## Richard’s Descriptions ## of Being Out-from-Control in a Different Way of Being RICHARD: In 1981, as the new year dawned, I took the first step on what I would later choose to call the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition. I was a married man, then, with a wife and four children to support and their grandmother had offered to have all of her grandchildren stay with her in the city for a three-week holiday (which left my then wife and myself together, on our own, for the first time since the birth of the first child). I grasped the opportunity with both hands to, not only regain the honeymoon intimacy of 1966, but to enable the actual intimacy experienced six months prior during the four-hour perfection experience which had indubitably evidenced that peace-on-earth was already always here. What I set about doing, consciously and with knowledge aforethought, was to deliberately imitate the actual—as so mirifically manifested in those experiences of pristine purity—each moment again. I did everything I could to be as happy and harmless (as free of sorrow and malice) for as much as is humanly possible. This was achieved by first putting everything on a does-not-really-matter-in-the-long-run basis. That is, I would prefer people, things and events to be a particular way, but, if it did not turn out like that, it did not really matter for it was only a preference. I chose to no longer give other people—or the weather even—the power to have me annoyed, irritated, irked, or even peeved, if this was possible. Then, as it was patently obvious in those experiences of pristine purity how this very moment of being alive is the only moment of ever actually being alive, I began to treat each moment again as precious. After all, it is not as if we have an unlimited amount of moments and—unlike a bank account which can be replenished—our supply of such moments is our most valuable (albeit dwindling) asset. In practical terms this meant being aware of how each precious moment was being experienced; if feeling good (felicity and innocuity) was the prevailing experience then this attentiveness ensured enjoyment and appreciation, of the sheer fact of being alive, each moment again; if feeling bad (unhappy and harmful) was the prevailing experience then whatever had displaced feeling good became readily apparent, upon such attention, with so much at stake. Once the specific moment of ceasing to feel good was pin-pointed, and the silliness of having such an incident as that (no matter what it was) take away the exquisite enjoyment and appreciation, of this only moment of actually being alive, was seen for what it was—usually some habitual reactive response—I was once more felicitous and innocuous and, what is more, aptly armed with a pin-pointed cue to watch out for, on the next occasion, so as to not have that trigger off yet another bout of the same-old same-old. By being relentlessly attentive to, each moment again, and scrupulously honest about, how that only moment of ever being alive was experienced (so that any deviation from such felicity and innocuity was attended to with the utmost dispatch) it rapidly became more simpler and much easier to live peacefully and harmoniously with my then-wife and then-children, in particular, and with anyone and everyone who came into my presence. And this way of living was such an admirable state of affairs I was wont to exclaim to all and sundry, then, about how I had discovered the secret to life (for that is how far beyond normal human expectations the felicitous/ innocuous state, which I nowadays call being virtually free, truly is) and I recall being perplexed as to why, it being such a simple and easy thing to do, nobody had ever done it before. Including myself, of course. Because the felicitous and innocuous feelings are in no way docile, lack-lustre feelings; in conjunction with sensuosity they make for an extremely potent combination as—with all of the affective energy channelled into being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible (and no longer being frittered away on sorrow and malice or their redressive hand-maidens love and compassion)—the full effect of ‘me’, the feeling entity at the core of ‘being’ itself, is dynamically enabled for one purpose and one purpose alone. Such imitative felicity and innocuity, in concert with sincerity and sensuosity, readily evokes amazement, marvelment, and delightment—a state of wide-eyed wonderment best expressed by the word naiveté (the nearest an identity can come to innocence whilst being an entity)—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 magnipotent munificence, an intrinsic largesse which has nothing to do with the imitative affective happiness and harmlessness, will do the rest. All what is required is cheerful, and thus willing, concurrence. It was great fun and very, very rewarding along the way. My life became cleaner and clearer and more and more pure as each habitual way of living life was consciously eliminated through constant exposure to the bright light of awareness shining its attentiveness into every nook and cranny of the psyche. Eventually, I invited the actual by granting myself permission to having the controls be let go of and thus be giving way to this moment living me (rather than me trying to live in the moment). I became the experience of the doing of this business of being alive; the ‘beer’ and no longer the ‘doer’. Finally, my days as a persona non grata were numbered. I could hardly maintain myself (as an affective-psychic entity). Soon my time as a feeling-being would come to an end. An inevitability set in—a thrilling momentum took over—and my psychological and psychical demise became imminent. Richard’s Personal web-page January 28 2016 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 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 ‘perfect’ related to 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. 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 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): qualitively 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. 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! Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 28 January 2016 1997 RICHARD: To enable one to live in virtual freedom one can, among other things, renounce resentment. For the commitment to achieving peace-on-earth to become total, for it to become a complete devotion to effecting perfection, for it to become a dedication of oneself to the consummation of the freedom-of-the-moment, one gladly forsakes humankind’s ‘wisdom’ of old. That ‘wisdom’ is a wishy-washy, part-time, lip-serving, casual approach to the ultimate goal. It is called ‘Hope’. All peoples are constantly exhorted to: ‘do not lose hope’. But, as ‘Hope’ is an impoverished proxy for the actual, the resentment remains. Only by firmly renouncing resentment, by abandoning one’s commitment to proving that life on earth is a ‘vale of tears’, can one’s commitment be staunch only to the ultimate goal. One is then no longer able to agree with others that ‘life on earth is a grim and glum business’. One will easily cease saying things like ‘I didn’t ask to be born’, or ‘sorrow is part and parcel of life’, or ‘learn to accept suffering and grow by worshipping its beauty’. All of these desperate coping-mechanisms become humbug and are never validated again. With each experience of the fact that perfection is already here, the connection becomes stronger. One is laying down a path with each cobblestone being the reminder of the purity of the atmosphere which lies at one’s ultimate destination. Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Twenty-four August 15 2016 CLAUDIU: Hi Richard, Another query, related to my previous one on how to go out-from-control. You wrote: • [Respondent No. 45]: 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. 45a, 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): qualitively 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, No. 45a, 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 May 13 2009 RESPONDENT: So, what makes it ‘highly possible’ to be actually free (in this quoted section), is not the information or knowledge you gathered, but a virtual freedom. For clarity and accuracy sake, ‘So, what makes it ‘highly possible’ to be actually free (in this quoted section), is not the information or knowledge [concerning an actual freedom from the human condition that you made to the public], but a virtual freedom. RICHARD: G’day Rick, The information or knowledge made publicly available is in regards to both an actual and a virtual freedom from the human condition. Neither freedom has any historical reference (as far as can be ascertained). That particular quote, located online in ‘Selected Writings’, is an extract from ‘Richard’s Journal’ wherein it goes on to say (five sentences later) that a virtual freedom is the essential precursor to the ultimate condition. 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. (This ongoing excellence experience is what the methodological aspect of a virtual freedom – a persistent and diligent application of the actualism method – can morph into whenever that current-time awareness method has been applied to a sufficiency for that to occur/ have happen). This penultimate out-from-under-control/ different-way-of-being is barely distinguishable from a pure consciousness experience. (It was from this ongoing excellence experiencing that pure consciousness experiences occurred on a near-daily basis – sometimes two-three times a day – for the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago). Hence ‘highly possible’. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Incidentally, three paragraphs later, in ‘Richard’s Journal’, it is put as ‘highly likely’. Vis.: [quote] ‘After living in the condition of virtual freedom for sufficient time to absorb all the ramifications of a blithesome life, it is highly likely that the ultimate condition can happen’. (Richards Journal ©1997, chapter Twenty-Three, p.150) Richard, List D, Rick, 13 May 2009 October 11 1998 IRENE to Vineeto: To me freedom means to be free from the human conditioning (i.e. the belief in the man-made mistakes in their interpretations of being human and of nature in general). That what I had called ‘virtual freedom. RICHARD: Except that virtual freedom is derived from what Richard lived from March to September in 1981 and was epitomised by being as happy and harmless as was humanly possible ... for twenty three hours and fifty nine minutes a day. This was achieved by my asking myself the question: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ ... for I had experienced the universe’s perfection – personified in a four-hour peak experience – and just knew that it was possible to achieve peace-on-earth in this life-time as this body. To live a virtual freedom one knowingly and deliberately imitates the actual inasmuch as is possible given that one is still human. It is the pure intent to ingenuously live the actual that imbues virtual freedom with its feeling of perfection and subsequent delight and joy. To be without this connection betwixt naiveté‚ and the perfection of the infinitude of this very material universe, then any freedom loses its dynamism, its lustre, its brilliance, its vivacity ... its very here and now aliveness. If you now wish to put a different slant on what you lived in the latter half of your time with me, then that is your business ... but maybe you could give it a different name so as to not confuse people. Just as a suggestion, perhaps you could use some other term ... like ‘relative freedom’ or something? Richard, Actual Freedom List, Irene, 11 October 1998 March 26 1999 RESPONDENT: When I try to comprehend it I get this meaning: The burning discontent is necessary to attain virtual freedom, but after once one is in virtual freedom, the burning discontent is no more possible (and no more necessary). Do you agree? RICHARD: In my personal experience in 1981, once I was fully launched on the one-way trip to freedom, discontent was left far, far behind. I said YES to life, the universe and what it was to be a human being – I embraced death – and the core resentment (as epitomised in the phrase ‘I didn’t ask to be born’) was eliminated upon the realisation that perfection was already always here ... now. I became as happy and as harmless as was humanly possible for twenty three hours and fifty nine minutes of the day ... this state is what the term ‘virtual freedom’ was drawn out of. At the time I considered that I had discovered the secret of living life successfully ... and boy oh boy, was I in for a surprise when it became apparent that there was more to come. Much, much more. ‘I’ did not know what it was to die ... in the peak experiences ‘I’ merely went into abeyance. RESPONDENT: Now the next question. If there is no discontent and one is happy most of the time in virtual freedom what keeps one still going towards actual freedom? RICHARD: Curiosity, fascination and what amounts to an obsession with finding out about oneself, about life, about the universe and about just what it is to be a human being living in the world as it is with people as they are. All this and more becomes obvious the further one proceeds ... one is inextricably drawn towards one’s destiny. It is intrinsically impelling, exciting, exhilarating, thrilling ... one is living life fully. And it keeps on becoming better and better ... one is constantly amazed at the magical quality of life itself. One experiences an ever-increasing excellence again and again ... and asks: ‘How can best get better?’ Yet it does ... and there is more ... and more ... and more. RESPONDENT: If your answer is the memory of peak experience, then I would say that even in virtual freedom one is discontent with the life as it is, maybe at more subtle level, and then this is no virtual freedom and hence the logical flaw. RICHARD: Yet ‘virtual’ means ‘almost as good as’ or ‘nearly the same as’ or ‘in effect comparable to’ and so on. Therefore, in regards to what is or is not a virtual freedom, watch out that you do not make it indistinguishable from an actual freedom or else it will result in the ‘all or nothing’ dilemma of spiritual achievement ... and lead to that flagitious ‘cutting the other down to size’ syndrome so prevalent in that loving and compassionate world. I leave it up to the person involved to decide for themselves where they are at along their path – the ‘twenty three hours fifty nine minutes (99%)’ is an arbitrary figure, by the way, and I decline to be a probity policeman for anyone – and if one is not scrupulously honest with oneself then just who is one fooling? Nevertheless, I cannot recall any discontent whatsoever in 1981 ... yet I wished to go all the way. I would not settle for second-best – having experienced the best on numerous occasions – and there was also the pressing matter of all the suffering of my fellow human beings. All the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides had impinged themselves indelibly upon my consciousness and provided the necessary ‘back pressure’ to encourage me to proceed poste-haste. Also, logic has its uses in mathematical and mechanical areas of life – human’s creature comforts are dependent upon it – but I have yet to meet a logician who enjoys and appreciates virtually each moment again and essentially lives in peace and harmony with a person of the other gender, day after day after day, through the application of logic to the problem of the human condition. Sensible reason and naiveté coupled with commonsense – practical, down-to-earth, sensitive rationality – triumphs over logic any day. Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 4, 26 March 1999 February 27 1999 RICHARD: 5. ‘Even if one does not immediately self-immolate psychologically and psychically there is a truly remarkable virtual freedom that can be attained through application and diligence borne upon pure intent. For those that would seek to excuse themselves on the grounds that I am freak, an aberration of nature, this factor belies this justification. It is possible to be virtually free, virtually perfect, virtually pure. To be sure, to live the ultimate requires more than the abrogation of the right to be the social identity, but something quite remarkable is possible before the event. One can, because of pure intent, voluntarily forsake the social identity, and go into exile, into self-retirement, whilst remaining in the market place. One does this by examining all of one’s beliefs – masquerading as ‘truths’ – and watching them vanish as if they had never existed. One can observe oneself in one’s moment-to-moment activities as one goes about daily life. Gradually one notices that ‘I’ have grown rather thin, as if withering away, until ‘I’ become merely a shadow of ‘my’ former self ... causing very little trouble and then only occasionally. This condition will continue to subsist until the inevitable happens and ‘I’ cease to exist in ‘my’ totality of ‘being’. So there is plenty that one can achieve until the ultimate occurs ... there is no longer any excuse for devious behaviour and facile explanations such as ‘I am only ‘human’. Nor is there any justification for stating that ‘life is a vale of tears’. 6. ‘Virtual freedom is derived from what Richard lived from March to September in 1981 and was epitomised by being as happy and harmless as was humanly possible ... for twenty three hours and fifty nine minutes a day. This was achieved by my asking myself the question: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ ... for I had experienced the universe’s perfection – personified in a four-hour peak experience – and just knew that it was possible to achieve peace-on-earth in this life-time as this body. To live a virtual freedom one knowingly and deliberately imitates the actual inasmuch as is possible given that one is still human. It is the pure intent to ingenuously live the actual that imbues virtual freedom with its feeling of perfection and subsequent delight and joy. To be without this connection betwixt naiveté‚ and the perfection of the infinitude of this very material universe, then any freedom loses its dynamism, its lustre, its brilliance, its vivacity ... its very here and now aliveness. Actualism does not promise ... it delivers a virtual freedom. Then one has a distinct opportunity of becoming actually free’. Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 12b, 27 February 1999 RESPONDENT No. 15: Letting go of the controls is a skill that needs to be developed in response to discovering the persistent gripping of the controls. The mechanism of gripping starts out as an unconscious behaviour. Once the gripping of the controls is seen for what it is, letting go is as simple as loosening the grip of our hand. RESPONDENT: Maybe we are getting a little lost in the metaphor. In my experience the very act of being attentive and seeing the silliness renders any conscious/ intentional ‘letting go’ unnecessary. Plus, the phrase ‘letting go’ has quite the spiritualist history and there are even spiritualist methods that are almost exclusively based on this (i.e. the Sedona Method/ The Release Technique). Plus ‘letting go’ of the controls only happens virtually fully in the out from control virtual freedom and not as much in the in control virtual freedom. I do not have much time spent in this ‘out from control’ stage save for peak experiences. The in-control-virtual freedom where one is happy and harmless 99% of the time, but attentiveness must be ‘guarded’ and still slips, is what I have experienced for prolonged periods of time. RESPONDENT No. 15: Feeling good is only available to me once the controls are let go of. RESPONDENT: Feeling good to me is a relatively simple and easy state to achieve. It takes nothing more then dropping seriousness for carefreeness. Feeling good is not a state where the controls are let go of. Feeling good is much more like what I recommended to No. 21, when I said ‘I can see the benefit of having a more loose grip on them thar controls.’ Did you happen to miss that? RESPONDENT No. 15: Hence it is a prerequisite to practice. Now I must make the habit stick and go from good to great etc. RESPONDENT: Perhaps this goes some way into why I don’t see ‘letting go of the controls’ as a prerequisite to the practice of actualism. Actually having let go of the controls is to be having a peak experience and while that is a important thing, it doesn’t necessarily involve any conscious/ intentional letting go and is not the main task of a fledgling actualist. The main tasks for a beginning actualist is to get attentiveness up and running and to investigate all of one’s beliefs, seeing the silliness of prolonging suffering (for any reason). To put much emphasis on ‘letting go of the controls’ in the beginning of the practice of actualism may very well lead to one practicing something other than the actualism method (as the Sedona Method/the Release Technique is very much similar to buddhism, it would seem this could be yet another way that spiritualism slips into actualist practice). This may intellectually sound subtle, kind of like the difference between ‘choiceless awareness’/ passive awareness/ awareness watching awareness versus actualist attentiveness/ awareness but it is a noticeably different on a experiential level. I’m not sure if I have succeeded in clarifying this, but I gave it a go. RICHARD: G’day No. 12, I appreciate you giving it a go to clarify and a timely word from me will make your clarification complete. First of all, it is probably inevitable the phrase out-from- control be (incorrectly) expressed as ‘letting go of control’ yet the fact remains that the controller, being the controls, cannot let go of that which they are. Secondly, the hyphenated term you mention as me having been calling [quote] ‘an out of control virtual freedom as opposed to a in control virtual freedom’ [endquote] clearly has the hyphenated term different-way-of-being immediately after the forward slash betwixt the two hyphenated terms. Vis.: [Richard]: [...] being sans identity in toto/the entire affective faculty (plus its epiphenomenal psychic facility) any residence or venue of mine is marked by an absence of both affective vibes and psychic currents ... a pristine ambience made all the more marked, for many a person, upon returning from the ‘real-world’ environs after a previous visit. [...] 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. In short: a felicitous and innocuous atmosphere, begotten in an ever-fresh affectless/ selfless ambience, fosters a milieu where happiness and harmlessness can be the norm rather than the exception. (Richard, List D, No. 14a, 4 December 2009). Upon reflection it will be seen I am not – repeat not – referring to a PCE as ‘being’ is in abeyance then (the very fact of not ‘being’ renders any different way of ‘being’ impossible). Thirdly, and most importantly for any flow-on effect, in a PCE there is similarly a marked absence of both affective vibes and psychic currents – a pristine ambience – to that of an actual freedom. (As an aside: the 5-month PCE was as useless in regards affectively/ psychically fostering a milieu, where happiness and harmlessness can be the norm rather than the exception, as is an actual freedom). 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. (Being out-from-control/in a different-way-of-being is quite daunting to contemplate as an on-going EE marks the end of the beginning of the end of ‘me’ and the commencement of the actualism process – as distinct from the actualism method – wherein a momentum not of ‘my’ doing takes over and an inevitability sets in; in an on-going EE the actual world has the effect of impelling one towards it – like a moth to a candle as the overarching benignity and benevolence of the actual increasingly operates such as to render ‘my’ felicity/ innocuity increasingly redundant; this is where being the nearest a ‘self’ can be to innocence – the naiveté located betwixt the core of being and the sexual centre (where one is both likeable and liking) – is attached as if with a golden thread or clew to the purity of actual innocence; an on-going EE is, thus, where one becomes acclimatised to benignity and benevolence and the resultant blitheness because the purity of the actual is so powerful that it would ‘blow the fuses’ if one was to venture into this territory ill-prepared). 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. Fifth, as any ‘letting go of the controls’ by the controller means, ipso facto, the controller still remaining in situ it can only refer to – just as you do – something of the nature of a [quote] ‘certain degree of letting go (of beliefs and old patterns)’ [endquote] else it does indeed bring a spiritualist practice into an actualist practice ... complete with the still in situ controller cunningly morphing into the watcher of religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical lore and legend. Sixth, regarding your comment about somewhere Irene (pronounced ee-rain-uh incidentally) saying something like ‘no I don’t ‘let go’; in the seeing it just goes’ you might be recollecting the following excerpt from ‘Richard’s Journal’ (the only instance a computer search through my second wife’s writings for the word seeing came up with): • [Devika]: ‘One of my peak experiences happened on the fore-shore. All of a sudden, unpremeditated, ‘I’ and ‘my’ world-view had disappeared and an immediate intimacy became apparent. Although I had lived in this village before and had grown very fond of it and its residents, there had always been a distance between me and other people, which had to be bridged by temporary feelings of love and affection which were never satisfying for long. Now a shift in seeing had occurred, and looking at the people around me, I noticed that the distance between me and others had miraculously vanished. Not only between me and other people but equally between me and the trees, me and the houses on the boulevard, even between me and the ocean. Nowhere was there a boundary. Another dimension had taken its place, which I initially experienced as a closeness closer than my own heartbeat, yet it was certainly not love for all or oneness with everything. It was another paradigm than the one in which the opposites play their major role (...)’. Richard’s Journal 1997 Ch Thirty, pp 192 If it is not then I do not know what you are referring to but one thing is for sure: Irene (as distinct from Devika) never spoke in such a manner as to bring about the out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom which Devika lived for thirteen months, from November 1996 to December 1997 [corrected to Nov 1995 to Dec 1996], such as to occasion me to coin that term (and during which she penned those now-italicised passages of hers specifically for inclusion in what was to become ‘Richard’s Journal’). (At the time of writing it was titled ‘The Actualism Journal’ and was written in such a manner as to make it impossible to know which of the two persons featured – an unnamed man and a woman – was the one actually free and the one virtually free as we had figured the whole focus on something better than love and compassion would be more palatable if the gender of the actually free person remained unknown). Richard, List D, No. 12, 9 December 2009 May 13 2006 RESPONDENT: Is it probable that peace is a realistic prospect for the whole of humanity given the power of these animal passions of delusions and ego (even in the famously enlightened). RICHARD: Presuming you mean a global peace – as contrasted to an individual peace – it must be borne in mind that each and every baby is born biologically endowed, via blind nature, with basic instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) as a rough and ready survival package ... just as it must be also borne in mind that the way children are raised is in accord with the prevailing wisdom of the time (currently in the form of values/ principles and morals/ ethics per favour the trickle-down effect of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment/ self-realisation). Therefore, it is the flow-on effect of the words and writings of an actual freedom from the human condition – as in practically anyone now being able to be as happy and as harmless (virtually free of both malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) as is humanly possible – which is the most probable and realistic prospect, in the foreseeable future, for all of humankind ... and which is why I stress the importance of a virtual freedom. Although that is, of course, according to the current situation ... the moment another becomes actually free from the human condition (especially if it be a female) that scenario may very well undergo a profound reappraisal. Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 116, 13 May 2006
Out-from-Control Index | Actual Freedom Homepage
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless Richard’s & Peter’s & Vineeto’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity