# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Actualism RICHARD: Not only is actualism not theory it is also not idea, belief, concept, conjecture, speculation, assumption, presumption, supposition, surmise, inference, judgement, opinion, intellectualisation, imagination, a posit, a mind-set, a stance, an image, an analysis, a philosophy, a psychology, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, a perspective, a standpoint, a position, a view, a viewpoint, a point of view, a world-view, a religion, a spirituality, a mysticism, a metaphysics, or a cult ... it is an intimate and thus direct experiencing that matter is not merely passive. RICHARD: I had occasion, recently, to provide the following explanation in regard to a bibliography I had appended as an adjunct to a response to a query: [Richard]: ‘I provided a ‘lengthy bibliography’ because my experience on this Mailing List has shown that my reports of what I experientially discovered for myself – an intimate ‘hands-on’ experiencing – are capriciously dismissed as being ideas, beliefs, opinions, viewpoints, points of view, concepts, theories, conjectures, speculations, assumptions, presumptions, suppositions, surmises, thoughts, inferences, judgements, positions, mind-sets, stances, images, intellectualising, analyses ... the entire 101 stock-standard denials of the possibility of being happy and harmless, here on earth in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body’ [endquote]. Perhaps this is an opportune moment to flesh this (apparently) insufficient explanation out a trifle: actualism is not, and has never been, a philosophy, a religion, a metaphysics, a psychology, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, a view, a view-point, a point of view, a world-view, a perspective, a standpoint, a position, a posit, a stance, an opinion, a belief, an imagining, an intellectual understanding, an idea, a concept, a theory or a cult. RESPONDENT: Why, then, is what you are explaining have an ‘ism’ attached to the end of it? RICHARD: Because in the English language the application of ‘-ism’ (and ‘-ist’) has a very common usage ... it enables someone to say, for example, ‘I am studying feudalism’ or ‘I am learning about existentialism’ or ‘I am interested in relativism’ or ‘I am exploring actualism’ and so on (and ‘I am an artist’ or ‘I am a scientist’ or ‘I am a pianist’ or ‘I am an atheist’ or ‘I am a communist’ or ‘I am an actualist’ and all the rest). In other words it is a name, a classification, a descriptive label, of what would otherwise be a long-winded explanation each time one talked about oneself and one’s interests, simplified into a single word. I chose the name rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism. My memory of the dictionary definition was obviously somewhat hazy as I see from my records that I first re-formulated it thus: [Richard]: ‘... actualism is the direct experience that matter is not inert’. Some years later someone told me they had heard about a ‘Philosophy of Actualism’. The ‘Encyclopaedia Britannica’ CD reports: • [quote]: ‘for Giovanni Gentile, propounder of a philosophy of Actualism in Italy, the pure activity of self-consciousness is the sole reality’. I could not disagree more (he also has a philosophy called ‘Actual Idealism’) ... also, there is a Web Page in the US of A titled ‘Actualism’ which I found via a search engine. But it is religious and spiritual ... which I find strange as the word ‘actual’ commonly means ‘existing in act or fact; practical; in action or existence at the time; present, current and not merely potential or possible’ and usually means being objectively accessible sensately or sensuously. I am yet to find the origin of the dictionary’s definition. RESPONDENT: The world is actual. RICHARD: Not for maybe 6.0 billion human beings ... they live in the ‘real world’, a grim and glum illusion pasted over this pristine actual world, by the affective filters of the entity within their flesh and blood bodies, as a veneer that obscures the already always existing peace-on-earth. Which is why I say that naiveté is essential less all the misery and mayhem continue. RESPONDENT: We do not need a doctrine to explain that. RICHARD: I see that I inadvertently left ‘a doctrine’ and its synonyms off my list ... I appreciate you drawing this to my attention and will amend my paragraph forthwith: actualism is not, and has never been, a doctrine, a policy, a canon, a dogma, a code, a tenet, a creed, a credo, a rule, a principle, an ideology, a faith, an act of faith, an article of faith, a philosophy, a religion, a metaphysics, a psychology, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, a view, a view-point, a point of view, a world-view, a perspective, a standpoint, a position, a posit, a precept, a stance, an opinion, a belief, an imagining, an intellectual understanding, an idea, a concept, a theory or a cult. ‘Tis no wonder my E-Mails become more and more lengthy, eh? RESPONDENT No. 71: Richard, actualism is experiencing that matter is not merely passive ... what does it mean? RICHARD: Another way of saying it is that actualism is the direct experience that matter is not inert. RESPONDENT No. 71: If you have a stone in your hand (matter), it is passive right? RICHARD: Only in the real-world. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 71, 15 August 2004b). RESPONDENT: [Merriam-Webster Dictionary]: passive: not acting or operating; inert’. [endquote]. The stone in the hand does not act or operate (at the moment you are holding in the hand), right? RICHARD: In the real-world ... yes; in actuality ... no. RESPONDENT: How is it not passive? RICHARD: In actuality matter is vibrant, potent ... literally everything material is intrinsically active, vigorous. This fundamental dynamism, this elemental efficacy, is the very actuality of all existence – the actualness of everything – as matter itself, being of infinite perpetuance/ eternal perdurability, is anything but inoperative (passive) or inactive (inert). And wherever/ whenever this perennial matter is sentient the potential exists for it to be conscious of its own essential nature. RESPONDENT: In order for something to accepted as an actual fact it has to be corroborated. RICHARD: No ... a fact is where something actual is acknowledged as existing independent of belief. The first person to discover a fact is always on their own ... corroboration is when another or others also see the fact (thus making it a common fact). There are many, many things actual yet to be discovered (and thus established as fact). RESPONDENT: Indeed, including your hypothesis about ‘Actualism.’ RICHARD: Not so ... actualism is already established as fact. That not many see the fact only indicates that it is early days, yet. RESPONDENT: In a PCE everything is magically animate, doing what it’s doing, in a backdrop of infinite depth and stillness. RICHARD: Hmm ... ‘doing what it’s doing’ is about as informative as ‘a rose is a rose’: in actuality (as evidenced in a PCE) it is stunningly apparent that everything is the perfection of the purity which infinitude is and, as such, is perfection personified. RESPONDENT: No principle, no agenda. RICHARD: Ahh ... there is an agenda inasmuch as everything growing (aka ‘life’) is growing in purity as that perfection personified. RESPONDENT: ‘Life’ or liveliness is the way everything exists. RICHARD: As maybe 99.99% (an arbitrary figure) of the universe is inanimate then ‘life’ is not the way everything exists. For example, when some people talk to me about ‘nature’ they become somewhat bemused when I suggest that, as far as space exploration has been able to ascertain, there is no nature on the moon ... meaning that what life actually is is what flora and fauna are and not what rocks are. Now, if by ‘nature’ a person means absolutely everything (as in ‘life’ is the way everything exists) then the glass ashtray on my desk (being mainly silica) is as much ‘nature’ as the trailing plant cascading down from the shelf above the desk next to mine ... yet when I offer such a person a drink from a polystyrene cup they tell me it is not natural. Generally speaking, materialism has that rocks are dead, lifeless (yet only something that was alive can ever be dead) whereas what actualism is on about is the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. I chose the name ‘actualism’ rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of categories and labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism. Thus (to parallel your phraseology): actuality, or actualness, is the way everything exists. RESPONDENT: I went through your website, spent couple of hours and decided that this is one more BS for seekers. RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Mailing List ... maybe you missed the very first sentence on The Actual Freedom Trust home page? RESPONDENT: I dare the authors for a discussion to my questions/ doubts or observations. RICHARD: As this is a discussion list you have come to the right place to discuss any questions and/or doubts and/or observations ... the more relevant point, though, might be whether you dare to discuss. Speaking personally, I have nothing to lose. RESPONDENT: Question 1: let me start by asking you ‘what is your intent in parading your PCE experiences to fellow humans?’ RICHARD: First and foremost, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) reveals where ‘the meaning of life’, or ‘the riddle of existence’, or ‘the purpose of the universe’, or whatever a person’s quest may be called, is to be found ... just here right now in this actual world, the world of sensate delight. A fringe benefit, or side effect as it were, of the direct experience of the meaning of life is peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body only, in the peerless perfection of the purity of the infinitude this material universe indubitably is. As the salubrity and irreprehensibility of life in this actual world is pristine ‘tis fellowship regard which prompts a sharing of the experience ... what the other does with the information is their business. * RESPONDENT: Question 2: I found this piece in your web site: ‘Given the human elaboration of the instinctual animal ‘self’ into a sophisticated and cunning psychological and psychic identity that appears to live in, and be trapped within, the flesh and blood body, the instinctual animal passions can only be eradicated by totally eliminating both the psychological ‘self’ and the instinctual ‘self’. The bad news is that the elimination of one’s ‘self’ needs to be total – both ‘who’ society has taught you to be and ‘who’ blind nature has programmed you to instinctively feel you are – or in spiritual terms, both the ‘ego’ and the ‘soul’. The good news is that what you are will emerge – a flesh and blood human being, free of malice and sorrow and free of any metaphysical delusions whatsoever’. (Introduction, Actual Freedom 1)??? Can you explain what is the scientific nature of THAT ‘I’ which is supposed to remain after eliminating the above said ‘both the psychological ‘self’ and the instinctual ‘self’ ... RICHARD: Sure ... there are three I’s altogether but only one is actual (sensate) and not an identity: scientifically speaking what one actually is, sans both ‘I’ as ego and ‘I’ as soul (the freed ‘flesh and blood human being’ mentioned in the quote), could be described as a sentient creature, an intelligent vertebrate, a mammalian animal in general and a bipedal primate with opposable thumbs in particular, that is apperceptively aware. RESPONDENT: ... and which portion of the brain is responsible for the so called PCE ... RICHARD: If I may interject? There is nothing ‘so-called’ about a pure consciousness experience (PCE) ... it is indeed called a PCE. RESPONDENT: ... [and which portion of the brain is responsible for the so called PCE] experience resulting. RICHARD: It is the brain-stem, primarily, which is the source of the PCE ... most probably in the Reticular Activating System (RAS), in general, and quite possibly in the Substantia Nigra, in particular (arguably the seat of consciousness). * RESPONDENT: Question 3: your theory ... RICHARD: If I may interject again? An actual freedom from the human condition is not theory ... it is experiential. RESPONDENT: ... [your theory] seems to be based on the assumption ... RICHARD: If I may interject yet again? There is no assumption ... it is an on-going experiencing, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. Put simply: it is, as the name says, actual. RESPONDENT: ... [your theory seems to be based on the assumption] that ‘survival as species, not individuals ...’. RICHARD: I copy-pasted the quote ‘survival as species, not individuals’ into a search engine and sent it through The Actual Freedom Trust web site only to have it return nil hits; I copy-pasted ‘survival as species’ and it also returned nil hits; I copy-pasted ‘not individuals’ and it too returned nil hits ... if you could provide the paragraph you obtained the quote from it may throw some light upon what you are referring to. Meanwhile, or in case you do not get around to it, it may be pertinent to point out that the following phrase appears at least 761 times on The Actual Freedom Trust web site: • [Richard]: ‘Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous *individual* living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one. [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: This is highly debatable. RICHARD: If I may point out? It could very well be your assumption, that an actual freedom from the human condition is a theory based upon an assumption, which is highly debatable. In other words: you may just be having a discussion with yourself ... and finding one side of your mentation decidedly dubious. RESPONDENT: Have you read ‘the red queen’ by an evolutionary biologist who shows many evidence contrary to this? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: What do you say? RICHARD: Is the evolutionary biologist in question free from the human condition? RESPONDENT: Unfortunately PROVOKED. RICHARD: Why unfortunately? With a name like ‘Myth Destroyer’, and an email address such as ‘fightmyth@whatevername.com, it would appear that you are surfing the net just gunning for provocation. But, then again, maybe you have met your match here, eh? RESPONDENT: You said actualism is an effective method compared with spiritual ones (that is, one which really works) if applied in practice (it’s probably a failed act ;)) with sufficient diligence and pure intent, in order to make one happy and harmless. RICHARD: The actualism method, first put into action in 1981, is indeed an effective method, when practiced with application and diligence and patience and perseverance, and guided by the pure intent to enable peace-on-earth in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, as it resulted in this flesh and blood body being actually free of the human condition ... this is the method which delivered the goods. There is no valid comparison with spiritual methods ... spirituality does not have peace-on-earth on its agenda. RESPONDENT: First, how many people have attained virtual freedom apart from your close associates Peter and Vineeto? RICHARD: How each and every person is experiencing this moment of being alive, each moment again, is a matter for themselves to determine ... I long ago declined to be a probity policeman (for obvious reason). RESPONDENT: What do you think is the core reason that a person like Konrad hasn’t got it? RICHARD: The core reason why anyone does not ‘get it’ is because the actualism method does deliver the goods (total dedication to peace and harmony means that the end of ‘me’ in ‘my’ entirety is inevitable). RESPONDENT: I ask this as there are now almost 6 years since you went public with your discovery and the method to achieve it, you must have some feedback ... RICHARD: The only feedback is what can be read publicly ... I rarely, if ever, conduct a private correspondence these days. RESPONDENT: ... or is it a perfect method needing no improvement? RICHARD: There may be other methods, yet to be discovered, but this is the only one so far which has delivered the goods. RESPONDENT: The body of observations and conclusions presented in the website is ‘actualism’ to me. RICHARD: Okay ... the use of -ism on the end of a word (from the Latin ‘isma’ meaning ‘of action, something done’) simply indicates the characteristics of a person or a thing. It is used to form a noun of action naming the process, the completed action or the result, with emphasis on character or conduct (it is the forming of a term denoting a trait or peculiarity). That it has popularly come to mean (chiefly derogatory) a form of doctrine, theory or principle, is the disparaging usage that many peoples think is its only usage. RESPONDENT: To the actualists this is ‘actuality’ and for somebody who is trying to understand, is it not a theory till (s)he verifies it for (him/ her)self? RICHARD: The words and writings on The Actual Freedom Website are sufficiently detailed and extensive enough in both range and depth to present a prima facie case worthy of further investigation ... whereas the word ‘theory’ can mean hypothesis, conjecture, speculation, assumption, premise, presumption, supposition, guess, concept, idea and so on. RESPONDENT: And won’t it take time to verify it? RICHARD: Only if one cannot recall a pure consciousness experience (PCE) or have one set-off whilst reading and/or reflecting ... in a PCE everything detailed by all the words on The Actual Freedom Website is startlingly self-evident. RESPONDENT: In that duration, is it not a theory for them? RICHARD: Presumably it could be going by some of the responses I have seen over the years ... but mostly it is peoples who object to be happy and harmless who see it is ‘a theory’ only. RESPONDENT: All I can say is that you seem to have taken a totally empiricist’s materialism and somehow mixed it up with spiritual realization, which is a very odd combination, if you ask me. RICHARD: Yet what I experience is neither materialism nor spiritualism; I experience actualism. I am neither materialistic nor spiritualistic; I am actualistic. I am neither a materialist nor a spiritualist; I am an actualist. An actualist is a person who, unlike a spiritualist, does not believe that matter is passive (as in inactive, inert, quiescent, stagnant, static, torpid, supine, idle, moribund or dormant) and, unlike a materialist, does not believe that nature and/or life is a random, futile event in an empty, aimless, universe. Actualism is the direct experiencing of the meaningful, vibrant, dynamic, effervescent, sparkling, pulsating, amazing, marvellous, wondrous and magical happening that is this very physical universe in action. To be actualistic is to be living the infinitude of this fairy-tale-like actual world with its sensuous quality of magical perfection and purity: where everything and everyone has a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, wondrous, scintillating vitality that makes everything alive and sparkling ... even the very earth beneath one’s feet. The rocks, the concrete buildings, a piece of paper ... literally everything is as if it were alive (a rock is not, of course, alive as humans are, or as animals are, or as trees are). This ‘aliveness’ is the very actuality of all existence ... the actualness of everything and everyone. We do not live in an inert universe ... but one cannot experience this whilst clinging to immortality. I am mortal. RESPONDENT: I roughly discern what you say, but could you give me a route through your web-pages or a way to learn more? RICHARD: The Actual Freedom Web Page is designed to allow one to meander ... experience has shown that peoples pick more up via snippets here and there over time and upon repeated visits. However, there is ‘An Introduction To Actual Freedom’ for a simple over-all explication and ‘A Précis Of Actual Freedom’ for a precise exposition. The nuts and bolts of the major differences betwixt spiritual freedom and actual freedom are to be found in ‘180 Degrees Opposite’. RESPONDENT: I found this all too technical to be easily digested. RICHARD: Then I would recommend ‘Peter’s Journal’. He specifically wrote it for a situation such as this ... and it is a good read. The electronic version is available in its entirety for free. (editors note: Since November 2004 it is available for sale, and since July 2025 is it available for free download). * RESPONDENT: Do you ever travel overseas. RICHARD: No. I travelled a lot in my youth, but these days I am entirely content with the one kilometre walk to the village centre. RESPONDENT: Isn’t it better to meet in person to progress? How can words be enough? RICHARD: Words are words, whether they be thought, spoken, printed or appear as pixels on a screen. Ultimately it is what is being said or written, by the writer or the speaker that lives what is being expressed, that is important ... and facts and actuality then speak for themselves. * RESPONDENT: Do you ever give talks? Do you charge? RICHARD: No. There are approximately 1.5 million words on the ‘Actual Freedom Web Page’ available for free ... the only charge is for ‘Richard’s Journal’ and for the paper-back versions of any books. Words are words, whether they be thought, spoken, printed or appear as pixels on a screen. Ultimately it is what is being said or written, by the writer or the speaker that lives what is being expressed, that is important ... and facts and actuality then speak for themselves. Anyone who has met me face-to-face only gets verification that there is actually a flesh and blood body that lives what these words say. I am a fellow human being sans identity ... there is no ‘charisma’ nor any ‘energy-field’ here. RESPONDENT: One would expect a certain energy field. RICHARD: The affective faculty – the entire psyche itself – is eradicated: I have no ‘energies’ ... no power or powers whatsoever. There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ here in this actual world. * RICHARD: I am not required for the process of understanding (as in a ‘personality cult’ that can grow around a ‘charismatic leader’). As facts and actuality can be commonsensically conveyed by the written word, this means that the third alternative can be accessed by anyone discriminating enough long after I am physically dead. RESPONDENT: This is heroic but perhaps difficult to achieve. RICHARD: As fear is non-existent in this flesh and blood body there is no way I can be either a hero or ‘heroic’. And it is not at all ‘difficult to achieve’ due to the ease of mass-communication outside of the traditional publishers (who self-censor books). Desk-top publishing and the rapid copying capacity of computers in combination with world-wide distribution via the Internet means that copies of the words on the ‘Actual Freedom Web Page’ are already tucked away on computers in different parts of the globe already. It will only increase and cannot be stopped. It will indeed be accessed by anyone discriminating enough long after I am physically dead. RESPONDENT: How do you measure your success so far? RICHARD: All I have ever wished for is for the words and writings of an actual freedom from the human condition to exist in the world so that they are available long after I am dead. This is so that a third alternative to being either ‘human’ or ‘divine’ is available for anyone who comes across it, in any indeterminate future, to draw affirmation and confirmation from ... for anyone to avail themselves of if it be in accord with their own experience and/or aspirations. That is, it is an affirmation that their experience is not only valid but a confirmation in that a fellow human being has traversed this territory in an eminently satisfactory way. For nineteen years I have scoured the books ... to no avail. Now the information exists – and has taken on a life of its own – and I am well content and having so much fun. And as I measure success by quality and not quantity it has exceeded my expectations already. * RICHARD: With an actualism spread like a chain-letter, in the due course of time, global freedom would revolutionise the concept of humanity. RESPONDENT: Would it spread and would it be effective? RICHARD: I used to jokingly say that global peace on earth would possibly take 5,000 years (a round figure plucked at random). Given the level of objections to being happy and harmless that I have received since I went public three years ago I would be inclined to say: never. As to whether it would be effective if it did spread? Yes. * RICHARD: Pollution and its cause – over-population – would be set to rights without effort, as competition would be replaced by cooperation. It would be the stuff of all the pipe-dreams come true. RESPONDENT: How would over-population be set to rights ... by ‘contraception for all’? Though you have decided to have no more children others have not. RICHARD: In an actual freedom from the human condition one actually cares – not merely feel that one cares – thus any of the environmental issues, that dominate the modern conscious, would cease to exist in a very short time as competition would automatically be replaced by actual cooperation. The result would, of course, be an increased prosperity for all – not just some – which would result in a world-wide occurrence of what is already happening of its own accord in the more developed countries: ZPG. Thus I am only observing an already-existing fact ... nowhere am I making speculative predictions. * RICHARD: But none of this matters much when one is already living freely in the actual world. RESPONDENT: That would mean nothing need be done. RICHARD: Indeed. Even if global peace on earth was a long time coming – as is most probable due to stubbornly recalcitrant egos and selfishly compliant souls – the most appealing aspect of actual freedom is its instant bestowal of universal peace upon the individual daring enough to go all the way. Thus the reward is immediate and nothing more needs to be done other than to joyfully participate in another person’s voyage of exploration and discovery – freely facilitating their personal quest – if that be mutually agreeable. * RICHARD: I am supremely content with life as-it-is, for perfection can be found in what others call imperfection ... and I have no desire to change anything. RESPONDENT: And no desires? RICHARD: None whatsoever. * RICHARD: To be here, intimately here at this moment in time, where this actual world is such a marvellous place to be alive in, is a satisfaction and fulfilment unparalleled in the chronicles of antiquity. RESPONDENT: If you have no desire to change anything then are you an observer and not a participant? RICHARD: As far as I have been able to ascertain, after nineteen years of scouring the books and talking with people from all walks of live, 6.0 billion peoples are ‘observers’ and I am the only ‘participant’ . * RESPONDENT: I found your biography of enlightenment interesting in that it apparently corresponds with the path described by various gurus thus giving them validity, and then you take it that little bit further. RICHARD: Yes, to become enlightened is to stop half-way: to go all the way not only does the ego have to die (spiritual freedom), so to does the soul (actual freedom). To put it in the mystical terminology of the East (terminology recently resurrected and made popular by Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain), there is the ‘Known’, the ‘Unknown’ and the ‘Unknowable’. Thus the Eastern mystical wisdom hold the tenets that the ‘normal-world’ reality (where 6.0 billion people live) is the ‘Known’ and the ‘abnormal-world’ Greater Reality (where 0.0000001 of the population live) is the ‘Unknown’ ... and the ‘Unknowable’ lies beyond physical death (Mahasamadhi, Parinirvana and so on). Therefore, in those terms, the actual world (where Richard lives) is the ‘Unknowable’. KONRAD: ... the ‘I’-ness of your I is the actualism you talk about with others. For this vision of Actualism is the source of the actions of your body. RICHARD: Actualism is not a vision of mine, it is simply an accurate description of the actual world of sensual delight. I chose the name rather simply from the Oxford Dictionary. It said: ‘Actualism: the theory that matter is not merely passive’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. For, living as I do in the fairy-tale-like actual world with its quality of magical perfection and purity, everything and everyone takes on a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, wondrous vitality that makes everything alive and sparkling ... even the very earth beneath my feet. The rocks, the concrete buildings, a piece of paper ... literally everything is as if it were alive. A rock is not, of course, alive as humans are, or as animals are, or as trees are. This ‘aliveness’ is the very actuality of all existence ... the actualness of everything and everyone. We do not live in an inert universe. * KONRAD: Now let me return to you and your Actualism. Actualism is the ultimate outcome of the Western orientation on existence. The west has made a subdivision between the outside world and the inside world. Now what you have done is incorporating Man himself, as individuals, into the outside world, by pointing out that we are not psychological entities ‘trapped’ in our bodies, but we ARE these bodies. And therefore we are existents, like rocks, plants, and animals. In your words, we are not WHO’s, but we are WHAT’s that believe to be who’s. And by stating it in these terms you point out, that the division the west has made between the inside world and the outside world is false. There is only an outside world, and we are part of it. We are ‘what’s, and not ‘who’s. RICHARD: Indeed ... I am this flesh and blood body being conscious. I am the carrots and the beans and the cheese eaten and the air breathed and the water drunk. There is no separation whatsoever betwixt this body and anything or anyone else. Everything and everyone is the very self-same stuff that this physical world – and this material universe – are. I did not come from outside this universe – there being no outside to infinity – nor was I put here by some metaphysical god for some inscrutable reason. We all come out of the ground ... and this earth is the very stuff that this universe is. We are as infinite and eternal as the universe that we are made up of ... and we can be conscious of this as an actuality. I am this very tangible universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being. KONRAD: This vision leads to a complete revaluation of our inner life. For, seen from this metaphysics, everything that happens inside of us, including the capability to act purposefully, is looked upon to be no more and no less than a tool of the body. The body is the important thing, and everything else that is imagined is just confusion. RICHARD: What else is there but this very palpable physical existence ... except fanciful abstraction? KONRAD: Especially the idea that we are ‘who’s’. You represent the ultimate step of a philosophy that is totally existence oriented. RICHARD: It is not a philosophy ... it is an accurate description of an on-going and fully-lived experiencing of life ... complete with consciousness operating perfectly well as apperceptive awareness. RESPONDENT: I see you are giving me an opportunity to study your discussion with Konrad. Thank you for that. As actualism itself cannot or may not contain any – thing, I probably have nothing to talk about with you. RICHARD: I am somewhat nonplussed that you can write that actualism cannot or may not contain ‘any – thing’ ... why the use of the word ‘thing’ ? The word ‘thing’ refers to material objects ... physical, concrete and tangible things. It is the spirituality which meditation brings that states that you are not the body and that the primal substance is formless ... that is not ‘any – thing’ . I must ask: Do you know what actualism actually is? It is all about being here now – as this flesh and blood body – here on earth as an ultimate experience. To be able to be the personified perfection of the infinitude of this very material universe ... in this life-time and as this body. I ask this because you made a similar comment in your last E-Mail. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘You don’t have the will to make things clearer in our discussions. There is simply No – Body there. This actualises itself onto my mails but it does no more than that. I have seen the functioning of that Actualism in my own No – Body-ness. And have gone on living’. Do you see the words ‘no – body’ ? Whereas I state firmly and clearly that I am this flesh and blood body ... and nothing else. No ‘I’ or ‘Self’ ... no spiritual entity whatsoever. RESPONDENT: What does your experience in ‘actualism’ say? RICHARD: My personal experience says pretty well what I have been saying in all my posts since I came onto this List. Namely that to stop at dissolving the ego and becoming enlightened is to stop half-way. One needs to end the soul as well, then any identity whatsoever becomes extirpated, extinguished, eliminated, annihilated ... in other words: extinct. To be as dead as the dodo but with no skeletal remains. To vanish without a trace ... there will be no phoenix to rise from the ashes. Finished. Kaput. Then there is peace-on-earth. If one is not at all alert, then one will conveniently over-look the strange goings-on that are the consequences of the strangle-hold that divinity has upon one who has surrendered their will – romantically believing that they have surrendered their ego – to the ‘Unmanifest Power’ that inhabits the psychic world. In order to feel that one has arrived one cannot afford to know the ‘Unknowable’ because the ‘Authority and Power’ that makes up the ‘Cosmic Energy’ is dependent upon mystique for its perpetuation, its strength and its survival. Its apparitions – either godly or devilish – rely entirely upon remaining a mysterious intuition of ‘being’ ... that which is ‘sacred, holy’ ... that which is beyond thought. Such an inscrutable ‘otherness’ cannot endure exposure as it crumples like a leaky balloon when faced up to squarely ... the success of all esotericism depends upon the maintenance an enigmatic ‘Presence’ which thus preserves a cryptic ‘Essence’ or ‘Source’. The psychic world is hatched from the intuitive faculties which, coupled with a feverish imagination, rules the human psyche with the extrasensory powers born of awe and dread. Knowing all this is the beginning of the extinction of the psyche and all its contents. For eleven years I lived in an Altered State Of Consciousness, so I had plenty of time to examine all its nooks and crannies ... and I found much that was murky and dirty lurking around in the outer darkness. Bewitched and beguiled by the glamour and glory and glitz of the seductive ‘State Of Being’ that ensues when one surrenders to that ‘Power and Authority’, I spent the first three years swanning along in a state of ‘Oneness with everything’. I was Love Agapé and Divine Compassion all rolled up into one ... and my reward for being the latest ‘Saviour Of Humankind’ was to be able to live in ‘Rapturous Bliss’, ‘Ineffable Ecstasy’ and ‘Exalted Euphoria’. However, my native intelligence would not let me get away with anything false and I soon found enough to make me start suspecting something very serious was wrong with Spiritual Enlightenment. To start off with was the inescapable fact that I had a ‘Sense Of Mission’ to bring ‘Peace and Love’ to a suffering humanity – I was driven to spread ‘The Word’ and to disseminate ‘The Truth’ – and this imposition did not sit well with me. In my fourth year I started to question the efficacy of Divine Compassion as a means of resolving sorrow once and for all. As a palliative for suffering it was beyond compare – it superseded pity, sympathy and empathy by a mile – but it remained forever a panacea only. Consolation for sorrow, no matter how divine that solace may be, is not a cure that lasts. In my sixth year I was ready to examine Love Agapé – which up until then had been far too sacred to put under the microscope – and I soon found enough to warrant further investigation. If Divine Compassion had been found to be murky and dirty, I was to go on to discover that Love Agapé was sordid and squalid to the extreme. Just as compassion has its roots in sorrow, so too has love its origin in malice. Hatred is the essential companion to love; the one cannot exist without the other. When I first saw the other face of love I was horrified ... for I was in the grip of a ‘Demonic Power’ disguised as ‘Divine Authority’. The diabolical is but the essential sub-stratum for the righteous; the sinister for the good; the fiendish for the glorious; the infernal for the heavenly; the wicked for the charitable ... and so on. Love Agapé – which has been touted as the cure-all for the ills of humankind for thousands of years – was hand-in-glove with evil. No wonder that religious wars have beset this planet for aeons, for the central tenet of any religious or spiritual path is love ... and love is the very element that will sabotage any well-meant endeavour with its secret agenda. A loving self is still a self, nevertheless. And a self is made out of the sorrow and malice that are generated by the instinctual aggression and fear that humans are born with in order for the species to survive. In my eighth year I turned my attention to the ‘Timeless and Spaceless’ aspect of being enlightened, for although that was my inner experience of myself, I found that I was occupying space as a body moving from place to place – and it took time to do this. The clock kept ticking the hours away and the sun consistently rose in the east, traversed the sky throughout the course of the day and then set in the west. I could clearly observe that time and space were definitely an actuality, despite the feeling that they were an illusion. I also had the sure ‘knowledge’ that I was ‘Deathless’ ... or as they say in the eastern tradition: I was ‘Unborn and Undying’. Had I lost my marbles completely? I would go around telling people that I could not die as I was dead already! Yet what was this corporeal body doing if not eating and drinking, urinating and defecating, waking and sleeping, walking and talking ... and so on? I had to be deluding myself to say that all this gigantic happening called the universe was nothing but an illusion. The eastern philosophy of Maya – although very real – did not hold up in actuality. Then one day, as a result of my deep questioning of my state of being, I was able to experience that without these senses I would not know that I exist. I was the sense organs and these sense organs were me. I was mortal. Immortality was nothing but a self-centred escape from the actual. It was all a case of the persistence of identity. In my tenth year I tentatively approached one of the last bastions of spiritual enlightenment: pacifism. Almost all of the other attributes of what I called an ‘Absolute Freedom’ had been stripped away and if I was to undo what is called Ahimsa in the east – non-violence – then there would not be much left of my precious ‘Peace On Earth’ that I was charged to bring. I found a strong resistance within myself to contemplate letting go of the scriptural adage: ‘Turn the other cheek’ ... even though I intellectually considered it to be nonsense. If an entire country held such a belief it would be akin to hanging out a sign saying: ‘Please feel free to invade, we will not fight back’. Also, I personally relied upon the police to protect me and mine from any personal attack or robbery – what if they adopted this principle? By the time I had worked my way through this philosophical dilemma I had to turn my sights upon the last thing that stood between me and an actual freedom. I would have to let go of the deeply ingrained concept of ‘The Good’. For this to happen I would have to eliminate ‘The Bad’ in me, or else I would be likely to go off the rails and run amok. Little did I realise that it was ‘The Good’ that kept ‘The Bad’ in place. I was soon to find this out. The Altered State of Consciousness – in particular, spiritual enlightenment – needs to be talked about and exposed for what it is so that nobody need venture up that blind alley ever again. There is another way and another goal. The main trouble with the enlightenment is that whilst the ego dissolves, the identity as a soul remains intact. No longer identifying as a personal ego-bound identity, one then identifies as an impersonal soul-bound identity – ‘I am That’, ‘I am God’, ‘I am The Supreme’, ‘I am The Absolute’ and so on. This is the delusion, the mirage, the deception ... and it is extremely difficult to see it for oneself, for one is in an august state. This second identity – the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) fame – is a difficult one to shake, maybe more difficult than the first; for who is brave enough to voluntarily give up fame and fortune, reverence and worship, status and security? One has to be scrupulously honest with oneself to go all the way and no longer be a someone, a somebody of importance. One faces extinction; ‘I’ will cease to be, there will be no ‘being’ whatsoever, no ‘presence’ at all. It is impossible to imagine, not only the complete and utter cessation of ‘me’ in ‘my’ entirety, but the end of any ‘Ultimate Being’ or ‘Absolute Presence’ in any way, shape or form. It means that no one or no thing is in charge of the universe ... that there is no ‘Ultimate Authority’. It means that all values are but human values, with no absolute values at all to fall back upon. It is impossible for ‘me’ to conceive that without a wayward ‘me’ there is no need for any values whatsoever ... or an ‘Ultimate Authority’. Thus I find myself here, in the world as-it-is. A vast stillness lies all around, a perfection that is abounding with purity. Beneficence, an active kindness, overflows in all directions, imbuing everything with unimaginable fairytale-like quality. For me to be able to be here at all is a blessing that only ‘I’ could grant, because nobody else could do it for me. I am full of admiration for the ‘me’ that dared to do such a thing. I owe all that I experience now to ‘me’. I salute ‘my’ audacity. And what an adventure it was ... and still is. These are the wondrous workings of the exquisite nature of life – who would have it any other way? RESPONDENT: Due to this boundless nature (which you point to), we cannot say there is any truly existing separate thing such ‘as-this-body’. RICHARD: Easy on the use of < we >, eh? You can say that if it pleases you to say so ... but I do not. This flesh and blood body is actual. RESPONDENT: It seems like you would like this ‘actualism’ to be something special or new or different than enlightenment. RICHARD: Right on, for once. It is indeed special ... because it is new and different. RESPONDENT: Ah ... Nothing special. RICHARD: Ah so ... something very special. RESPONDENT: No becoming free. RICHARD: Magnificently becoming free of the human condition. RESPONDENT: No becoming enlightened. RICHARD: Indeed ... going beyond enlightenment. RESPONDENT: No attainment. RICHARD: Agreed ... I can see that you have not attained anything. RESPONDENT: No birth. RICHARD: I do not know about you ... I was born in 1947. RESPONDENT: No death. RICHARD: I do not know about you ... but based on current estimates I can reasonably expect to die somewhere before 2028 RESPONDENT: But apparently you have become actually free by virtue of a ‘me’ and a soul dying. RICHARD: No ‘apparently’ about it ... it is actually so (and it was ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul that died ... not ‘a ‘me’ and a soul dying’ ). There is no anger or sadness here. RICHARD: It is not enlightenment that I am speaking of ... it is all about going beyond enlightenment into the actuality of being here on this very physical planet that is meandering about in a very actual universe. Not only must the ego dissolve (like his did) but the soul must die as well (which his did not). Then one is here in this actual world – not the real world that five point eight billion people are living in – but the actual world that is accessible only when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul become extinct. RESPONDENT: There is a penetration and finally a break through the ground of false, limited, ‘normal’ mental consciousness into the vast and luminous nectar of awakened consciousness or awareness. This lasts for only a few seconds at first. Later a sweet, harmonious, luminous, dimension is seen as a constancy. With undivided awareness, there is much more stability in the normal mental and emotional processes than in the original, pre-meditation ‘self’. This transparency is not ‘me’ or mine but it does indeed remain as foundation for seeing. RICHARD: It is vitally important to look at and touch physical things – trees, armchairs, ashtrays, flowers, whatever – otherwise one goes into an inner state, a trance state. One then enters into a mystical state of being ... which is to be of this world but not in it ... or in this world or not of it ... or whatever nonsense people come out with dressed up as sagacity. This is the mistake all religious and spiritual people make. One needs to come to one’s senses – both literally and figuratively – and then the ‘vast and luminous nectar of awakened consciousness or awareness’ becomes actual. Never mind that it lasts but a few seconds ... one second is enough to encourage one to proceed. Nothing is gained without effort, and application and diligence, coupled with pure intent, gives rise to patience and perseverance. By staying in the actual world of the senses, this ‘foundation for seeing’ will enable you to apperceive this world of people, things and events as-it-is. And what is as-it-is, is what I call actualism ... and actualism is not a vision of mine, it is simply an accurate description of the actual world of sensual delight. The Oxford Dictionary says: ‘actualism; the theory that matter is not merely passive’. That is all ... and I have not investigated any further for I do not want to know who formulated this theory. It is that description – and not the author’s theory – that appeals to me. For, living as I do in the fairy-tale-like actual world with its quality of magical perfection and purity, everything and everyone takes on a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, wondrous vitality that makes everything alive and sparkling ... even the very earth beneath my feet. The rocks, the concrete buildings, a piece of paper ... literally everything is as if it were alive. A rock is not, of course, alive as humans are, or as animals are, or as trees are. This ‘aliveness’ is the very actuality of all existence ... the actualness of everything and everyone. We do not live in an inert universe ... but one cannot experience this whilst clinging to immortality. I am mortal. RESPONDENT: The point of the things you have told us could only be to convince us that you have the answer and we should come to you for it. RICHARD: But I do not want you (or anybody) ‘coming to me’ – for their own freedom – as I am having too much fun, living my life in the way I see fit, to clutter up my lifestyle with ‘guru-circuit’ peoples, who cannot think for themselves, trooping daily through my front door. The Internet is my chosen means of dissemination for the obvious reason of being interactive and rapid. The electronic copying and distribution capacity of a mailing list service – with it’s multiple feed-back capability – is second to none. Words are words, whether they be thought, spoken, printed or appear as pixels on a screen. Ultimately it is what is being said or written, by the writer or the speaker that lives what is being expressed, that is important ... and facts and actuality then speak for themselves. Anyone who has met me face-to-face only gets verification that there is actually a flesh and blood body that lives what these words say. I am a fellow human being sans identity ... there is no ‘charisma’ nor any ‘energy-field’ here. The affective faculty – the entire psyche itself – is eradicated: I have no ‘energies’ ... no power or powers whatsoever. There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: How many have you taught successfully? RICHARD: First, I do not teach anyone ... the PCE does that. I am not required for the process of understanding (as in a ‘personality cult’ that can grow around a ‘charismatic leader’) <SNIP> As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nobody else living an actual freedom from the human condition ... RESPONDENT: How did you ascertain that? RICHARD: The same way that I ascertain anything about anybody and everybody ... I ask and I listen. Plus I read about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers and on the internet. I watch TV, videos, films ... whatever media is available. I have been scouring the books and talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life for nineteen years now for information on an actual freedom from the human condition ... but to no avail. Now the information exists – and has taken on a life of its own – and I am well content and having so much fun. As facts and actuality can be commonsensically conveyed by the written word, this means that the third alternative to being either ‘human’ or ‘divine’ can be accessed by anyone discriminating enough long after I am physically dead. All I have ever wished for is for the words and writings of an actual freedom from the human condition to exist in the world so that they are available for anyone who comes across it, in any indeterminate future, to draw affirmation and confirmation from ... for anyone to avail themselves of if it be in accord with their own experience and/or aspirations. That is, it is an affirmation that their experience is not only valid but a confirmation in that a fellow human being has traversed this territory in an eminently satisfactory way. I just happened to discover the already always existing peace-on-earth, the purity of which is so perfect that I am reporting my experience to my fellow human beings. The ‘flow-on’ effect from reading actual freedom writings is that if one minimises the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings (as explained further above) and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings 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 just here right now for as much as is possible. It is a win/win situation. RICHARD: ... I am only too happy to rephrase what I originally wrote so that it be in accordance with your own nomenclature: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘No. 53, No. 87 & the Nos.60+98, if you stay and inform the occasional newbie what this is about fast – maybe pointing to some of the earlier correspondence – you would certainly do some people a great service in saving them a lot of what is most precious in their lives – their time. • [Richard]: ‘As your [quote] ‘this’ [endquote] refers back to what a metaphysician wrote at the three URL’s you provided – and given that your e-mail title refers to their [quote] ‘legacy’ [endquote] – then what you are exhorting four co-respondents to do (as in your ‘you would certainly do some people a great service’ phrasing) fast is to inform peoples writing to this mailing list for the first time about metaphysics, and maybe pointing to some of the earlier correspondence, so as to save them wasting their time on empiricism ... ‘the doctrine or theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience; that concepts and statements have meaning only in relation to sense-experience’. (Oxford Dictionary). (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 97b, 8 September 2005a). RESPONDENT: I think No. 97 basically wants you to inform people that what this (‘actualism’) is about is ‘superstition of facts’. RICHARD: It does look to be more like something that you would want to inform me about ... be that as it may: when Mr. Henry Thoreau used that term in ‘The Spirit of the Times’ (15 February 1848), nearly forty years before Mr. Rene Guenon was born (1886), he had the following to say: • ‘There is not only a return to the study of nature, but to a natural method in the study. A return to nature from the superstition of facts. The people had been excluded. Science was costly, collegiate, with academies and laboratories; worst of all, there was no relation between its facts and the spirit in man’. [endquote]. I mention this because actualism, being experiential, is not a matter for science ... nor are my reports/ descriptions/ explanations scientifical. For an unambiguous explication of this: • [Richard]: ‘... as I am an actualist, and not a scientist, my reports/ descriptions/ explanations are experiential, not scientifical, and any reference I may make to matters scientific on occasion are secondary’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 78a, 12 December 2004). RESPONDENT: It is, to quote Rene Guenon, a ‘peculiar delusion, typical of modern ‘experimentalism’, to suppose that a theory can be proved by facts whereas really the same facts can always be equally well explained by a variety of different theories’. RICHARD: As actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is experiential, not theoretical, there is no theory to be proved. RESPONDENT: Your facts might be right ... RICHARD: If I may interject? As there are no such things as ‘your facts’ (or ‘my facts’ or ‘his facts’ or ‘her facts’, and so on) and neither is a fact either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ – a fact is nothing other than that (a fact) – might it be possible that you are really referring to ‘truths’? RESPONDENT: ... but your theories about what these facts mean, and your conclusions regards the ‘ultimate questions’ still can be utterly wrong. RICHARD: Perhaps if you were to specify what those [quote] ‘ultimate questions’ [endquote] are then whatever it is you are wanting to convey might be more comprehensible. RESPONDENT: Richard, I came across this statement of yours while reading in the Actual Freedom Trust website – ‘It is this simple: eliminate the instinctual passions and you are free.’ RICHARD: You must be referring to this: • [Richard]: ‘There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in this actual physical world; ‘good’ and ‘evil’ exist only in the ‘real world’, where 6.0 billion peoples live and shed blood and tears, because all sentient beings have instinctual passions. There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in a flower, a lettuce, a rock, a brick, or a ... um ... a cup and saucer, for example, for there is no instinctual passions. It is this simple: eliminate the instinctual passions and you are free. Thus peace-on-earth is possible ... right now at this moment in eternal time just here at this place in infinite space. (Richard, List C, No. 4b, 19 April 2000). Of course, as ‘I’ am the instinctual passions, and as the instinctual passions are ‘me’, then the elimination of the one is the elimination of the other – they are the one and the same thing – and, as ‘I’ cannot eliminate the instinctual passions and yet still stay in existence, any attempt to eliminate the one without eliminating the other can only result in (at best) detachment or (at worst) dissociation. RESPONDENT: (Using pieced-together segments of sentences you’ve written): In order to bring about the possibility of ‘enabling the already always existing’ ‘peace-on-earth’ ‘into being apparent’ ‘for this body, that body, and everybody’ – it seems to me that I must reach the point of seeing myself in my entirety, all at once. RICHARD: Many years ago the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body was wont to say, after having had the memorable pure consciousness experience (PCE) which set what has nowadays become known as the actualism process in action, that it is normally impossible to see oneself, in one’s entirety, all at once because the part of oneself which would be doing the seeing was itself unable to be seen ... and would liken the various aspects of an identity to the wedges of a sliced pie, or a cake, wherein one could slice the wedges ever thinner and thinner and yet still not see that last remaining, and oh-so-thin, wedge. And ‘he’ would say this because, at the very instant of that seminal PCE happening, ‘he’ did see himself, in ‘his’ entirety, all at once and that very seeing was the end of ‘him’ (albeit for the duration of the PCE). In other words, and speaking generally, mostly people do not dare to see themselves, in their entirety, all at once and elect instead for the detached/ dissociated way of seeing ... it being a whole lot safer, so to speak. RESPONDENT: At that point, it seems everything will be clear. RICHARD: Provided it be the end-of-oneself type of seeing ... yes. RESPONDENT: And it seems, in order to ‘eliminate the instinctual passions’, I will have to reach the point of seeing them in their entirety, all at once. Seeing them in their entirety – is, it seems to me, seeing myself in my entirety. RICHARD: As they are both one and the same thing ... indeed so. RESPONDENT: I wonder if all of that is correct. RICHARD: Yes ... and having said all this it must be pointed out that one does not actually ever see oneself, in one’s entirety, all at once because the identity who would do the seeing has to cease to exist for that seeing to occur (whereupon there is no identity to be seen, in its entirety, all at once). And I am neither being tricky nor mystical in saying this ... it is factually so. RESPONDENT: If so, those two ways of looking at the objective seem to mutually feed off of and support each other. This moment strikes me as one of such a giant wide-open possibility that I have to slam my accelerator to the floor in order to fly into it fast enough to keep up with it. RICHARD: Ha ... if the experience of the identity who used to inhabit this flesh and blood body all those years ago is anything to go by the opposite occurs as ‘he’ would oft-times reach for the brake-pedal, in order to slow down the rocketing momentum unleashed upon giving ‘himself’ permission to go all the way, only to find (with a sinking feeling of alarum/ a thrilling feeling of gay abandon) that ‘his’ foot went all the way to the floor. Put simply: once launched there is no way of stopping the process ... it is the ride of a lifetime. RESPONDENT: Putting this here so that what I’m doing is on display to maximize the possibility of receiving input from you. RICHARD: Sure ... one of the reasons this mailing list exists is so that my fellow human being can tease out of me items that may not occur to me to write otherwise (as in writing an impromptu article). RESPONDENT: If you have any input, it will be greatly appreciated. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... please bear in mind that all I can do is offer hints, tips, suggestions, clues, and so on, born out of personal experience – insider information as it were – and anything I have to report/ describe/ explain must, of necessity, be verified experientially in order to be of effect. Merely believing me will get one nowhere ... and fast. RESPONDENT: Richard, I came across this statement of yours while reading in the Actual Freedom Trust website – ‘It is this simple: eliminate the instinctual passions and you are free.’ RICHARD: You must be referring to this: • [Richard]: ‘There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in this actual physical world; ‘good’ and ‘evil’ exist only in the ‘real world’, where 6.0 billion peoples live and shed blood and tears, because all sentient beings have instinctual passions. There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in a flower, a lettuce, a rock, a brick, or a ... um ... a cup and saucer, for example, for there is no instinctual passions. It is this simple: eliminate the instinctual passions and you are free. Thus peace-on-earth is possible ... right now at this moment in eternal time just here at this place in infinite space. (Richard, List C, No. 4b, 19 April 2000). Of course, as ‘I’ am the instinctual passions, and as the instinctual passions are ‘me’, then the elimination of the one is the elimination of the other – they are the one and the same thing – and, as ‘I’ cannot eliminate the instinctual passions and yet still stay in existence, any attempt to eliminate the one without eliminating the other can only result in (at best) detachment or (at worst) dissociation. RESPONDENT: (Using pieced-together segments of sentences you’ve written): In order to bring about the possibility of ‘enabling the already always existing’ ‘peace-on-earth’ ‘into being apparent’ ‘for this body, that body, and everybody’ – it seems to me that I must reach the point of seeing myself in my entirety, all at once. RICHARD: Many years ago the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body was wont to say, after having had the memorable pure consciousness experience (PCE) which set what has nowadays become known as the actualism process in action, that it is normally impossible to see oneself, in one’s entirety, all at once because the part of oneself which would be doing the seeing was itself unable to be seen ... and would liken the various aspects of an identity to the wedges of a sliced pie, or a cake, wherein one could slice the wedges ever thinner and thinner and yet still not see that last remaining, and oh-so-thin, wedge. And ‘he’ would say this because, at the very instant of that seminal PCE happening, ‘he’ did see himself, in ‘his’ entirety, all at once and that very seeing was the end of ‘him’ (albeit for the duration of the PCE). In other words, and speaking generally, mostly people do not dare to see themselves, in their entirety, all at once and elect instead for the detached/ dissociated way of seeing ... it being a whole lot safer, so to speak. RESPONDENT: At that point, it seems everything will be clear. RICHARD: Provided it be the end-of-oneself type of seeing ... yes. RESPONDENT: And it seems, in order to ‘eliminate the instinctual passions’, I will have to reach the point of seeing them in their entirety, all at once. Seeing them in their entirety – is, it seems to me, seeing myself in my entirety. RICHARD: As they are both one and the same thing ... indeed so. RESPONDENT: I wonder if all of that is correct. RICHARD: Yes ... and having said all this it must be pointed out that one does not actually ever see oneself, in one’s entirety, all at once because the identity who would do the seeing has to cease to exist for that seeing to occur (whereupon there is no identity to be seen, in its entirety, all at once). And I am neither being tricky nor mystical in saying this ... it is factually so. RESPONDENT: If so, those two ways of looking at the objective seem to mutually feed off of and support each other. This moment strikes me as one of such a giant wide-open possibility that I have to slam my accelerator to the floor in order to fly into it fast enough to keep up with it. RICHARD: Ha ... if the experience of the identity who used to inhabit this flesh and blood body all those years ago is anything to go by the opposite occurs as ‘he’ would oft-times reach for the brake-pedal, in order to slow down the rocketing momentum unleashed upon giving ‘himself’ permission to go all the way, only to find (with a sinking feeling of alarum/ a thrilling feeling of gay abandon) that ‘his’ foot went all the way to the floor. Put simply: once launched there is no way of stopping the process ... it is the ride of a lifetime. RESPONDENT: Putting this here so that what I’m doing is on display to maximize the possibility of receiving input from you. RICHARD: Sure ... one of the reasons this mailing list exists is so that my fellow human being can tease out of me items that may not occur to me to write otherwise (as in writing an impromptu article). RESPONDENT: If you have any input, it will be greatly appreciated. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... please bear in mind that all I can do is offer hints, tips, suggestions, clues, and so on, born out of personal experience – insider information as it were – and anything I have to report/ describe/ explain must, of necessity, be verified experientially in order to be of effect. Merely believing me will get one nowhere ... and fast. RESPONDENT: Implicit in actualism is the value judgement that the physical is superior to the metaphysical. RICHARD: Ha ... implicit in actualism (the direct experience that matter is not merely passive) is that there is only the physical in actuality and, as an appraisal requires comparison, no such value judgement as you speak of can take place in this actual world. RESPONDENT: ‘You’ (the metaphysical entity) decide this. RICHARD: If I may point out? In the direct experience that matter is not merely passive there is no ‘you’ (no ‘metaphysical entity’ whatsoever) ... there is only this actual world (aka this actual universe). RESPONDENT: And having decided this, the totality of the universe is then divided up into the ‘actual’ and the ‘real’. RICHARD: I would hazard a guess that it is ‘you’ (the ‘metaphysical entity’ who decides) who has decided that ‘the ‘actual’’ and ‘the ‘real’’ together make up a whole ... otherwise known as ‘the totality of the universe’. RESPONDENT: The ‘real’ is minimised to the point where only the ‘actual’ remains. RICHARD: In the actualism process, as detailed on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, 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 be feeling good, feeling happy and harmless and feeling excellent/perfect for 99% of the time. Hence, with the actualism method, when one deactivates the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (happiness, delight, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on) then with this freed-up affective energy, in conjunction with sensuousness (delectation, enjoyment, appreciation, relish, zest, gusto and so on), the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness (unmediated perception) ... and apperception reveals that there is only this actual world/universe. In short: there is no ‘the ‘real’’ in actuality to minimise (let alone to the point that only ‘the ‘actual’’ remains). RESPONDENT: So this (actually non-existent) division between the physical and the metaphysical becomes a concept in the mind of ‘you’, a metaphysical entity. RICHARD: As there is no ‘the metaphysical’ in actuality, as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), there is no division to be either existent or non-existent ... the entire argument being presented (above) is but a conceptual contention created in the feeling-fed mind of ‘you’ – ‘a metaphysical entity’ – for reasons as yet unstated but bearing at least some of the hall-marks of the ‘Tried and True’ (as in when the division is seen to be false there is only the totality/whole) as made popular by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. RESPONDENT: You say it’s all fun now but on the way it took ‘nerves of steel’ so there was a considerable amount of work involved. What are the nerves of steel needed for? Dread? Or taking the chance of alienating your friends and family due to a turn in behaviour, like no longer being able to empathize or sympathize or share beliefs? RICHARD: Oh, it was a lot of fun along the way too ... the ‘nerves of steel’ phrase is a common expression, along with ‘not for the faint of heart or weak of knee’, which I co-opted to describe what is involved in the deep-sea diving that is an inevitable part of exploring the stygian depths of the human condition (where an aqua-lung is essential in contrast to using a snorkel in order to explore the human conditioning which was inculcated from birth onwards so to somewhat ameliorate the effects of the human condition). The aqua-lung is, of course, analogous to pure intent. Dread is a common occurrence in the real-world (else the word would not exist) so ‘nerves of steel’ does not specifically refer to that ... nor does it specifically refer to alienating loved one’s as that too is a common occurrence in the real-world (as evidenced by de-programming for example). I mainly used the expression so as to make it clear that the going can get a bit rocky at times – that the process of becoming actually free is not something one is going to breeze through without mishap – as I have no interest whatsoever in misleading my fellow human being. To be forewarned is to be forearmed, in other words. RESPONDENT No. 59: Vineeto, here in Mexico people are No. 1 at seeing words as having double meaning ... this is mainly how humour is expressed here, it is even seen as a desirable quality, and there are contests where people try to convey the best hidden meaning in words which imply something else. I have seen that taking words at face value gives others the impression of me being innocent but in an ignorant way ... and thus they sometimes try to take advantage of me; however, at the same time, most feel they can trust me. The thing is, I have seen how Actualists always take words for exactly what they mean, should I continue strictly attending to the words of others without ‘imagining’ or trying to find out what the hidden double meaning is? What others are really thinking? I am still distrustful of the words of some but because of several past and present experiences. VINEETO: I remember that in the early years of writing about actualism I tried to figure out ‘the hidden double meaning’, the emotional agenda, the context of feelings and beliefs in which the post was written and I got hopelessly entangled in the psychic web of other people’s malice and sorrow and was consequently unable to give a clear response. I found I first had to untangle myself from the emotional web in order to be able to think straight and write clearly about my experience of freeing myself from my spiritual beliefs and emotional burdens. Taking people’s word’s at face value has nothing to do with trust or mistrust, but is a matter of a simple and straight-forward way to communicate. A ‘hidden double meaning’ is almost always an emotionally charged meaning and trying to second-guess what this is in any situation does nothing to enhance sensible communication. Nowadays I always assume that if people find it important that I take notice of any ‘hidden’ meaning then they will tell me – it is not my responsibility to discern what another is trying to convey through unmentioned hints and allusions. As for being ‘distrustful of the words of some’ – the good news for me was that by examining and understanding my own social and instinctual identity I had less and less reason to fear that people would emotionally hurt me with insinuations or outright sarcasm – identity-slashing intimations from others now rarely reach a target. (Actualism, Vineeto, Actual Freedom List, No. 47 (=59), 21.10.2003). RESPONDENT No. 59: Understood. My problem is that I sometimes forget to focus on the content because of distractions of how it is conveyed. VINEETO: Of course, that is the very purpose of people conveying a message in an emotional way. Those ‘distractions’ are the very stuff to explore in order to determine how you are in relation to other people. Other than the words themselves there is usually a whole layer of invisible and inaudible interaction happening and this is how Richard explained it: [quote] ‘All sentient beings, to a greater or lesser extent, are connected via a psychic web ... a network of energies or currents that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’. Feeling threatened or intimidated can result from the obvious cues – the offering of physical violence and/or verbal violence – or from the less obvious ... ‘vibe’ violence (to use a ‘60’s term) and/or psychic violence. Similarly, feeling accepted can occur via the same signals or intimations. Power trips – coercion or manipulation of any kind – whether for ‘good’ or ‘bad’ purposes, are all psychic at root ... the psychic currents are the most effective power plays for they are the most insidious (charisma, for example).’ [endquote]. (Actualism, Vineeto, Actual Freedom List, No. 47 (=59), 4.11.2003). JAMES: This could explain why I have a sense of not belonging here or anywhere else for that matter because there is no psychic connection. I am an actualist in the sense that I have seen that matter is animate thru a PCE although I am not positive of this because it could be a physiological process in my own body that makes matter look that way. Also, I don’t practice Actualism per se because it seems that would connect me to the group I see here. I also don’t feel I belong on any spiritual list or group. Not having any psychic connection could explain why I don’t belong and don’t want to belong as opposed to the usual use of belonging which means one wants to belong. Makes sense? RESPONDENT: I think that’s a legitimate question. The PCE could be, in fact, what else could it be, a product of my own body experiencing itself without the usual imaginary filters. A question to Richard: What about this psychic web? It seems at odds with the here and now down to earth stuff. Especially when it refers to ‘vibes’ between people who are present. I was taught in psychology classes that the verbal message is only 20 percent of the message, the rest being expression and body language. I do think I’ve observed some patterns that aren’t explainable by obvious physical forces such as synchronicity – the seeming grouping of events in themes, sometimes seeming to have meaning, sometimes not, but this is a separate subject. RICHARD: As I am none too sure what your question to me is actually about I have situated the quote of mine back into the discussion it was first used in as it is quite self-explanatory in reference to the subject then under discussion ... please correct me if I am in error but you do seem to have taken it as a given that there is in fact [quote] ‘the group’ [endquote] which another sees which does in fact require a [quote] ‘psychic connection’ [endquote] in order to in fact [quote] ‘belong’ [endquote] to and are then asking me if this is not at odds with the ‘here and now down to earth stuff’ as if it were a legitimate question I can meaningfully respond to. There is no group (aka ‘cult’) to connect with/belong to – either emotionally/passionally or intuitively/psychically – as the word ‘actualism’ refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive (which, incidentally, does not mean that matter is animate) and the word ‘actualist’ refers to the experient. Viz.: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘To me the turning point in my faith in actualism as a group of people ... • [Richard]: ‘Hmm ... despite the best efforts of some to turn the writings of various peoples contributing to this Mailing List into a cult-like group (presumably so that they can then justify their identity as being the dissenter’s dissenter or a cult-buster extraordinaire or whatever), this ‘actualism as a group of people’ you have had a ‘turning point’ in your faith about has no existence outside of your skull. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Hmmm ... well it’s difficult to interact/ relate/ communicate to a group because it is only a virtual thing not actual right? • [Richard]: ‘Perhaps the word ‘imaginary’ might better convey the nature of any such ‘actualism as a group of people’ than the word ‘virtual’ ... given that ‘virtual’ means ‘almost as good as’ or ‘nearly the same as’ or ‘in effect comparable to’ and so on. Viz.: [Dictionary Definition]: virtual: that is so in essence or effect, although not recognised formally, actually, or by strict definition as such; almost absolute. Possessed of certain physical virtues or powers; effective in respect of inherent qualities. Capable of producing a certain effect or result’. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘This is what I got from ‘Atomica’: ‘virtual: An adjective that expresses a condition without boundaries or constraints. It is often used to define a feature or state that is simulated in some fashion’. So an imagined group of which the initiation for this image is a simulation on the internet. • [Richard]: ‘Yet as there is no simulated ‘actualism as a group of people’ on the internet, to initiate ‘this image’ of ‘an imagined group’, the dictionary definition you provide only serves to further emphasise the fact that this ‘actualism as a group of people’ has no existence outside of your skull. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘[This is what I got from ‘Atomica’:] ‘virtual: Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name: the virtual extinction of the buffalo. Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text. Computer Science. Created, simulated, or carried on by means of a computer or computer network: virtual conversations in a chat room’. So an imagined group of which the initiation for this image is a simulation on the internet. • [Richard]: ‘There is no virtual group, as a simulation of an actual group, happening on The Actual Freedom Mailing List. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘[This is what I got from ‘Atomica’:] ‘virtual: ‘Middle English virtuall, effective, from Medieval Latin virtualis, from Latin virtus, excellence. When virtual was first introduced in the computational sense, it applied to things simulated by the computer, like virtual memory – that is, memory that is not actually built into the processor. Over time, though, the adjective has been applied to things that really exist and are created or carried on by means of computers. • [Richard]: ‘There is no thing that really exists, which has been created or is being carried on by means of computers, that can even remotely be called ‘actualism as a group of people’. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘[This is what I got from ‘Atomica’:] ‘virtual: Virtual conversations are conversations that take place over computer networks, and virtual communities are genuine social groups that assemble around the use of e-mail, web pages, and other networked resources’. • [Richard]: ‘There is no virtual community, as a genuine social group, occurring on this Mailing List such as to warrant the phrase ‘actualism as a group of people’. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘[This is what I got from ‘Atomica’:] ‘virtual: The adjectives virtual and digital and the prefixes e- and cyber- are all used in various ways to denote things, activities, and organizations that are realized or carried out chiefly in an electronic medium. There is considerable overlap in the use of these items: people may speak either of virtual communities or of cyber communities and of e-cash or cyber-cash. To a certain extent the choice of one or another of these is a matter of use or convention (or in some cases, of finding an unregistered brand name). But there are certain tendencies. Digital is the most comprehensive of the words, and can be used for almost any device or activity that makes use of or is based on computer technology, such as a digital camera or a digital network. Virtual tends to be used in reference to things that mimic their ‘real’ equivalents. • [Richard]: ‘There is no ‘real’ equivalent, to ‘actualism as a group of people’, which is being mimicked here on The Actual Freedom Mailing List. The word actualism refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. I chose the name rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of categories and labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 18a, 14 August 2001). Put succinctly: there is no psychic web in this actual world – the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum – to be at odds with the ‘here and now down to earth stuff’. Your co-respondent is but tilting at windmills (again). RESPONDENT: There are hints pointing towards your actual state in the 4th way system as well (one of its major sources are esoteric Sufi teachings), but it is said that it can only be achieved when ‘enjoying’ a fully operational Self already in place, not before. RICHARD: If you could provide the hints about achieving an actual freedom from the human condition, which you say are in the 4th way system and/or esoteric Sufi teachings, I would be only too happy to read them. RESPONDENT: So this being an already difficult thing to achieve for most people, it probably seemed pointless to develop the idea even further or to convey/design any specific method when there was no case. RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend what you are saying here: Mr. Georges Gurdjieff and/or Mr. Petyr Ouspensky, and some un-named esoteric Sufi teachers, achieved an actual freedom from the human condition, whilst ‘enjoying’ a fully operational Self already in place, but it probably seemed to them pointless to convey to other human beings how they achieved it (let alone developing/ designing anything else) as being a fully operational Self was already a difficult thing to achieve for most people. Am I understanding you correctly? RESPONDENT: Your case seems to prove that ... RICHARD: If I may interject? It would help considerably to read the hints, about achieving an actual freedom from the human condition which you state are in the 4th way system and/or esoteric Sufi teachings, that say such a condition can only be achieved when ‘enjoying’ a fully operational Self already in place, not before, before coming to the conclusion that my case seems to prove that it probably seemed pointless to Mr. Georges Gurdjieff and/or Mr. Petyr Ouspensky, and some un-named esoteric Sufi teachers, to tell other human beings about how they achieved it – let alone developing/designing anything else – as being a fully operational Self was already a difficult thing to achieve for most people. And referenced quotes would help even more. RESPONDENT: ... and any evidence for a more direct route is still to come. RICHARD: If by this you mean that it is yet to be demonstrated, that one can proceed direct to an actual freedom from the human condition without passing ‘Go’ again and winding up in gaol, by somebody actually doing it then that is (to use a colloquialism) a no-brainer as nobody has done that yet – as far as I have been able to ascertain – but the pure consciousness experience (PCE) patently provides the necessary evidence that such an action is possible. RESPONDENT: How can you eliminate something if you don’t fully (experientially) know it, in this case the soul? RICHARD: As the soul can be experienced in an altered state of consciousness (ASC), and drops into the waste-bin of its own accord in a PCE, it does not require enlightenment to be experientially known that it has no existence here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Why not experience it and then throw it to the waste-bin when Experientially understood for what it is, as when dealing with the social identity? RICHARD: As the soul drops into the waste-bin of its own accord in a PCE it does not need to be thrown there. RESPONDENT: Why not applying the same measure for both? RICHARD: The social identity, otherwise known as a conscience (a moral/ethical and principled entity, with inculcated societal knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, overlaid upon the identity within), being a cultural construct requires a different way of being dealt with than the genetically inherited ‘being’ or ‘presence’ which the identity is at root. Or, to put that another way, the core of the identity within (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) cannot be whittled away, via the hands-on examination of various beliefs and truths and so on, like the overlaid social identity (and many aspects of the ego-self and some aspects of the feeling-self) can be. RESPONDENT: And why are you so persistent in saying to those walking this path to stay away from enlightenment? RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to draw your attention to a previous discussion? Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘I question if actual freedom from Human Condition is attainable without surpassing the last psychic Archetype, the Self, our Creator, out of which everything has begun? • [Richard]: ‘My experience is that an actual freedom is attainable by going beyond spiritual enlightenment ... however I do not advise going that route (via enlightenment) as it is too traumatic. Also it is just plain silly. • [Respondent]: ‘And if that so, the enlightenment ratio being 1/1.000.000 what would it be the AF ratio of success? • [Richard]: ‘As it is exceedingly difficult to live in the massive delusion that spiritual enlightenment is I would easily estimate that the ratio would be much less for those that would go directly. Much, much less. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25, 6 August 2002). Can you not see that the reason why I am ‘so persistent in saying to those walking this path to stay away from enlightenment’ is because (a) it is too traumatic ... and (b) it is just plain silly ... and (c) as it is exceedingly difficult to live in the massive delusion that spiritual enlightenment is the ratio of success can easily be estimated to be much less – much, much less – for those that would go directly? If you cannot see this then perhaps it would help to provide the analogy I usually give: • [Richard]: ‘... all the Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours, and the Saints and the Sages and the Seers did not have peace-on-earth on their agenda. Obviously someone had to be the first ... and this fact was thrilling to the nth degree. It meant that an actual freedom from the human condition, here on earth in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body had been discovered and could be demonstrated and described ... no one else need ever take that route again (and I would not wish upon anyone to have to follow in my footsteps and run that full gamut of existential angst to break through to what lay beyond). I always liken it to the physical adventure that Mr. James Cook undertook to journey to Australia two hundred plus years ago. It took him over a year in a leaky wooden boat with hard tack for food and immense dangers along the way. Nowadays, one can fly to Australia in twenty-seven hours in air-conditioned comfort, eating hygienically prepared food and watching an in-flight movie into the bargain. No one has to go the path of the trail-blazer and forge along in another leaky wooden boat. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 7, 14 June 2000). I do not know how much more clearer I can put it than this ... but I will give it a go (further below). RESPONDENT: How can you speak of a way towards ‘actual freedom’ not via the ‘Rock of Enlightenment’ if you haven’t walked that route yourself? RICHARD: It is quite simple: provided the soul is not resurrected/does not resurrect itself from the waste-bin (and that proviso is of vital importance) there is then only a direct route to an actual freedom from the human condition ... thus no need for me to have walked that route myself. RESPONDENT: There is still proof to come for this route to actually exist ... RICHARD: If I may interject again? As you say (further below) that you can ‘can intellectually figure out a major difference between a PCE and an ASC’ can you not also intellectually figure out that the proof for the direct route lies in the very fact that a PCE can happen in the first place? RESPONDENT: ... and then we can speak of an efficient viable method of riding ourselves from the human condition. RICHARD: And just what is not efficient and viable about altruistic ‘self’-immolation, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body, brought about by asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) with the pure intent to have the already always existing peace-on-earth stunningly evident in the PCE become apparent sooner rather than later? RESPONDENT: Till now the logical conclusion based on ‘facts’ is that there will be no ‘peace-on earth’ if this is a method unintentionally designed for the One in 10.000.000. RICHARD: The actualism method, first put into practice in 1981 by a normal person with a normal wife and a normal family and a normal mortgage and so on, is not designed for the ‘One in 10,000,000’ person (not even unintentionally) as it was born out of the initial four-hour PCE in June 1980, which set the whole process in motion in January 1981, and not out of the enlightened state which came about in September 1981 as a result of the vitally important proviso not yet being known (someone has to be the first to discover something new in any field of human endeavour) let alone being remembered/applied under all circumstances ... circumstances such as falling in love, for example, and being bitten badly by the enlightenment bug as a direct result of the love being unrequited. I kid you not ... the only danger on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom is that one may become enlightened instead. RESPONDENT: There is still evidence to come for a person to safely arrive to ‘actual freedom’ and then to convey how it was ‘via the non-enlightenment route’. RICHARD: As I safely arrived via the massive delusion called spiritual enlightenment why would arriving via a non-delusory path be any less safe? I would easily estimate it to be more safe ... far, far more safe. RESPONDENT: I bet it would be a very interesting account. RICHARD: The account of the next person to become actually free would indeed be interesting ... maybe this is an apt moment to put this hoary subject to bed, pat it on the head and send it to sleep, until somebody new to this mailing list raises it again as if it has never occurred to Richard that an actual freedom from the human condition has not yet been replicated (even though they may say, in the next breath, that it has been lived before)? Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘Let us be realistic, though. When you talk about .00001 percent ... we have not yet demonstrated that anyone can replicate my condition. (...) Can my condition be replicated? Who knows? Only time will tell. (...) So we can say that we can demonstrate that something [virtual freedom] is actually possible, but it has not yet been demonstrated that it is possible to replicate me. I may be a freak. (Richard, Audio-taped Dialogues, There is a Third Alternative). Those words were spoken somewhere between May-July 1997 ... and even before I went public I wrote the following in my journal: • [Richard]: ‘... 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. (page 143, ‘Richard’s Journal’; ©The Actual Freedom Trust 1997). And even more explicitly: • [Richard]: ‘My keenness for another’s experience always accords to the following sequence: 1. I am primarily interested for your sake (for the sake of the particular flesh and blood body) as you are a fellow human being. 2. I am secondarily interested for everybody’s sake (for the sake of flesh and blood bodies in general) as another person being actually free increases the possibility of setting a chain-reaction in process. 3. I am lastly interested for my own sake (for then not only am I am no longer arguably a ‘freak of nature’ but I can compare notes, as it were, so as to more reliably separate out what is species specific from that which is idiosyncratic). (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Alan-b, 12 June 2001). Furthermore I have acknowledged there may be other methods: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘The reason I ask this is because the one question method of Actualism is way too simplistic to be effective. • [Richard]: ‘It is the only method, in all of human history, which has worked to deliver the goods ... there may be other methods, yet to be discovered, but this is the only one so far proven to be effective. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 38, 20 February 2003). And: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘[Your method] is not new ...’. • [Richard]: ‘As an actual freedom from the human condition is new to human history then any method to enable this to come about is also new’. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘... it is not the only method that works but it is fine’. • [Richard]: ‘As no one else is actually free from the human condition, as yet, then other methods are still in the experimental stage. Until one of them works then this method I offer – which worked for me – is the only one available’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 12d, 23 November 2000). And: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘I ask this as there are now almost 6 years since you went public with your discovery and the method to achieve it, you must have some feedback ... • [Richard]: ‘The only feedback is what can be read publicly ... I rarely, if ever, conduct a private correspondence these days. • [Co-Respondent]: ‘... or is it a perfect method needing no improvement? • [Richard]: ‘There may be other methods, yet to be discovered, but this is the only one so far which has delivered the goods. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25a, 15 June 2003). There are other references but maybe these will do for now ... put succinctly the replication of my condition presently calls for pioneers, people with the necessary derring-do to pilot a one-seater aeroplane by the seat of their pants to this pristine wonderland, and not for those who will follow in their wake in air-conditioned comfort, eating hygienically prepared food and watching an in-flight movie into the bargain. And nobody knows who that pioneer aviator is until that person actually lands here ... not even me. RESPONDENT: It’s the reason why I’ve asked about Alan (a practicing actualist), as his site (www.actualfreedom.co.uk) is out-of-reach. RICHARD: As it is a reasonable assumption to make, that if somebody subscribed to this mailing list (or even anybody previously subscribed) has become actually free from the human condition they will present an account of it, I do not see the point in writing to somebody – let alone anybody – every now and again only to ask if it has happened yet. Furthermore, it is pointless to ask why another person is not yet actually free because if another person – any person – knew why they were not yet actually free they would be actually free ... and there is something strange, almost to the point of being weird, about an attitude which has it that until somebody else has walked a path one will not walk that path because such a path has not yet been demonstrated to exist. Put simply: how on earth can something be done if nobody will do it because it has not yet been done? * RESPONDENT: Concerning the distinction between ASC and PCE and taking into account that you experientially (via direct perception) know that this Universe is infinite, I wonder if it is not consciousness that let you know this to be a fact. RICHARD: I have made it clear on many occasions that unmediated perception (aka apperceptive awareness) is how infinitude is directly experienced. RESPONDENT: I don’t think you have arrived at this thanks to one of your senses. RICHARD: You may find the following exchange to be of interest, then: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘Since the universe is ‘immeasurably vast’, how can it be an ‘objective actuality’? • [Richard]: ‘Something does not have to be measured to be objective (existing in its own right). Infinitude simply cannot be calculated as ... um ... as beginning here and ending there. Infinitude is beginningless and endless; boundless and limitless; perpetual and perdurable; unborn and undying ... and, as I said, it cannot be grasped by either thought or feeling. If you gaze deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars you will be standing naked before infinitude. (Richard, List B, No. 33g, 15 October 2001). And by ‘standing naked’ I mean sans identity in toto (unmediated perception/apperceptive awareness): the direct experience of infinitude thanks to visual perception first happened one night in early 1981 whilst looking at the space between the stars, and not the stars themselves as one might normally do (due to the preponderance figure usually takes over background), and when more stars became apparent in that space, looking into the space between them, and so on, and so on, until infinitude became apparent as an experience of itself ... or, to put that another way, being the actual experiencing of infinitude (which is what all flesh and blood bodies are anyway) as a sensory organism. Further to this point, six e-mails after the e-mail the above excerpt is from the following line, which refers to visually seeing infinitude wherever one looks, may very well give pause to reflect upon just what it is that is being conveyed by the term ‘unmediated perception’ (aka apperceptive awareness): • [Richard]: ‘Then you will see it (the absolute) even when looking at your own hand ... for example. (Richard, List B, No. 33g, 21 October 2001). The entire discussion about the direct experience of infinitude thanks to visual perception may be of further interest if only because of the dominance abstract logic can have over sensible reason (especially when acting in concert with spirituality). The full exchange starts here: (Richard, List B, No. 33g, 14 October 2001). It may take some wading through. RESPONDENT: Otherwise it would have not been such a ‘hot topic’ on this mailing list as a fact is out in the open, cannot be argued with, etc. RICHARD: It is only a ‘hot topic’ for those who want scientific proof of something experiential (whilst oft-times proffering mathematical proof, as to why the experiential evidence is invalid, in lieu of scientific proof – as if they were one and the same thing – into the bargain). I have never made any secret of the fact that actualism is experiential ... for just one example out of many: • [Richard]: ‘The word actualism refers to *the direct experience* that matter is not merely passive. I chose the name rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of categories and labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 18a, 14 October 2001). In what way is infinitude not out in the open, and thus able to be argued with, etcetera, in a PCE? RESPONDENT: I do intellectually understand that the universe is infinite (the spear analogy) but I also experientially know the limits of our intellect. RICHARD: It is not so much that the intellect has limits in regards to infinitude per se as it is, rather, that (a) the extent of its grasp is usually circumscribed by a centre (the ‘self’ by any name) in cognisance ... and (b) its intelligence is usually crippled by the affective faculty ... and (c) its ability to sensibly reason is often dominated by abstract logic (mathematical equations have no existence outside of the ratiocinative process for example) ... and (d) it is not an experiential faculty anyway (the wrong tool for the job, as it were, just as is the affective faculty). Howsoever, in conjunction with apperception the intellect has no difficulty ... else how would these descriptions/ explanations get written? RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX RICHARD’S HOME PAGE The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one. Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity