# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On Consciousness RESPONDENT: Closely connected to this is what you name ‘apperception’ ... RICHARD: I found the word in the Oxford Dictionary in 1997, when I was assembling an ad hoc collection of articles into some semblance of being a book form so as to be suitable for publishing, which simply said (as the first of several meanings): • ‘apperception: the mind’s perception of itself’. [endquote]. It was that definition – as contrasted to the normal ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious type of perception – which appealed ... and not any historical usage of the word. RESPONDENT: ... which also is a central term in western philosophical tradition. A quick look at the German Wikipedia tells one that its career began with St. Augustine as ‘attention’, came via Duns Scotus, Descartes to Leibniz who firstly baptizes the child ‘apperception’, than travels on to Kant, and in the Anglo-Saxon world most prominently to W. James and J. Dewey. However, you use the word ‘apperception’ quite differently, so it might be clarifying to relate to the classics and say what you reject, i.e. in what respects you deem them to be ‘tried and wrong’. (Just making it a little more explicit than it is anyway). RICHARD: I have never looked-up the way other peoples have used the word ... I simply mean it as un-mediated perception (as in no identity whatsoever mediating the perceptive process). RESPONDENT: The newest thing in ‘apperception theory’ seems to be the (information) theoretical result that the capacity of the senses is a million times higher than the capacity of conscious perception. Now, to use this wild metaphor, if the ‘consciousness’ in the form of ‘ego’ is a social interface just as a computer has a graphical user interface where you also neither want nor need to see all that is going on underneath, if this interface disappears – then only direct connection to the senses is left, and then you have an information overkill quite enough for any PCE. A state of mind particularly enjoyable on a warm summer day with nice food in a beautiful setting. RICHARD: The word consciousness refers to a body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) just as the word warmness refers to the state or condition of being warm ... the ego (aka the thinker), having arisen from the soul/ spirit (the feeler) one is born being (per favour the instinctual passions), is but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to ‘being’ itself (which is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being). Put succinctly: it is not consciousness per se which is the spanner in the works (aka the ghost in the machine) but identity, as a ‘presence’, hijacking the sensory experience and, whilst thus busily creating an ‘inner’ world, involuntarily imposing its reality over the physical actuality (this actual world) as a veneer (and thereby creating an ‘outer’ world) ... all the while yearning for, and thus seeking, union betwixt its two creations. In other words, both duality (‘self’ and ‘other’) and non-duality (‘oneness’) have no existence in actuality ... any identity is forever locked-out of paradise (this actual world). RESPONDENT: I must honestly admit that in the beginning I thought when stumbling over AF site that here it was someone who really had the courage and honesty to strip a consciousness experience from its divine attributes (God, Love, Destiny) which are just a hindrance for a self on the road towards Enlightenment. These attributes are attached mainly afterwards when a bewildered recovering self (with all its various reference systems) tries to understand what happened. I then thought that you were aware of the necessity for the third state of consciousness (awakening from the waking-sleep humans live in) first to occur with a satisfactory frequency and not to talk so much about a remote peak as Enlightenment and God is (fourth state) which can be best compared with raising from the dead. My reasoning back then was that here was someone sufficiently honest and aware of the Human Condition (and Enlightened of course) who devised an efficient method for people to achieve their birth-right: to be conscious about themselves and consequently happy (third state) and as a possible bonus for the rare few, enlightenment (forth state). RICHARD: You are not the first ... it is somewhat surprising just how many people overlook the very first words on The Actual Freedom Trust home page: • ‘Actual Freedom: A New and Non-Spiritual Down-to-Earth Freedom’. (Actual Freedom Homepage). They were not put there for decorative purposes. RESPONDENT: Consciousness in my view is strongly linked with objectivity (seeing the facts), first in yourself and then regarding the outside world (so two or more equally conscious persons would have no problem in understanding each-other). RICHARD: Hmm ... many is the time I have had a fellow human being tell me that the physical world is an illusion: when I enquire as to why they are talking to one of their illusions – why they feel the necessity to tell one of their illusions that he is one of their illusions – the conversation generally goes rapidly downhill. My experience is that objectivity is an incredibly subjective thing for more than a few people ... and in an altered state of consciousness (ASC), and the enlightened state itself, there is only pure subjectivity (which is where such solipsistic notions as the above are sourced). Hence such terminology as ‘Consciousness Without An Object’ to describe enlightenment. * RESPONDENT: What I’m interested in, to be more precise, is the interaction between various brains (intellectual – located in the head, affective – located in the chest-heart-solar plexus area, moving-instinctive – located at the bottom of the spinal cord, sex – primary location easy to determine, but I suspect is related to the whole body) with their correspondent functions (moving, thinking, feeling, sensing, reproducing) and consciousness. During the altered ASC :-) my body, after the initial shock, went about its usual business, driving my car, thinking and talking to various people, eating, I’m not yet sure if feeling!, none of the usually experienced sex drive being present ... and the functions ran smoothly, unhindered by the self (personality), the skills these brains acquired over the years being performed with stunning accuracy. So the skills one has and ego are somehow different? RICHARD: Yes ... any repetitive activity is largely done on automatic pilot, as it were, once the necessary skills are acquired (such as driving, cycling, typing, and so on). * RESPONDENT: The whole point of immortality is if consciousness can exist independent of the functions (the physical body). RICHARD: As immortality implies that the physical body is a function of consciousness (consciousness giving rise to matter rather than matter giving rise to consciousness) it has occasioned all manner of implausible explanations as to how, when, where and why it would do so ... the one that tops the list on the scale of nonsense dressed up as wisdom is the Eastern concept of Leela (aka dance, play, sport, diversion). As a child still in short pants I would ask Western religious persons just what their soul would do in their heaven (no hair to brush, no teeth to clean, and so on) as everything done on earth is bodily-determined or body-related ... when pursued rigorously queries such as these always elicit the classic fall-back position (only their god knows). Yet ask a god-on-earth (or be one oneself) and the answer is ... it is unknowable. So much for omniscience, eh? RESPONDENT: I know that (some) functions can manifest themselves without consciousness. I remember one time being totally drunk with a sudden blackout occurring, something like turning the lights off, yet my friends told me the next day that in the following hours I’ve danced, I’ve joked, I’ve walked alone to a taxi and finally got home. RICHARD: Yet you said (just above) that the whole point of immortality is consciousness existing independent of the functions (the physical body) ... why do you give an example of what the body did during a drug-induced amnesia (which is quite common with many ingested substances)? An examination of amnesia itself can throw light upon your experience: for example, I watched a documentary of a chronically amnestic woman (with a three-minute memory) who, unless she writes down in a notebook she carries everywhere with her what she has done during that period, does not know whether she has done something or not (such as accepting and drinking the glass of water offered by the interviewer). RESPONDENT: It was like someone has taken control, someone I’m not acquainted with. Have any idea who/ what it was as I was not conscious of myself (no self to be held responsible)? RICHARD: It would have been your normal self, of course, albeit totally inebriated ... and with nothing being consigned to memory. * RESPONDENT: Some comments about the ASC ... During and after the ASC it became crystal clear to me that all we humans called ‘progress’ has no value whatsoever, that is mainly the result of moving-intellectual brain’s skills applied to the world for the benefit of the silent lazy god within each man: the instinctive brain and its mission – survive and reproduce the species (in this way being connected with the sex). RICHARD: I would not say that all material progress has no value whatsoever (anaesthesia during surgery for just one example) nor would I say that the material results of progress are mainly for the benefit of the identity within either. I would agree that there has been no progress (thus no benefit) in regards the instinctual passions ... essentially there is no difference between, say, the Cro-Magnon homo sapiens and the Modern Day homo sapiens when it comes to the instinctual drives, impulses and urges. There has been much intellectual progress – and this advancement of human knowledge continues unabated – but there has been zilch spiritual progress ... the ancient wisdom of the bronze-age still has a large proportion of the peoples currently alive by the short and curlies. Witness the resurgence of a New Dark Age, for instance, wherein all manner of shamanic hocus-pocus is being ardently embraced. RESPONDENT: It must be said that these brains have an innumerable number of connections with each other, re-wiring them being an appropriate term indeed and a hard job to look after. RICHARD: I have generally used the term ‘rewiring’ to refer to sorting out conflicting beliefs and ideals (oft-times cunningly disguised as truths) which tend to be compartmentalised ... for example I saw a bumper-sticker on a car only recently: • ‘Back Off – This Bitch Bites’. It was positioned immediately below another bumper-sticker: • ‘World Peace Is Possible’. The major rewiring of the brain happens of its own accord due to the felicity/ innocuity born of pure intent ... other than sorting out such blind spots as the one above, and investigating inculcated social conditioning, or exposing factoids for what they are, and so on, all one has to do, basically, is be as happy and as harmless as is humanely possible, each moment again, and provided there be pure intent a benignity and benevolence which is not of ‘my’ doing becomes apparent and operates spontaneously. It is what does the major rewiring ... as such there is no ‘hard job’ to do. RESPONDENT: The problem is that they are interconnected quite wrongly, mainly due to the contents (personality – social construct), and as such no happiness can occur ... RICHARD: Somehow I am reminded of that well-known phrase ‘consciousness is its contents’ ... what about the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) and the ‘presence’ or ‘being’ they automatically form themselves into? RESPONDENT: ... it seems that these brains have also lost the ability (in most humans) to adequately respond to various situations. RICHARD: As the legendary ‘Golden Age’ of antiquity is a myth I do wonder what the adequacy was you say has been lost. RESPONDENT: A common to all situation is for a brain to react to a given circumstance where another’s response is more appropriate – if attacked an instinctive response is more appropriate than a an emotional one: pacifism for example. RICHARD: Am I to take it that the lost yet adequate ability you spoke of is none other than the response of the instinctual passions? RESPONDENT: Of course you say there is no affective faculty left, a thing I’m quite intrigued as I’ve experienced no feelings either in the ASC, yet is something to be further explored. RICHARD: In spiritual enlightenment one no longer has affective feelings as one is the affective feelings (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) ... the affective feelings have become a state of being. RESPONDENT: ‘Love’ (big L) is a misleading word for someone to be told as I think you are quite aware that in Enlightenment this ‘Love’ is much better to be described as a ‘state’ rather than a ‘feeling’ (has no relation with the affective brain, except as a starting point, a gate as it were). RICHARD: You were going fine until your parenthesised explanation (which is a classic example of disembodiment if there ever was): if it were not for the affective faculty there would be neither love nor Love. RESPONDENT: It’s better for the sake of a more accurate report to use the term ‘orgasm’ or ‘ecstasy’. RICHARD: By whatever term the experience is still an affective experience. * RESPONDENT: The whole point of immortality is if consciousness can exist independent of the functions (the physical body). RICHARD: As immortality implies that the physical body is a function of consciousness (consciousness giving rise to matter rather than matter giving rise to consciousness) it has occasioned all manner of implausible explanations as to how, when, where and why it would do so ... the one that tops the list on the scale of nonsense dressed up as wisdom is the Eastern concept of Leela (aka dance, play, sport, diversion). As a child still in short pants I would ask Western religious persons just what their soul would do in their heaven (no hair to brush, no teeth to clean, and so on) as everything done on earth is bodily-determined or body-related ... when pursued rigorously queries such as these always elicit the classic fall-back position (only their god knows). Yet ask a god-on-earth (or be one oneself) and the answer is ... it is unknowable. So much for omniscience, eh? RESPONDENT: I know that (some) functions can manifest themselves without consciousness. I remember one time being totally drunk with a sudden blackout occurring, something like turning the lights off, yet my friends told me the next day that in the following hours I’ve danced, I’ve joked, I’ve walked alone to a taxi and finally got home. RICHARD: Yet you said (just above) that the whole point of immortality is consciousness existing independent of the functions (the physical body) ... why do you give an example of what the body did during a drug-induced amnesia (which is quite common with many ingested substances)? An examination of amnesia itself can throw light upon your experience: for example, I watched a documentary of a chronically amnestic woman (with a three-minute memory) who, unless she writes down in a notebook she carries everywhere with her what she has done during that period, does not know whether she has done something or not (such as accepting and drinking the glass of water offered by the interviewer). RESPONDENT: The fourth state is indeed unknowable from our ordinary view. The whole method of spirituality, starting from the belief that the functions and consciousness are separate or can be separated, is to inflict voluntary suffering or the soft-named ‘friction’ on the physical body (‘I’m not my body’ attitude and all the actions resulting from this statement), so to achieve (more or less overtly acknowledged) immortality. Your method states the opposite. The sense of immortality can only be achieved in the fourth state of consciousness, where the sense of ‘I’ (a Being made of light) is outside the physical body, so the conclusion arises that ‘I’ will exist for eternity and survive the physical death. This is for me more than a belief, it was something I’ve lived through ... yet you say is but a delusion, a very pleasant delusion if I may add. The question still remains: how can a body which is made of cells can transform itself into a molecular body (soul) and then into an electronic body (Self or Spirit)? RICHARD: First of all the light which the being is made of is metaphysical light and not physical light ... thus it is not electronic (electricity is material). Second, the cellular body does not transform itself at all ... let alone into ‘a molecular body (soul)’ as compounds are also material: it is the ego-self (an emotional-mental construct) which collapses, dies, dissolves, or merges with the soul-self/ spirit-self (an affective being or presence) thus creating a psychic super-self. In other words the metaphysical light is psychic light: thus the Self or Spirit is a psychic body. RESPONDENT: Is the impression of ‘being light’ just an illusion? RICHARD: Yes, though for the sake of clarity in communication and consistency I call it a delusion (the delusion of ‘Being’ born out of the illusion of ‘being’). * RESPONDENT: It is that the goal of your method is to achieve the third state (an aim for the spiritual methods as well, though only as an intermediate one) from there on things go indeed in opposite directions. RICHARD: No ... the goal of the actualism method is to by-pass all altered states of consciousness (to head in the opposite direction from the word go). * RESPONDENT: The example I provided with getting drunk was to ascertain whether functions can manifest without consciousness. RICHARD: Which (amnestic) example has nothing to do with immortality: immortality is, supposedly, consciousness existing without a body ... as in consciousness without an object. In your example of what bodily occurred during a drug-induced amnesia (which is quite common with many ingested substances) the body was still conscious ... just because what was occurring was not being remembered does not mean the state or condition of being conscious (albeit inebriated) was not happening. RESPONDENT: The instinctive brain can function independent of whether you’re conscious or not ... RICHARD: Or, to put that another way, the autonomic nervous system functions non-consciously (as evidenced in sleep). RESPONDENT: ... this body will very much regulate its flow of blood, the heart will beat of his own accord, the digesting process will not require your attention, etc.; also a good example can be found in patients living in a state of coma. RICHARD: Somehow you seem to be conflating what the word ‘consciousness’ refers to (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) with what the word ‘self-conscious’ refers to (the awareness of being conscious) ... and, while the state or condition of being conscious can also include being aware of being conscious, the vast majority of conscious organisms (animals) do not have self-awareness. A comatose person is an unconscious person ... neither conscious nor aware of being conscious. RESPONDENT: Animals and birds do not require consciousness in order to live, so it seems there are many examples where the brains do not require consciousness in order to perform their usual activities. RICHARD: All sentient beings are conscious ... and sentience means consciousness. Viz.: • ‘sentience: the condition or quality of being sentient; consciousness, susceptibility to sensation’. (Oxford Dictionary). A sentient being, and all animals are sentient (having the power or function of sensation), is a living organism capable of sensory perception (a virus, for example, is an organism without sentience) which means that sensory perception is what consciousness is at its most basic ... perception means consciousness (aka awareness). Viz.: • ‘perception: the state of being or process of becoming aware or conscious of a thing, spec. through any of the senses; the faculty of perceiving; an ability to perceive; [synonyms: (...) awareness, consciousness]. (Oxford Dictionary). In popular usage, however, the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean the (illusory) identity which is being conscious ... whereas the word ‘awareness’ does not usually carry that connotation. To put that another way: while the word ‘conscious’ can mean the same as what the word ‘aware’ means the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean something other that what the word ‘awareness’ means ... it can mean the supposedly immortal entity which makes a sentient being alive and not dead (as in the phrase ‘consciousness has left the body’ to signify physical death). RESPONDENT: It seems consciousness is a luxury item exclusively at the use of the human animal. RICHARD: Again you appear to be talking of self-consciousness (not to be confused with ‘self-conscious’ as in being embarrassed) or self-awareness ... if so there is evidence that the chimpanzee is self-conscious (aka self-aware) and, although it is early days yet in the research, there is some evidence that dolphins may be too. It is far from being a luxury item ... it is a vital precursor to intelligence. That the vast majority of animals are not self-conscious (do not have self-awareness) is the reason why, by and large, it is generally held that animals do not have a consciousness which ‘leaves the body’ at physical death. RESPONDENT: In what way is consciousness related to intelligence? RICHARD: If you are indeed referring to self-consciousness, or self-awareness, it is an essential prerequisite for intelligence to arise: intelligence is not only the faculty of the human brain thinking, with all its understanding (intellect) and comprehension (sagacity), but includes its cognisance (awareness or consciousness) of being a body existing in the world of people, other animals, plants, things and events. Moreover, intelligence requires self-reference – which involves the issue of agency (intervening action towards an end; action personified; a source of action towards an end) and agency can be only self-referential – plus intelligence also requires self-interest: a self-referential organism is concerned about its existence, and by extension others’ existence, in that it is biased – it finds water appealing and acid unappealing for example – and being biased is what being self-interested means. However, if you are referring ‘consciousness’ as popularly meaning the (illusory) identity which is being conscious ... it is, of course, not related to intelligence at all. Its presence cripples intelligence, in fact. * 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 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? RESPONDENT: I also experientially know that consciousness has no boundaries (for now I only remember) and I can intellectually figure out a major difference between a PCE and an ASC based on my life events. I think that the particular ASC known as Spiritual Enlightenment has the identity projected into Consciousness, for I cannot explain otherwise the holograph-like infinite image of Me; and also that both denominations have a Consciousness word attached to them. RICHARD: In an ASC the identity is not ‘projected into Consciousness’ as it is ‘Consciousness’ itself (aka one’s True Identity) realising/ recognising/ remembering it is ‘Consciousness’ in a process known as ‘Self-Realisation’. As there is no identity in a PCE – else it be not a PCE – there is no ‘Consciousness’ to be realised/ recognised/ remembered: there is only the pure experiencing that the condition of being a flesh and blood body being conscious sans identity in toto can enable ... plus the innocent awareness of being a flesh and blood body being conscious sans identity in toto. In other words, when stripped of its metaphysical connotations the word ‘consciousness’ means the condition of being conscious – the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition – and nothing more and nothing less. Viz.: • ‘-ness: forming nouns expressing a state or condition, especially from adjectives and (originally past or passive) participles, as bitterness, conceitedness, darkness, hardness, kind-heartedness, tongue-tiedness, up-to-dateness, etc., also occasionally from adverbs, as everydayness, nowness, etc., and in other nonce uses. Also in extended senses ‘an instance of a state or condition’, as a kindness etc., ‘something in a state or condition’, as foulness etc., and in a few other exceptional uses, as witness. (Oxford Dictionary). RESPONDENT: So the confusion arrises that not the Universe is infinite but that I am, or that I’m the one immortal, not the Universe, etc. I haven’t heard enlightened people say a word about the infinity of this Universe, but instead the same old spiritual refrain: Me, Me and Me. RICHARD: The ‘Me, Me and Me’ refrain is narcissism (‘self’-admiration, ‘self’-love, ‘self’-conceit) writ large and in such a blatant way that it is a wonder the many and varied saints, sages, and seers have got way with it for so long ... ‘self’-aggrandisement, being for the benefit of the immortal soul, is an extreme act of selfism. What I find to be of interest here is that now you say that you have not heard enlightened people saying a word about the infinitude of this universe despite stating (further above) that there are hints about achieving an actual freedom from the human condition in the 4th way system and/or esoteric Sufi teachings ... are there no hints about the properties of this universe also in those writings? Or is it a case of it also probably seeming to them pointless tell other human beings about how the universe actually is as being a fully operational Self was already a difficult thing to achieve for most people? RESPONDENT: I think the problem was how can you delete something which is infinite? RICHARD: The way to delete the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Consciousness’ which arose out of an extreme act of selfism for the benefit of the immortal soul was via an extreme act of altruism – altruistic ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body and that body and every body – just the same as deleting the ‘being’ or ‘presence’, which the instinctual passions automatically form themselves into, will be for anybody else upon arriving at the culmination of the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition. Only a lot less traumatic – if at all – and nowhere near as just plain silly – if at all – as the word ‘Consciousness’ is just another word for ‘being’ or ‘presence’ (usually capitalised, upon self-realisation, as ‘Being’ or ‘Presence’). * RESPONDENT: How can you explain synchronicity events then? RICHARD: The way I can explain the simultaneous occurrence of events, which appear meaningfully related in the real-world but have no discoverable causal connection, is quite simple ... in a word: happenstance. RESPONDENT: I can understand synchronicity explained in regards to the human/ animal world by the existence of the collective unconscious, but I can’t explain the seeing/ forecasting of future events exclusively related to inanimate matter as the work of the human/ animal psychic web. Synchronicity in regards to the inanimate matter can only satisfactorily be explained if matter has ‘psychic’, aka ‘electric’ properties (I can’t find a better word). RICHARD: Matter, be it either in its mass phase or energy phase, has no psychic properties. For what it is worth: even though I use the term ‘psychic currents’, to refer to the extrasensory transmissions conducted via affective vibrations (colloquially known as ‘vibes’), and even though affective feelings are associated with electrochemical activity in brain scans, it does not necessarily mean they are electric currents ... and neither does it necessarily mean they are currents of water or air, either, as that word (literally meaning ‘to run’ as in ‘flowing’ or ‘streaming’) is nothing more than a convenient word to utilise. RESPONDENT: Although you are freed from the psyche, the flesh and body known as Richard has electric properties (your brain processes work with/ on electric impulses, one possible explanation for telepathy). RICHARD: As this flesh and blood body is not at all telepathic your [quote] ‘possible’ [endquote] explanation is an impossible explanation in actuality. RESPONDENT: ... or to put that another way, some of your body processes are cellular, some are molecular and some are electric. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is part cellular (matter as mass) and part electric (matter as energy) ... a ‘molecule’, just like an ‘atom’, is a mathematical model. RESPONDENT: The operating of the electric processes is that which differentiates between a sleeping body and an awakened one (in both cases the senses are operating). RICHARD: As all it takes to bring this flesh and blood body into wakefulness, when asleep, is an unexpected/ unusual touch (the cutaneal sense), or smell (the olfactory sense), or sound (the aural sense), or light (the ocular sense), or taste (the gustatory sense), or posture (the proprioceptive senses) it does not follow that it is the operating of electric processes which differentiates between a sleeping and an awake body ... the operating of *some* electric activity would be what distinguishes. Whether awake or asleep a body subconsciously processes sensation continuously ... there are, if memory serves correctly, on average up to maybe 150,000 nerve impulses firing in any given second. RESPONDENT: As the senses operate in both cases, it results that you are not the senses per se, but the ‘awareness’ of the senses, in other words: consciousness per se. RICHARD: As the first person pronoun is used by the flesh and blood body writing these e-mails (for both convenience and so as not to be unduly pedantic) to refer to this flesh and blood body only it may all become clear if it be put this way: when the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail is asleep the flesh and blood body, whilst not consciously aware of being sentient, is subliminally aware of sentience ... or, put differently, upon waking this flesh and blood body’s subconscious awareness of being alive heightens (into being a conscious awareness). In other words ... a difference in degree (and not of kind). * RESPONDENT: This may also explain why in a PCE one is not aware of the infinity of the universe as when one is living an actual freedom. RICHARD: As apperceptive awareness of infinitude can, and does, occur in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) your explanation is irrelevant. RESPONDENT: Consciousness is infinite (it has no boundaries). RICHARD: An apperceptive consciousness – a flesh and blood body only (sans identity in toto) being conscious – has no boundaries as it is the centre of normal consciousness (identity) which creates same. RESPONDENT: It’s the same ‘consciousness’ as experienced when enlightened, yet without an ‘Entity’ (Self), it’s infinite, same as the universe, in all respects. RICHARD: It is the same consciousness – a flesh and blood body being conscious – as when unenlightened yet without either an ‘entity’ (self) or an ‘Entity’ (Self) ... it is this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe, as a human creature, being apperceptively aware of its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful. * RESPONDENT: These molecular/ electric events are not confined only to your body like the cellular ones are, they are also happening in relation to the outside and future world ... RICHARD: If I may interject? There is no ‘outside’ world in actuality (nor a future world either): there is only this actual world here. RESPONDENT: ... they [molecular/ electric events] create the physical world (being part of the physical/ cellular, but not subject to the intrinsic limitations of cellular matter). RICHARD: If by that you mean matter, either as mass or energy, is the physical world then what you are parenthetically saying is that matter per se is not limited to what matter as a body is. RESPONDENT: These ‘worlds’ are not separate or ‘compartmentalized’, they permeate each other, are interconnected with one another, your body is interconnected with the environment at all levels: physical, molecular and electric and these levels are likewise interconnected. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is more than just ‘interconnected with the environment’: it is the very stuff of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is consumed, in conjunction with the very stuff of the air breathed and the water drunk and the sunlight absorbed ... in the same way that a mountain, for example, is the very ground it is (apparently) sitting on. There is no separation whatsoever, here in this actual world, such as to necessitate being ‘interconnected with the environment’. RESPONDENT: The DNA is not only a molecular structure embedded in the ‘physical’ cell, it is also electric in nature, a conductor for electric impulses. RICHARD: If what you are saying is that deoxyribonucleic acid (a self-replicating material present in nearly all living organisms, especially in chromosomes, as the carrier of genetic information and the determiner of protein synthesis) is not only embedded in each and every cell which constitutes a body but is as well, by being also of an electric nature, an electric impulse conductor then the relationship you are making between that and matter per se eludes comprehension. * RESPONDENT: ... some of your body processes are cellular, some are molecular and some are electric. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is part cellular (matter as mass) and part electric (matter as energy) ... a ‘molecule’, just like an ‘atom’, is a mathematical model. RESPONDENT: What are the constituents out of which ‘energy’ is made? RICHARD: The constituents out of which the energy of this flesh and blood body is made are the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is consumed, in conjunction with the air breathed and the water drunk and the sunlight absorbed. RESPONDENT: The human body is an amazing autonomous thing the way it works by itself, with no assistance, yet knowing exactly what needs to be done in an unconscious way. RICHARD: Aye (although, speaking personally, I prefer to say ‘in an autonomic way’). * RESPONDENT: The operating of the electric processes is that which differentiates between a sleeping body and an awakened one (in both cases the senses are operating). RICHARD: As all it takes to bring this flesh and blood body into wakefulness, when asleep, is an unexpected/ unusual touch (the cutaneal sense), or smell (the olfactory sense), or sound (the aural sense), or light (the ocular sense), or taste (the gustatory sense), or posture (the proprioceptive senses) it does not follow that it is the operating of electric processes which differentiates between a sleeping and an awake body ... the operating of *some* electric activity would be what distinguishes. RESPONDENT: So the operating of that some electric activity is consciousness. RICHARD: No ... just the same as it does not necessarily mean affective feelings are electric currents, even though they are associated with electrochemical activity in brain scans, the operating of some electric activity being what would distinguish, in terms of what can be detected by laboratory equipment, between a sleeping and an awake body does not necessarily mean that consciousness – the state or condition of a body being conscious – is electric either. An fMRI scan (a functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging scan), for example, measures the flow of blood in the brain ... surely you would not suggest that flowing blood is consciousness? RESPONDENT: Is it due to electric processes, exactly as thoughts are? RICHARD: As I understand it (and I am not a neurologist) the activity of thought is considered an electrochemical process ... and the state or condition of a body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) is not due to exactly the same processes as thoughts are. * RICHARD: Whether awake or asleep a body subconsciously processes sensation continuously ... there are, if memory serves correctly, on average up to maybe 150,000 nerve impulses firing in any given second. RESPONDENT: Consciousness is an expenditure of energy by the body, so the need to sleep. RICHARD: Yes, as a body being conscious does use more calorific energy than a comatose body sleep is well-nigh inevitable. RESPONDENT: Why is sleep an energy regenerative process and not a consuming one? RICHARD: As sleep does not regenerate calorific energy – a comatose body simply uses less – your query has no answer. RESPONDENT: Where does the body take its energy from when asleep ... RICHARD: From the same source as when awake (ingestion/ absorption). RESPONDENT: ... and what is the actual process by which it manages to replenish it? RICHARD: As sleep does not replenish calorific energy – a comatose body simply uses less – your query has no answer. * RESPONDENT: As the senses operate in both cases [awake and asleep], it results that you are not the senses per se, but the ‘awareness’ of the senses, in other words: consciousness per se. RICHARD: As the first person pronoun is used by the flesh and blood body writing these e-mails (for both convenience and so as not to be unduly pedantic) to refer to this flesh and blood body only it may all become clear if it be put this way: when the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail is asleep the flesh and blood body, whilst not consciously aware of being sentient, is subliminally aware of sentience ... or, put differently, upon waking this flesh and blood body’s subconscious awareness of being alive heightens (into being a conscious awareness). In other words ... a difference in degree (and not of kind). RESPONDENT: Same as a rabbit it seems. RICHARD: More or less the same as virtually any sentient creature. * RESPONDENT: This may also explain why in a PCE one is not aware of the infinity of the universe as when one is living an actual freedom. RICHARD: As apperceptive awareness of infinitude can, and does, occur in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) your explanation is irrelevant. RESPONDENT: Does the awareness of infinitude always occur in a PCE? RICHARD: Obviously I cannot speak for everyone ... but, generally speaking, as that is what apperception is (an awareness without centre and thus without circumference), there is no reason why not. * RESPONDENT: Consciousness is infinite (it has no boundaries). RICHARD: An apperceptive consciousness – a flesh and blood body only (sans identity in toto) being conscious – has no boundaries as it is the centre of normal consciousness (identity) which creates same. RESPONDENT: Can something hit the centre directly and produce the collapse? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: I mean: is there a (particular) Achilles’ heel to each and every identity? RICHARD: Yes. * RESPONDENT: It’s the same ‘consciousness’ as experienced when enlightened, yet without an ‘Entity’ (Self), it’s infinite, same as the universe, in all respects. RICHARD: It is the same consciousness – a flesh and blood body being conscious – as when unenlightened yet without either an ‘entity’ (self) or an ‘Entity’ (Self) ... it is this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe, as a human creature, being apperceptively aware of its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful. RESPONDENT: When felicity arrives, some people seem incapable to embrace it as they can’t believe that it is possible to be so happy here on earth. All manners of strange reactions occur, i.e. fainting. RICHARD: As I am not cognisant of any reports of a pure consciousness experience (PCE) resulting in a faint I am unable to make any comment. * RESPONDENT: These molecular/ electric events are not confined only to your body like the cellular ones are, they are also happening in relation to the outside and future world ... RICHARD: If I may interject? There is no ‘outside’ world in actuality (nor a future world either): there is only this actual world here. RESPONDENT: ... they [molecular/ electric events] create the physical world (being part of the physical/ cellular, but not subject to the intrinsic limitations of cellular matter). RICHARD: If by that you mean matter, either as mass or energy, is the physical world then what you are parenthetically saying is that matter per se is not limited to what matter as a body is. RESPONDENT: These ‘worlds’ are not separate or ‘compartmentalized’, they permeate each other, are interconnected with one another, your body is interconnected with the environment at all levels: physical, molecular and electric and these levels are likewise interconnected. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is more than just ‘interconnected with the environment’: it is the very stuff of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is consumed, in conjunction with the very stuff of the air breathed and the water drunk and the sunlight absorbed ... in the same way that a mountain, for example, is the very ground it is (apparently) sitting on. There is no separation whatsoever, here in this actual world, such as to necessitate being ‘interconnected with the environment’. RESPONDENT: So you are not separate from the ‘environment’ in the same way as a mountain is not separate from earth. What’s the difference between identification and no separateness? RICHARD: Identification requires (not surprisingly) an identifier; a flesh and blood body sans identity cannot identify. RESPONDENT: What is it that allows you to ascertain/ say that you are separate as a body-individual from the world and at the same time to say that you aren’t? RICHARD: A freed perceptive ability/ a freed intelligence. RESPONDENT: And not only to say that, but also to act accordingly. RICHARD: Again ... a perceptive ability/ an intelligence not crippled by the affective faculty/ identity in toto. RESPONDENT: This seems to be a contradiction to me, the ‘knowledge’ that they are separate is what allowed organisms to differentiate from the environment, live and evolve into what they are today ... the knowledge of ‘me’ and ‘other’. RICHARD: A flesh and blood body’s awareness of being autonomically distinct from anything else (a dog lifting a leg on a tree is aware of the distinction between what we call ‘dog’ and what we call ‘tree’) is in no way contradictory to a flesh and blood body sans identity in toto being aware of the total absence of any separation from everything else. RESPONDENT: It is what the instinctual passions are made for, after all. RICHARD: Au contraire ... the instinctual passions are but blind nature’s rough and ready survival software. RESPONDENT: And they are the culprits in regard to the perceived separation. RICHARD: The instinctual passions are only the culprits in regards the (intuitive) perception of the (affective) separation of identity from the actual (its host body and everything else). RESPONDENT: In short, is that ‘something’ that allows you to say that you are not separate from the environment the same-same thing with that which knows/ acts as if you are? RICHARD: Hmm ... the actually free intelligence of this flesh and blood body, which allows this flesh and blood body to say that this flesh and blood body is not separate from the rest of the environment, is the same-same non-crippled by the affective faculty/ identity in toto intelligence which knows that this flesh and blood body is autonomously distinct from anything else and acts in the manner befitting being aware of the total absence of any separation from everything else. RESPONDENT: Richard, would you agree that without consciousness it is impossible for the experience of me typing these letters to exist. RICHARD: Ha ... without consciousness it is impossible to be typing those letters in the first place. RESPONDENT: If the answer to the above is yes, then without consciousness it is also impossible to verify the existence of the universe. RICHARD: Hmm ... without consciousness it is impossible to conduct any directed activity. RESPONDENT: Questions like ‘will the universe exist when I die’ can only exist when there is consciousness present. RICHARD: Any question can only exist when there is consciousness ‘present’ (more on this usage below). RESPONDENT: Any comments? RICHARD: Yes ... the word ‘consciousness’ refers to a flesh and blood body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) and connotes being alive, not dead, being awake, not asleep, and being conscious, not unconscious (comatose). All sentient beings are conscious ... and sentience means consciousness. Viz.: • ‘sentience: the condition or quality of being sentient; consciousness, susceptibility to sensation’. (Oxford Dictionary). A sentient being, and all animals are sentient (having the power or function of sensation), is a living organism capable of sensory perception (a virus, for example, is an organism without sentience) which means that sensory perception is what consciousness is at its most basic ... perception means consciousness (aka awareness). Viz.: • ‘perception: the state of being or process of becoming aware or conscious of a thing, spec. through any of the senses; the faculty of perceiving; an ability to perceive; [synonyms: (...) awareness, consciousness]. (Oxford Dictionary). In popular usage, however, the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean the (illusory) identity which is being conscious ... whereas the word ‘awareness’ does not usually carry that connotation. To put that another way: while the word ‘conscious’ can mean the same as what the word ‘aware’ means the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean something other that what the word ‘awareness’ means ... it can mean the (supposedly) immortal entity which makes a sentient being alive and not dead (as in the phrase ‘consciousness has left the body’ to signify physical death). Which is another way of saying consciousness is no longer ‘present’ in the body. RESPONDENT: Does an animal need the power of abstraction to have ‘theory of mind’? RICHARD: No ... being self-conscious (not to be confused with being embarrassed) is the essential requisite for ‘theory of mind’. RESPONDENT: If a dog buries a bone, or a squirrel stores nuts or a chimp hides food to eat alone later, is all this due to a distinction of me/ not me? RICHARD: I have seen a documentary where squirrels storing nuts were put through exhaustive tests to determine that it was purely instinctual – thus it has nothing to do with ‘self and other’ (let alone ‘theory of mind’) – and the same applies to dogs burying bones ... of the three examples you give only the chimpanzee deceives (hides food so as to eat alone later) as only the chimpanzee is self-conscious (monkeys, for instance, are not self-conscious) and thus capable of ‘theory of mind’. RESPONDENT: Do you need the power of abstraction to distinguish self/ other? RICHARD: No, all sentient beings (sentience means being capable of sensation or sensory perception) are able to distinguish ‘self and other’ (not to be confused with being self-conscious and thus ‘theory of mind’) ... all sentient beings are conscious as consciousness (the state or condition of being conscious) is what sentience means. Viz.: • ‘sentience: the condition or quality of being sentient; consciousness, susceptibility to sensation’. (Oxford Dictionary). Or, to put that another way, sentience is what consciousness is at its most basic ... perception means consciousness (aka awareness). Viz.: • ‘perception: the state of being or process of becoming aware or conscious of a thing, spec. through any of the senses; the faculty of perceiving; an ability to perceive; [synonyms: (...) awareness, consciousness]. (Oxford Dictionary). And to be [quote] ‘aware or conscious of a thing’ [endquote] is what being capable of distinguishing self and other is: a dog, for instance, lifting its leg on a tree is aware that, not only does what we call ‘tree’ stay where it is whilst she/ he can come and go, but that it is different to, and thus distinguishable from, what we call ‘cat’, and so on. Whereas a virus, for example, not being sentient cannot. * RESPONDENT: Is mental imaging abstraction? RICHARD: As a mental image of an orange, for instance, is obviously not the orange then ... yes. RESPONDENT: Is there any other way to abstract than with language? RICHARD: Given that you link abstraction with symbolisation then ... no. RESPONDENT: Can I have a mental picture without an attending emotion? RICHARD: That would be something to find out for yourself as I cannot know what you experience and, furthermore cannot form mental images anyway as there is no imaginative/ intuitive faculty extant in this body (the affective faculty’s epiphenomenal psychic facility vanished along with the affective faculty) ... from what I can recall I would say no. RESPONDENT: Is memory due to the power of abstraction? RICHARD: Not as far as I am concerned ... for me memory is due to the power of reference (more on this further below). RESPONDENT: Are emotions abstractions? RICHARD: Ha ... there are no emotions in actuality (there is nothing affective here in this actual world). * RESPONDENT: Also, when you say apperception is consciousness aware of being conscious, is it the function of the neo-cortex aware of the function of the amygdalae, which is to say, thought aware of consciousness? RICHARD: No, apperception – from the dictionary definition ‘the brain’s perception of itself’ – is where being conscious of being conscious (aka the awareness of being conscious or the awareness of being aware) is unmediated or direct ... in contrast to the normal ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious. Incidentally, I would not locate consciousness in ‘the function of the amygdalae’ as the seat of consciousness is arguably located in the brain-stem, probably in Reticular Activating System (RAS or RS) in general and possibly in the Substantia Nigra (towards to top third of the RAS) in particular ... the amygdalae, in concert with the limbic system in general, function as a reflexive process only (as in the startle response) when identity is extinguished. RESPONDENT: But thought is not an awareness, is not a perceiving faculty, not a sense organ, so that couldn’t be right. RICHARD: Indeed not ... apperception happens irregardless of thought (thought may or may not be operating). RESPONDENT: What is the relationship of thought, language, intelligence, the power of abstraction and apperception? RICHARD: There are too many things mixed up together to make a meaningful all-inclusive response ... thought and language are related, obviously, but do not necessarily have a relationship with abstraction; beneficial ways of thinking are related to intelligence, obviously, but do not necessarily have a relationship with abstraction; neither thought/ language nor intelligence – let alone abstraction – have any relationship with apperception: apperception occurs irregardless (when alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible). This is because apperception is current-time awareness, in that it takes place presently, at this moment in time, and is the unmediated perception of what is happening right now, at this very moment, thus staying forever current, surging perpetually on the crest of the ongoing wave, as it were, of this moment in eternal time and is the immediate experiencing of actuality at this moment in whatever form it takes ... there is only the pure conscious experiencing of the awareness of perpetuity as it is never not this moment in actuality. This moment in eternal time is the arena, so to speak, where all things happen ... and apperception makes this apparent. * RESPONDENT: Does the ability to symbolize (abstract) have anything to do with the cause/ effect nature of intelligence? RICHARD: Ahh ... symbolisation does not mean abstraction to me: symbols, be they words in thought, sound, print or pixels, refer to something, as far as I am concerned, rather than represent something, as far as some people are concerned (or so they have communicated to me). Therefore, insofar as symbols are referential they have everything to do with causation (cause and effect) and thus, with intelligence whereas, for those whom symbols are representative, they may not necessarily have anything to do with causation, or thus, with intelligence, as the representation (or so it has been communicated to me) exists in its own right. ‘Tis a fair bet that identity is the spanner in the works. RESPONDENT: If you start with sentiency as simple consciousness in a dog and then proceed up to apperception in humans I’ll appreciate it. RICHARD: Given the distinction between the reference to/ representative of something (concrete/ abstract) all of the above may be more confusing than clarifying ... so perhaps the most significant thing to say here is to stress that consciousness is the state or condition of a body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing the quality of a state or condition) be it of a dog or a human or any other sentient being. In popular usage, however, the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean the (illusory/ delusory) identity who is being conscious ... whereas the word ‘awareness’ does not usually carry that connotation. Therefore, while the word ‘conscious’ can mean the same as what the word ‘aware’ means the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean something other that what the word ‘awareness’ means ... it can mean the (supposedly immortal) phantom entity who (supposedly) makes a sentient being alive and not dead (as in the phrase ‘consciousness has left the body’ to signify physical death). That the vast majority of animals are not self-conscious (are not self-aware) is the reason why, by and large, it is generally held that animals do not have a consciousness which ‘leaves the body’ at physical death. Thus apperception as you referred to it further above – ‘consciousness aware of being conscious’ – simply means the condition of a human body being conscious (that is, consciousness), sans identity/ affections, being conscious of being conscious (an unmediated/ immediate awareness of being conscious or a bare/ direct awareness of being aware). To put that the way I prefer to put it: all experiencing is awareness of what is happening whilst it is happening; the mind, which is the human brain in action in the human skull, has this amazing capacity to be, not only aware, but aware of being aware at the same time (a simultaneity which is truly wondrous in itself). And it is where this awareness of being aware is unmediated (apperceptive awareness) that this universe knows itself. RESPONDENT: Is your right to think the way you think ... RICHARD: If I may point out? The way thinking happens here has nothing to do with a ‘right’ to think that way as there is the direct experience of the actual – this which is actually happening – and thoughts form themselves in accord to that wherever necessary. For example these words are being typed as the very thing referred to is actually occurring – they are coming directly out of actuality – and not from some nebulous beliefs such as you would have be the case. RESPONDENT: Apart from knowledge, have you any other mean to know that a direct experience is taking place? RICHARD: You have asked this question before: • [Respondent]: ‘... in a PCE, how one knows that a PCE took place? • [Richard]: ‘Apperceptively ...’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44a, 10 July 2003). RESPONDENT: Now you will tell me that you are apperceptively aware. How you know that? RICHARD: The very experiencing is what informs. RESPONDENT: How can even know that a PCE is taking place? RICHARD: You have asked this question before: • [Respondent]: ‘... in a PCE, how one knows that a PCE took place? • [Richard]: ‘Apperceptively ...’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44a, 10 July 2003). RESPONDENT: Who knows it? RICHARD: You have asked this question before: • [Respondent]: ‘If you don’t have I or being then who knows it? • [Richard]: ‘Not ‘who’ knows it ... what knows it: this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware knows it. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44a, 10 July 2003). RESPONDENT: When you sleep and there are no dreams, can a PCE take place? RICHARD: As a PCE (a pure consciousness experience) requires consciousness – the condition of the flesh and blood body being conscious – to be operating, and as dreamless sleep means the flesh and blood body is not conscious, surely you can work that one out for yourself? If not here is a clue: dreamless sleep is oblivion. RESPONDENT: What is consciousness? RICHARD: Here is how I have explained it before: • [Respondent]: ‘I should like to tell you, that the moment you are speaking about consciousness (...)’. • [Richard]: ‘(...) When I am speaking about consciousness I am referring to the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun meaning a state or condition) as in being alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose) ...’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44c, 31 August 2003). What is there about that description you are having difficulty in comprehending? RESPONDENT: Is consciousness material? RICHARD: As consciousness is the condition of the flesh and blood body being conscious I will leave that one for you to work out for yourself as well. RESPONDENT: If yes is matter that forms consciousness conscious of itself? RICHARD: If by this you mean the various elements which constitute a flesh and blood body ... then no. RESPONDENT: Is consciousness in the body, or the body in consciousness? RICHARD: Neither ... consciousness is the condition of the flesh and blood body being conscious. RESPONDENT: If you mix together the elements from whom the body is made in the right analogy, will consciousness take place? RICHARD: Ha ... the book ‘Frankenstein’ was a fictional novel. * RESPONDENT: If you touch the wall, can you separate your body from it? RICHARD: This body is physically distinct from whatever it touches. RESPONDENT: Or is only touching taking place? RICHARD: No, it is definitely this body which is touching something. RESPONDENT: Can you separate your body from the chair your sitting? RICHARD: This body is physically distinct from whatever it sits upon. RESPONDENT: If yes by what means other than knowledge? RICHARD: The very action of sitting involves cutaneous perception ... no thought is required. * RESPONDENT: Lets say that there is another woman like you in AF, if you make a child with her, will the child be free from malice and sorrow, or the child must begin the AF method? RICHARD: As I had a vasectomy in my late thirties that theory will never be tested. RESPONDENT: Because if the child is not free means that the malice and sorrow is still necessary to humankind and is not an evolution process. RICHARD: As I have lived for more than a decade sans malice and sorrow it is patently obvious they are not essential ... and it is rather telling, given all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition, that you would consider them to be necessary. * RESPONDENT: When you was in an ASC for 11 years was you aware that you were in an ASC? RICHARD: Indeed so ... the very fact that it was not in accord with the initial four-hour PCE which set the whole process in motion is why I would not stop halfway. RESPONDENT: May be now is the same thing happening with another name PCE. RICHARD: No, a PCE is distinctly different to an ASC ... just for starters there is no malice and sorrow, and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion, whatsoever in a PCE. Nor any ‘being’ or ‘presence’ (god/ goddess by whatever name) for that matter ... there is a list of the differences at the following URL: (Richard, Articles, 180 Degrees Opposite). You will find they are unambiguously different. * RESPONDENT: PCE = pure consciousness experience. Pure consciousness means that does not exist self right? RICHARD: Yes, neither ‘I’ (as ego) nor ‘me’ (as soul) are present where consciousness – the condition of being conscious – is a pure consciousness ... the word ‘pure’ in this context means the unadulterated condition of being conscious and the word ‘conscious’ means being alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose). RESPONDENT: Now by adding the word experience, the question that arises is who has the experience? RICHARD: Why does that question arise? To be conscious is to be experiencing (perceiving) as perceiving (experiencing) is what the very word means at is most basic. For example: • [Respondent]: ‘You always are covering behind the word ‘apperceptively aware’. How you know you are alive? Do you have any other mean except thought to know it? • [Richard]: ‘Yes ... you will see, upon re-reading my response (above) regarding proprioception, that I clearly say the sense of being here, in space, as a body is not just because of sight (visual perception), sound (auditory perception), touch (cutaneous perception), smell (olfactory perception), and taste (gustatory perception) but proprioception as well. And sensory perception is what consciousness is at its most basic ... perception means consciousness (aka awareness). Viz.: • ‘perception: the state of being or process of becoming aware or conscious of a thing, spec. through any of the senses; the faculty of perceiving; an ability to perceive; [synonyms: (...) awareness, consciousness]. (Oxford Dictionary). And consciousness means sentience. Viz.: • ‘sentience: the condition or quality of being sentient; consciousness, susceptibility to sensation’. (Oxford Dictionary). And sentience is direct, immediate (sensate perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; cognitive perception is tertiary). (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44b, 17 July 2003). RESPONDENT: [... who has the experience?] The body? RICHARD: The body is not ‘who’ has the experience... the body is *what* has the experience (of being unadulteratedly conscious) as the condition of being conscious is a bodily condition. RESPONDENT: The body works with the senses. RICHARD: That is one way of putting it but as sentience means being sensorial it would be more helpful for comprehension of what experiencing means to say that the body works as the senses: for instance, of all the senses – cutaneous, ocular, aural, olfactory, gustatory, and proprioceptive – the cutaneal sense, being by far the largest of all senses (the skin covers the entire body) is what defines/ delineates where the body stops and the rest of the world begins/ where the rest of the world stops and the body begins ... the skin is the main demarcation line, so to speak, thus cutaneous experiencing is major experiencing by any definition. RESPONDENT: If we must attach to the body even the consciousness, then we can go very far. RICHARD: That just does not make sense: consciousness – the condition of a body being conscious – is indistinguishable from what a body is (when it is alive, awake, and sensible) ... to say that consciousness is something attached to the body is to imply that consciousness (the condition of being conscious) is a clip-on, a removable accessory, as it were. RESPONDENT: We may have any illusion and blame the body for that. RICHARD: Yea verily ... anything but put the ‘blame’ onto where it really lies (on the ‘being’ within the body), eh? * RESPONDENT: When I asked you what is consciousness, you answered to me, to be conscious, no comatose. RICHARD: This is what I actually wrote: • [Richard]: ‘the word ‘consciousness’ refers to the state or condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) and to be conscious is to be alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose). (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44c, 31 August 2003). RESPONDENT: I am asking you is your consciousness different from mine, in which way? RICHARD: The condition of this flesh and blood body being conscious is marked by a total absence of any identity whatsoever. RESPONDENT: I am not comatose. RICHARD: Obviously not. RESPONDENT: If you answer me that your consciousness is pure consciousness, then you differentiate between states of consciousness. RICHARD: The word ‘pure’ in the phrase a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is synonymic with ‘unadulterated’, ‘uncontaminated’, ‘unpolluted’, and so on, thus a PCE is the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious sans an adulterant, a contaminant, a pollutant, and so on ... specifically an identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul). RESPONDENT: Are you conscious now? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: Conscious of what? RICHARD: Primarily, of the infinitude this physical universe actually is ... as this flesh and blood body only (sans identity in toto) I am proprioceptively conscious of being just here, right now and, as such, the other somatic perceptions currently in operation – tactile, olfactive, visual, audile – are direct: this skin is savouring the touch, the caress, of the mid-winter ambience; these nostrils are rejoicing in the abundance of aromas and scents drifting fragrantly all about; these retinas are delighting in the profusion of colour and texture and form; these eardrums are revelling in the cadence of tones as their resonance and timbre fills the air. Further to that this mind, other than the sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being alive as this flesh and blood body, is ambling along in neutral as all the while there is the apperceptive wonder that this marvellous paradise actually exists in all its vast array. RESPONDENT: How you know you are not in an altered state of consciousness? RICHARD: Because of eleven years of experiencing, night and day, what an altered state of consciousness (ASC) really is ... as a living reality. RESPONDENT: Because the one who is in an altered state of consciousness, does not have any means to know it. RICHARD: As I am not in an ASC your (borrowed) wisdom has no application. RESPONDENT: Is understanding a process of the past, or is it always in the present? RICHARD: Only this moment is actual: the past, which was actual when it was happening, is no longer actual; the future, which will be actual when it happens, is not yet actual; as it is never not this moment then any understanding always occurs in a continuum which is happening now. RESPONDENT: Do you understand gradually? RICHARD: As more than a few of the things I have ever understood have taken some time to sink in and take effect it could be said that the understanding came gradually, but as the moment it takes effect (the dawning of the understanding so to speak) is always now, then the actual moment of understanding is this moment. RESPONDENT: Understanding is always immediate, now, or is it an accumulative process? RICHARD: An insight is always immediate (else it be not an insight) but understanding, as I have already observed, can indeed be a process until it takes effect. RESPONDENT: I understand a little today, tomorrow I’ll understand more. RICHARD: You may very well be talking about gathering the relevant information necessary in order for there to be an understanding ... and even incremental understandings along the way are often what leads to the culminating understanding. RESPONDENT: Understanding is not an experience to which you can give continuity. RICHARD: Why would you want to? If something is understood it is understood period (unless something new knocks it for a six). RESPONDENT: Can you deliberately set out to understand, to be aware? RICHARD: I can apply myself, direct my attention, to that which needs to be understood, if that is what you mean, and the understanding happens as a result of that application, that attentiveness. And if that which is to be understood is not readily understandable there can be a thinking about it, a ruminating over it, a pondering upon it, until all of the aspects have been considered for as far as they can be ... and then there is a banishment of the matter to the rear of the skull while other matters are being attended to (such as sitting with the feet up on the coffee table watching comedies on TV) until five minutes/ five hours/ five days later the answer comes forward and the understanding takes effect. As for deliberately setting out to be aware: that does not make sense as awareness happens of its own accord (unless you mean focussing an awareness on something specific). RESPONDENT: If you are conscious that you are aware you are not aware. RICHARD: Hmm ... all experiencing is awareness of what is happening whilst it is happening; the mind, which is the human brain in action in the human skull, has this amazing capacity to be, not only aware, but aware of being aware at the same time (a simultaneity which is truly wondrous in itself). And it is where this awareness of being aware is unmediated (apperceptive awareness) that this universe knows itself. RESPONDENT: Consciousness is always a process of the past. RICHARD: The word ‘consciousness’ refers to the condition of being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) and to be conscious is to be alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose) ... and as it is impossible to be alive, awake, and sensible in the past (only this moment is actual) you are way out there on your own with this observation. RESPONDENT: When you make a conscious effort to understand, you are hearing the noise of your own accumulations. RICHARD: Oh? On the occasions where I apply myself, direct my attention, to that which needs to be understood, and the understanding happens as a result of that application, that attentiveness, there is never is any noisy accumulations ... only the delight of the application and attentiveness as it goes about delivering the goods. RESPONDENT: It is this noise that prevents understanding. RICHARD: Again, there is no noise here. RESPONDENT: To understand anything your mind must be silent. RICHARD: This mind is already always peaceful ... there is a vast stillness here. RESPONDENT: When all the consciousness is quiet, absolutely still, only then is there the brightness you talk about. RICHARD: There is no ‘when’ about it ... all is already always brilliant, sparkling, effervescent, here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Therefore, how can you help your disciples to be more happy, more harmless, more free, more aware, more actual? RICHARD: As I do not have any ‘disciples’ I am not in a position to answer your question. 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