# Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions Frequently Asked Questions ## What is Happiness? RESPONDENT: I want to know what does ‘happiness’ mean to you. To be honest, to me it still is a feeling. I ask this question in relation to your post to No. 3 in which you wrote: [Richard]: ‘A happy and harmless person has a much better chance of precipitating a PCE ... which is the essential pre-requisite for an actual freedom (otherwise this is all theory). It goes without saying, surely, that a grumpy person locks themselves out of being here ... now’. [endquote]. Which means that being ‘happy and harmless’ is a pre-requisite for actual freedom (at least it gives better chances). So it is very important to know what is this happiness which is required before one even attempts for actual freedom. RICHARD: There is nothing mysterious going on here, it is only a matter of how the English language is structured ... try reading it this way: • ‘A person who is feeling happy and harmless has a much better chance of precipitating a PCE ... which is the essential pre-requisite for an actual freedom (otherwise this is all theory). It goes without saying, surely, that a person who is feeling grumpy locks themselves out of being here ... now’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 3, 16 February 1999). Nevertheless, there is more to it than that: the phrase ‘He is an angry person’ or ‘She is an hysterical person’ refers to someone who is more prone to be angry or hysterical – and more extreme in their anger and hysteria – than the average person. Likewise: ‘He is a bully’ or ‘She is a bitch’ refers to a person who displays an attitude and behaviour that automatically classifies them as being more extreme than the average person. So when I write ‘a happy and harmless person’ I am indicating someone who is more extreme in their happiness and harmlessness than the average ... similarly ‘a grumpy person’ indicates someone more extreme in feeling grumpy than the average person (and please do not ask me to define ‘average’ ... because have you ever realised that half the people that you know are necessarily below average!). Perhaps this is an excellent opportunity to clarify this whole issue about feelings. Often people who read about actual freedom gain the impression that I am asking people to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire affective faculty is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the psyche itself is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings. It is impossible to be a ‘stripped-down’ self – divested of feelings – for ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. Anyone who attempts this absurdity would wind up being somewhat like what is known in psychiatric terminology as a ‘sociopathic personality’ (popularly known as ‘psychopath’). Such a person still has feelings – ‘cold’, ‘callous’, ‘indifferent’ – and has repressed the others (‘repressed’ not ‘suppressed’). In a PCE the feelings play no part at all – the self is in abeyance – but can come rushing in, if one is not alert, resulting in the PCE devolving into an ASC ... complete with a super-self. Indeed, this demonstrates that it is impossible for there to be no feelings whilst there is a self – in this case a Self – thus it is the ‘being’ that has to go first ... not the feelings. What actualism – the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom – is on about is a ‘virtual freedom’ (which is not to be confused with cyber-space’s ‘virtual reality’) wherein the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to feel good, feel happy and feel perfect for 99% of the time. I make this very clear in my writing: • [Richard]: ‘By asking ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ the reward is immediate; by finding out what triggered off the loss of feeling good, one commences another period of enjoying this moment of being alive. It is all about being here now at this moment in time and this place in space ... and if you are not feeling good you have no chance whatsoever of being here now in this actual world. (A grumpy person locks themselves out of the perfect purity of this moment and place). Of course, once you get the knack of this, one up-levels ‘feeling good’, as a bottom-line each moment again, to ‘feeling happy’. And after that: ‘feeling perfect’. These are all feelings, this is not perfection personified yet ... but then again, feeling perfect for twenty three hours and fifty nine minutes a day is way beyond ‘normal’ human expectations anyway. Also, it is a very tricky way of both getting men fully into their feelings for the first time in their life and getting women to examine their feelings one by one instead of being run by a basketful of them all at once. One starts to feel ‘alive’ for the first time in one’s life. It is really important to understand about the soul ... getting into feelings like this – ‘perfect’ feelings – leaves one in imminent danger of the seductive snare of Love and Beauty, and, conveniently ignoring their opposites, becoming enlightened, or at least illuminated. ‘Me’ – that intuition of ‘being’ that I call the soul – sugar coats itself with Love and Compassion and Beauty and Truth and swans along in a state of Blissful Euphoria. Thus one then goes off into some mystical State of ‘Being’ in some metaphysical world and misses out on the clean and clear perfection of this actual world. It is very, very difficult to get out of the enlightened state and go ‘beyond it’ into this actual world of the senses’. [endquote]. (‘Richard’s Journal’ © ‘The Actual Freedom Trust’ 1997; pages 257-258). (These paragraphs quoted can be accessed for free on my Web page under the title: ‘This Moment of Being Alive’). Also, you may find the following exchange from a few weeks ago on ‘The Actual Freedom Mailing List’ helpful: • [Respondent No. 3]: ‘Last night when I was about to go to bed, the question still running, there was a sense of a shift and the closeness had a different feel to it. Then there was a feeling great energy and feeling of glee. Having felt great before I persisted with the question. The abundance lasted for perhaps 1 hour and then I fell asleep. • [Richard]: ‘Ah ... this is what causes me to prick up my ears: ‘closeness’, ‘great energy’, ‘abundance’ and ‘glee’. By ‘glee’ are you indicating triumphant joy ... exuberant delight? It is important to allow these enthusiasms to have full rein ... the ‘great energy’ can carry one through to the other shore. A point to note, however, is that getting into feelings like this – exquisite feelings – leaves one in imminent danger of the seductive snare of Love and Beauty and, conveniently ignoring their opposites, becoming enlightened ... or at least illuminated. ‘Me’ – that feeling of ‘being’ that I call the soul – aggrandises itself with Love and Compassion and Beauty and Truth and swans along in a state of rapturous and euphoric Divine Bliss. Thus one then goes off into some mystical ‘State of Being’ in some metaphysical world and misses out on the clean and clear perfection of this actual world. Nevertheless, in order to actually be here – given that mostly people live in their heads – one must go dangerously through the heart first ... it is a risk well worth taking. As for ‘abundance’ ... yes, a lushness, a luxurious opulence awaits the one who dares to go all the way. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 3, 2 January 1999). RESPONDENT: For you, it [happiness] definitely is not [a feeling]. So what is it? Can it be sensed by physical senses? Do you see, smell, hear or touch happiness? RICHARD: I have not felt happy for years and years ... here lies perfection. Living here in this actual world there is a seeing, smelling, touching, tasting and hearing of the purity of the infinitude of this material universe for the twenty four hours of the day. It is a sensate experiencing – apperceptive awareness – and cannot be felt affectively. If one minimises the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings (as explained above) and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings – happiness, delight, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on – in conjunction with sensuousness, then the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness. If it does not ... then one is way ahead of normal human expectations anyway as the aim is to enjoy and appreciate being here now for as much as is possible. It is a win/ win situation. RICHARD: It is all so simple, in the actual world; no effort is needed to meet the requisite morality of society. I have no ‘dark nature’, no unconscious impulses to curb, to control, to restrain. It is all so easy, in the actual world; I can take no credit for my apparently virtuous behaviour because actual freedom automatically provides beneficial thoughts and deeds. It is all so spontaneous, in the actual world; I do not do it ... it does itself. Vanity, egoism, selfishness ... all self-centred activity has ceased to operate when ‘I’ ceased to be. And it is all so peaceful, in the actual world; it is only in actualism that human beings can have peace-on-earth without toiling fruitlessly to be ‘good’. The answer to everything that has puzzled humankind for all of human history is readily elucidated when one is actually free. The ‘Mystery of Life’ has been penetrated and laid open for all those with the eyes to see. Life was meant to be easy. KONRAD: Is there something you advise us to do to reach this marvellous state of pure happiness you are apparently in? RICHARD: Yes. Ask yourself this, each moment again: How am I experiencing this moment of being alive? It is essential for success to grasp the fact that this is your only moment of being alive. The past, although it did happen, is not actual now. The future, though it will happen, is not actual now. Only now is actual. Yesterday’s happiness and harmlessness does not mean a thing if one is miserable and malicious now ... and a hoped-for happiness harmlessness tomorrow is to but waste this moment of being alive in waiting. All you get by waiting is more waiting. Thus any ‘change’ can only happen now. The jumping in point is always here ... it is at this moment in time and this place in space. Thus, if you miss it this time around, hey presto ... you have another chance immediately. Life is excellent at providing opportunities like this. What ‘I’ did, eighteen years ago, was to devise a remarkably effective method of ridding this body of ‘me’. (I know that methods are to be actively discouraged, in some people’s eyes, but this one worked). It takes some doing to start off with, but as success after success starts to multiply exponentially, it becomes automatic to have this question running as an on-going thing ... because it delivers the goods right here and now ... not off into some indeterminate future. Plus the successes are repeatable – almost on demand – and thus satisfies the ‘scientific method’. ‘I’ asked myself, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’? As one knows, from the pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) that everybody has at some stage in their life, that it is possible to experience this moment in time and this place in space as perfection personified, ‘I’ set the minimum standard of experience for myself: feeling good. If ‘I’ am not feeling good then ‘I’ have something to look at to find out why. What has happened, between the last time ‘I’ felt good and now? When did ‘I’ feel good last? Five minutes ago? Five hours ago? What happened to end that good feeling? Ah ... yes ... ‘he said that and ... ‘, or ‘she didn’t do this and I ... ‘, or ‘what I wanted was ... and I didn’t get it ... ‘, and so on. One does not have to trace back into one’s childhood ... usually no more than yesterday afternoon at the most. (‘Feeling good’ is an unambiguous term ... if anyone wants to argue about what feeling good means ... then do not even bother trying to do this at all.) This way, the reward is immediate; by finding out what triggered off this loss of feeling good, one commences another period of enjoying this moment of being alive. It is all about being here at this moment in time and this place in space ... and if you are not feeling good you have no chance whatsoever of being here in this actual world. (A grumpy person locks themselves out of the perfect purity of this moment and place). Of course, once you get the knack of this, one up-levels ‘feeling good’, as a bottom line each moment again, to feeling happy’. And after that: ‘feeling perfect’. These are all feelings, this is not perfection personified yet ... but then again, feeling perfect for twenty three hours and fifty nine minutes a day is way beyond normal human expectations anyway. Also, it is a very tricky way of both getting men fully into their feelings for the first time in their life and getting women to examine their feelings one by one instead of being run by a basketful of them all at once. One starts to feel ‘alive’ for the first time in one’s life. Being ‘alive’ is to be paying attention – exclusive attention – to this moment in time and this place in space. This attention becomes fascination ... and fascination leads to reflective contemplation. Then – and only then – apperception can occur. Apperceptive awareness can be evoked by paying exclusive attention to being fully alive right now. This moment is your only moment of being alive ... one is never alive at any other time than now. And, wherever you are, one is always here ... even if you start walking over to ‘there’, along the way to ‘there’ you are always here ... and when you arrive ‘there’, it too is here. Thus attention becomes a fascination with the fact that one is always here ... and it is already now. Fascination leads to reflective contemplation. As one is already here, and it is always now ... then one has arrived before one starts. The potent combination of attention, fascination, reflection and contemplation produces apperception, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself. Apperception – a way of seeing that is arrived at by reflective and fascinating contemplative thought – is when ‘I’ cease thinking and thinking takes place of its own accord ... and ‘me’ disappears along with all the feelings. Such a mind, being free of the thinker and the feeler – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – is capable of immense clarity and purity ... as a sensate body only, one is automatically benevolent and benign. It is really important to understand about the soul ... getting into feelings like this – ‘perfect’ feelings – leaves one in imminent danger of the seductive snare of Love and Beauty, and, conveniently ignoring their opposites, becoming enlightened, or at least illuminated. ‘Me’ – that intuition of ‘being’ that I call the soul – sugar coats itself with Love and Compassion and Beauty and Truth and swans along in a state of Blissful Euphoria. Thus one then goes off into some mystical State of Being in some metaphysical world and misses out on the clean and clear perfection of this actual world. It is very, very difficult to get out of the enlightened state and go ‘beyond it’ into this actual world of the senses. Your feeling of being – the real ‘me’ – is what is evidenced when one says: ‘But what about me, nobody loves me for me’! For a woman it is: ‘You only want me for my body ... and not for me’. For a man it is: ‘You only want me for my money ... and not for me’. For a child it is: ‘You only want to be my friend because of my toys (or sweets or whatever)’. This sense of ‘me’ – this being – arises out of the basic instincts that blind nature endowed us all with as a rough and ready ‘soft-ware’ package to make a start in life. These instincts – mainly fear and aggression and nurture and desire – appear as a rudimentary self. This is why it is felt to be one’s ‘Original Face’ – to use the Zen terminology – if one is open to ‘what is’. You need to have a keen sense of humour. This business of becoming free is not – contrary to popular opinion – a serious business at all. Be totally sincere ... most definitely utterly sincere, as genuineness is essential. But serious ... no way. An actual freedom is all about having fun; about enjoying being here; about delighting in being alive. All that ‘being serious’ stuff actively works against peace-on-earth. One has to want to be here on this planet ... most people resent being here and wish to escape. This method will bring one into being more fully here than anyone has ever been before. If you do not want to be here, then forget it. So: How am I experiencing this moment of being alive? It beats any pathetic mantra by a country mile ... because it is useful and effective. KONRAD: Or is it something that emerges spontaneously into being by some fortunate few? RICHARD: One will never become free by sitting in a deck-chair on the patio waiting for the ‘Grace Of God’ to descend. One has to reach out – extend oneself – like one has never done before. One has to want peace-on-earth as the number one priority in one’s life. One has to desire freedom from the Human Condition to the point of obsession and beyond ... it is that urgent and essential. Treat unhappiness and harmfulness as if it were a terminal illness that one has to rid the body of. And one does it for a two-fold purpose: for the good of oneself in particular and for one’s fellow humans in general. After all, a happy and harmless person is a pleasure to be with ... if you are not good company for yourself, then what are you for others? 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”. (Richard, List A, No. 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, No. 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, No. 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). RESPONDENT: The essence of my question is in a response to Respondent No 60: ‘say you were able to eliminate all causes of your happiness – would you (by definition or otherwise) then be happy?’ This question is not pertinent to a real actualist ... RICHARD: You may find the following to be of interest: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘‘Unconditional happiness’ – please explain (I’m not saying it is not possible) but needs explanation. • [Richard]: ‘Unconditional happiness can also be described as uncaused happiness ... that is, not dependent upon people, things and events. (Richard, List A, No. 5, No. 09). And: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘... how is it that life can be relatively happy, and an abysmal state of affairs all at the same time? • [Richard]: ‘As people have been finding relative happiness in abysmal states of affairs since time immemorial it is a rather odd question to ask of me how they manage to do it ... all I am saying, in the one-upmanship example provided, is that it is a pathetic (as in miserably inadequate, feeble, or useless) happiness to be happy at another’s expense. Especially so when this, the actual world, is just here right now ... where uncaused happiness (and harmlessness) lies. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27e, 5 April 2003). And: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘The real question in my mind is, could it be that this living in the actual sensate world that you experience is brought about by living a creative life – following your bliss, as they say. • [Richard]: ‘No, to base one’s well-being upon pleasurable activities is to build upon quicksand. The happy and harmless attributes of actual freedom are uncaused ... and therefore free. Also, I do not experience bliss ... it being affective. The purity of the perfection of infinitude is vastly superior to bliss ... and I experienced bliss – and ecstasy and euphoria – for eleven years. There is no comparison, actually. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 12, 15 January 1999). RESPONDENT: [follow-up] Being that you called your 34 years of being normal a ‘great life’, (at least then) would you say (then or now) that you ‘enjoyed’ your life back then? RICHARD: I would say (then) I enjoyed my life the best I could given that the human condition was endemic – as expressed in real-world phrases such as ‘make the best of a bad situation’ and ‘look on the bright side’ and ‘life is what you make of it’ and so on – as I was mostly optimistic, occasionally pessimistic, mostly cheerful, occasionally melancholy and so on and so on through all the moods ... and I would say (now), as I do say now on many an occasion in prior e-mails, I have been having a ball all along. I have never not been here ... ‘twas all an illusion/ delusion. RESPONDENT: I ask you this to determine whether you, like Vineeto, limit the words ‘enjoy life’ to being only applicable to how an actualist ‘enjoys life’. If you recall, she recently made the claim that animals and people do not ‘enjoy’ their lives. RICHARD: You would be better off asking Vineeto as I can only make a guess as to what she was referring to (presumably she meant it in the sense that an illusory enjoyment is not actual enjoyment as she has had enough PCE’s to be acutely aware that the real-world does not exist in actuality). RESPONDENT: It seems to me that living a ‘great life’ would indicate enjoyment of life, wouldn’t you agree? RICHARD: If you asking me whether I agree that a ‘great life’ in an illusory real-world is an enjoyment of that illusory life then I would say yes, it most definitely is ... just as a ‘glorious life’ in the delusory unreal-world most certainly is an enjoyment of that delusory life. After all, as the real-world saying goes, ‘life is what you *make* of it’. [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: If so, this would indicate either that Vineeto was wrong, or using the words ‘enjoy life’ in a stipulated manner that I personally don’t understand. RICHARD: Perhaps a review of this exchange may throw some light upon the matter this time around: • [Respondent]: ‘Richard, it would be nice to better understand a few things that have perplexed me: How is it possible for a ‘normal’ human life to be worthwhile, valuable, and at least somewhat happy (as you have told me in the past) – yet you often call life in the ‘real’ world ‘grim and glum’ and ‘miserable’? • [Richard]: ‘What I wrote to you was this (twice): [quote]: ‘... sustaining oneself (and one’s family if there is one) is certainly not pointless. Furthermore there are many meaningful experiences in everyday life: providing shelter (building, buying or renting a home); being married (aka being in a relationship); raising a family (preparing children for adult life); having a career (job satisfaction); achieving something (successfully pursuing a hobby) and so on. However, to rely upon transient experience to provide an enduring meaning to life is to invite disappointment. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27b, 16 July 2002) and (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27c, 6 September 2002). I could have as easily said that to rely upon transient experience to provide an enduring happiness, for example, is to invite disappointment ... plus real-world happiness is an affective happiness anyway (I have not felt happy for many, many years). Is life in the real-world worthwhile, valuable, happy (and so on)? The real-world is an illusion, a veneer pasted over this actual world, as a reality, by the animal ‘self’ within ... what worth, what value, what happiness (and so on) inheres in an illusion? The same applies to grimness and glumness and misery (and so on) ... it is all illusory. Do you still want to ask your question? (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27e, 5 April 2003). In a pure consciousness experience (PCE) it is patently evident that there is no such thing as the real-world (‘tis but an illusion) – plus it is just as obvious that an altered state of consciousness (ASC) is an un-real world born out of dissociation from the real-world (‘tis but a delusion arising from the illusion) – and, also indubitably, that an illusory/ delusory enjoyment is but a pathetic imitation of the actual. RESPONDENT: If you restrict the usage of ‘enjoy life’ to pertain to actualists, then do you also recognize the ‘normal usage’ of those words? RICHARD: I do indeed ... which is why I suggest, that whatever you do, do not ever settle for second best because the best is just here, right now, where it already has been, all along, and always will be. RESPONDENT: Since you have told me in the past that it is possible for a ‘normal’ person to be reasonably happy, to live a valuable life, and so forth – would you also say it’s possible for a ‘normal’ person to ‘enjoy life’? Just curious. RICHARD: A curious thing I have noticed, ever since I started writing on the internet, is that my writing has become increasingly peppered with qualifiers, conditioners, caveats, codicils, and footnotes ... so much so that, as there are only a few paper-back versions of ‘Richard’s Journal’ left in stock, and it is about due to have another print-run, I am contemplating editing it before doing so (editing, not revising) as at the time of writing it never occurred to me that some, if not many, people would want/ need to have everything spelled-out in full each time it was written. Thus where I used to say ‘contrary to popular belief it is possible to be happy and harmless all the time’ (for example) nowadays it looks something like this (for instance): • [Richard]: ‘... perhaps this is also an apt moment to explain that nowhere do I say that either the human animal or the other animals cannot be (relatively) happy from time-to-time or (relatively) harmless from time-to-time – and even for extended periods – but that the survival passions, and the feeling-being they automatically form themselves into, not only preclude both total happiness and harmlessness and happiness all-the-time and harmlessness all-the-time but occlude the direct experience of the meaning of life as a living actuality each moment again’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44c, 17 August 2003). My guess is that when Vineeto wrote the following it never occurred to her to add qualifiers and conditioners and caveats and codicils and footnotes: • [Vineeto]: ‘The idea that animals are innocent or happy is a myth’. (Actualism, Vineeto, Actual Freedom List, No. 38d, 25.7.2003). ‘Tis only a guess, though. RESPONDENT: ... why is happiness inherent to perfection? RICHARD: Simply because both the qualities (being pure and pristine) intrinsic to the properties (being complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate) of that perfection and the values (being benign and benevolent) inherent to those properties and qualities can only have a felicitous (and innocuous) effect ... here in this actual world lies complete felicity (and innocuity). RESPONDENT: I don’t understand the quality-property-value connection ... RICHARD: The connection is essentially as follows: those qualities are sourced in (not attributed to) those properties and those values – in the sense of ‘the quality of a thing considered in respect of its ability to serve a specified purpose or cause an effect’ (Oxford Dictionary) – originate from both those sourced-in-the-properties qualities and the very properties themselves. Put succinctly: it is a seamless connection. RESPONDENT: ... is there a page on it on the AF site? RICHARD: No ... suffice is it to say, for the nonce, that qualia are intrinsic to properties and not to consciousness (as more than a few academics contend). RESPONDENT: I would have thought that qualities and values are specific to human experiencing and can not be attributed to the universe itself. RICHARD: As I understand it, when trying to make sense of academia, properties are the inherent characteristics of things and exist irregardless of humans being present (palaeontology evidences that this planet existed long before humans appeared on the scene) whilst qualities are the anthropocentric experiences of things and are, according to differing schools of thought, either sourced in properties (as objective percepts) or in consciousness (as subjective percepts) ... whereas values, as previously mentioned, pertain to the quality of things in regard to their ability in serving a purpose or causing an effect. RESPONDENT: I still don’t see why happiness is inherent to perfection. RICHARD: I am not, of course, referring to affective happiness (a feeling of being happy) but to an actual happiness which, being sans any affective content whatsoever, is unconditional (not dependent upon events). RESPONDENT: Are you simply saying that the make-up of the universe is such that if experienced by a human sans identity, that human experiences felicity? RICHARD: That is one way of putting it ... I would rather say that, by virtue of the very perfection (and thus pristine purity) of the infinitude/ absoluteness this universe is, a human sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto (an apperceptive human) can only experience felicity. Or, put another way, as an apperceptive human this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is experiencing itself the only way such pristine purity can ever be experienced (felicitously/ innocuously). RESPONDENT: Billions of years before humans evolved (excluding life on other planets) the universe ‘just was’, its perfection having nothing to do with happiness or felicity, right? RICHARD: If what you are saying, in effect, is that with no apperceptive human present to experience felicity the universe cannot experience the pristine purity of its perfection felicitously then ... yes. RESPONDENT: Happiness is a human (or at least animal) phenomenon. RICHARD: As no animal, human or otherwise, is separate from the universe that is beside the point. RESPONDENT: Perfection has no affective characteristic. RICHARD: Indeed not ... here in this actual world qualia are neither affective nor tinged with affectivity. RESPONDENT: Are not humans – like everything else in nature – ‘perfect’ with or without emotions and however miserable and dissociated? RICHARD: An apperceptive human – like everything else in nature without emotions – is perfect (without scare quotes); an affective identity – like everything else in nature with emotions – can never be perfect (with or without scare quotes) as that entity is forever locked-out of actuality by its very nature. For instance: • [Richard]: ‘... the pristine perfection of the peerless purity the infinitude this universe actually is ensures nothing dirty (‘being’ or ‘presence’) can get in’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27f, 24 October 2003). RESPONDENT: I’m still missing why felicity ‘can only’ result from the make-up of the universe. [Richard]: ‘... both the qualities (being pure and pristine) intrinsic to the properties (being complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate) of that perfection and the values (being benign and benevolent) inherent to those properties and qualities can only have a felicitous (and innocuous) effect ...’ (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 110a, 15 May 2006). [Richard]: ‘... by virtue of the very perfection (and thus pristine purity) of the infinitude/ absoluteness this universe is, a human sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto (an apperceptive human) can only experience felicity (and innocuity). Or, put another way, as an apperceptive human this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is experiencing itself the only way such pristine purity can ever be experienced (felicitously/ innocuously)’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 110a, 15 May 2006). My response to all of these is: Why? You appear to be repeating that felicity can only result without explaining why. RICHARD: As simply as possible, then: it is impossible to be miserable (or in any other way infelicitous) where the pristine purity of the perfection of the infinitude/ absoluteness which this universe actually is abounds ... to wit: here in this actual (the world of the senses). RESPONDENT: Happiness is what results – as sensual pleasure – when there is no emotion, no identity. RICHARD: Where there are no affections/ no identity this actual world is experienced directly: what one is, as a flesh and blood body only, is this physical universe experiencing itself apperceptively ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude/ absoluteness. And this is truly wonderful. RESPONDENT: This happiness is sourced in the brain since without the brain’s pleasure faculties, the universe would be experienced anhedonically. RICHARD: This universe can only be experienced anhedonically when the hedonic identity parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body is either abeyant (in a PCE) or extinct (upon an actual freedom from the human condition). RESPONDENT: I’m talking about sensual pleasure not the affective faculties. RICHARD: In which case your earlier question (about which I assumed that, as a matter of course, you meant the hedonic pleasure/ pain centre) makes no sense. Viz.: [Co-Respondent]: ‘If the human brain’s pleasure faculties were damaged, the sensual pleasure wouldn’t be there and the pristine purity would be experienced in what way? [endquote]. If (note ‘if’) there were no sensation at all – no cutaneal, olfactory, aural, ocular, gustatory, or proprioceptive sensing whatsoever – how on earth can any experiencing happen? Actual Freedom Homepage
Commonly Raised Objections – Index | Frequently Flogged Misconceptions – Index | Frequently Asked Questions – Index
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless Design, Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity