# Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions Frequently Asked Questions ## The Difference between Good Feelings and Feeling Good? RESPONDENT: [Richard]: What actualism – the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom – is on about is a ‘virtual freedom’ (which is not to be confused with cyber-space’s ‘virtual reality’) wherein the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to feel good, feel happy and feel perfect for 99% of the time. I make this very clear in my writing: [snip]. What I am reading here is, ‘good feelings along with bad feelings are minimized so that one is free to feel good feelings and thereby make a PCE more likely. Could you clarify? RICHARD: Sure ... the [quote] ‘good’ [endquote] feelings mentioned are the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) and the [quote] ‘bad’ [endquote] feelings mentioned are the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) whereas feeling good/ feeling happy/ feeling perfect are the felicitous and innocuous feelings (those that are delightful and harmonious). Thus what you are reading – ‘good feelings along with bad feelings are minimised so that one is free to feel good feelings and thereby make a PCE more likely’ – would look something like this when spelled-out in full: • [example only]: ‘the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting), along with the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful), are minimised so that one is free to feel the felicitous and innocuous feelings (those that are delightful and harmonious) and thereby make a pure consciousness experience (PCE) more likely’. [end example]. Furthermore, as I say in that text of mine you quoted, I make this very clear in my writing: • [Richard]: ‘... by asking ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ the reward is immediate; by finding out what triggered off the loss of the felicitous/ innocuous feelings, one commences another period of enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. It is all about being here at this moment in time and this place in space ... and if you are not feeling happy and harmless you have no chance whatsoever of being here in this actual world (a glum and/or grumpy person locks themselves out of the perfect purity of this moment and place). And by having already established feeling good (a general sense of well-being) as the bottom line for moment-to-moment experiencing then if, or when, feeling happy and harmless fades there is that comfortable baseline from which to suss out where, when, how, why – and what for – the feeling of being happy and harmless ceased happening ... and all the while feeling good whilst going about it. (...) These are all feelings, this is not perfection personified yet ... but then again, feeling perfect for twenty three hours and fifty nine minutes a day (a virtual freedom) is way beyond normal human expectations anyway. Also, it is a very tricky way of both getting men fully into their feelings for the first time in their life and getting women to examine their feelings one by one instead of being run by a basketful of them all at once. One starts to feel ‘alive’. Being ‘alive’ is to be paying attention – exclusive attention – to this moment in time and this place in space (...)’. (Richard, Articles, This Moment of Being Alive). Incidentally, the words [quote] ‘being here at this moment in time and this place in space’ [endquote] are what the words ‘being just here right now’, in the passage at the top of this page which first caught your attention, refer to when spelled-out more fully ... as distinct to the religious/ spiritual/ mystical/ metaphysical ‘here and now’ (sometimes expressed as ‘here-now’) which, being a timeless and spaceless dimension, is neither spatial nor temporal. Moreover, it is a bodiless presence which is being ‘here-now’ anyway ... thus peace-on-earth is just not on that being’s agenda. * JONATHAN: [Richard]: ‘In attentiveness, there is an unbiased observing of the constant showing-up of the ‘reality’ within and is examining the feelings arising one after the other ...’ (Richard, Articles, Attentiveness, Sensuousness, Apperceptiveness). How can the observation be unbiased if one has a bias toward feeling good? RICHARD: This is how the paragraph which you obtained that quote from began: • [Richard]: ‘Attentiveness gets not infatuated with the good feelings nor sidesteps the bad as *attentiveness is a non-feeling awareness; a sensuous attention*’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Articles, Attentiveness, Sensuousness, Apperceptiveness). How can a non-feeling awareness of/ a sensuous attention to the constant showing-up of the ‘reality’ within, a non-feeling awareness of/ a sensuous attention to the feelings arising one after the other, possibly be construed as being a [quote] ‘bias toward feeling good’ [endquote] observation? RICK: Could you list some examples of what you’d classify as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and what you’d classify as felicitous/ innocuous feelings so I could keep an eye out for them. RICHARD: As a broad generalisation: the ‘good’ feelings are those that are of a loving (ardent feelings of profound affection and endearment) and a compassionate (empathetic feelings of deep sympathy and commiseration) nature; the ‘bad feelings are those that are of a malicious (spiteful feelings of intense hatred and resentment) and a sorrowful (melancholy feelings of yawning sadness and grief) nature; the felicitous feelings are those that are of a happy and carefree (blithesome feelings of great delight and enjoyment) nature; the innocuous feelings are those that are of a harmless and congenial (gracious feelings of ingenuous tranquillity and affability) nature. The following may be of particular interest: • [Richard]: ‘The felicitous/ innocuous feelings are in no way docile, lack-lustre affections ... in conjunction with sensuosity they make for an extremely forceful/ potent combination as, with all of the affective energy channelled into being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible (and no longer being frittered away on love and compassion/ malice and sorrow), the full effect of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – which is ‘being’ itself – is dynamically enabled for one purpose and one purpose alone. (...) The actualism method is not about undermining the passions ... on the contrary, it is about directing all of that affective energy into being the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (that is, ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself) in order to effect a deliberate imitation of the actual, as evidenced in a PCE [a pure consciousness experience], so as to feel as happy and as harmless (as free of malice and sorrow) as is humanly possibly whilst remaining a ‘self’. Such imitative felicity/ innocuity, in conjunction with sensuosity, readily evokes amazement, marvel, and delight – a state of wide-eyed wonder best expressed by the word naiveté (the nearest a ‘self’ can come to innocence whilst being a ‘self’) – and which allows the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to the infinitude, which this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is, to operate more and more freely. This intrinsic benignity and benevolence, which has nothing to do with the imitative affective happiness and harmlessness, will do the rest. All that was required was ‘my’ cheerful, and thus willing, concurrence’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 60f, 29 September 2005). RICK: How were you able to stop feeling either ‘good’ or ‘bad’? RICHARD: The identity in residence back then was able to stop feeling either the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) – or the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – by tracing back to the last time ‘he’ felt good (a general feeling of well-being) and seeing how silly it was to have that felicitous/ innocuous feeling be usurped by those other feelings. RICK: Right, right. And what would be the difference between feeling good (a general feeling of well-being) and ‘good’ feelings? RICHARD: The former is a felicitous/ innocuous feeling and the latter are the antidotally pacifying affectionate/ compassionate feelings. RESPONDENT: Richard, sorry for jumping to this question before replying to our ongoing long correspondence. I want to know what does ‘happiness’ mean to you. To be honest, to me it still is a feeling. I ask this question in relation to your post to No. 3 in which you wrote: [Richard]: ‘A happy and harmless person has a much better chance of precipitating a PCE ... which is the essential pre-requisite for an actual freedom (otherwise this is all theory). It goes without saying, surely, that a grumpy person locks themselves out of being here ... now’. [endquote]. Which means that being ‘happy and harmless’ is a pre-requisite for actual freedom (at least it gives better chances). So it is very important to know what is this happiness which is required before one even attempts for actual freedom. RICHARD: There is nothing mysterious going on here, it is only a matter of how the English language is structured ... try reading it this way: • ‘A person who is feeling happy and harmless has a much better chance of precipitating a PCE ... which is the essential pre-requisite for an actual freedom (otherwise this is all theory). It goes without saying, surely, that a person who is feeling grumpy locks themselves out of being here ... now’. Nevertheless, there is more to it than that: the phrase ‘He is an angry person’ or ‘She is an hysterical person’ refers to someone who is more prone to be angry or hysterical – and more extreme in their anger and hysteria – than the average person. Likewise: ‘He is a bully’ or ‘She is a bitch’ refers to a person who displays an attitude and behaviour that automatically classifies them as being more extreme than the average person. So when I write ‘a happy and harmless person’ I am indicating someone who is more extreme in their happiness and harmlessness than the average ... similarly ‘a grumpy person’ indicates someone more extreme in feeling grumpy than the average person (and please do not ask me to define ‘average’ ... because have you ever realised that half the people that you know are necessarily below average!). Perhaps this is an excellent opportunity to clarify this whole issue about feelings. Often people who read about actual freedom gain the impression that I am asking people to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire affective faculty is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the psyche itself is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings. It is impossible to be a ‘stripped-down’ self – divested of feelings – for ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. Anyone who attempts this absurdity would wind up being somewhat like what is known in psychiatric terminology as a ‘sociopathic personality’ (popularly know as ‘psychopath’). Such a person still has feelings – ‘cold’, ‘callous’, ‘indifferent’ – and has repressed the others (‘repressed’ not ‘suppressed’). In a PCE the feelings play no part at all – the self is in abeyance – but can come rushing in, if one is not alert, resulting in the PCE devolving into an ASC ... complete with a super-self. Indeed, this demonstrates that it is impossible for there to be no feelings whilst there is a self – in this case a Self – thus it is the ‘being’ that has to go first ... not the feelings. What actualism – the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom – is on about is a ‘virtual freedom’ (which is not to be confused with cyber-space’s ‘virtual reality’) wherein the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to feel good, feel happy and feel perfect for 99% of the time. I make this very clear in my writing: • [Richard]: ‘By asking ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ the reward is immediate; by finding out what triggered off the loss of feeling good, one commences another period of enjoying this moment of being alive. It is all about being here now at this moment in time and this place in space ... and if you are not feeling good you have no chance whatsoever of being here now in this actual world. (A grumpy person locks themselves out of the perfect purity of this moment and place). Of course, once you get the knack of this, one up-levels ‘feeling good’, as a bottom-line each moment again, to ‘feeling happy’. And after that: ‘feeling perfect’. These are all feelings, this is not perfection personified yet ... but then again, feeling perfect for twenty three hours and fifty nine minutes a day is way beyond ‘normal’ human expectations anyway. Also, it is a very tricky way of both getting men fully into their feelings for the first time in their life and getting women to examine their feelings one by one instead of being run by a basketful of them all at once. One starts to feel ‘alive’ for the first time in one’s life. It is really important to understand about the soul ... getting into feelings like this – ‘perfect’ feelings – leaves one in imminent danger of the seductive snare of Love and Beauty, and, conveniently ignoring their opposites, becoming enlightened, or at least illuminated. ‘Me’ – that intuition of ‘being’ that I call the soul – sugar coats itself with Love and Compassion and Beauty and Truth and swans along in a state of Blissful Euphoria. Thus one then goes off into some mystical State of ‘Being’ in some metaphysical world and misses out on the clean and clear perfection of this actual world. It is very, very difficult to get out of the enlightened state and go ‘beyond it’ into this actual world of the senses’. (From ‘Richard’s Journal’ © ‘The Actual Freedom Trust’ 1997; pages 257-258). RESPONDENT: Does investigating mean feeling a feeling, or questioning it? If I have to question a feeling, then the method can become extremely difficult because no matter how much I question myself, my mind won’t budge. After I’ve deliberately felt myself as, say, sadness, do I then decide that it is an emotion (real) or a physical feeling (actual)? If I do, that would mean I’m dissociating from the feeling? While investigating being sad, how do I know when I can actually get back to feeling good? Do I have to force myself to feel good again, or should the feeling be fading, or gone before I attempt to feel good again? RICHARD: You may find the following to be of assistance: • [Richard]: ‘Before applying the actualism method – the ongoing enjoyment and appreciation of this moment of being alive – it is essential for success to grasp the fact that this very moment which is happening now is your only moment of being alive. The past, although it did happen, is not actual now. The future, though it will happen, is not actual now. Only now is actual. Yesterday’s happiness and harmlessness does not mean a thing if one is miserable and malicious now and a hoped-for happiness and harmlessness tomorrow is to but waste this moment of being alive in waiting. All one gets by waiting is more waiting. Thus any ‘change’ can only happen now. The jumping in point is always here; it is at this moment in time and this place in space. Thus, if one misses it this time around, hey presto, one has another chance immediately. Life is excellent at providing opportunities like this. What ‘I’ did, all those years ago, was to devise a remarkably effective way to be able to enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive each moment again (I know that methods are to be actively discouraged, in some people’s eyes, but this one worked). It does take some doing to start off with but, as success after success starts to multiply exponentially, it becomes progressively easier to enjoy and appreciate being here each moment again. One begins by asking, each moment again, ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’? Note: asking how one is experiencing this moment of being alive is not the actualism method; consistently enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive is what the actualism method is. And this is because the actualism method is all about consciously and knowingly imitating life in the actual world. Also, by virtue of proceeding in this manner the means to the end – an ongoing enjoyment and appreciation – are no different to the end itself This perpetual enjoyment and appreciation is facilitated by *feeling* as happy and as harmless as is humanly possible. And this (affective) felicity/ innocuity is potently enabled via minimisation of both the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ feelings. An affective awareness is the key to maximising felicity and innocuity over all those alternate feelings inasmuch the slightest diminishment of enjoyment and appreciation automatically activates attentiveness. Attentiveness to the cause of diminished enjoyment and appreciation restores felicity and innocuity. The habituation of actualistic awareness and attentiveness requires a persistent initialisation; persistent initialisation segues into a wordless approach, a non-verbal attitude towards life. It delivers the goods just here, right now, and not off into some indeterminate future. Plus the successes are repeatable – virtually on demand – and thus satisfy the ‘scientific method’. So, ‘I’ asked myself, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’? As one knows from the pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s), which are moments of perfection everybody has at some stage in their life, that it is possible to experience this moment in time and this place in space as perfection personified, ‘I’ set the minimum standard of experience for myself: feeling good. If ‘I’ am not feeling good then ‘I’ have something to look at to find out why. What has happened, between the last time ‘I’ felt good and now? When did ‘I’ feel good last? Five minutes ago? Five hours ago? What happened to end those felicitous feelings? Ahh ... yes: ‘He said that and I ...’. Or: ‘She didn’t do this and I ...’. Or: ‘What I wanted was ...’. Or: ‘I didn’t do ...’. And so on and so on ... one does not have to trace back into one’s childhood ... usually no more than yesterday afternoon at the most (‘feeling good’ is an unambiguous term – it is a general sense of well-being – and if anyone wants to argue about what feeling good means ... then do not even bother trying to do this at all). Once the specific moment of ceasing to feel good is pin-pointed, and the silliness of having such an incident as that (no matter what it is) take away one’s enjoyment and appreciation of this only moment of being alive is seen for what it is – usually some habitual reactive response – one is once more feeling good ... but with a pin-pointed cue to watch out for next time so as to not have that trigger off yet another bout of the same-old same-old. This is called nipping it in the bud before it gets out of hand ... with application and diligence and patience and perseverance one soon gets the knack of this and more and more time is spent enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. And, of course, once one does get the knack of this, one up-levels ‘feeling good’, as a bottom line each moment again, to ‘feeling happy and harmless’ ... and after that to ‘feeling perfect’. The more one enjoys and appreciates being just here right now – to the point of excellence being the norm – the greater the likelihood of a PCE happening ... a grim and/or glum person has no chance whatsoever of allowing the magical event, which indubitably shows where everyone has being going awry, to occur. Plus any analysing and/or psychologising and/or philosophising whilst one is in the grip of debilitating feelings usually does not achieve much (other than spiralling around and around in varying degrees of despair and despondency or whatever) anyway. The wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and the slightest diminishment of such felicity/ innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently wandered off the way. One is thus soon back on track ... and all because of everyday events. (...) Thus, by asking ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive,’ the reward is immediate; by finding out what triggered off the loss of the felicitous/ innocuous feeling, one commences another period of enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. It is all about being here at this moment in time and this place in space ... and if you are not feeling happy and harmless you have no chance whatsoever of being here in this actual world (a glum and/or grumpy person locks themselves out of the perfect purity of this moment and place). And by having already established feeling good (a general sense of well-being) as the bottom line for moment-to-moment experiencing then if, or when, feeling happy and harmless fades there is that comfortable baseline from which to suss out where, when, how, why – and what for – the feeling of being happy and harmless ceased happening ... and all the while feeling good whilst going about it. Furthermore if, or when, there is a sinking below the bottom line, and feeling bad (a general sense of ill-being) is the moment-to-moment experiencing then, rather than trying to suss out where, when, how, why – and what for – the general sense of well-being (feeling good) ceased occurring, it is far more useful to first get to a stage of being neutral, because, when in the feeling bad position, feeling good can appear to be so, so far away ... indeed, at times, feeling good can seem to be but a dream, a fancy, a chimera, a will-o’-the-wisp, from that position, and what’s the point anyway, that method didn’t work either (of course), it’s all stupid, life sucks, and ... and all the rest of those self-pitying, self-justifying, defeatist assertions. As the step from being neutral to feeling good is not such a big step then one is soon back on track again. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, Articles, This Moment of Being Alive). RESPONDENT: There are not good and bad feelings. RICHARD: The words ‘good feelings’ – which refer to the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) – and the words ‘bad feelings’ – which refer to the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – are but a way of describing the effect of those feelings both on oneself and others. Sometimes they are called the positive and negative feelings. RESPONDENT: Feelings are feelings. RICHARD: And a rose is a rose ... tautology can be so trite. RESPONDENT: The separation in good and bad are created by the feeler the ego. RICHARD: What separation? Just because love and hate, for example, are polar opposites does not mean they not complimentary poles ... indeed, one of the appellations used to describe the integration of the divine/ diabolical divide upon transcendence, wherein the opposites unite without ceasing to be themselves, is the phrase ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ (coincidence of opposites). Thus while it can be argued that the ego creates an artificial split (dichotomy) it is also so that in the soul they are united. RESPONDENT: If the feeler is not there there are not bad and good feelings. RICHARD: As where there is no feeler there are no feelings the question of good and bad (or positive and negative) is moot. SRID: ... for already stated reasons (how it being, overall, conductive to feeling good/ pleasant sooner than later). RICHARD: First and foremost, you are conflating the (affective) feeling known as ‘feeling good’ with the (hedonic) feeling you call ‘feeling pleasant’ as if they were one-and-the-same-thing when they are not. For instance: • [Srid]: ‘I appreciate you posting this quote, as it demonstrates the notion of doing all that one can, with the full effect of ‘my’ being, in order to consistently feel pleasant[1] instead of bowing out of such a boots-and-all approach via falling for such moralistic injunctions as ‘No need to invent fancy schemes and methods’. Footnote [1]: If you have been following the Gitter chat you would know I prefer ‘feel pleasant’ to ‘feel good’ *(although they are the same)* as the word ‘pleasant’ has a strong referent (‘the thing that a word or phrase denotes or stands for’) to vedana (hedonic tone) than the word ‘good’, and also because the words ‘feeling good’ have weak referent (in my mind) to its intended meaning. Consistently feeling good, in and of itself, excludes the ‘good feelings’ – as the good feelings are highly dependent’. [emphasis added]. (Message № 21385) Essentially, hedonic-tone has three characteristics: pleasure, displeasure and neither-pleasure-nor-displeasure. Thus, affectively ‘feeling good’ has a corresponding pleasurable hedonic-tone whereas affectively ‘feeling bad’ has, as an accompaniment, a displeasureable hedonic-tone (as in, speaking colloquially, it does not feel good, hedonically, to be affectively feeling bad). Now, whilst anger (for an obvious instance) has a displeasureable hedonic-tone, typically, under certain circumstances – and for a certain type of person – a pleasurable hedonic-tone can ensue. The English word ‘glee’ (when commensurate with the German ‘schadenfreude’) is a classic example of this. Viz.: • glee (n.): great merriment or delight, often caused by someone else’s misfortune; (adj.): gleeful; (adv.): gleefully; (n.): gleefulnesss. ~ (Collins English Dictionary). • glee (n.): malicious satisfaction. ~ (Princeton’s WordNet 3.0). • glee (n.): great delight, especially from one’s own good fortune or another’s misfortune; [e.g.]: ‘his face lit up with impish glee’; ‘Too often their misfortunes are met with glee, a schadenfreude [i.e., ‘pleasure derived by someone from another person’s misfortune’] that is quite horrifying’. ~ (Oxford English Dictionary). It is no wonder you (hedonically) feel pleasant – as per your footnoted ‘in order to consistently feel pleasant’ words as quoted further above – upon channelling that police-force calibre ‘power’ (so as to obtain dominion over those ‘run-of-the-mill’ citizens, colleagues, and etcetera), eh? ‘Tis nothing but old-fashioned gleefulness (obtained at another’s expense) under the guise of [quote] ‘standing up for oneself’ [endquote]. Viz.: • [Srid]: ‘Devika’s advice of ‘standing up for oneself’ (although misplaced to a flesh and blood body) is eminently sensible for a feeling being’. (Message № 21438; Re: Goodbye; Dec 21, 2015). Incidentally, and in regards to taking ‘Devika’s advice’, I cannot put it any more succinctly than Claudiu did recently. Viz.: • [Claudiu]: ‘All that is irrevocable in her [Devika’s] case is that she died without ever having become actually free...’. (Mesage № 21535; Re: Another plug for the actualism method; Jan 11 9:12 PM). As for your ‘is eminently sensible for a feeling being’ observation: please be advised that it was the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago who successfully put into effect the third alternative to either feeling powerful (as in ‘standing up for oneself’ for instance) or feeling powerless (as in being ‘bullied, both in overt and covert ways’ for example) – to wit: feeling harmless/ innocuous (which not only dynamically defuses that entire power-structure/ power-battle way of life, so endemic in the animal realm, but thereby actively enables intimacy as well) – and not this flesh-and-blood body typing these words. Further to that point: as I have written before on this forum (in Message № 19576 Richard, List D, Jonathan2 1 June 2015 and Message № 19928 Richard, List D, No. 4, 4 July 2015) how the reports/ descriptions/ explanations I share with my fellow human beings are, typically, field-tested accounts of that which has worked to deliver the goods, it is quite absurd to even think for a moment I would give advice applicable only for an actually free person to a feeling-being. * In case that is still not clear: the counsel I consistently offered to Devika – vis-à-vis her insistence on ‘standing up for oneself’ to all and sundry – came from feeling-being ‘Richard’ (i.e., from ‘his’ success) and not from this flesh-and-blood body typing these words. Moreover, during the last 13 years of her life (after transmogrifying from ‘Devika’ into ‘Irene’) she alienated almost everyone she came in contact with – of particular note her neighbours to the left; her neighbours to the right; her neighbours across the street – such that a characterisation I made en passant, over six years ago, is particularly apt in regards to my ‘thereby actively enables intimacy as well’ remark further above. Viz.: [Respondent № 14]: (...). Quote of the day: ‘A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal’. ~ Oscar Wilde. [Richard]: Ha ... my second wife, *who died a lonesome spinster*, would often quote his ‘not getting what one wants/ getting what one wants’ quip (...). [emphasis added]. (Richard, List D No.14a, 25 November 2009). The terminology for anyone of the other sex is *who died a lonesome bachelor*, of course, as any such self-induced lack of intimacy is not a gendered matter. Actual Freedom Homepage
Commonly Raised Objections – Index | Frequently Flogged Misconceptions – Index | Frequently Asked Questions – Index
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless Design, Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity