Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

JONATHAN: Richard I read where you said you did not know if emotions were necessary for playing music as you are not a musician.

RICHARD: What I actually said was that, not having developed the talent for playing musical instruments, I cannot personally report on (affective) feelings being essential for [quote] ‘playing music *with pleasure*’ [emphasis added] as I was responding to an observation that feelings of affection, warmth, are so essential for that. Viz.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Feelings of affection, warmth, so essential for humour, playing music with pleasure and delightful human interactions is to me as valuable as sexual pleasure and orgasms.

• [Richard]: ‘As I have not developed the talent for playing musical instruments I cannot personally report on feelings being essential for playing music with pleasure ... but as music is designed to tug on the heart-strings I would easily agree with your observation’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Irene, 6 October 1998).

The pleasure being referred to is, of course, affective pleasure (as in the pleasure/ pain principle which spiritualism makes such a big thing about but never does eliminate) and not sensate pleasure.

JONATHAN: What about listening to music?

RICHARD: Emotions and/or passions are essential for listening to music with affective pleasure (hedonic pleasure); emotions and/or passions are not essential for listening to music with sensate pleasure (anhedonic pleasure).

JONATHAN: Do you still delight in such?

RICHARD: You will find the following informative:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... in the forefront of my investigations right now is ‘beauty’ versus what you are calling ‘sensate delight.’ At first, upon reading the material at the AF website, I was stricken with a fear of what my life would be like if I gave up my experience of beauty – thinking that to be inhuman.

• [Richard]: ‘Yes ... when I was first catapulted into an actual freedom from the human condition I was astonished to discover that beauty had disappeared (I had trained as an art teacher and had made a living as a practising artist). Howsoever I was to discover that beauty is but a pale imitation of the purity of the actual.
Even so, it was initially disconcerting (to say the least).

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Then, I realized that you apparently have no problem in delighting in things I would have considered ‘beautiful.’ Sunsets, gardens, sexuality, etc. Indeed, the website itself uses delightful pictures of nature and music to enhance the reader’s experience. So it dawned on me that much of what we commonly call beauty can be experienced on two levels – mental/ emotional and ‘sensate’. For you, the prior is gone. Now apparently you experience purely on the sensate level. I have never had much interest in painting, sculpture, or what is normally considered ‘art’ – so I have no problem stripping it of ‘beauty’ and replacing it with the sensate – just the delight of colour and pleasingness to the eye. Now music is a whole different story, since I’ve spent quite a bit of my life experiencing and developing my ability to experience ‘beauty’ in music. Is there something similar in the realm of music?

• [Richard]: ‘Yes ... to feel pleasure affectively (hedonistically) is a far cry from the direct experiencing of the actual where the retinas revel in the profusion of colour, texture and form; the eardrums carouse with the cavalcade of sound, resonance and timbre; the nostrils rejoice in the abundance of aromas, fragrances and scents; the tastebuds savour the plethora of tastes, flavours and zests; the epidermis delights to touch, caress and fondle ... a veritable cornucopia of luscious, sumptuous sensuosity.
All the while is the apperceptive wonder that this marvellous paradise actually exists in all its vast array. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27, 8 January 2002).

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘It seems to me there must be a similar distinction – some sounds are more pleasing to the ear than others – and they don’t necessarily have to do with beauty. Is there ‘music’ without ‘beauty?’ 

• [Richard]: ‘Yes ... if by ‘music’ you mean a melody or a tune (some bird-sounds, for example, are melodious whilst others are not).

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Is there room for music appreciation without the affective?

• [Richard]: ‘Yes ... although it must be born in mind that most musical appreciation is determined by a cultural aesthetic (Chinese opera, for example, does not sound like the music the typical Western ear is accustomed to).

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘If so, what’s it like?

• [Richard]: ‘In a word: pure.

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... one of the fears I’ve had to confront is that of losing my lifetime ‘love’ of music. Confronting that fear has shown me how foolish it is to hold something like that so dear to my heart which could be lost with physical disability. I read some of [your] comments scattered through the website about music – mostly which seemed to suggest that enjoyment of music is affective – a passion. Then I began to question just what I thought ‘music’ is ... there is music designed to pull at the heartstrings – music to rally soldiers to war – music which is intended as sorrowful – music intended to be happy – music that is educational and fun – and music which doesn’t seem to have any purpose at all. Not that I can catalogue all the different types, but I soon realized that the word ‘music’ doesn’t really have anything in particular that it describes – rather a loose association of actualities. Now, it seems to me that most any actuality can be ‘experienced’ on 2 levels – what [you] call ‘sensate’, then also the ‘mental/ emotional’. So, remembering that the idea behind moving toward virtual or actual freedom is minimizing emotional highs and lows, what would music be like on a purely sensate level?

• [Richard]: ‘Basically, in this context, it is a blessed release from all the emotional ‘highs and lows’.

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I remember [you] remarking that [you] are not interested in ‘beautiful music’ or even artistic ‘beauty’. Does that then eliminate any interest in ‘music’ or ‘art’ all together?

• [Richard]: ‘No ... but the interest is far removed from the pathetic interest one previously had.

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘It would seem to me that just as there is a level on which we can delight in what is ‘pleasing to the eye’ without involving beauty – that we can also delight in what is ‘pleasing to the ear’ – as in various musical forms – without involving the beautiful and the sorrowful.

• [Richard]: ‘Yes, you have hit the nail upon the head ... and where there is no beauty there is no ugly as only purity abounds. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27, 8 January 2002).

*

RICHARD: ... [quote] ‘... but as music is designed to tug on the heart-strings I would easily agree with your observation [that feelings of affection, warmth, are essential for playing music with (affective/ hedonic) pleasure].

JONATHAN: So you have a sensate enjoyment of something that was designed to ‘tug on the heart-strings’?

RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following (from the quoted text in the e-mail you are responding to):

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... I have never had much interest in painting, sculpture, or what is normally considered ‘art’ – so I have no problem stripping it of ‘beauty’ and replacing it with the sensate – just the delight of colour and pleasingness to the eye. (...) It seems to me there must be a similar distinction – some sounds are more pleasing to the ear than others – and they don’t necessarily have to do with beauty. Is there ‘music’ without ‘beauty?’
• [Richard]: ‘Yes ... if by ‘music’ you mean a melody or a tune (some bird-sounds, for example, are melodious whilst others are not).
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Is there room for music appreciation without the affective?
• [Richard]: ‘Yes ...’.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘If so, what’s it like?
• [Richard]: ‘In a word: pure’. [endquote]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27d, 8 January 2002).

As there are no ‘heart-strings’ in actuality there is nothing to be tugged ... there is only purity.

JONATHAN: Actually I don’t think you have said that you do listen to and delight in music only that sensate enjoyment of it is possible. My next question may make my point more clear.

[Richard]: ‘... to feel pleasure affectively (hedonistically) is a far cry from the direct experiencing of the actual where the retinas revel in the profusion of colour, texture and form; the eardrums carouse with the cavalcade of sound ...’ [snip]. 

So music would just be another wonderful sound amongst other wonderful sounds but nothing special, correct?

RICHARD: What these ears hear is tone (pitch), timbre, harmonics, resonance, and so on, and musical appreciation is primarily based upon what is pleasing to them ... in a word: taste.

JONATHAN: In other words, you would not go out of your way to listen to music?

RICHARD: I rarely listen to music for the sake of listening to it ... the last occasion was maybe five-six months ago when, upon having just then purchased a set of 5.1 surround sound speakers, I watched ‘Apocalypse Now Redux’ (arguably one of the better examples of a masterly application of the surround sound effect) in order to more fully experience the beach attack scene and I wound up listening to the opening track (an outstanding rendition of ‘The End’ by ‘The Doors’) several times.

What I found interesting was it no longer conveyed the haunting quality it did all those years ago when first listened to (circa 1984-85) ... although I could comprehend why it did back then.

JONATHAN: In your experience of the actual world is there ever any enhancing of your experience?

RICHARD: Well, the surround sound already mentioned certainly enhances the experience of movies but, apart from technological advances like that, no (the pristine purity of this actual world is already always perfect).

JONATHAN: Like icing on the cake?

RICHARD: The cake (this actual world) already has lashings of icing on it ... plus bucket-loads of cream, liberally dotted with cherries, on top of that.

RESPONDENT: If I could move on to the question of being ‘Happy and Harmless’; I guess that the main difficulty I am having is in understanding that one can be happy without ‘feeling’ happy but I will persevere with the actual freedom web site, which I am finding fascinating, until this becomes clear to me.

RICHARD: Okay ... it may be worthwhile bearing in mind that it is impossible to be happy (be happy as in being carefree), as distinct from feeling happy, without being harmless (being harmless as in being innocuous), as distinct from feeling harmless, and to be happy *and* harmless is to be unable to induce suffering – etymologically the word ‘harmless’ (harm + less) comes from the Old Norse ‘harmr’ (meaning grief, sorrow) – either in oneself or another.

Thus the means of comprehending the distinction lies in understanding the nature of innocence – something entirely new to human experience – and the nearest one can come to being innocent whilst being an identity is to be naïve (not to be confused with being gullible).

And the key to naïveté (usually locked away in childhood) is sincerity.

RESPONDENT: What I will say is that I am more of a thinking person than a feeling person, and that feelings don’t seem to drive my actions in the same way that I observe in others. I seem to be mainly happy in the current moment but am finding the HAIETMOBA very useful when other feelings try to take control.

RICHARD: The other aspect of the actualism method – other than felicity/ innocuity – is sensuosity: feeling felicitous/ innocuous, each moment again, brings one closer to one’s senses and the resultant wonder at the brilliance of the sensate world can enable apperception ... the direct experience of the world as-it-is.

RESPONDENT: As you have probably gathered I am currently just fact finding and thoroughly enjoying the Actual Freedom web site without having the ‘pure intent’ or indeed the bravery to literally move down the path to actual freedom.

RICHARD: Ahh ... courage (and pusillanimity) is another topic: suffice to say for now that daring comes from caring.

And to dare to care is to care to dare.

RESPONDENT: On another note, I was talking over with a friend yesterday at lunch about music and its relation to emotions. We both agreed that music – whatever kind – does not necessarily evoke an affective response in, for example, alexithymic/ anhedonic people, very young children or someone way into the path of Actual Freedom or Actually Free. However, my friend assured me that if a certain type of music (classical, violin, piano) is played then it has to have some type of an effect on the human brain. I know that the very act of listening has an effect on the brain but do you experience anything else besides?

RICHARD: No, not at all ... and I did have a few classical pieces in my record collection all those years ago (mainly rhapsodies, overtures, and suites). The following passage is how I have described the anhedonic actualism experience:

• [Richard]: ‘To feel pleasure affectively (hedonistically) is a far cry from the direct experiencing of the actual where the retinas revel in the profusion of colour, texture and form; the eardrums carouse with the cavalcade of sound, resonance and timbre; the nostrils rejoice in the abundance of aromas, fragrances and scents; the tastebuds savour the plethora of tastes, flavours and zests; the epidermis delights to touch, caress and fondle ... a veritable cornucopia of luscious, sumptuous sensuosity.
All the while is the apperceptive wonder that this marvellous paradise actually exists in all its vast array. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27, 8 January 2002).

Coupled with the inability to affectively feel pleasure is, of course, the inability to affectively feel pain (as in the pleasure/ pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate) even though most, if not all, definitions of anhedonia only say ‘the inability to feel pleasure’ ... actualism, being most definitely not hedonism, can never be sadistic, masochistic, or sadomasochistic.

RESPONDENT: Non-affective stimulation of some kind?

RICHARD: No stimulation (other than the physical delectation as described above) at all ... just the same as watching voluptuous movies (sexually-explicit x-rated videos), for example, or a succulent feast being prepared in living colour in a cooking programme on lifestyle television, for another.

The affective pleasure/ pain centre in the brain is null and void.

RESPONDENT: ‘Is it possible to perceive without the enticements of the *sensation* of perception?’ This is not a question for which I’m seeking an answer, but rather, if you will and for the sake of words, a kind of ‘apperceptive’ prompt against the normally obscurant operation of ‘meeting’/ representing one’s world ala self-consciousness via the senses. Anyway, I’m putting that question to explain and ask another one: If one sees clearly the terminal mediacy of thought/ feeling (its proxy or approximation for full consciousness, direct perception, the light-of-lights, saksin, apperception – whatever you want to call it), I am not clear what is the meaning then of ‘sensuousness’ as that term is employed by Richard and other ‘AFers.’ After reading website definitions and various uses of the term and its derivatives in-context from Richard’s writings, I am still unclear. I mean, it still seems odd to speak of sensuousness at all. It seems as though y’all are pointing to some immediate sensuality, which is striking me as contradictory. Any help clarifying appreciated. Thank you.

RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Mailing List ... perhaps the most clarification is to be found in the very first words on the very first page of The Actual Freedom Web Site. Viz.:

• ‘Actual Freedom ... A New and Non-Spiritual Down-to-Earth Freedom’. (Actual Freedom Homepage).

For example, the word ‘apperception’, as it is extensively used on The Actual Freedom Web Site, is not synonymous with the word ‘saksin’ which is sometimes translated into English as ‘the watcher’ ... apperception occurs when identity, by whatever name, is temporarily absent – as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – or permanently extinguished – as in an actual freedom from the human condition – and is best explained as consciousness being aware of being conscious (rather than the normal ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious). Viz.:

• ‘apperception: the mind’s perception of itself’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Put simply: apperception is direct perception (perception unmediated by any identity whatsoever) which is the same thing as saying direct sensation – be it ocular sensation, cutaneous sensation, gustatory sensation, olfactory sensation, aural sensation or even proprioceptive sensation – because in the PCE, and in an actual freedom, only the sensate world exists in all its splendour and brilliance.

Thought may or may not be operating as required by the circumstances.

Second, the word ‘sensuous’ was apparently introduced into the English language to avoid certain associations with the existing word ‘sensual’ – the sensual experience is typically appetitive whereas the sensuous experience is typically aesthetic – but as ‘the enticement of sensation’ (aka hedonism) is totally non-existent in the PCE, and in an actual freedom, the distinction between the two words is only necessary when discussing with a person in whom the instinctual passions are still extant.

For an actualist it is not ‘odd to speak of sensuousness at all’ – and neither is ‘immediate sensuality’ contradictory – because one is referring to the unmediated sensate experiencing in this actual world (the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum).

But it probably would be odd and/or contradictory for a person in whom perception is mediated by the ‘saksin’ or the ‘light-of-lights’ and any other similar spiritual entity inside the flesh and blood body.

RESPONDENT: I have the impression or rather I noticed that if one is in the same moment using all his senses _IN THE SAME MOMENT_ including the following of thought, then there is not one ‘I’ in operation. Unless all the senses are working contemporarily there is one ‘I’. Have any body else noticed that?

RICHARD: All the sense organs, including the proprioceptive sensors, work contemporarily irregardless of whether there is an identity inhabiting the body ... perception can only operate at this moment anyway as no other moment is actual.

It could be that you are referring to attention (being attentive to what is already happening): you say ‘including the following of thought’ ... what about attentiveness to the feelings (as in ‘including the following of anxiety’ for instance) at this moment?

There is more to bringing about an abeyance of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) than the mere ‘following of thought’ ... much, much more.

Thought is but the tip of the iceberg ... the ‘presence’ within runs deep.

JAMES: This insight has certainly increased my awareness. Is the key to actual freedom then living as the senses which is distinct from having them?

RICHARD: Yes, sensuousness is the wondrous awareness of the marvel of being here now at this moment in time and this place in space – which awareness is combined with the fascination of contemplating that this moment is one’s only moment of being alive – and one is never alive at any other time than now. And, wherever one is ... now ... one is always here ... now ... even if one starts walking over to ‘there’ ... now ... along the way to ‘there’ ... now ... one is always here ... now ... and when one arrives ‘there’ ... now ... it too is here ... now. Thus awareness is an attraction to the fact that one is always here – and it is already now – and as one is already here and it is always now then one has arrived before one starts. Such delicious wonder fosters the innate condition of naiveté (which is the closest ‘I’ can get to innocence) the nourishing of which is essential if the charm of it all is to occur. The potent combination of awareness – fascinated reflective contemplation – and sensuousness produces apperception, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself (‘I’ disappear). One is intimately aware that the physical space of this universe is infinite and its time is eternal ... thus the infinitude of this very material universe has no beginning and no ending and therefore no middle. There are no edges to this universe, which means that there is no centre, either. We are all coming from nowhere and are not going anywhere for there is nowhere to come from nor anywhere to go to. We are nowhere in particular ... which means we are anywhere at all. In the infinitude of the universe one finds oneself to be already here, and as it is always now, one can not get away from this place in space and this moment in time. By being here as-this-body one finds that this moment in time has no duration as in ‘now’ and ‘then’ – because the immediate is the ultimate – and that this place in space has no distance as in ‘here’ and ‘there’ – for the relative is the absolute.

In other words: one is always here as it is already now.

RESPONDENT: I am still curious. Are these sensual experiences ‘hallucinations’ or the creation of a transmogrified ‘I’?

RICHARD: This sensual experience is actual. By actual, I do not mean the real-world of normal human experience. Actuality is only seen by people in glimpses ... it is as if everyday reality is a grim and glum veneer pasted over the top of this actual world of the senses. When ‘I’ vanish in ‘my’ entirety – both the ego and the soul – the normal everyday reality disappears and the underlying actuality becomes apparent. It was here all along. To experience the metaphysical Reality – usually with capitalisation – is to go further into the illusion of normal everyday reality, created by ‘I’, and further create a supernatural ‘True Reality’ ... which one could call an abnormal reality.

Thus normal everyday reality is an illusion and the abnormal metaphysical Reality is a delusion born out of the illusion ... a chimera, as it were. This is why only about .000001 of the population ever become enlightened ... it is extremely difficult to live in a hallucination permanently. Speaking personally, I was so deluded, that for eleven years I lived in humanity’s greatest fantasy, before the dissolution of ‘me’ as soul finally brought salubrity through release from the human condition itself.

RESPONDENT No. 42: When there is no self, how could there be anger and anguish?

RICHARD: Yes ... that was my very question all those years ago. The saints and sages and seers, who said there was no self, all displayed varying degrees of those emotions grouped under the ‘catch-all’ words malice and sorrow. Most commonly they were subject to anger and anguish (disguised/ designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/ followers/ readers). The question I asked was: Just what is it that is going on in regards the supposed innocence of the saints and sages and seers? (Richard, List B, No. 42, 3 December 2000).

RESPONDENT: Richard, in reading your recent contributions to this list, such as the example above, I am beginning to question whether you and I use certain words, such as ‘emotions’ in the same way. For it seems that perhaps I use that word in a more inclusive sense of which your use is a subset. Perhaps your use is more restrictive / precise. For example when you express that communicating via the internet is great ‘fun’ – I equate fun to have an emotional component. If joy and fun are non-emotional, they also are not machine like nor dead. What do you call that vivifying facet of each breathtaking moment if not emotional?

RICHARD: I appreciate that what you want to discuss is the ‘vivifying facet’ ... for it cuts straight to the nub of the issue. Put simply: sensuousness and its in-built apperceptive awareness is the vivifying facet. It is the ability to fully enjoy and appreciate being just here – right now – at this moment in eternal time and at this place in infinite space as this flesh and blood body. In this full enjoyment and appreciation is an amazement that all this wondrous event called life is actually happening ... and a marvelling at the perfection of it all.

It is such fun and a delight to actually be here doing this business called being alive.

As for the words I use to describe the qualities of experiencing life, as this flesh and blood body only, it is sobering to come to understand that all of the 650,000 words in the English language were coined by peoples nursing malice and sorrow to their bosom ... hence most of the expressive words have an affective component. When I first began describing my on-going experience to my fellow human beings I chose words that had the least affective connotations ... coining too many new words would have been counter-productive.

Consequently, the etymology of words can be of assistance in most cases to locate a near-enough to being a non-affective base ... the word ‘enjoy’ for example, is linked with ‘rejoice’ which means ‘gladden’ (from ‘glad’ meaning ‘shining’, ‘bright’, ‘cheerful’, ‘merry’). Of course the word ‘joy’ (from ‘enjoy’, from ‘rejoice’, from ‘gladden’, from ‘shining’) is loaded with the affective feeling for most people ... hence I tend to use it in conjunction with ‘delight’ (as in ‘it is such a joy and a delight to be here’). The word ‘delight’, incidentally, comes from the Latin ‘delectare’ (hence ‘delectation’, ‘delectable’) meaning ‘charm’, allure’ ... and so on through all sub-sets of nuance.

It is pertinent to comprehend that dictionaries are descriptive (and not prescriptive as are scriptures) and reflect more about how words came about, how they have changed, and how they have expanded into other words, rather than what they should mean. I tend to provide dictionary definitions only so as to establish a starting-point for communication ... from this mutually agreed-upon base each co-respondent can apply their own specific nuance of meaning to words as are readily explainable and mutually understandable (such as I do with ‘real’ and ‘actual’ and with ‘truth’ and ‘fact’, for example). Generally I can suss out what the other means by a word via its context and both where they are coming from and what they are wanting to establish ... if not I ask what they are meaning to convey.

As for it being ‘great fun’ communicating via the internet ... it is simply marvellous that I can sit here in my lounge-room in a seaside village and have my words be available, and potentially accessible by all 6.0 billion peoples on this planet (‘potentially’ meaning, of course, being given access to computers – such as in internet cafes – and the ability to read and comprehend English), totally free of charge ... and with nary a tree being chopped down in order to do so.

Ain’t life grand!

RICHARD (to No. 14): As libido is null and void for me then being sexually active or not is purely a matter of preference. What this means in effect is that sexual congress, because of its utter proximity, has more to do with intimacy than anything else. Now, here is where it becomes quite an intriguing matter because, and as a generalisation only, women tend to place more emphasis on intimacy than men. Indeed, many a woman has bewailed the dearth of men prepared to make the big commitment required for such connubial accord. Yet they are deathly afraid of intimacy – the fear of intimacy is a subject most women have talked to me about – for it means loss of self. And therein lies the rub: the survival instincts can kick in big-time, especially during sexual congress, and the very opposite of the longed-for intimacy takes place (as in pulling-back, turning-away, closing-off, shutting-down, and so on). (Richard, List D, No. 14a, 9 November 2009)

RESPONDENT (No. 6): Very apt observations and understanding. Further more, the survival instincts, can kick in also because of the predator/ prey tendencies that men, inadvertently, display and their aloofness for intimacy.

RICHARD to (No. 6): In normal men (and as a generalisation) ... yes, of course. Had I been born a female my response would have been couched in terms of how it is for a man/ for men, in regards to sexuality and intimacy, during sexual congress with a woman actually free from the human condition.

RESPONDENT (No. 6): If you will indulge my question: is it possible still to have actual intimacy, even if the partner (man/ woman) is evidently inhibited by self and survival extincts?

RICHARD to (No. 6): Actual intimacy – no separation (no separative self whatsoever) – cannot wax and wane/ come and go/ switch on and off here in this actual world (the world of the senses). Upon an actual freedom from the human condition an actual intimacy is the norm with every body and every thing regardless of whatever their or its current situation and circumstances might be. (Some peoples have looked at me blankly upon being informed there is an actual intimacy with, say, an ashtray or a polystyrene cup or a pebble or whatever).

In terms of human sexuality, and due to its utter proximity, sexual congress sans identity/ affections is the exquisite experience of two flesh and blood bodies sensuously delighting in being sensually and sexually aroused. (As there are no identities in actuality I actually interact only with flesh and blood bodies; at times this can be quite disconcerting, to say the least, for any identity feeling itself to be other than illusory).

Because it can take an incredible amount of will power for a pulled-back or turned-away or closed-off or shut-down identity to override (psychosomatically) its bodily arousal, its body’s natural sexuality, the body’s sensual delight, that exquisite experience can continue until such over-riding succeeds in its quite perverse anti-intimacy aim and arousal diminishes, sexuality declines and sensual delight falls away to nought.

In short: although reciprocity is never needed there is, of course, a preference for sexual enjoyment and appreciation be mutual. (Richard, List D, No. 6, 10 November 2009)

*

RICHARD (to No. 14): Put briefly: unless or until such a woman comes into my purview being single, in this respect, will remain my ongoing status. (Richard, List D, No. 14a, 9 November 2009)

RESPONDENT (No. 6): You do not prescribe to fellow humans, but do you recommend the above sensible approach rather than ‘experimenting’ with fellow human beings to explore sexuality or actual intimacy?

RICHARD to (No. 6): Oh, no ... not at all (that above approach is only in regards to an actual freedom from the human condition). No, on the contrary, exploring sex and sexuality is enormously beneficial: there is no better way, in my experience, for a man and a woman to approach such intimacy than sexual congress. For instance, back when I was a normal man I came close to the loss of self already mentioned on several occasions (in my first marriage) only to instinctively pull-back, out of instantaneous fear at such imminence, as it intuitively seemed she would thus take over my mind and make me her slave for ever and a day.

It was not until after the four-hour PCE, which initiated the process resulting in an actual freedom, that it became obvious to me what such loss of self actually meant. Accordingly, I deliberately set out to induce a PCE via giving myself completely to her – totally and utterly – whilst hovering indefinitely on that orgastic plateau which precedes an orgasm (some thing which I had discovered whilst pubescent). And then ... !Hey Presto! ... no separation whatsoever. (Incidentally, rather than that intuitive fear of thus being her slave coming true it was quite instructive to have her then relate how she had been fantasising about a current heart-throb pop singer all the while I was giving myself to her totally).

RESPONDENT (No. 6): I am aware that PCE and EE are much more possible during sexual intimacy and congress hence the urge to experiment.

RICHARD to (No. 6): Yes, indeed so. Both my third wife (de facto) and my second wife (de jure) were very keen to experiment. For instance, my third wife initially set out to explore her ‘wild side’ (to use the jargon) as she was most appreciative of being with a man with no limits – no limiting fear – in regards the vast extent, and a near-insatiability at times, of female sexuality. Curiously enough, in the end it was her very own fear (of female sexuality) which set the limits. But, until then rampant sexuality took place morning, noon and night – all throughout the period of writing those millions of words to my fellow human beings – and much was uncovered/ discovered about female sexuality. She has a scale of quality in regards sexual experience: good, very good, great, excellent and magical.

Good sex relates to togetherness. Very good sex relates to closeness. Great sex relates to sweetness. Excellent sex relates to richness. Magical sex relates to actuality.

To explain: togetherness is the companionship of doing things together – be it shopping, cooking, having sex, whatever – and pertains to the willingness to be and act in concert with another. A closeness is where the personal boundaries are expanded to include the other into one’s own space; this is a normal type of intimacy. A sweetness is when closeness entrées a lovely delight at the proximity of the other (although it can veer off into affection, ardency, love, oneness). A richness (aka an excellence experience) is where sweetness segues into a near-absence of agency via letting-go of control and one is the sex and sexuality (the beer and not the doer). Magical sex is where sex and sexuality are happening of their own accord – neither beer nor doer extant – and pristine purity abounds (an immaculate perfection).

Ain’t life grand! (Richard, List D, No. 6, 10 November 2009)

RESPONDENT: Hello Richard, Fascinating post, Can you please elaborate on: ‘(...) accordingly, I deliberately set out to induce a PCE via giving myself completely to her – totally and utterly (...)’ ? Me and my partner are currently experimenting with freeing our encumbered sexuality with little success so far and your comments might help in pointing us in the right direction.

RICHARD: G’day No. 20, First of all, I never did respond to your very first post back in May this year (I was inundated with responses/ reactions I was ill-prepared for and many slipped under my radar). Viz.:

• [Respondent]: Hello everybody, I’m a new to this mailing list. I’ve been on the wide and wondrous path for a little more than a year now with a certain amount of success that was apparently enough to keep me on the path. I’m a 27 year old male, living with a female partner who is also practicing actualism. It’s nice to meet you all and I’m looking forward to many fruitful discussions into how to bring about this so-desired-yet-so-elusive peace as soon as humanly possible.

P.S. Richard’s comeback to an active mailing list had a definite influence on the decision to finally take an active part instead of passively reading it occasionally. Welcome back Richard. (Message 5656, 17.5.2009).

Apart from a belated thank you for your ‘welcome back’ message there is not much else to say so I will attend to your current request for elaboration on going about deliberately setting out to induce a PCE via giving oneself completely to one’s partner – totally and utterly – during sexual congress. As you have inadvertently snipped off a vital component I will re-quote the relevant section here in full for convenience:

• [Richard]: ‘Accordingly, I deliberately set out to induce a PCE via giving myself completely to her – totally and utterly – whilst hovering indefinitely on that orgastic plateau which precedes an orgasm (something which I had discovered whilst pubescent)’. (Richard, List D, No. 6, 10 November 2009)

It was only a few years ago that I found out that what I had discovered for myself, during an intensive masturbatory period from pubescence (12 years old) to my first wedding night (19 years old), had both names and descriptions ... to wit (unromantic) titles such as ‘edging’, ‘coitus reservatus’, ‘orgasmic brinkmanship’, ‘peaking’, ‘surfing’ (and even ‘male continence’ and ‘coitus sine ejaculatione seminis’).

Here are a couple of examples: http://sexuality.about.com/od/tipstechniques/ht/edging.htm; http://tinyurl.com/sexual-edging. (Incidentally, once I had regular access to the real thing – a willing hetero-sexual partner as randy as myself – that mono-sexual practice discovered while pubescent, being devoid as it is of intimacy with a fellow human being, rapidly faded away into a vague memory where it languished unrecalled, for around 14 years, until being resurrected for the purpose of giving myself completely, totally and utterly to my first wife).

Now, to explain hovering indefinitely on that orgastic plateau which precedes an orgasm it may be of assistance to present it graphically: as an orgasm requires building up to a peak of sexual excitation, before tipping over the other side for a glorious slide down the slope on that other side of the mountain, it can be represented by an upside down ‘V’.

As the aim is to prolong that exquisite moment prior to tipping over the other side it requires a slight pulling-back downwards, of sexual excitation when an orgasm is imminent; within seconds, once the sexual excitation stabilises, it can be intensified once more; again, upon an orgasm being imminent, another slight pulling-back downwards, of sexual excitation is required; and once that sexual excitation stabilises, it too can be intensified once more ... and so on and so on and so on. What will happen, upon much delicious practice – ain’t life grand! – is that the slight pulling-back downwards, of sexual excitation when the orgasm is once again imminent, becomes both easier and easier and less and less downwards; eventually there can be an easing back-and-forth, at the moment just prior to the orgasm’s imminence, along an ever-increasingly lengthening plateau at the peak; this can be represented by that upside down ‘V’ having a flat-line where there was once only an apex.

Again with much delicious practice – my word life is indeed grand! – that flat-line peak can be lengthened indefinitely as the need to pull-back downwards decreases with experience; eventually there is the aforementioned hovering indefinitely on that orgastic plateau which precedes an orgasm with but the slightest increase/ decrease in sexual excitation; at this stage the upside down ‘V’ with the flat-line plateau – where there was once only an apex – can be representative by that flat-line plateau disappearing off either side of this page (with no sloping sides at either end to represent the slope both up to and down from that indefinitely prolonged peaking plateau).

Please note that this disappearance of the slopes is vital as the aim is for there to be only that plateau and neither climbing up nor sliding down ever happens; there is only the hovering indefinitely on that orgastic plateau when all else drops away. Once this is established the sex takes care of itself and full attention can be paid to intimacy; with much delicious practice – oh how grand life is! – the attainment of that endlessly orgastic plateau can be obtained within 60-90 seconds after penile penetration (provided there be sufficient sexual stimulation just prior such as the oh-so-delicious soixante-neuf – which perfect arrangement of face-to-genital distancing almost makes one think those credulous persons believing in an ‘Intelligent Designer’ may have a point after all – as there cannot possibly be a more delightful way to prepare for hours of orgastic hovering whilst intimacy unfolds in all its luscious wonder).

Now, the way to have intimacy unfold, in all its luscious wonder, is to be aware all the while (with that unique human ability to be conscious of being sentient) that your sexual partner likes being with you so much that they are willing to spend their most valuable asset – their time – not only being with you but having you inside them/ having them inside you (dependent upon gender) for this most physically intimate way of associating possible.

In other words one is always aware, with that second-level awareness, all the while primary consciousness is sexually engrossed, just how precious this opportunity is as – out of all 3.0 billion women/ out of all 3.0 billion men (dependent upon gender) – this fellow human being has chosen you, and only you, to be so intimately entwined with. In short: having sex/ being intimate with her/ with him (dependent upon gender) is very special – so special as to be precious – and this very preciosity readily enables giving oneself completely to one’s partner – totally and utterly – during sexual congress.

All this while the hands, fingers, lips, tongue and eyes can roam all about with much delicious kissing, nibbling, nuzzling, fondling, smelling, listening, tasting, touching, looking and all the rest which such a physical embrace, such physical proximity so exquisitely provides for; the neck below the ear-lobe, for instance, is an especial delight and to eventually indulge in never-ending open-mouthed kissing – at the heights of sexual arousal – is to be breathing each other’s breath in a most personal way of gradually depriving the brain of oxygen as to even further increase both arousal and intimate contact (togetherness, closeness, sweetness, richness, actuality).

(Meanwhile, back at the sex taking care of itself, that hovering indefinitely on the orgastic plateau has catapulted one into what I chose to call a sexual world: another dimension, as it were, where sex and sexuality is virtually dripping off the walls; a sexual dimension where all you are is an enormous penis/ an enormous vagina (dependent upon gender) which has grown legs and feet to walk to food and drink sources to sustain itself/ yourself, and arms and hands to assist in that process, so as to have yet more and more of what it/ you is/ are here for at this particular moment (endless effortless sexual congress); a rampant sexual dimension where all other people and things have receded into the background; a dripping-with- sex-and-sexuality dimension where there is only this beginningless and endless moment where you both cannot ever possibly have enough of each other; a consummately durationless moment where all there is is you and her/ you and him (dependent upon gender) hovering on that endlessly orgastic plateau of supreme sexuality and intimacy).

And then ... !Hey Presto! ... no separation whatsoever.

*

RESPONDENT: Thank you Richard for this elaboration, it’s both fascinating and helpful. I would like to clarify a certain point, when you mention sexuality, do you refer to the sex drive ?

RICHARD: Yes, otherwise known as libido – a Latin word meaning ‘lust’ (which is an Old English word for ‘sensuous appetite’ according to the Oxford Dictionary) – or sexual energy ... as distinct from (bodily) sexual arousal.

To explain: that sexual energy (as in feeling lusty) is an affective energy – libido, as distinct from sexual arousal, is an instinctual passion otherwise known as desire – whereas bodily arousal (as in genital engorgement, erectile tissue, lubricious fluids and so on) is only sensuous (as in sensate) or, more properly, purely sensual.

RESPONDENT: Is this sexual dimension a dimension in which all the affective energy is directed towards the sex drive or is it a sensuous state with no or little affective components?

RICHARD: That sexual dimension – a sexual world, so to speak, where sex and sexuality is virtually dripping off the walls; where there is only this beginningless and endless moment; where you both cannot ever possibly have enough of each other; where you cannot tell where the penis ends and the vagina begins/ where the vagina ends and the penis begins; where the distinction betwixt you and her/ betwixt you and him is as if non-existent – is indeed a dimension in which all the affective energy is directed towards the sex drive (or, rather, there is only that sex drive).

(As I have already said, in another context, starting from where you are at is always the best place to start from ... as to pretend that ‘you’ are not a sexual ‘being’, at root, is to deny ‘your’ very nature).

However, and this is important to note, all this is taking place within the (physical) sexual act itself – the sensuous/ sensual bodily arousal condition which I clearly referred to (further above) as the sex taking care of itself – which operates of its own accord once hovering indefinitely on that orgastic plateau has been established. (Where identity is in abeyance, as in a PCE, or extinct, as upon an actual freedom, there is only the sensuous/ sensual bodily arousal condition as libido is null and void when a flesh and blood body is sans identity).

RESPONDENT: I ask because I’m not really sure what role the sex drive plays in all this.

RICHARD: The instinctual sex drive has a vital role to play in all this; because ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ then it is equally the case that ‘I’ am ‘my’ libido and ‘my’ libido is ‘me’.

RESPONDENT: Looking forward to your reply.

RICHARD: Good ... I am only too happy to expand on the topic of sexuality and intimacy as it is one of my favourite subjects ... and for a very good reason. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘... obviously I am not going to go into details as my reports are circumscribed by the fact that the persons concerned are both readily identifiable and still alive (I have no such constraints when talking about just myself) but as the subject is of primary importance – man-woman sexuality and intimacy is the genesis of family and thus the very core of civilisation itself – there is too much at stake for me to take my unique insight to the grave/ pyre/ whatever. (Richard, List D, No. 6, 13 Nov 2009).

The theme of man-woman interaction runs all through ‘Richard’s Journal’, for instance, as expressed right upfront in the Preface (before the Table of Contents). Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘All through the ages and in all cultures, one basic predicament exemplifies the problem of human interaction: man and woman have never been able to live together in peace and harmony and delight for the twenty-four hours of every day. Each and every person alive today has entered this world the only possible way ... one is the progeny of man and woman and the quality of the start of life is in part dependent upon the quality of the interaction between one’s progenitors. The child can only blindly follow the example – and the precepts – bequeathed with love and compassion by the parents. What I have done has been an investigation and an exploration; an uncovering and a discovering of the problems which have tormented both genders ... difficulties which were seemingly set in concrete and not to be disputed. I could not and would not accept the status-quo. I started from a basic premise that if man and woman could not live together with nary a bicker – let alone a quarrel – then the universe was indeed a sick joke.

This appalling prognosis I was patently incapable of believing. (page 5; ‘Richard’s Journal’ © 1997 The Actual Freedom Trust).

For the sake of emphasis I will repeat the essence of my first quote further above: as man-woman sexuality and intimacy is the genesis of family it is, thus, the very core of civilisation itself.

Regards, Richard.