hello Richard. Isn’t there a combination of conditional / caused happiness and unconditional / non-contingent happiness? RICHARD: G’day Martin, As a caused, or conditional, happiness has a beginning and an end – it is dependent upon situations and circumstances – and an uncaused, or unconditional, happiness is perpetual, aeonian (beginningless and endless) it is self-evident they are categorically distinct; as such, there obviously cannot be “a combination” of the two. Here is what a dictionary has to say: • combination (n.): 1. the act of combining or the state of being combined [= brought into or joined in close union or whole; united; integrated]; 2. a number of things combined; mixture; [e.g.]: “a combination of ideas”; 3. something formed by combining; [e.g.]: “a chord is a combination of notes”. [1375-1425; late Middle English (from Middle French combiner) from Late Latin combīnāre from Latin com-, ‘together’ + bīnī, ‘by twos’ [i.e., ‘two by two’]. ~ (Webster’s College Dictionary). Put simply: doing something pleasant and/or beneficial – or something pleasurable and/or beneficent happening – is a bonus on top of the sheer delight of being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only. MARTIN: For example, even when one’s enjoyment and appreciation is solely to being alive / being here, that may involve enjoyable activities that have a beginning and an end, for example eating something tasty. Shouldn’t one enjoy those activities? RICHARD: Where enjoyment and appreciation are due solely to being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only (neither ego-centric nor soul-centric; i.e., no self-centredness whatsoever) – which is what ensues either in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) or upon an actual freedom from the human condition – there is the added bonus of pleasurable activities and events to enjoy and appreciate (along with the distinct advantage that unpleasant activities and events do not detract one whit from that sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only). For instance (in regards to that latter, parenthesised, observation): • [Richard]: “(...) the apperceptive experiencing of an actual happiness/ felicity is not dependent upon a flesh and blood body only (sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto) experiencing sensual (anhedonic) pleasure ... indeed that apperceptive experiencing of an actual happiness/ felicity occurs all the while sensual (anhedonic) pain is happening”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 87b, 29 May 2006a). In other words, an apperceptive awareness of an actual happiness/ felicity is not dependent upon experiencing sensate (bodily) pleasure; an apperceptive awareness of an actual happiness/ felicity occurs all the while sensate (bodily) pain is happening as well. MARTIN: But what exactly is the perspective in doing so that maintains an unconditional happiness as being paramount? RICHARD: The very fact of being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only – sans both identity in toto/the entire affective faculty – is what maintains (to use your terminology) the paramountcy of an unconditional/ uncaused happiness. Put differently: a non-contingent happiness – a felicity not dependent upon either the situation or the circumstances – is the default condition of the very fact of being alive/ being here as a flesh-and-blood body only (i.e., sans both the instinctual passions and the feeling-being formed thereof). There is a lengthy email exchange on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site, starting on May 11 2006, which goes into this ‘happiness is the default condition’ topic in extensive detail. It all began when I reported that happiness is inherent to perfection. Viz.: May 11 2006 (...) • [Respondent № 110]: The universe is not predisposed to good or bad ... • [Richard]: Indeed not ... what the universe is predisposed to (to use your phraseology) is perfection. • [Respondent № 110]: ... there’s no reason to expect life to be happy. • [Richard]: Happiness is not a product of good or bad ... it is inherent to perfection. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 110, 11 May 2006). As the resultant email exchange extends over 16-17 posts, all told, it will take a while to follow it all the way through. MARTIN: Doesn’t one have to almost focus on the unconditional happiness to the exclusion – or rather not giving much weight to – the various experiences, which may be good or bad? RICHARD: As an unconditional/ uncaused happiness automatically ensues where no self-centredness prevails – either in a PCE (where both ego and soul are abeyant) or upon an actual freedom (where both ego and soul are extinct) – no focus whatsoever is required. Even the relatively unconditional happiness of a virtual freedom – remaining virtually sorrow-free despite the normal vicissitudes of life – requires no such focus as pure intent is what keeps one on track with regards to both the immediate and the ultimate goal. (As a virtual freedom involves remaining as happy and as harmless (as free from sorrow and malice) as is humanly possible, come-what-may, it is thus not dependent upon the situation and the circumstances. In that sense, then, the virtually sorrow-free felicity of a virtual freedom can also qualify as an unconditional happiness but as it is neither permanent nor totally sorrow-free it is relatively, and not absolutely, unconditional). MARTIN: Are they two separate things which co-exist, or does an unconditional happiness encapsulate the caused happiness – I’m asking because you gave the example of delighting in eating a hamburger on the website which is a conditional happiness: [Richard]: “The taste buds on the tongue are relishing the explosion of sensation; the nasal receptors are satisfying their ability to smell the delicious aromas that waft endlessly past; the eyes are delighting in the colours and the form of whatever is in view; the ears are pleasing themselves in being able to hear the sounds of this moment’s happenings; the fingertips are enjoying the touch of the texture of this hamburger; the skin is gratifying itself with the feel of the air all about ... all this and more – the awareness of all this happening – is me at-this-moment”. [endquote]. (Richard, List ‘A’, № 15, #No. 09). It’s almost as though it doesn’t matter that you’re eating the delicious hamburger (which is a conditional happiness with a beginning and an end), and yet you’re completely delighting in it – this is what I’m struggling to wrap my head around – the way that what is conditional is experienced unconditionally if you like. Sorry if this sounds stupid you’ve probably explained it in that link with the eternal time stuff, but can you put it any more simply? RICHARD: First of all, that part-quote you provided there is an ‘as requested’ response to my co-respondent (Richard, List ‘A’, № 15, #No. 09) asking me “How do I do this while eating a hamburger?” by way of a rejoinder to my previous explanation of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of apperception (‘the mind’s perception of itself’) as being what happens when the ‘self’ ceases to function as a perceiver and perception happens of itself. So I took him step-by-step through the “nuts and bolts”, as asked, of having perception happen of itself whilst he was eating his hamburger (couched in the first person active voice, rather than the second or third person, so he could read it as if it were himself actively engaged in doing it) via advising him to appreciate how this moment – this moment he is biting into his hamburger – is the only moment he is actually alive and to also be aware that, out of all the hamburgers he has ever eaten or will ever eat, only this one he is currently eating actually exists. Viz.: • [Respondent № 15]: “(...). Okay, so much for the theory. Give me some nuts and bolts. How do I do this while eating a hamburger?” • [Richard]: “By appreciating the fact that, at this moment of biting into this hamburger, this is the only moment that I am actually alive. All past ‘me’s and all future ‘me’s have no actuality at all. I am only ever here, now. Likewise, all past hamburgers and all future hamburgers do not exist at this moment ... they are either memory or expectation and have no substantial existence. Of all the hamburgers I have ever eaten or will ever eat, only this one actually exists. This hamburger and I – and all that is around and about me at this moment – are it what we are living for. To experience this moment in time and this place in space fully is the whole point of existence. I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being ... and I am biting into a hamburger. The taste buds on the tongue are relishing the explosion of sensation; the nasal receptors are satisfying their ability to smell the delicious aromas that waft endlessly past; the eyes are delighting in the colours and the form of whatever is in view; the ears are pleasing themselves in being able to hear the sounds of this moment’s happenings; the fingertips are enjoying the touch of the texture of this hamburger; the skin is gratifying itself with the feel of the air all about ... all this and more – the awareness of all this happening – is me at-this-moment. I do not exist over time or from place to place. I am only ever here now [...next ten paragraphs elided...]. I am completely happy to be here, securely inside time and space, eating this hamburger”. (Richard, List ‘A’, № 15, #No. 09). Of course, were he to have actually put into action those “nuts and bolts” he asked for – the “nuts and bolts” of having perception happen of itself while eating his hamburger – he would have then experientially known what the word ‘apperception’ refers to as per the actualism lingo. Howsoever, his follow-up email readily demonstrated that he was not really interested in the “nuts and bolts”, of having perception happen of itself while eating his hamburger, after all. Viz.: • [Respondent № 15]: “I like what you are saying. I’m not sure about the rest of the world, but this concept of apperception is nothing new to my experiences, as I have been at this place on many a perennial moment. (...). Can we say that the greatest of apperceives [sic], he who has mastered it perfectly, will be a totally selfless being? How will this one keep a check on the inevitable violence of our natural world? And what to do with those perennial moments? Must thinking be entirely eliminated? Or is it contained to only the present moment? (i.e. Should I buy that life insurance?) And what if one, preceding the consumption of the hamburger, chooses to give thanks for it to the sustaining universe or God as he understands it ...”. (Richard, List ‘A’, № 15, #No. 10). I have gone into some detail regarding the reason why this passage you part-quoted from was written, and why it was written in that particularised manner, because your immediately following words – [quote] “It’s almost as though it doesn’t matter that you’re eating the delicious hamburger...” [endquote] – convey an impression that those “nuts and bolts” of having perception happen of itself, whilst eating something delicious, were somehow overlooked when you selected that particular section to quote. In other words, were you to receive a report from me about how the unconditional/ uncaused felicity of being alive/ being here does not “encapsulate” the conditional/ caused felicity which gratuitously occurs as a bonus on top of that sheer delight (upon engaging in activities and events of a pleasant and/or beneficial nature) it would probably add very little to your comprehension. What I can do, however, in regards to your [quote] “the way that what is conditional is experienced unconditionally if you like” [endquote] words, is to draw your attention to the following exchange: • [Co-Respondent]: “... do you have the discriminative ability still intact, the ability to see something as being of greater value then some other similar object/person (a value scale of some sort)?” • [Richard]: “Perhaps if I were to put it this way: if, upon ordering buttered toast at a café the waiter/ waitress brings hot, golden-brown toast covered with butter just beginning to melt and drip, in contrast to bringing cold, charred-black toast covered with butter long-ago melted and now congealed, I would rate the former as being 10, on a scale of 1-10 and the latter as being 1 on the same scale ... howsoever *that is a relative scale* as the very stuff of both the former and the latter, being the very stuff of infinitude itself, is incomparable (peerless). Thus, *in the ultimate sense*, everything is perfect here in this actual world”. [emphases added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25d, 19 January 2004). I have emphasised the vital parts of that exchange as more than a few persons have seized on the “scale of 1-10” portion as being meaningful in itself – and thus miss the true import of what is being reported there – as I am none too sure how I can [quote] “put it any more simply” [endquote] than that. (Here is the key to comprehension: by virtue of being this flesh-and-blood body only every last little bit of me is the very stuff of infinitude itself). MARTIN: Do you experience life as a combination of caused and uncaused happinesses, and so still head towards pleasurable activities and experiences? RICHARD: As I would have to be pretty silly to head towards displeasurable activities and experiences – especially when pleasurable activities and experiences are available by the bucket-load (as a bonus on top of the utter delight of simply being this flesh and blood body only) – then drawing your attention to the following passages should be self-explanatory. Viz.: • [Respondent № 07]: “And because there is no ‘I’ in you, there is nobody to worry about anything or correct, improve anything?” • [Richard]: “There is no worry, no, but I am not too sure that this is because there is no ‘I’ ... it is simply silly to worry as worrying does nothing whatsoever to get an event changed. I correct – and thus improve – what can be corrected ... according to a preference for creature comforts and ease of life-style. For example: if I can sit upon a cushion instead of the brick pavers of the patio I will ... that is a preference. But if a cushion is not available it does not matter ... I thoroughly enjoy being alive at this moment in eternal time and this place in infinite space irregardless of what is happening. I could be just as happy and harmless on bread and water in solitary confinement in some insalubrious penitentiary ... but I would be pretty silly to act or behave in such a way as to occasion that outcome!”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 07, 27 January 1999). • [Respondent № 74]: “Why is it not enough to just sit still? If you are happy sitting still, what makes you go out and have coffee?” • [Richard]: “(...) it is indeed enough to just sit still ... doing something is a bonus on top of the utter delight of simply being this flesh and blood body only”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 74, 2 September 2004). • [Richard]: “Speaking personally, I have pleasure by the bucket load – and take for granted that there is an endless supply – and thus enjoy and appreciate the world of people, things and events each moment again”. (Richard, List B, No. 33a, 11 October 1999). • [Richard]: “Apperception is the clear and direct experiencing of being just here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time – sans identity and its feeling-fed realities – and it is a wordless appreciation of being alive and awake on this verdant and azure planet. Apperception is where one is living in the already always existing peace-on-earth and is where one is blithe and carefree, even if one is doing nothing: doing something – and that includes thinking – is a bonus on top of the never-ending perfection of the infinitude which this material universe is. Apperception is where one is the universe being stunningly aware of its own infinitude”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 19a, 1 September 2001). • [Richard]: “A caused, or conditional, enjoyment and appreciation has a beginning and an end – it is dependent upon situations and circumstances – whereas an uncaused, or unconditional, enjoyment and appreciation is perpetual, aeonian (beginningless and endless) and occurs solely by virtue of being vitally alive – being dynamically here at this particular place in infinite space at this very moment in eternal time as a sensuous, reflective flesh-and-blood body only – and thus dependent upon no one, no thing, and no event. (...). Doing something pleasant/ beneficial – or something pleasurable/ beneficent happening – is a bonus on top of the sheer delight of being alive/ being here”. (Richard, List D, Srinath, 5 January 2014). MARTIN: Does harmlessness have nothing to do with ‘others’? RICHARD: The etymology of the word harmless (harm + less) is rather instructive as it comes, via Middle English, from the Anglo-Saxon word hearm, meaning ‘grief’, from the Old Norse harmr, meaning ‘grief, sorrow’ (plus there is the German Harm, also meaning ‘grief’; the Swedish harm, meaning ‘grief, anger’; and the Danish harme, meaning ‘wrath’). Thus, although the word harm nowadays refers to physical injury/ damage as well – the American Heritage Dictionary lists it as meaning “physical or psychological injury or damage” and the Collins English Dictionary has it meaning “physical or mental injury or damage” – its affective-only origins are also attested by the legal term “grievous bodily harm” (rather than just the words ‘grievous harm’). I have touched upon this before ... for instance (in 2004): • [Richard]: “(...) it may be worthwhile bearing in mind that it is impossible to be happy (be happy as in being carefree), as distinct from feeling happy, without being harmless (being harmless as in being innocuous), as distinct from feeling harmless, and to be happy *and* harmless is to be unable to induce suffering – etymologically the word ‘harmless’ (harm + less) comes from the Old Norse ‘harmr’ (meaning grief, sorrow) – either in oneself or another”. [emphasis in original]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 62, 26 March 2004). Thus to be harmless as per actualism lingo (being free of malice) is beneficial both to oneself – plus it feels unpleasant (hedonically) to feel malicious (affectively) anyway – as well to others due to being unable to induce suffering either in oneself or another, via affective vibes and psychic currents, and vice versa. MARTIN: ‘I’ can only think in terms of ‘self’ and ‘other’, where ‘I’ am either selfish or virtuously selfless (which I experience as simply being a re-direction of that narcissistic energy). I don’t think I’ve really understood what harmless means, as I can’t help but either put ‘myself’ or ‘others’ first (as a kind of denial of ‘self’) when I think of being harmless. When I think of “for that body and every body” I can’t help thinking of and instinctually feeling “for that ‘self’ and every ‘self’”! ‘Harmlessness’ feels like something you *do* to another human being – or an effect you have on them – but do you simply mean it as an absence of malice and sorrow? RICHARD: The word harmless, in actualism lingo, refers to the innocuity which ensues in the absence of malice (just as the word happiness refers to the felicity which ensues in the absence of sorrow). And it is only in either a PCE (where the feeling-being is abeyant) or upon an actual freedom (where the feeling-being is extinct) that there is a total absence of malice and sorrow. In the meanwhile, of course, both malice and sorrow (the ‘bad’ feelings) can be deliberately minimised – along with their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion (the ‘good’ feelings) – so as to consciously maximise those happy and harmless feelings (the ‘congenial’ feelings) and with all of that affective energy, which was otherwise frittered away on those wasteful ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings, now freed-up and channelled into felicity and innocuity a potent combination is forged when such untrammelled conviviality operates in conjunction with a naïve sensuosity. * Do you see how almost all of that paragraph you wrote as a lead-up to your query about being harmless – as in “but do you simply mean it as an absence of malice and sorrow?” that is – stems from or revolves around that hoary religio-spiritual practice of putting each and every other ‘self’ before one’s own ‘self’ (a.k.a. being an unselfish ‘self’) so as to counter selfishness? Yet the topic on the web page which Claudiu linked to (Richard, Audio-Taped Dialogues, Putting the other before Oneself) 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 – and not about being selfish. As being harmless does not feature in religio-spiritual practice – peace-on-earth is not on the religio-spiritual agenda – then the sooner that nonsense about being an unselfish ‘self’ is abandoned the better. Here is another reason why: • [Richard]: “(...). Further to the point: what is intelligent about advocating pacifism, for example, which would not only enable the bully boys and feisty femmes to rule the world, with all which inheres in that, but would also propagate/ perpetuate their kind unto future generations per favour the dutiful martyrdom (and thus a willing removal from the human gene-pool) of those seeking instant release into the hereafter of their choice through gullible practise of same? And just in case the latter is not clear enough: if every otherwise intelligent non-dictatorial/ non-bandit/ non-criminal/ non-rapacious/ non-pillaging type of person were to actually put into practice, as a world-wide reality, those unliveable doctrines which bodiless deities prescribe then in a remarkably short period of time all babies will be being born with bully boys and feisty femmes as parents ... and with no alternate care-giver/ role-model anywhere to be found. So much for ‘suffer the little children to come unto me’, eh?” (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25h, 13 May 2005). MARTIN: What is harmlessness in an unconditional sense? Obviously it can’t be dependent on others at all. RICHARD: As to be actually harmless – which is surely what “harmlessness in an unconditional sense” means – is to be actually free of malice (as distinct from being virtually malice-free) then any listing of what it “can’t be dependent on” is irrelevant, as all what being actually harmless is dependent upon is being actually free of malice. Incidentally, as malice can be (and often is) self-directed – feeling-beings are notorious for self-harm – then to focus solely on others for your “Obviously...” conclusion is to be ignoring half the picture. MARTIN: How does intimacy come about without putting the “(potential) affective happiness of [a] feeling-being” to some extent before ‘oneself’? RICHARD: Have you never heard of mutual happiness? MARTIN: ‘I’ am fundamentally selfish and unless I temper this to some extent there’s no chance of being close to someone or liked as ‘my’ resentful urges are unrestrained (and affect my mood / disposition even if I don’t act out on them). Is becoming actually free a combination of becoming unselfish in a normal sense, and being harmless in an unconditional sense? RICHARD: First of all, each and every identity is “fundamentally selfish” by nature – which is why it takes a powerful instinctive impulse (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinctive impulse (selfism) – insofar as 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). (Hence the religio-spiritual practice of countering selfishness – as per the unliveable ideal of each and every ‘self’ being an unselfish ‘self’ via the nonsensical edict of each and every ‘self’ putting each and every ‘self’ before one’s own ‘self’ – is basically an institutionalised elaboration of the most primal of blind nature’s instinctual drives, urges, and impulses and, as such, is not at all intelligent). Second, as “being harmless in an unconditional sense” is to be actually free it makes no sense to ask if becoming actually free is a combination of being that and becoming an unselfish ‘self’. Third, rather than having to restrain your “resentful urges” forever and a day – so as to have a chance of “being close to someone or liked” as exemplified by intimacy experiences (IE’s) – why not find out why there is resentment in the first place? Speaking personally, the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago first located the root source of all ‘his’ anger – the basic resentment at being alive (as expressed in the “I didn’t ask to be born” type of plaint) – and was thus able to rid ‘himself’ of (full-blown) anger within three weeks. MARTIN: Where is the line between the two? RICHARD: There is no line between the two: being an unselfish ‘self’ is a religio-spiritual practice and becoming actually free is unique to actualism. The former is instinctually-based and the latter is the product of intelligence. MARTIN: If I try to be happy at simply being alive, I feel as though others potentially threaten that ‘unconditional’ happiness and I get a fear response (any happiness I generate is unstable and thus not unconditional). It’s as though I can only enjoy just being alive if I’m undisturbed, or if there’s nothing in the environment that will kick-start the instinctual passions back into action. I can’t see how to separate out the conditional from the unconditional, as events change and have various degrees of good/ bad, pleasant/ unpleasant, peaceful/ potential-to-disturb. The fact that this is the only moment I’m ever alive doesn’t change the fact that events change with varying degrees of good/bad etc. – I am not immune to this just because it’s the same moment (maybe I’m only seeing this intellectually or not getting what you mean by eternal moment). And yes, this particular moment is the only moment I’m actually alive, but that doesn’t change the fact that there will be a next moment (unless I die of course). RICHARD: First, as nowhere on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is it suggested that you “try to be happy at simply being alive” you would be well-advised to set feeling good (a general feeling of well-being) as a bottom-line of experiencing until it becomes ‘second-nature’ to feel good each moment again come-what-may. Second, as there is no “unconditional” for a feeling-being to separate out the “conditional” from it is no wonder you cannot see how to do so. Third, seeing the fact that this is the only moment you are ever actually alive is not meant to change the fact that events change – here in this actual world events are forever changing (it is the way in which life is always fresh, novel, ever-new, never boring) – as the whole point of the exercise is to realise you are wasting the only moment you are ever actually alive by feeling bad (a general feeling of ill-being) when you can be feeling good instead. Fourth, these ever-changing events are not the issue – the issue is how one (affectively) reacts or responds to them – as one cannot change the weather to ensure a sunny day in the park or on the beach (for instance). Lastly, to blame events for how you feel is to make yourself a victim of your own feelings (as if of forces beyond your control) when it is your choice, and your choice alone, as to how you feel, each moment again, as the events change. MARTIN: What about the issue of self-protection? When someone cuts in front of me in line I feel slightly humiliated / embarassed / annoyed. RICHARD: Why do you choose to feel “slightly humiliated / embarrassed / annoyed” when someone cuts in front of you in line when you could choose to feel good (a general feeling of well-being) instead? Put differently: why waste this only moment you are ever actually alive by choosing to not feel good? Moreover, and given that certain persons are prone to cutting in front of others in line, why set yourself up to feel “slightly humiliated / embarrassed / annoyed” for the rest of your life each time that happens? Even more to the point: do you have a vested interest in making yourself a victim? MARTIN: Another example: Perhaps a manager makes a decision at work of how I should do things that will lead to a lot of unnecessary extra work. Or perhaps I am expected to work longer hours at work thus potentially losing free time. Or I no longer have the same level of access to pleasant activities / conditions / experiences. RICHARD: Again, given that certain managers are prone to making such decisions/ expecting you to work longer hours/ preventing you from have the same level of access/ and so on and so forth, why set yourself up to no longer feel good (a general feeling of well-being) as such events occur when it is your choice, and your choice alone, as to how you feel, each moment again, while these events are happening. MARTIN: An unconditional happiness has to encompass all of these issues / ups and downs that would affect my wellbeing in a conventional sense... with no defensiveness or self-pity at losing out. I know a non-contingent happiness would have to work whether one is in a nice environment or in solitary confinement, but I personally can’t help be at least somewhat affected by the vicissitudes. RICHARD: Aye, an unconditional happiness does indeed encompass all those events – including events which have an effect on physical well-being (senescence alone, in my case, has increasingly engendered such effects of late) – yet experience shows that certain feeling-beings have, personally, indeed been able to help themselves to not be at least somewhat affected by the vicissitudes. MARTIN: I can see how the human condition is geared towards seeking conditional happinesses, and that actualism is about making a radical shift – almost like moving to a different dimension – to a non-contingent happiness, and I’m trying to figure out how to do this (bearing in mind billions of people have not been able to discover what you did Richard). RICHARD: Good ... in the meanwhile, until you do figure out how, why not set feeling good (a general feeling of well-being) as a bottom-line of experiencing so it can become ‘second-nature’ to feel good, each moment again come-what-may, sooner rather than later? MARTIN: If I try to be happy now, my instinctual energy wants some stimulation as it operates with a sense of going somewhere. I sort of think ‘well I could be happy now, but what then – just sit here like a lemon?’ (that ‘wanting something more’ or ‘there must be more to life than this’ comes into play even in regards to the actualism method itself!). RICHARD: Well, of course ... after all, the ultimate aim of the actualism method is to uncover, for oneself, the ‘secret to life’, or the ‘riddle of existence’, or the ‘purpose of the universe’, or the ‘meaning of life’, or whatever one’s quest may be called. RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX RICHARD’S HOME PAGE The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one. Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity