|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 74
RESPONDENT No. 94: [I have every reason to believe that you experience life just as you report. And the loss of the ‘entity’ within is crucial to the maintenance of this condition. One could say that the self/SELF disappeared or became so ‘unconscious’ as to be effectively gone]. ‘You’ do still seem to maintain qualities that I might describe as ‘self’. RICHARD: As what this flesh and blood body might seem to be maintaining, and what is actually happening, are two entirely different things it may very well pay to focus on the latter. RESPONDENT: At many places on the AF website, it is said that if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. ... it must BE a duck. RICHARD: Aye (and ‘waddles like a duck’ is the other characteristic): the following quotes, which you have seen fit to snip out, are but two instances of what this particular duck has quacked on many an occasion:
And:
Yet what was it that my co-respondent immediately declared did still seem to be being maintained (which they might describe as ‘self’) by way of explanation? None other than this:
RESPONDENT: Why this sudden disregard for what appears to be? RICHARD: There is no way, without being silly, that those quoted quacks (and there are more of similar ilk) can be construed as appearing to be coming from the final remnant of self who is identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’. RESPONDENT: If you say there is no identity in the flesh and body called Richard, but if others notice arrogance, or an attitude of being a saviour etc. (just as an example) in your communication style (which are evidently traits of having an identity within the flesh and blood body) why should they ignore it, as per your suggestion: ‘it may very well pay to focus on the latter’? RICHARD: If you wish to focus upon what this flesh and blood body might still seem to be maintaining (the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’) rather than on what is actually happening – a marked disinclination to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein a normal lifestyle cannot be lived – then that is your business. RESPONDENT: How can they know what is ACTUALLY happening within your body? RICHARD: By taking notice of how this particular duck waddles and quacks, perchance? RESPONDENT: One can only go by your behaviour. RICHARD: And the behaviour (aka the waddles) of this particular duck, in regards what seems to be identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’, is of what nature? RESPONDENT: Only you can know what is happening to you. RICHARD: On the contrary, the behaviour of this particular duck, in regards what seems to be identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’, can be readily ascertained by anyone ... to the point that there has been criticism for not being such a public spectacle (of actively discouraging live meetings for instance). RESPONDENT: In fact, with you it is harder to know what is actually happening, since you discourage live meetings ... RICHARD: Hmm ... and that behaviour is the proof of identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’ is it? RESPONDENT: ... and only want to communicate your insights. RICHARD: What I write comes out of my living experience and has nothing to do with insights ... none of what I am living is applied theory born out of insight (or intuition). There is this which is actually happening and my words are an account, a report, a narrative, written as a direct experience as it is occurring. In other words, it is located in or based upon or drawn from actuality – factual experience – as peace-on-earth is just here right now, as it already has been, and always will be. RESPONDENT: This way, it is impossible for an interested person to find out if in your daily life you are actually free from irritation, anger, rudeness etc. RICHARD: How would finding out that in my daily life I am actually free from irritation, anger, rudeness, etcetera, demonstrate there be no identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’? RESPONDENT: All we have is your written words. RICHARD: And all you would get in a live meeting would be spoken words ... how are spoken words, as opposed to written words, going to demonstrate there be no identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’?
RESPONDENT: If you say there is no identity in the flesh and body called Richard, but if others notice arrogance, or an attitude of being a saviour etc. (just as an example) in your communication style (which are evidently traits of having an identity within the flesh and blood body) why should they ignore it, as per your suggestion: ‘it may very well pay to focus on the latter’? RICHARD: If you wish to focus upon what this flesh and blood body might still seem to be maintaining (the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’) rather than on what is actually happening – a marked disinclination to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein a normal lifestyle cannot be lived – then that is your business. RESPONDENT: The (assumed) saviour role maintenance is not my concern at all. RICHARD: I did notice, of course, that you wrote [quote] ‘an attitude of being a saviour’ [endquote] and not ‘the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a saviour’ ... it did seem a reasonable assumption, at the time, that you were referring to the same thing. RESPONDENT: That was what the other correspondent is concerned about. RICHARD: If I might point out? Your entire query was about what [quote] ‘others notice’ [endquote] ... I only made it personal because it was you who reached for the keyboard (and not those undesignated others). RESPONDENT: I have, on more than one occasion, been happy to discover that you have no desire to attract attention by travelling around, holding AF camps, and whatnot. RICHARD: Okay ... I am only too happy to rephrase my response so that it be in accord with your clarifying explanation: if others wish to focus upon what they assume this flesh and blood body to be maintaining (an attitude of being a saviour) rather than on what is actually happening – a marked disinclination to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein a normal lifestyle cannot be lived – then that is their business. RESPONDENT: My concern is: Your words sometimes do convey the attitude of arrogance. RICHARD: I see ... so when you asked about others noticing [quote] ‘arrogance, or an attitude of being a saviour etc’ [endquote] I was somehow supposed to discern that, while the attitude of being a saviour was not your concern at all, the attitude of arrogance is your concern? RESPONDENT: Arrogance is something I would associate with an identity within. RICHARD: As the word arrogance stems from arrogate – ‘appropriate, assume, or claim (to oneself) unduly or without justification’ (Oxford Dictionary) – and is marked by or arises from a feeling or an assumption of superiority toward others (as in unduly/ unjustifiably appropriating authority or importance) your association of same with an identity within is not misplaced.RESPONDENT: Can you not look at your words yourself, and see that sometimes they do convey arrogance? RICHARD: I have had variations on this theme thrown at me for years and years ... ‘don’t be uppity’ or ‘who do you think you are’ or ‘you need to learn to know your place’ and so forth. Peoples like to fondly quote that ‘the emperor has no clothes’ homily but ... but never, ever have the audacity to demonstrate that the emperor actually has no clothes or you will be jumped on from a great height and told: no, no, no, just take your place amongst all us other humans ... 6.0+ billion of us can’t possibly be wrong, you know. And thus do all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so on, go on forever and a day. * RESPONDENT: One can only go by your behaviour. RICHARD: And the behaviour (aka the waddles) of this particular duck, in regards what seems to be identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’, is of what nature? RESPONDENT: Let the other correspondent respond to it. RICHARD: As I was unaware that I was somehow supposed to discern that, while the attitude of being a saviour was not your concern at all, the attitude of arrogance is your concern I am only too happy to rephrase my response so that it be in accord with your clarifying explanation ... to wit: and the behaviour (aka the waddles) of this particular duck, in regards an attitude of arrogance you claim my words do convey/sometimes do convey, is of what nature? * RESPONDENT: In fact, with you it is harder to know what is actually happening, since you discourage live meetings ... RICHARD: Hmm ... and that behaviour is the proof of identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’ is it? RESPONDENT: Come on. Why do you pick on one particular detail of an argument and repeat it in every sentence? RICHARD: As I was unaware that I was somehow supposed to discern that, while the attitude of being a saviour was not your concern at all, the attitude of arrogance is your concern I am only too happy to rephrase my response so that it be in accord with your clarifying explanation ... to wit: and that behaviour (discouraging live meetings) is the proof of an attitude of arrogance is it? * RESPONDENT: This way [discouraging live meetings], it is impossible for an interested person to find out if in your daily life you are actually free from irritation, anger, rudeness etc. RICHARD: How would finding out that in my daily life I am actually free from irritation, anger, rudeness, etcetera, demonstrate there be no identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’? RESPONDENT: Again. Why do you conveniently ignore the other attribute, that of arrogance, that I mentioned in my email? RICHARD: Again, as I was unaware that I was somehow supposed to discern that, while the attitude of being a saviour was not your concern at all, the attitude of arrogance is your concern I am only too happy to rephrase my response so that it be in accord with your clarifying explanation ... to wit: how would finding out that in my daily life I am actually free from irritation, anger, rudeness, etcetera, demonstrate there be no attitude of arrogance? * RESPONDENT: All we have is your written words. RICHARD: And all you would get in a live meeting would be spoken words ... how are spoken words, as opposed to written words, going to demonstrate there be no identification with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’? RESPONDENT: As regards arrogance, someone’s behaviour, body language might very well be useful to observe. Verbal/written communication is but one facet of one’s interaction with the world. RICHARD: If I may ask? Are you really suggesting that I abandon the lifestyle I have chosen, the lifestyle I wish to live, the lifestyle I am living (wherein I enjoy normal things such as eating at normal restaurants, meeting normal people at cafés, chatting about normal things, having normal pastimes, and in all other ways being able to freely live the normal lifestyle that I set out to become free of the human condition for all those years ago) and instead [quote] ‘attract attention by travelling around, holding AF camps, and whatnot’ [endquote]?
RESPONDENT: If you say there is no identity in the flesh and body called Richard, but if others notice arrogance, or an attitude of being a saviour etc. (just as an example) in your communication style (which are evidently traits of having an identity within the flesh and blood body) why should they ignore it, as per your suggestion: ‘it may very well pay to focus on the latter’? RICHARD: If you wish to focus upon what this flesh and blood body might still seem to be maintaining (the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’) rather than on what is actually happening – a marked disinclination to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein a normal lifestyle cannot be lived – then that is your business. RESPONDENT: The (assumed) saviour role maintenance is not my concern at all. RICHARD: I did notice, of course, that you wrote [quote] ‘an attitude of being a saviour’ [endquote] and not ‘the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a saviour’ ... it did seem a reasonable assumption, at the time, that you were referring to the same thing. RESPONDENT: That was what the other correspondent is concerned about. RICHARD: If I might point out? Your entire query was about what [quote] ‘others notice’ [endquote] ... I only made it personal because it was you who reached reach for the keyboard (and not those undesignated others). RESPONDENT: My query was less about the traits themselves (be it an attitude of a saviour or the attitude of arrogance), than about the fact that you were asking the correspondent to disregard what appeared in favour of what was ACTUALLY happening. RICHARD: I was not ‘asking’ I was suggesting – as in my ‘it may very well pay’ phrasing – and neither was I asking my co-respondent to ‘disregard’ what this flesh and blood body might seem to be maintaining (the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’) but suggesting that they focus instead upon what is actually happening – a marked disinclination to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein a normal lifestyle cannot be lived – as that actuality can be readily ascertained by anyone ... to the point that there has been criticism for not being such a public spectacle (of actively discouraging live meetings for instance). Thus your above sentence might look something like this when phrased in accord with what actually occurred:
Be that as it may ... what would be so counter-productive about asking my co-respondent (were that to have been the case) to disregard what appears to be happening in favour of what is actually happening, anyway? Would that not be a sensible approach?
RESPONDENT: If you say there is no identity in the flesh and body called Richard, but if others notice arrogance, or an attitude of being a saviour etc. (just as an example) in your communication style (which are evidently traits of having an identity within the flesh and blood body) why should they ignore it, as per your suggestion: ‘it may very well pay to focus on the latter’? RICHARD: If you wish to focus upon what this flesh and blood body might still seem to be maintaining (the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’) rather than on what is actually happening – a marked disinclination to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein a normal lifestyle cannot be lived – then that is your business. RESPONDENT: The (assumed) saviour role maintenance is not my concern at all. RICHARD: I did notice, of course, that you wrote [quote] ‘an attitude of being a saviour’ [endquote] and not ‘the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a saviour’ ... it did seem a reasonable assumption, at the time, that you were referring to the same thing. RESPONDENT: That was what the other correspondent is concerned about. RICHARD: If I might point out? Your entire query was about what [quote] ‘others notice’ [endquote] ... I only made it personal because it was you who reached reach for the keyboard (and not those undesignated others). RESPONDENT: My query was less about the traits themselves (be it an attitude of a saviour or the attitude of arrogance), than about the fact that you were asking the correspondent to disregard what appeared in favour of what was ACTUALLY happening. RICHARD: I was not ‘asking’ I was suggesting – as in my ‘it may very well pay’ phrasing – and neither was I asking my co-respondent to ‘disregard’ what this flesh and blood body might seem to be maintaining (the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’) but suggesting that they focus instead upon what is actually happening – a marked disinclination to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein a normal lifestyle cannot be lived – as that actuality can be readily ascertained by anyone ... to the point that there has been criticism for not being such a public spectacle (of actively discouraging live meetings for instance). Thus your above sentence might look something like this when phrased in accord with what actually occurred: [example only]: ‘My query was less about the seemed trait itself (an attitude of a saviour) than about the fact that you were suggesting your co-respondent focus upon the readily ascertained actuality (a marked disinclination to become same)’. [end example]. Be that as it may ... what would be so counter-productive about asking my co-respondent (were that to have been the case) to disregard what appears to be happening in favour of what is actually happening, anyway? Would that not be a sensible approach? RESPONDENT: In the saviour case, I agree that is a sensible enough suggestion. What about arrogance, though? RICHARD: But I did not ask (to use your terminology) my co-respondent to disregard what appeared to be arrogance in favour of what was actually happening ... that is a matter which you intercalated, along with a wide-ranging etcetera, into my specific response to one particular allegation.
RESPONDENT: My query was less about the traits themselves (be it an attitude of a saviour or the attitude of arrogance), than about the fact that you were asking the correspondent to disregard what appeared in favour of what was ACTUALLY happening. RICHARD: I was not ‘asking’ I was suggesting – as in my ‘it may very well pay’ phrasing – and neither was I asking my co-respondent to ‘disregard’ what this flesh and blood body might seem to be maintaining (the final remnant of self identified with a subtle archetype of a ‘saviour’) but suggesting that they focus instead upon what is actually happening – a marked disinclination to become some sort of latter-day atheistic-saviour of humankind wherein a normal lifestyle cannot be lived – as that actuality can be readily ascertained by anyone ... to the point that there has been criticism for not being such a public spectacle (of actively discouraging live meetings for instance). Thus your above sentence might look something like this when phrased in accord with what actually occurred: [example only]: ‘My query was less about the seemed trait itself (an attitude of a saviour) than about the fact that you were suggesting your co-respondent focus upon the readily ascertained actuality (a marked disinclination to become same)’. [end example]. Be that as it may ... what would be so counter-productive about asking my co-respondent (were that to have been the case) to disregard what appears to be happening in favour of what is actually happening, anyway? Would that not be a sensible approach? RESPONDENT: In the saviour case, I agree that is a sensible enough suggestion. What about arrogance, though? RICHARD: But I did not ask (to use your terminology) my co-respondent to disregard what appeared to be arrogance in favour of what was actually happening ... that is a matter which you intercalated, along with a wide-ranging etcetera, into my specific response to one particular allegation. RESPONDENT: Okay, so can we address that issue now? RICHARD: Sure ... as I did not ask (to use your terminology) my co-respondent to disregard what appeared to be
arrogance and etcetera, in favour of what was actually happening, your simple questions are baseless
RESPONDENT No. 94: Do you become ‘aroused’ without any mental component (i.e. do you find yourself with an erection when a partner expresses some desire to engage in sex) or what? RICHARD: Here in this actual world it is impossible to ever be hedonic as the affective pleasure/pain centre in the
brain – as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate You may find the following self-explanatory:
And:
RESPONDENT: Don’t you ever get an erection without tactile stimulation? RICHARD: Yes ... nocturnal tumescence can and does occur during the transition from sleeping to waking (the autonomic release of nitric oxide, synthesised from arginine and oxygen by the enzyme nitric oxide synthase, can enable erectile tissue to involuntarily engorge in both males and females). RESPONDENT: If you watch a pornographic movie, for example? RICHARD: No ... all appetitive desires are non-existent. Viz.:
* RESPONDENT No. 94: Would the idea of masturbation ever arise? RICHARD: Having lived with a female companion since 1992 there has been no occasion where, being but a substitute for the real thing, it would ... there is (presumably) no reason why it would not, though, were the situation to be different. RESPONDENT: Would you masturbate without thinking of a partner? RICHARD: As your query is drawn from my speculative response then what you are asking me to do is to further conjecture
about a supposition ... what I can say, however, is that the anhedonic pleasure Indeed, it is impossible to either imagine or form images where there is no identity (the affective faculty in its entirety – which includes its imaginative/ intuitive facility – has no existence whatsoever in this flesh and blood body). RESPONDENT: Just a physical stimulation of your genital organs would it be, then? RICHARD: If the hetero-sexual tactile stimulation already referred to in my initial response at top of this page is anything to go by there is (presumably) no reason why mono-sexual tactile stimulation would be any different ... other than, of course, a difference in quality. * RESPONDENT No. 94: Do you experience hunger? RICHARD: No (all appetitive desires are null and void). RESPONDENT: If you don’t eat for a day or two, there would be certain sensations in your body which are usually classified as hunger by normal humans. RICHARD: The bodily sensation of an empty stomach is not what is usually classified as hunger by normal humans – and it does not take a day or two of not eating anyway but only a few hours – as what is usually classified by normal humans as hunger is a feeling of being hungry which arises from that sensation ... which feeling desists (in normal humans) when replaced by a feeling of satiety which arises from the sensation of a full stomach after having eaten. I have quite often gone without food for twenty four hours or more yet have never, ever, experienced hunger. RESPONDENT: Appetitive desires are something different. RICHARD: On the contrary, hunger *is* an appetitive desire.
RICHARD: (...) it is impossible to either imagine or form images where there is no identity (the affective faculty in its entirety – which includes its imaginative/ intuitive facility – has no existence whatsoever in this flesh and blood body). RESPONDENT: This is what I don’t understand: What does imagination have to do with intuition or affective feelings? RICHARD: First of all, where I say ‘imaginative’ I am not meaning conceptive and where I say ‘intuitive’ I am not meaning insightful ... plus where I say ‘the affective faculty’ I am not referring to only the affective feelings but all of it in its entirety (complete with its epiphenomenal psychic ability). Indeed, by ‘the affective faculty in its entirety’ I am referring, all-inclusively, to the human psyche itself. Here in this actual world, where there is no psyche, the ability to imagine/ envision/ hallucinate is non-existent (the difference between imagination and hallucination is a difference in degree and not of kind) ... just as the facility of believing, of being delusional, is not extant either. * RESPONDENT No. 94: Do you experience hunger? RICHARD: No (all appetitive desires are null and void). RESPONDENT: If you don’t eat for a day or two, there would be certain sensations in your body which are usually classified as hunger by normal humans. RICHARD: The bodily sensation of an empty stomach is not what is usually classified as hunger by normal humans – and it does not take a day or two of not eating anyway but only a few hours – as what is usually classified by normal humans as hunger is a feeling of being hungry which arises from that sensation ... which feeling desists (in normal humans) when replaced by a feeling of satiety which arises from the sensation of a full stomach after having eaten. RESPONDENT: This is certainly new to me. RICHARD: Laboratory tests have shown that stimulation of the lateral nucleus of the hypothalamus (known as the ‘feeding centre’) activates feeding in animals – whereas lesions of the lateral nucleus abolish all desire to eat (aphagia) – and that stimulation of the ventromedial nucleus of the hypothalamus (aka the ‘satiety centre’) inhibits feeding ... whereas lesions of the ventromedial nucleus can lead to compulsive eating (hyperphagia). Incidentally, it has been found that opiates also stimulate the ventromedial nucleus (hence the use of amphetamine for control of obesity). * RICHARD: I have quite often gone without food for twenty four hours or more yet have never, ever, experienced hunger. RESPONDENT: Okay, what did you experience? RICHARD: In terms of the hunger-satiety pleasure/pain RESPONDENT: If your blood sugar level goes down due to a 24 hour (or more) long fast, would you not feel (or experience) weakness ... RICHARD: On those occasions where I have gone without food for twenty four hours or more, without ever experiencing hunger, I have not experienced weakness. RESPONDENT: ... some kind of nausea ... RICHARD: On those occasions where I have gone without food for twenty four hours or more, without ever experiencing hunger, I have not experienced some kind of nausea. RESPONDENT: ... certain sensations in the gut which indicate an emptiness ... RICHARD: The bodily sensation of an empty stomach occurs within a few hours. RESPONDENT: ... certain acidity which indicates non-use of the digestive secretions etc.? RICHARD: Having no pleasure/pain centre RESPONDENT: Why classify only the affective feeling of hunger as hunger? RICHARD: Mainly because the bodily sensation of an empty stomach is not what is usually classified as hunger by normal humans – what is usually classified by normal humans as hunger is a feeling of being hungry which arises from that sensation – which feeling desists (in normal humans) when replaced by a feeling of satiety which arises from the sensation of a full stomach after having eaten. * RESPONDENT: Appetitive desires are something different. RICHARD: On the contrary, hunger *is* an appetitive desire. RESPONDENT: I’m not at all sure. RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say about the word ‘appetitive’:
As my co-respondent asked me about experiencing hunger immediately after enquiring about sexual libido (from the Latin meaning ‘desire’, ‘lust’) there was no reason to assume they were wanting to know if this flesh and blood body still experienced the bodily sensation of an empty stomach. ‘Twould be a rather trivial question, no?
RESPONDENT: Richard, do you have the transcript of a dialogue in which you probed someone for a recollection of a PCE? RICHARD: No ... literally millions of words have disappeared into thin air. RESPONDENT: I am interested in probing myself for this. Do you have any suggestions? RICHARD: Just for starters the following may be of assistance (a written-at-a-later-date section of my version of a discussion with another many years ago):
RESPONDENT: Suggestions and comments: 1. The video clip resolution should be adjustable (or multiple resolution choices should be provided). 80 megabytes containing only two minutes is way beyond the reach of most internet consumers even today (especially in the third world). RICHARD: The 720p resolution on the ‘Out from Control Sample’ WMV HD (‘Windows Media Video High Definition’) is already as low as HD can go ... 1080i is the optimum resolution. RESPONDENT: 2. As suggested by others, stills can be provided for the videos. RICHARD: Stills are redundant for any spoken dialogue which has been transcribed to text as posture, facial expressions/ eye-movement, gesticulations, tone of voice, and so forth, all require moving pictures for their conveyance. RESPONDENT: I will create some and put it up on a website, if that is allowed by the AF webmasters. RICHARD: Just for the record: so as to preserve the integrity of content the copyright for all material is held by The Actual Freedom Trust – which has its own domain (actualfreedom.com.au) – and the web site is currently being hosted on an off-shore high-tech server with more than enough space available for any material the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust collectively decide to put on offer. RESPONDENT: 3. The ending shot of the sunset is remarkable. RICHARD: The ending shot is actually a fade-out into a sunrise ... yet, be that as it may, there is more to observe
than just the behaviour of the sun
RESPONDENT: Suggestions and comments: 1. The video clip resolution should be adjustable (or multiple resolution choices should be provided). 80 megabytes containing only two minutes is way beyond the reach of most internet consumers even today (especially in the third world). RICHARD: The 720p resolution on the ‘Out from Control Sample’ WMV HD (‘Windows Media Video High Definition’) is already as low as HD can go ... 1080i is the optimum resolution. RESPONDENT: Okay, I was not aware that HD was the only option. It is certainly the best, but whether it is the most expedient is the question I was asking. RICHARD: The HD video format was chosen for its quality (the qualitative difference between 480p Standard Definition Video and 1080i High Definition Video is of a magnitude up to six times better) and not its expediency – the 4.0+ million freely available words on The Actual Freedom Trust web site already provide that – just as the screensaver was ... where upwards of 50 different screensavers were trialled so as to select the highest quality available at the time. (Editor’s note: The screensaver is no longer available due to its incompatibility with Windows 8) All of the items on that order-form page you downloaded the sample from, none of which are essential reading/ viewing, are optional extras ... luxury items, as it were, and go towards defraying the costs associated with both maintaining The Actual Freedom Trust and its publishing operations. It pleases me immensely that all the necessary words explicating both an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice be available free of charge for anyone to access anywhere in the world. * RESPONDENT: 2. As suggested by others, stills can be provided for the videos. RICHARD: Stills are redundant for any spoken dialogue which has been transcribed to text as posture, facial expressions/ eye-movement, gesticulations, tone of voice, and so forth, all require moving pictures for their conveyance. RESPONDENT: No, facial expressions in still images can express irritation, or anger. RICHARD: Although you said ‘as suggested by others’ there was, unless I have missed some e-mails, only one person who wondered if it is possible to [quote] ‘post pictures of *the* video clip with a text dialogue’ [emphasis added] ... thus my response to your observation that stills can be provided for *the videos* was written in that context. Of course, as a generalisation, a still image of a person’s facial expression can communicate a feeling – just as a still image shows a posture, an eye-position, and a gesticulation – yet stills are redundant for any spoken dialogue which has been transcribed to text as all those components require moving pictures for their conveyance. RESPONDENT: However, my offer of putting up still images was just so that those who could not download the whole of the clip could at least see what you look like, in case they were curious. RICHARD: The physiognomy – the general appearance – of this flesh and blood body (just as it would be for any other body) is irrelevant to this flesh and blood body’s actual freedom from the human condition. The whole purpose of making the videos publicly available is so that the visual/ audile interaction of the parties concerned
can be seen/heard – rather than just the written word interaction on this mailing list – so that (just for a topical example) those who claim
there is an attitude of arrogance in my written communication style * RESPONDENT: I will create some and put it up on a website, if that is allowed by the AF webmasters. RICHARD: Just for the record: so as to preserve the integrity of content the copyright for all material is held by The Actual Freedom Trust – which has its own domain (actualfreedom.com.au) – and the web site is currently being hosted on an off-shore high-tech server with more than enough space available for any material the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust collectively decide to put on offer. RESPONDENT: Ok. How does one contact the AF trustees? Aren’t Vineeto, Peter who are also the webmasters also the trustees? Can we have a list of all the trustees? RICHARD: The directors of The Actual Freedom Trust can be contacted at the following address:
* RESPONDENT: 3. The ending shot of the sunset is remarkable. RICHARD: The ending shot is actually a fade-out into a sunrise ... yet, be that as it may, there is more to observe
than just the behaviour of the sun RESPONDENT: :-) RICHARD: It is fun, is it not, finding out just what makes one tick? RESPONDENT: What I did observe was your sense of pleasure when the lady you are talking to, said that she saw how staying in the real world was selfish. RICHARD: I am always pleased when someone – anyone – profoundly understands something vital to their well-being ... peace-on-earth is at stake. Viz.:
Just substitute the word ‘pleased’ for ‘interested’ ... it amounts to the same thing. RESPONDENT: Your pleasure had a facial expression of, what one might consider, self-satisfaction. RICHARD: I am sure peoples are going to impute all manner of things into the postures, the facial expressions/eye-movements, the gesticulations, the tones of voice, and so forth ... just as they do with the written word. It is not for nothing I say that experiential proof is the only proof worthy of the name. Viz.: (Richard, Homepage). Alternatively, if one were to read/listen with all their being they may very well find themself being catapulted into the magical wonder-land that this verdant and azure planet actually is. ‘Tis the ‘all their being’ which is the key.
RICHARD: In 1985 I had the first of many experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment (as described in ‘A Brief Personal History’ on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust web site) and it had the character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was experienced at the time – and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism). Thus I knew even before becoming actually free that this condition was entirely new to human experience while still alive ...... furthermore, in the ensuing years, as I proceeded to penetrate deeper and deeper into the state of being known as spiritual enlightenment, the psychic footprints, as it were, of those who had explored some of the further reaches of ‘Being’ itself gradually became less and less in number and finally petered out altogether leaving only virgin territory wherever the (psychic) eye would look. RESPONDENT No. 90: What did these psychic footprints ‘look’ like? RICHARD: They looked more or less like the footsteps to be found in the metaphorical term ‘follow in another’s footsteps’. RESPONDENT No. 90: Can you explain to me what you mean by psychic footprints without recourse to idiom, simile, metaphor or figure of speech? What exactly is a psychic footprint? What is it comprised of? How and under what conditions are they left? How are they detected? How can you be sure they were left behind by someone else and not imagined or created? RESPONDENT: I am also interested in this question. RICHARD: The questions you go on to ask (psychic communication) – and the facility you refer to (psychical premonitions) – is not what is being referred to above (an apotheosised field of consciousness wherein metaphysical knowledge is directly attainable). RESPONDENT: What exactly is psychic communication? We all know it exists in the real world, but what is it? Is it an electromagnetic wave? Is it an imaginative feeling? There is not much space devoted on the AF website to the phenomenon known as the psychic web. What is the medium in which this web is formed? How can psychic connections happen at a distance in space and time? RICHARD: You must have missed the following exchange a little over five weeks ago: (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25i, Tuesday June 07 2005a). RESPONDENT: Is there valid information contained in the psychic medium, for example, that someone’s loved one is in grave physical danger? RICHARD: There can indeed be valid information communicated psychically ... separating the grain from the chaff is another matter, though. RESPONDENT: I have known one person who woke up in the middle of the night having an a undefinable premonition, and she did not have any actual information to support such a fear-drenched state, but it did happen that her son died in an accident that night at that very hour. RICHARD: The problem with psychical premonitions is that, when tested exhaustively under the scientific method the results are about 50-50 (the same as guesswork) thus they are not a reliable means of communication.
CORRESPONDENT No. 74 (Part Six) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX 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 |
