# Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence ## On The Dynamic, Destinal Virtual Freedom ## (Out-from-control/Different-Way-of-Being) Re: Discussion about ‘Actual freedom is highly possible’ CO-RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘This is an exciting period to live in. For the first time in human history, it is possible for anyone who applies themselves with sufficient application and diligence – guided by pure intent – to become virtually free, virtually pure, virtually perfect. It is then highly possible that this person can actualise the ultimate as being the immediate.’ (Richard, Selected Writings, Instincts). 1: Why exactly ‘For the first time in human history, it is possible for anyone who applies themselves with sufficient application and diligence – guided by pure intent – to become virtually free, virtually pure, virtually perfect.’? Why definitely ‘For the first time in human history’? It must mean that once it was impossible, not it is possible. Why? Where does this conclusion come from? 2: Why and based on what fact or reasoning is this sentence written?: ‘It is then highly possible that this person can actualise the ultimate as being the immediate.’ Why it is possible for anyone who applies vs. it is then highly possible? It can only leave a room to some fate or genetic impotence as to what decides if one achieves AF or not. Because, if not it must be ‘possible to anyone’ and not just ‘highly possible’. Any thoughts? RICHARD: The key-word is ‘history’. I scoured the books, to no avail, for many, many years looking for information about what is nowadays known as an actual freedom from the human condition. Thus it is information – or knowledge, if you will – which makes it highly possible, rather than just possible, not genetics (or whatever). (Richard, List D, No. 9, 13 May 2009). RICK: So, what makes it ‘highly possible’ to be actually free (in this quoted section), is not the information or knowledge you gathered, but a virtual freedom. For clarity and accuracy sake, ‘So, what makes it ‘highly possible’ to be actually free (in this quoted section), is not the information or knowledge [concerning an actual freedom from the human condition that you made to the public], but a virtual freedom. RICHARD: The information or knowledge made publicly available is in regards to both an actual and a virtual freedom from the human condition. Neither freedom has any historical reference (as far as can be ascertained). That particular quote, located online in ‘Selected Writings’, is an extract from ‘Richard’s Journal’ wherein it goes on to say (five sentences later) that a virtual freedom is the essential precursor to the ultimate condition. The virtual freedom being referred to in ‘Richard’s Journal’ is, of course, the full-blown experiencing of it: an out-from-being-under-control and, thus, different way of being nowadays known as an ongoing excellence experience. (This ongoing excellence experience is what the methodological aspect of a virtual freedom – a persistent and diligent application of the actualism method – can morph into whenever that current-time awareness method has been applied to a sufficiency for that to occur/ have happen). This penultimate out-from-under-control/ different-way-of-being is barely distinguishable from a pure consciousness experience. (It was from this ongoing excellence experiencing that pure consciousness experiences occurred on a near-daily basis – sometimes two-three times a day – for the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago). Hence ‘highly possible’. Re: Different Way Of Being RICHARD: (...) The virtual freedom being referred to in ‘Richard’s Journal’ is, of course, the full-blown experiencing of it: an out-from-being-under-control and, thus, different way of being nowadays known as an ongoing excellence experience. (This ongoing excellence experience is what the methodological aspect of a virtual freedom – a persistent and diligent application of the actualism method – can morph into whenever that current-time awareness method has been applied to a sufficiency for that to occur/ have happen). This penultimate out-from-under-control/ different-way-of-being is barely distinguishable from a pure consciousness experience. (It was from this ongoing excellence experiencing that pure consciousness experiences occurred on a near-daily basis – sometimes two-three times a day – for the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago). RESPONDENT: If I had read about this at age 19, I would have been in, boots and all. Although at the time I didn’t carefully distinguish between PCEs, ‘excellence experiences’ and various other different-ways-of-being, I did take risks and go to considerable lengths to seek out these experiences. I knew (and of course am still convinced of it) this world could be experienced as a magical place, if only the state of mind-body (as I saw it then) were receptive to it. (That for me was always the prime motivation for drug use – as opposed to merely ‘getting out of it’ – hence the interest in psychedelics). Now with the approach of early middle-age I realise how relatively timid I’ve become ... clinging to human sorrow and its soothing / beautiful compensatory feelings, instead of trying all-out for something better. I’m inspired to give this another try. If I can approach it with the same intensity and optimism that I had back then, this time armed with the information/ knowledge/ sensibility that makes it actually viable, who knows? I’m willing to find out. RICHARD: For what it is worth, then, somebody of late middle-age, known to me personally, added another aspect to virtual freedom last year via an ongoing pure consciousness experience of 4 months and 28 days duration. (Prior to that the longest known so far had been one of 3 weeks duration). Re: Peculiar Information # 5 RICHARD: As I finally received a long-expected phone call yesterday advising me of the death of my second wife (de jure), from a terminal illness first diagnosed in February this year, my reports will no longer have to be quite so circumscribed in regards her interactions with me. (Richard, List D, No. 6, 16 November 2009) RESPONDENT: I much appreciate that you have decided to share this information with us ... personally, it helps shine a different light on ‘my’ sense of importance and continuity. I didn’t expect it. I wish those that were in her life all the best. RICHARD: G’day No. 7, Although that information was solely in the context of my reports being circumscribed, by the fact that the persons concerned were both readily identifiable and still alive, it did not elude me that the death of the very first practicing actualist was a salutary reminder that everybody is but a missed heat-beat or two away from death each and every day of their life. (I also expanded upon just why my third wife was currently out of the country for added emphasis). The very fact of the propinquity of death became a pivotal element in taking the first step on the wide and wondrous path, back in 1981, when a neighbouring farmer’s fourteen-year old son was killed in a car crash. A woman from another farm, whilst telling me all about it, bemoaned the fact that his future as a potential concert-pianist was tragically cut short (quite a normal observation). What struck me rigid for the nonce was the more valid fact that this boy had virtually missed-out on a normal childhood through being forced, by well-meaning parents of course, into endless hours of piano-practice while his siblings and peers were outside playing games (as children are wont to do). And now he was dead – it had all been for naught – and he would never, ever be able to come out and play. From that moment on death was my constant companion; an ever- present reminder that to die without having ever lived fully – as in totally fulfilled, completely satisfied, utterly content – was such a waste of a life. I would say to people, then, that were I to live that which the PCE’s had made apparent – as in an irrevocable permanency – for only five minutes I would then happily die. That is how precious an actual freedom from the human condition is. * RESPONDENT: P.S. I have nothing left to hide but, as I am finding out, still much to expose. RICHARD: Or, put differently, still much to have exposed (by the unfolding process) whereupon all what is usually required of you is to make sense of what the unfoldment brings about so as to have the process proceed with all due dispatch. There is a distinct difference betwixt the actualism method and the actualism process – inasmuch the former is voluntary, or still-in-control, and the latter is involuntary, or out-from-control – to the degree that any comparison is akin to chalk and cheese in regards effect). ‘Tis nice to know you are here, No. 7, on this planet we all share. Re: Peculiar Information # 5 RESPONDENT: Hi Richard, You write: [Richard]: ‘In her case it took the form of what she called ‘stage fright’ at the time, upon seeing her readily identifiable words in print in ‘Richard’s Journal’ (which was then titled ‘The Actualism Journal’) and her name in pixels on ‘The Third Alternative’ website, which in turn led to her choosing to fall in love, with a man she could never have, only six weeks later.’ (Richard, List D, No. 6, 16 Novemver 2009). Can you elaborate on the ‘stage fright’ aspect, as this seems to have been the push-off point for your ex-wife. What do / you/ think happened? Was it that she was not ready to be publicly associated with actual freedom? A ‘stage fright’ would mean nervousness about preservation of one’s social persona. Was she concerned about how others would perceive her and would, thus, would consider her, erm, fallen? RICHARD: G’day No. 2, Ha ... that word is quite apt (as in ‘fallen back to normal’). To explain: from November 1995 to December 1996 she was in an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being condition I chose to call a virtual freedom (not to be confused with a still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom). In that condition inducing PCE’s is a lot simpler: once one has the knack they can be brought about on an almost daily basis; sometimes two-three times a day (in my experience). In the latter months of that 95-96 virtual freedom period my second wife obtained that knack: she could induce a PCE just by looking at those ‘Magic Eye’ pictures (those pictures where a two-dimensional image becomes three-dimensional simply by looking at them as if looking-through the picture) for instance. To say I was pleased is to understate it: here was a living, breathing, walking, talking example of what is possible per favour my reports/ descriptions/ explanations (words are words be they spoken or written). Then in the December of 1996 she all-of-a-sudden brought it to an abrupt halt; I can clearly remember when she told me of her decision; we were sitting at an out-door table of a coffee shop (known as the DOCS Café actually), under the shade of a large umbrella, when she informed me she was no longer going to be doing it my way, as it was too much hard work, and henceforth she would be doing it her way. As this made no sense whatsoever – being out from control, and in a different way of being, having PCE’s on an almost daily basis (sometimes two-three times a day), cannot by any stretch of the words be characterised as ‘too much hard work’, I just sat there looking at her quizzically. (What was going through my mind, if that quizzical alertness were to have been in the form of words, was something in the nature of ‘Uh-oh, so it’s all over, eh’?). She could not meet my eyes; she could not explain; she could not come up with anything other than to repeat ‘I’m going to do it my way’. As I have had this kind of behaviour with many a person before (where they would be initially interested, in what I was saying, only to all-of-a-sudden swing to the opposite upon have realised the full impact of what is involved and/or having had an utterly frightening experience as to just what it entails) I simply shrugged my shoulders and replied ‘Sure, what is your way, then?’ As she was no longer out from control, nor in a different way of being, her way could be best summarised as the ‘group-therapy’ way and her first step in that direction would be for her to expand our ménage a deux into being a ménage a trois. She explained that she had come as far as she could in the one-on-one male-female dynamic and that a new dynamic, especially the female-female aspect, could bring up issues in her, for her to look at, which her being solely with me would never arise. So as to keep this as succinct as possible: fast-forward to her seeing her readily identifiable words in print, and her name in pixels, a scant six months later. Her out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom is but a distant memory (having fallen back to a still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom); all manner of issues have surged forth due to the two-women-one-man dynamic; more and more people are coming into her living room to meet Richard; she is unable to live up to what she wrote in ‘Richard’s Journal’; and the inefficacy of her group-dynamic/ group-therapy way is exposed for all to see. Hence what she called ‘stage fright’ (and others can verify she said those exact words) yet it was not the common or garden variety of stage fright but the frightening to the nth degree type, which is a fear so vast as to be best be called dread, as the only way to stand beside Richard in front of all these peoples is to be out from control and in a different way of being. A way of being at the inevitable end of which lies only extinction. Regards, Richard. P.S.: Please note that she could be any woman – it is nothing peculiar to her – as the example of my third wife evidences (not to mention my first wife in regards to an imminent ego-death). This is not a matter of gossip or airing dirty linen in public but vital knowledge, for anyone contemplating going all the way, to be as fully informed of in advance as is possible. And were I to have been born female I would be saying ‘Please note that he could be any man – it is nothing peculiar to him – as the example of my third husband evidences (not to mention my first husband in regards to an imminent ego-death)’. RICHARD: As the mailing list format had reached its use-by date more than a few years ago (having out-lived its usefulness), and as already signalled, it is more than likely that the personal way of knowing about me will become available, albeit selectively, some time in the new year; although it is way too early to publicly say more, at this stage, plans are afoot (subject to the funding being finalised) to not only facilitate this direct access but enable an informal inter-action with several other actualists as well. (Richard, List D, No. 19, 30 November 2009). RESPONDENT: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_experience: ‘Recent Developments: Prof. Gad Yair from The Hebrew University has developed a line of research on Key Experiences, especially relating to educational events. [...] Richard, is this your intention? RICHARD: No, not educational as such as all the reports/ descriptions/ explanations freely available online are already of a sufficiently informative nature as to render any further instructive material superfluous to requirements. (Items for sale are optional extras – luxury items as it were – and are not at all necessary in order to be fully-informed of just what is involved in becoming either actually or virtually free). As to my intention in regards not only facilitating direct access to me but also enabling an informal interaction with some other actualists as well: being sans identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty (plus its epiphenomenal psychic facility) any residence or venue of mine is marked by an absence of both affective vibes and psychic currents ... a pristine ambience made all the more marked, for many a person, upon returning from the ‘real-world’ environs after a previous visit. (For instance, my second wife would say, upon her return after an outing on her own into town, that it was like coming back in to a sanctuary. Even a stranger, a real-estate agent (known as a realtor in some places), after showing some potential clients around the duplex I was at the time renting, took me aside and told me how fresh and clean the ambience was; I said it must be because of no children, no cats or dogs, no wild parties, etc., but she looked straight into my eyes and said, ‘no, it’s you; it’s you who makes the ambience clean and fresh’). Now, this pristine ambience is conducive to a sincere actualist activating their potential – albeit temporarily – as in some form of an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being (to whatever degree of intimacy they be comfortable with at the time). Furthermore, experience has shown that these intimacy experiences can be contagious, so to speak, for other sincere actualists also present as the atmosphere generated affectively/ psychically by the first to be out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being can propagate a flow-on effect, on occasion. In short: a felicitous and innocuous atmosphere, begotten in an ever-fresh affectless/ selfless ambience, fosters a milieu where happiness and harmlessness can be the norm rather than the exception. As I have already provided one of the reasons why I finally agreed to a personal-meeting request earlier on this year (in March 2009) and another one only a couple of months ago (for January 2010) – after declining each and every such request for twelve years – it is apropos to mention that the pivotal factor in my turnabout was the incontrovertible fact that a fellow human being had a 5-month PCE which was triggered solely by, and during, a personal conversation with me in a casual setting. There was no way I could deny it/ ignore it/ dismiss it and/or brush it aside – even if I had wanted to – as she was quite clear to others that, were it not for this interaction, it would never have happened. It thus became obvious that by continuing to keep myself locked away, so to speak, in an exclusive nuclear couple/ nuclear family type of living arrangement there would continue to be a denial of access, to my fellow human beings at large, for any such potentially potent interactions. (Please note that nothing is guaranteed, however, as anything of such a nature is entirely dependent upon where the other is currently at, where they are coming from, and what their overall intent is). RESPONDENT: Did your third wife discontinue the actualism process? RICHARD: She informs me that she is just as interested in an actual freedom as before and cannot conceive ever not being so. The primary reason why we are both residing in our own abodes is because to have remained living under the same roof – with all of what is implied in that – would have been detrimental to her continued progress. RESPONDENT: Hmmm ... another case of the bird needing to leave the nest, eh? RICHARD: No, on the contrary (‘needing to leave the nest’ was an analogy for my second wife going her own way) there is no flying away at all as she informs me that she is just as interested in an actual freedom as before and cannot conceive ever not being so. Residing in our own abodes, whilst still maintaining our association (albeit platonic) by having regular weekly contact, at the very least, plus telephonic communication in between, is primarily to do with breaking an impasse brought about by the very intimacy implied by living under the same roof/ eating at a communal table/ sharing the marital bed. All what is required to be living communally with me is to have an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom as a status quo (rather than a still-in-control/ same-way-of-being modus operandi). She is totally in accord with this determination (she came up with that ‘same way of being’ phrase herself) as she has had umpteen experiences which demonstrate how the issue is all about being still-in-control/ the same-way-of-being (aka the known, the habitual, the familiar and, thus, safe way of being). My favourite description of this comes from her where, very early on in our association in one outstanding PCE (and as soon at it became apparent) I was quick to ask her: ‘what happened to that concerned woman sitting on the couch who I was talking to just a minute ago?’ ‘Oh, her’, quoth she, without batting an eyelid, ‘she’s full of problems!’ The day proceeded famously from then on. * RESPONDENT: I appreciate the fascinating glimpse into the interaction between you and your third wife. I can relate to her last line ‘she’s full of problems!’ as I have said/ wrote similar things about ‘[Respondent]’ to my ex-wife and a friend when having a very pure peak experience. I said ‘While ‘[Respondent]’ could talk about your present lover with you, it would be painful to ‘him’ where for me it is experienced as two individuals just talking about life without the felt sense of all the past history between ‘us’.’ Even to this day, my capacity of talking to her about her lover (the man she left me for) is an excellent marking stick for whether or not I’m on the wide and wondrous path. RICHARD: Ahh ... that is quite familiar. Over the years I have oft-times discussed my third wife’s marriage (de facto) with her husband as two individuals just talking about whatever issue she was currently engaged by as there is no other person – psychiatrist, psychologist, therapist, counsellor, whatever – she could have a useful discussion with. (As I have discussed domestic issues on many an occasion with peoples from various walks of life it is essentially no different for me to be like that). ‘Twas the same with my second wife: she would sometimes say there was no one she could turn to in order to facilitate an understanding of how a marriage (de jure) with a man like no other person living or dead (as far as can be ascertained) could be lived in an optimum manner. (The optimum manner when still in the human condition is an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom, of course, but there was no counsellor of any description who could advise her of that). * RICHARD: No, I do not intend to tape/ chronicle/ publish/ disseminate these forthcoming sessions ... just as the personal conversations which are currently taking place with an outstanding fellow human being, well-known to this forum, are not being recorded either. RESPONDENT No. 2: Nevertheless, I (and perhaps most others on this list) look forward to your and the well-known correspondent’s reports/ reminiscences on the meeting, if and when either of you is inclined to share them. RICHARD to No. 2: G’day No. 2, Of course ... the well-known correspondent is free to say whatever he deems appropriate about me – other than any thing of a personal security/ physical privacy nature – but I will remain circumspect as always. Suffice is it to say, for the nonce, that I had the pleasure of spending five and half hours, yesterday afternoon, in the company of a remarkably sincere fellow human being (who was visibly moved to be the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’) strolling around the CBD of a provincial city, sitting together upon a park- bench in the shade of a tree, at the table of an outdoor café, and the such-like. Today we will be going boating on the nearby river – I have in mind a picnic-style luncheon at the confluence of two tributaries some distance upstream (an isolated and very picturesque lagoon thus formed completely enclosed by dense rainforest trees) – and tomorrow the two of us will be travelling some distance by bus to spend the day with Peter and Vineeto in differently picturesque surroundings. The itinerary for the few remaining days thereafter remains open as yet but may very well include meeting some other actualists (fellow travellers). It does bode well in regards to what I had characterised as being [quote] ‘all experimental at this stage’ and next year may very well usher in a new era in my life. Thank you for your obvious interest ... it makes for a most refreshing contrast to the sourpuss cynicism of ... um ... of the conjoined twins (Messages 7952 (Richard, List D, No. 5, 4 December 2009) and 7958 ‘Heckle and Jeckle’). (Richard, List D, No. 2, 5 December 2009). RESPONDENT: G’day Richard, Thanks for the fascinating glimpse into the encounter. The ‘heckle and jeckle’ part was quite amusing as well. I got a good chuckle from that. :) I will be interested in hearing whether or not the encounters are ‘life changing’ for No. 4 and particularly No. 2 (as someone who appears to have already reaped great benefit by the actualism process). Looking forward to No. 4’s ‘take’ on the experience if he so chooses to share. A rather fascinating (and unforseen) development! PS. The addition of meeting two people in the ‘deep waters’/ end of the pool of a virtual freedom from the human condition is about the best bonus I could imagine. Beats going snorkelling hands down! :) RICHARD: G’day No. 12, Yes, the best bonus made all the more bester due to Vineeto being out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being such as to affectively/ psychically generate a felicitous and innocuous atmosphere – begotten in an ever-fresh affectless/ selfless ambience – which fostered a milieu where happiness and harmlessness could be the norm rather than the exception. Viz.: [Richard]: As to my intention in regards not only facilitating direct access to me but also enabling an informal interaction with some other actualists as well: being sans identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty (plus its epiphenomenal psychic facility) any residence or venue of mine is marked by an absence of both affective vibes and psychic currents ... a pristine ambience made all the more marked, for many a person, upon returning from the ‘real-world’ environs after a previous visit. (For instance, my second wife would say, upon her return after an outing on her own into town, that it was like coming back in to a sanctuary. Even a stranger, a real-estate agent (known as a realtor in some places), after showing some potential clients around the duplex I was at the time renting, took me aside and told me how fresh and clean the ambience was; I said it must be because of no children, no cats or dogs, no wild parties, etc., but she looked straight into my eyes and said, ‘no, it’s you; it’s you who makes the ambience clean and fresh’). Now, this pristine ambience is conducive to a sincere actualist activating their potential – albeit temporarily – as in some form of an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being (to whatever degree of intimacy they be comfortable with at the time). Furthermore, experience has shown that these intimacy experiences can be contagious, so to speak, for other sincere actualists also present as the atmosphere generated affectively/ psychically by the first to be out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being can propagate a flow-on effect, on occasion. In short: a felicitous and innocuous atmosphere, begotten in an ever-fresh affectless/ selfless ambience, fosters a milieu where happiness and harmlessness can be the norm rather than the exception. (Richard, List D, 14b, 4 December 2009). This fostering was convincingly made apparent when the well-known correspondent gratuitously (unsolicited) reported how the intimacy of the first meeting – due to being the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’ (as per the brief allusion much further above) – was the prevailing atmosphere for him with both Vineeto and Peter as well. (So much so that he advised, on the following day, how he had both endeavoured and succeeded to take that atmosphere with him later that evening whilst taking a stroll in the sunset to his motel-accommodation) (No. 4 report). As a direct result I spontaneously stayed overnight in Peter’s and Vineeto’s residence as that next day had been arranged in such a way so as to have the woman of the 5-month PCE and her spouse join the festivities; the ambience/ atmosphere/ milieu soon had her also out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being (or affirmed/ confirmed how she already was as she tends to not rate her experiencing in actualist terminology). It was at this point there was much pleasure in me being able to point out the bleeding obvious ... to wit: that (excluding myself) there were five people present and it was the two women who were generating the atmosphere/ fostering the milieu in which happiness and harmlessness was the norm rather than the exception. (Today, being the last day of the well-known correspondent’s series of meetings, is being spent solely in the company of Vineeto and Peter as they have a lot to discuss; for me a report of how the day eventuates will be a matter of keen interest due to not being present to establish an ambience) (No. 4 report). * Thank you for your obvious interest also ... I have in mind to respond to your post about letting go of the controls next as there is a major point in it which needs my clarification before you or your co-respondent proceed (otherwise an excellent email sequence). This is all going so well that to say I am chuffed would be far too inadequate an expression. * RESPONDENT No. 15: Letting go of the controls is a skill that needs to be developed in response to discovering the persistent gripping of the controls. The mechanism of gripping starts out as an unconscious behaviour. Once the gripping of the controls is seen for what it is, letting go is as simple as loosening the grip of our hand. RESPONDENT: Maybe we are getting a little lost in the metaphor. In my experience the very act of being attentive and seeing the silliness renders any conscious/ intentional ‘letting go’ unnecessary. Plus, the phrase ‘letting go’ has quite the spiritualist history and there are even spiritualist methods that are almost exclusively based on this (i.e. the Sedona Method/ The Release Technique). Plus ‘letting go’ of the controls only happens virtually fully in the out from control virtual freedom and not as much in the in control virtual freedom. I do not have much time spent in this ‘out from control’ stage save for peak experiences. The in-control-virtual freedom where one is happy and harmless 99% of the time, but attentiveness must be ‘guarded’ and still slips, is what I have experienced for prolonged periods of time. RESPONDENT No. 15: Feeling good is only available to me once the controls are let go of. RESPONDENT: Feeling good to me is a relatively simple and easy state to achieve. It takes nothing more then dropping seriousness for carefreeness. Feeling good is not a state where the controls are let go of. Feeling good is much more like what I recommended to No. 21, when I said ‘I can see the benefit of having a more loose grip on them thar controls.’ Did you happen to miss that? RESPONDENT No. 15: Hence it is a prerequisite to practice. Now I must make the habit stick and go from good to great etc. RESPONDENT: Perhaps this goes some way into why I don’t see ‘letting go of the controls’ as a prerequisite to the practice of actualism. Actually having let go of the controls is to be having a peak experience and while that is a important thing, it doesn’t necessarily involve any conscious/ intentional letting go and is not the main task of a fledgling actualist. The main tasks for a beginning actualist is to get attentiveness up and running and to investigate all of one’s beliefs, seeing the silliness of prolonging suffering (for any reason). To put much emphasis on ‘letting go of the controls’ in the beginning of the practice of actualism may very well lead to one practicing something other than the actualism method (as the Sedona Method/ the Release Technique is very much similar to buddhism, it would seem this could be yet another way that spiritualism slips into actualist practice). This may intellectually sound subtle, kind of like the difference between ‘choiceless awareness’/ passive awareness/ awareness watching awareness versus actualist attentiveness/ awareness but it is a noticeably different on a experiential level. I’m not sure if I have succeeded in clarifying this, but I gave it a go. RICHARD: G’day No. 12, I appreciate you giving it a go to clarify and a timely word from me will make your clarification complete. First of all, it is probably inevitable the phrase out-from-control be (incorrectly) expressed as ‘letting go of control’ yet the fact remains that the controller, being the controls, cannot let go of that which they are. Secondly, the hyphenated term you mention as me having been calling [quote] ‘an out of control virtual freedom as opposed to a in control virtual freedom’ [endquote] clearly has the hyphenated term different-way-of-being immediately after the forward slash betwixt the two hyphenated terms. Viz.: [Richard]: [...] being sans identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty (plus its epiphenomenal psychic facility) any residence or venue of mine is marked by an absence of both affective vibes and psychic currents ... a pristine ambience made all the more marked, for many a person, upon returning from the ‘real-world’ environs after a previous visit. [...] this pristine ambience is conducive to a sincere actualist activating their potential – albeit temporarily – as in some form of an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being (to whatever degree of intimacy they be comfortable with at the time). Furthermore, experience has shown that these intimacy experiences can be contagious, so to speak, for other sincere actualists also present as the atmosphere generated affectively/ psychically by the first to be out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being can propagate a flow-on effect, on occasion. In short: a felicitous and innocuous atmosphere, begotten in an ever-fresh affectless/ selfless ambience, fosters a milieu where happiness and harmlessness can be the norm rather than the exception. (Richard, List D, 14a, 4 December 2009). Upon reflection it will be seen I am not – repeat not – referring to a PCE as ‘being’ is in abeyance then (the very fact not ‘being’ renders any different way of ‘being’ impossible). Thirdly, and most importantly for any flow-on effect, in a PCE there is similarly a marked absence of both affective vibes and psychic currents – a pristine ambience – to that of an actual freedom. (As an aside: the 5-month PCE was as useless in regards affectively/ psychically fostering a milieu, where happiness and harmlessness can be the norm rather than the exception, as is an actual freedom). An obvious out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom is an on-going excellence experience (EE) but an on-going intimacy experience (IE) may very well be the most likely state as an EE, being so close to a PCE as to be barely distinguishable is not so likely to readily occur sooner rather than later. (Being out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being is quite daunting to contemplate as an on-going EE marks the end of the beginning of the end of ‘me’ and the commencement of the actualism process – as distinct from the actualism method – wherein a momentum not of ‘my’ doing takes over and an inevitability sets in; in an on-going EE the actual world has the effect of impelling one towards it – like a moth to a candle as the overarching benignity and benevolence of the actual increasingly operates such as to render ‘my’ felicity/ innocuity increasingly redundant; this is where being the nearest a ‘self’ can be to innocence – the naiveté located betwixt the core of being and the sexual centre (where one is both likeable and liking) – is attached as if with a golden thread or clew to the purity of actual innocence; an on-going EE is, thus, where one becomes acclimatised to benignity and benevolence and the resultant blitheness because the purity of the actual is so powerful that it would ‘blow the fuses’ if one was to venture into this territory ill-prepared). Fourth, as any being out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being (and there are varying degrees of such intimacy experiences) implicitly requires pure intent – which renders the necessity for morals/ ethics/ values/ principles null and void – it is certainly not the territory a fledgling actualist (to use your phraseology) has any business venturing into precipitously. Fifth, as any ‘letting go of the controls’ by the controller means, ipso facto, the controller still remaining in situ it can only refer to – just as you do – something of the nature of a [quote] ‘certain degree of letting go (of beliefs and old patterns)’ [endquote] else it does indeed bring a spiritualist practice into an actualist practice ... complete with the still in situ controller cunningly morphing into the watcher of religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical lore and legend. Sixth, regarding your comment about somewhere Irene (pronounced ee-rain-uh incidentally) saying something like ‘no I don’t ‘let go’; in the seeing it just goes’ (see Audio-Taped Dialogues, Actual Intimacy is vastly Superior to Love) you might be recollecting the following excerpt from ‘Richard’s Journal’ (the only instance a computer search through my second wife’s writings for the word seeing came up with): • [Devika]: ‘One of my peak experiences happened on the fore-shore. All of a sudden, unpremeditated, ‘I’ and ‘my’ world-view had disappeared and an immediate intimacy became apparent. Although I had lived in this village before and had grown very fond of it and its residents, there had always been a distance between me and other people, which had to be bridged by temporary feelings of love and affection which were never satisfying for long. Now a shift in seeing had occurred, and looking at the people around me, I noticed that the distance between me and others had miraculously vanished. Not only between me and other people but equally between me and the trees, me and the houses on the boulevard, even between me and the ocean. Nowhere was there a boundary. Another dimension had taken its place, which I initially experienced as a closeness closer than my own heartbeat, yet it was certainly not love for all or oneness with everything. It was another paradigm than the one in which the opposites play their major role (...)’. Richard’s Journal 1997, Article Thirty, pp 192 If it is not then I do not know what you are referring to but one thing is for sure: Irene (as distinct from Devika) never spoke in such a manner as to bring about the out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom which Devika lived for thirteen months, from November 1996 to December 1997, such as to occasion me to coin that term (and during which she penned those now-italicised passages of hers specifically for inclusion in what was to become ‘Richard’s Journal’). (At the time of writing it was titled ‘The Actualism Journal’ and was written in such a manner as to make it impossible to know which of the two persons featured – an unnamed man and a woman – was the one actually free and the one virtually free as we had figured the whole focus on something better than love and compassion would be more palatable if the gender of the actually free person remained unknown). RICHARD: G’day [No. 4 (real name)], Yes, there is neither saint nor sinner (aka ‘the lotus has its roots in mud’) here – here in actuality – where 7+ billion flesh-and-blood bodies are already living, and any ascribing of (idealistic) saintly qualities onto an actually free flesh-and-blood body stems from attempting to counteract the imputed sinner qualities (i.e. automorphically imputed). RESPONDENT: [...]. While it’s still fresh, here’s what kick-started the end of this 8-year process. A conversation with someone last night ended with us reaching a similar conclusion that Richard is fucked-up, but we can like him and wish him well anyway, and put an end to all the animosity forever. The polarity was not escaped by validating/ embracing either of its poles and rejecting the other. All attempts to see the perfect ‘Richard’ as perfect had failed. It’s only when the animosity toward the flawed ‘Richard’ was released that the energy maintaining the polarity was dealt a fatal blow. Wow, this is really interesting. RICHARD: It appears that an often-overlooked feature of the actualism method – neither suppressing nor expressing both the positive *and* the negative emotions/ passions (both the good *and* bad affective feelings) so that the third alternative may hove into view – has finally worked for you. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘I’m only now beginning to see how many of the negative impressions I had of you are actually inseparable from the positive ones’. [endquote]. [Editorial Note: all impressions for a feeling-being are, by default (i.e. auto-centrically), emotionally-based/ passionally-backed impressions]. Vineeto recently spoke of this feature of the actualism method as being essential for feeling-being ‘Vineeto’, when ‘her’ out-*from*-control virtual freedom turned into an out-*of*-control panic mode (in Message No. 12614). Viz.: [Vineeto]: ‘This second panic only lasted for 3 days but because it happened during the out-from-control virtual freedom it turned into an out-of-control panic mode. Only ‘her’ decade-long training in keeping ‘her’ hands in ‘her’ pockets and *neither repress nor express* the intense feelings racing through ‘her’ allowed the extreme situation to subside so soon afterwards ... and look where I am today’. [emphasis added]. (Actualism, ActualVineeto, No. 4, 7 January 2013) And, once the third alternative hove into view for ‘her’, ‘she’ was once again tapping into pure intent personified – per favour ‘the quickening’ – and thereby got back to being (safely) out-*from*-control once more. RESPONDENT to Claudiu: [...]. And the key point is that that animosity was not released by embracing the perfect ‘Richard’ instead. That had been tried and failed a thousand times. And now it’s obvious why. CLAUDIU: So, how do you consider Richard now, sans polarity & animosity? RESPONDENT: I like how you’ve phrased the question ‘*how* do I consider him’... because this isn’t about him as such; it’s more an insight into the ‘Richard’ I’ve been dealing with and how I’ve been relating to it. RICHARD: It is indeed an insight – a valuable insight – into how *your* phantom ‘Richard’ is conjured into ‘being’. (Each person – each feeling-being – conjures up, via their own imaginative facility, their own phantom ‘Richard’; you may have noticed that no two phantom ‘Richards’ are identical). RESPONDENT to Claudiu: The answer to that ‘how’ (now) is: take him as he comes. The notion that he’s someone I’m impelled to attack or defend, criticise or justify, embrace or reject, has had all the energy taken out of it. The process of figuring out where to stand and how to position oneself in relation to Richard has started to look pretty funny, because that’s part of the very process that creates a ‘Richard’ (or rather, several of them). I’ve mainly been dealing with: ‘Richard-the-fucked-up-and-unknowingly-malicious’ vs ‘Richard-the-actually-innocent-and-benign’. While I’ve often suspected either one of them of being a fabrication or phantom, it has never really *hit home* to me that they both are. [...]. The notion that he’s someone I’m impelled to attack or defend, criticise or justify, embrace or reject, has had all the energy taken out of it. Without all that other stuff, I can just read what he’s saying, and take it from there. RICHARD: And it will be very interesting to see just where you ‘take it from there’ to because the ‘[No. 4]’ identity has been notorious for switching back-and-forth. Regards, Richard. P.S.: You will have noticed that I have taken you literally when you said you were going to drop all the personae. Viz.: [quote]: ‘I’m going to drop all the personae and speak to you frankly ...’. (Message No. 126xx). Is it indeed correct to assume that you have finally ditched the ‘[No. 4]’ identity? Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘There have been many times when I wanted to ditch the ‘[No. 4]’ identity and come back as someone else, someone new, to make a fresh start without the weight of the past. But each time, I decided it would be a disservice to the people I had been writing to if ‘[No. 4’ stalked off to forge his own destiny, and then a different, trouble-free, actualism-friendly identity emerged in his place. Better for the historical record to show what really happened’. (Message No. 8129, No. 4 report, 11 December 2009a). Re: The Intimate Ambiance Experiment Audio Recordings CLAUDIU: G’day Richard, Something caught my eye on a second read-through of your latest email: • [Richard]: [...] the primary descriptors of being out-from-control is that it is of the nature of either an ongoing, and thus constantly dynamic, excellence experience (EE) *or a similarly dynamic intimacy experience (IE)*. [...] Now, as the primary descriptors of being out-from-control is of it being in the nature of either a constantly/ consistently dynamic EE *or IE*. [...]. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 24 January 2016). Particularly, the mention of intimacy experience, as something distinct from an excellence experience, and yet being intimately related to that which is known as being out-from-control. Yet a google search through the Actual Freedom Trust site shows only three distinct phrases where you mentioning intimacy experiences, besides the above, all of which incidentally appear on your Selected Correspondence page regarding the Dynamic, Destinal Virtual Freedom: • [Richard]: Now, this pristine ambience is conducive to a sincere actualist activating their potential – albeit temporarily – as in some form of an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being (*to whatever degree of intimacy they be comfortable with at the time*). Furthermore, experience has shown that *these intimacy experiences* can be contagious, so to speak, for other sincere actualists also present as the atmosphere generated affectively/ psychically by the first to be out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being can propagate a flow-on effect, on occasion. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, No. 14a, 4 December 2009). And: • [Richard]: An obvious out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom is an on-going excellence experience (EE) *but an on-going intimacy experience (IE) may very well be the most likely state* as an EE, being so close to a PCE as to be barely distinguishable is not so likely to readily occur sooner rather than later. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, No. 12, 9 December 2009). And: • [Richard]: Fourth, as any being out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being (and there are varying degrees *of such intimacy experiences*) implicitly requires pure intent – which renders the necessity for morals/ ethics/ values/ principles null and void – it is certainly not the territory a fledgling actualist (to use your phraseology) has any business venturing into precipitously. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, No. 12, 9 December 2009a). To compare, Google provides 13 (non-unique) results for both <site:actualfreedom.com.au ‘intimacy experience’> and <site:actualfreedom.com.au ‘intimacy experiences’>, while providing 90 (non-unique) results for the same with ‘intimacy’ replaced with ‘excellence’. Could you go into more detail as to what intimacy experiences are, how they differ from excellence experiences, and what role they play in being out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being? Did they feature in feeling-being ‘Richard’s wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom? * • [Richard]: In other words, someone genuinely out-from-control is constantly (i.e., consistently) ‘feeling excellent’, come-what-may, by the very nature of what that term refers to. [...] Moreover, as ‘not being out-from-control’ also implies ‘not having a near-actual caring’ either [...]. (Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 24 January 2016). Incidentally, this may be a good a time as any to publicly state that, based on re-evaluation derived from recent correspondences, as during the time I previously considered I may have been out-from-control, I was not consistently feeling excellent, come-what-may, I can now say I have never genuinely experienced being out-from-control... and, as such, nor can I say I have ever experienced a near-actual caring. Cheers, Claudiu RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, In the same way that excellence experiences (EE’s) were a notable feature of feeling-being ‘Richard’s virtual freedom experiencing circa March-September 1981, although of course not named as such back then, so too did intimacy experiences (IE’s) play a similarly significant role even though increasingly overshadowed by the insistent emergence of love – and, especially, Love Agapé – in the later months due to a marked lack of precedence and, thus, of any praxeological publications (nowadays made freely available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site) on the distinction betwixt the near-innocent intimacy of naïveté and the affectional intimacy of romance lore and legend. Just as the term ‘excellence experience’ came from feeling-being ‘Grace’ – who was exacting in evaluating ‘her’ differing ways of being a ‘self’ so as to not illude herself that ‘she’ was more progressive than was really the case – so too did the expression ‘different-way-of-being’. What gradually became more and more apparent was that a prevailing feature of ‘her’ differing ways of being was the degree of intimacy involved. The gradations of ‘her’ scale were, basically, good, very good, great, excellent, and magical perfect – whereby, in regards to intimacy, ‘good’ related to togetherness (which pertains to being and acting in concert with another); ‘very good’ related to closeness (where personal boundaries expand to include the other); ‘great’ related to sweetness (delighting in the pervasive proximity, or immanence, of the other); ‘excellent’ related to richness (a near-absence of agency; with the doer abeyant, and the beer ascendant, being the experiencing is inherently cornucopian); and ‘magical’ ‘perfect’ related to actuality magicality (neither beer nor doer extant; pristine purity abounds and immaculate perfection prevails) – all of which correlate to the range of naïveness from being sincere to becoming naïve and all the way through being naïveté itself to an actual innocence. The term ‘intimacy experience’ became part of the actualism lingo after a particularly instructive event in late spring, 2007, when at anchor upriver whilst exhorting feeling-being ‘Grace’ to no longer reserve that specific ‘way-of-being’ for those memorable occasions when ‘she’ was alone with me and to extend such intimacy to also include ‘her’ potential shipmates in order to dynamically enable the then-tentative plans for a floating convivium – which were on an indefinite hold at that time – to move ahead expeditiously (this was in the heady context of feeling-being ‘Pamela’ having already entered into an on-going PCE a scant five days beforehand due to ‘her’ specifically expressed concerns to me over the lack of intimacy between actualists). At some stage during this intensive interaction feeling-being ‘Vineeto’, who had been intently following every nuance, every twist and turn of the interplay, had what ‘she’ described as a ‘shift’ taking place in ‘her’ whereupon the very intimacy being thus exigently importuned came about for ‘her’ instead. To say ‘she’ was astounded with the degree of intimacy having ensued is to put it mildly as ‘her’ first descriptive words were about how ‘she’ would never have considered it possible to be as intimate as this particular way of being – an intimacy of such near-innocence as to have previously only ever been possible privately with ‘her’ sexual partner in very special moments – when in a social setting as one of a number of persons partaking of coffee and snacks in a sitting room situation. Intuitively seizing the vital opportunity such intimate experiencing offered ‘she’ took over from me and commenced interacting intensively in my stead – notably now a one-on-one feeling-being interchange – and within a relatively short while feeling-being ‘Grace’ was experiencing life in the same, or very similar, manner as feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ (hence that 4th of December 2009 report (Richard, List D, No. 14a, 4 December 2009) of mine about how these intimacy experiences are potentially contagious, so to speak, for other sincere actualists as the atmosphere generated affectively-psychically can propagate a flow-on effect). As for your query regarding how the intimacy experience (IE) differs from an excellence experience (EE): qualitatively they are much the same, or similar, insofar as with both experiences there is a near-absence of agency – the beer rather than the doer is the operant – whereupon naïveté has come to the fore, such as to effect the marked diminishment of separation, and the main distinction is that the IE is more people-oriented, while the EE tends to be environmental in its scope. In other words, with an EE the ‘aesthetic experience’ feature, for instance, or its ‘nature experience’ aspect, for example, tends to be more prominent, whilst with an IE the ‘fellowship experience’ characteristic, for instance, or its ‘convivial experience’ quality, for example, comes to the fore. In either type of near-PCE – wherein the experiencing is of ‘my’ life living itself, with a surprising sumptuosity, rather than ‘me’ living ‘my’ life, quite frugally by comparison, and where this moment is living ‘me’ (instead of ‘me’ trying to live ‘in the moment’) – the diminishment of separation is so astonishing as to be as-if incomprehensible/ unbelievable yet it is the imminence of a fellow human’s immanence which, in and of itself, emphases the distinction the most. For instance, the degree of intimacy experienced with minera, flora and fauna upon strolling through some botanical gardens with either near-PCE occurring – as in, with rocks, trees and birds, for example – is to the same gradation as when in a social setting such as a typical sitting room situation (as in, with ashtrays, flowers and humans, for instance) yet it is the ‘fellow human being’ element which exemplifies the already astounding diminishment of separation which ensues upon the blessed onset of this near-innocent intimacy of naïveté. And that latter point – the felicitous advent of naïve intimacy – is another way the IE differs from the EE inasmuch if a near-PCE is initiated via intensive interaction with a fellow human being/ with fellow human beings it takes on the properties of an intimacy experience (IE) whereas if the near-PCE is triggered via interacting intensively with the world at large (as in, an aesthetic experience, a nature experience, a contemplative experience, for example) it takes on the properties of an excellence experience (EE). The role they play in an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom (entitled ‘The Dynamic, Destinal Virtual Freedom’ on that web page to distinguish it from the still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom entitled ‘The Pragmatic, Methodological Virtual Freedom’) is, essentially, in enabling the actualism process to take over. In effect, the actualism process is what ensues when one gets out from being under control, via having given oneself prior permission to have one’s life live itself (i.e., sans the controlling doer), and a different way of being comes about (i.e., where the beer is the operant) – whereupon a thrilling out-from-control momentum takes over and an inevitability sets in – whereafter there is no pulling back (hence the reluctance in having it set in motion) as once begun it is nigh-on unstoppable. Then one is in for the ride of a lifetime! RICHARD: When I first started writing on the internet I tended towards saying things like ‘I find your description to be an accurate portrayal of what I have been calling a peak experience’ and ‘going by what you have written I have no doubt that your experience is a PCE’ and so on, as it was important to both establish a common basis for discussion and to build up a data-base of differing people’s descriptions for others to read and draw affirmation and confirmation from. Yet herein lay a catch-22 that became increasingly obvious as more and more people reported their experience ... I was, by default, setting myself up to be to arbiter of another’s experience by (a) my words of corroboration or negation ... or (b) by the inclusion of their description in or the exclusion of their description from the data-base! GARY: Yes, particularly since on my part there has been some confusion on account of the terminology, some lack of clarity about the difference between the so-called peak experience and the PCE and, now, what is described as an excellence experience ... RICHARD: Writing on mailing lists has been beneficial for me in that feedback made me aware that I had to get my act together over precise terminology ... I was straddling two eras, as it were, and had never realised that the term ‘peak experience’, as made popular by Mr. Abraham Maslow, was so loaded with the metaphysical content it has (I had mixed and mingled the phrases). As for this term ‘excellence experience’, it is being suggested to represent the penultimate ... the best of what can be experienced, in what is termed ‘virtual freedom’, wherein ‘I’ am so thinly in existence ‘I’ am virtually not there. I use the word ‘virtual’ deliberately (it has nothing to do with the virtual reality of cyber-space) as ‘virtual’ means ‘almost as good as’ or ‘nearly the same as’ or ‘in effect comparable to’ and so on. This is because it is humanly possible to thoroughly improve one’s lot in life, before the ultimate happens, wherein one lives in a well-earned happy and harmless way 99% of the time ... and which is streets ahead of normal human expectations. • (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’). (Oxford Dictionary) GARY: ... it is good that you are not lending affirmance in order to establish the validity of these conditions. One needs to ‘see for themselves’ what is up by comparing the experience with what is written and by talking to others. RICHARD: These words are music to my ears. JAMES: Could you specifically define out-from-control as opposed to a PCE? VINEETO: For general background information of how the term out-from-control is used in regards achieving an actual freedom I recommend the recent posts of Richards on the Yahoo list, collected in the selected correspondence under the topic of out-from-control. (Richard, Selected Correspondence, Dynamic Virtual Freedom) My period of being out-from-control started when I (metaphorically speaking) traversed the ‘wall of fear’, described by Richard as ‘a fear so vast as to best be called dread’ occurring at the ‘utter imminence’ at the gate to an actual freedom. (see first pop-up footnote). Richard described it this way in a private email about me – Richard: ‘Vineeto, who is now fully out-from-control/ in a fully different-way-of-being, and thus on my side of that enormous wall of fear completely encircling all of humankind, ...’ (24.12.2009) During this period, which for me personally lasted about four-and-a-half weeks before it culminated in the final event on January 5, 2010, I experienced an ever-increasing pull to move forward into what I clearly and unambiguously recognized as my destiny – an irrevocable freedom from the human condition. It set in motion a process that was to undo all of my remaining bonds to humanity, my residue of inhibitions, my last hesitations and any and all lingering doubts. Having finally arrived at being out-from-control, living the ‘beer’ rather than being the ‘doer’, filled me with a previously unknown confidence and certainty that ‘my’ redemption was indeed nigh. To step out from control was a step deliberately taken, after sufficient clearing of the ground, so to speak, and after sufficiently ascertaining that what I wanted was indeed what I was aiming for (the genuine article of an actual freedom). Taking that step ‘I’ then willingly and with intent gave myself permission to allow the universe to pull me forward ever more strongly into the hitherto entirely unknown territory that lay between me and the ultimate goal. Many weird and whacky, as well as magical and wonderful events happened, which I won’t relate here because they were only relevant for the first two pioneers of the direct route to an actual freedom. What I can say, however is that being out-from-control, living on the actual freedom side of the wall of fear, enabled an ever-increasing near-apperceptive attentiveness that allowed me to breeze through one of the most intense panic attacks I ever experienced. Richard has described one of those panic attacks during his own out-from-control period as experiencing himself as if ‘sitting on a huge mountain of dread with his hands in his pocket whistling a tune’. I fully concur with his description as far as my own experience of this particular panic attack was concerned. Despite the physical contractions and the racing of panicky thoughts there was an overall (...) background awareness, aka near-apperceptive attentiveness, that all is well and that the material universe is indeed utterly benign. The other observation from this period of being out-from-control worth sharing, I was able to make when ‘No. 4(D)’ came for a visit. I remember clearly one day sitting in a circle of 5 friends, utterly relaxed despite the fact that I had never met one of them in person, and I noticed that I had no personal agenda whatsoever, no plan to stir the conversation into a particular direction, nothing to emphasize or hide, no self-centredness or favouritism, no shame, shyness, embarrassment, no power or drive – I was just being myself as I was. I sat in this group, as one of many, and my sole interest was that everyone present (including me as one of those present) enjoyed themselves/ obtained the maximum benefit from our meeting. I experienced myself as being unreservedly at ease and utterly benign and wasn’t driven to say anything unless it contributed to the overall quality of the conversation. Compared to being out-from-control, a PCE is an often brief, always temporary, glimpse into the actual world, very informative and marvellous in its own right, but a period whereby the identity is statically in abeyance and remains unchanged until it emerges again after the PCE has faded. During the period of being out-from-control the identity (being the ‘beer’ as opposed to being the in-control ‘doer’) gallops ahead closer and closer to her/ his destiny. It is an absolutely thrilling, marvellous and wonderful time of adventure and if there has to be a blaze of glory in the overall story to an actual freedom, this is definitely IT. Direct Route, James, 16 Jan 2010 SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON VIRTUAL FREEDOM 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