|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 90
RESPONDENT: I discovered the actual freedom site a few days ago and find it compelling. RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list ... just what is it that you find compelling? RESPONDENT: It seems from my investigations so far to really actually and in fact offer something new. RICHARD: Just what is it, from your investigations so far, that is new? RESPONDENT: After escaping the common social and political cul-de-sacs I found myself, like many others, in the more esoteric traps offered by eastern teachers. I’ve been most influenced by Barry Long and Tony Parsons, the latter, offering a very extreme form of advaita, stresses that that there is absolutely nothing that is not presence, freedom, bliss etc and that therefore nothing can be done or not done to ‘get it’. Thus to free oneself requires nothing but accepting everything exactly at is. Some benefits there, but still deeply unsatisfactory (I have recently discovered) as my core fraudulence and viciousness continues to plague me. RICHARD: If only the enlightened/ awakened/ realised ones’ core fraudulence and viciousness would plague them too, eh? RESPONDENT: The actual freedom website seems one of those happy conjunctions where what I am starting to gather for myself meets the intelligent offer of what it might lead to. RICHARD: Just what is it that the intelligent offer might lead to? RESPONDENT: I am cautious of course. Not exactly afraid of the ‘bolt-on’ stage of initial enthusiasm, and certainly willing to go the whole way beyond that if it seems right (easy to say that now of course, but still, the enthusiastic intent is here), but still I have some questions. First of all though I wanted to say thank you. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... it always pleases me when a fellow human being discovers The Actual Freedom Trust web site. RESPONDENT: My questions at this stage are very superficial. As I work my way into the explanation and the process I will have more worthwhile questions to ask you. As such I don’t really mind if you ignore what follows. But still, if you have some spare time, and no more pressing enquiries to attend to, I would be interested to read your answers. 1) Noam Chomsky is disparaged on the site. RICHARD: More specifically it is Mr. Noam Chomsky’s contribution to global peace and harmony which is disparaged, on one particular occasion, on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... to wit:
RESPONDENT: At first glance that seems totally reasonable as he has never offered any solution to what fundamentally is wrong in my life. RICHARD: Indeed not ... it is common-place to blame the politicians, the teachers, the clergy, the parents and so on, for the troubles that beset the community and the citizen alike. It is to no avail to blame the politician, for example, for the antics they get up to, because underneath the politician – under the role and the image – lies a ‘human’ heart. The politician is making the best job of it that he or she can do, considering the burden that they carry ... which is the burden of being ‘human’. They have, like any other ‘human’, an ego and a soul nestled uncomfortably within them. They have an identity, a psychological or psychic entity that exists inside of their bodies. RESPONDENT: I am quite willing to accept also that he has made questionable, or even wrong and ridiculous, pronouncements on politics and linguistics. Nevertheless much of what he says about power structures and the form and function of western propaganda I find interesting and accurate. RICHARD: It matters not whether much of what Mr. Noam Chomsky has to say, about power structures and the form and function of western propaganda, is interesting and accurate or not ... any action within ‘humanity’ as it is, is doomed to failure. Unless this fact can be grasped with both hands and taken on board to such an extent that it hits home deeply, nothing will change, radically. There will be changes around the edges; variations upon a familiar theme, but nothing structurally new, nothing even approaching the mutation-like change that is essential for the human race to fully appreciate the fullness and prosperity of being alive on planet earth, in this era, as a flesh and blood body. To remain ‘human’ is to remain a failure. RESPONDENT: Perhaps not deeply useful ... RICHARD: Indeed not ... all throughout human history peoples have been endeavouring to bring about communal peace and harmony through political change, social reform, economic reconstruction, cultural revisionism, and so on. It is vital to comprehend that one of the fundamental understandings, if there is to be radical change, is that peace and harmony comes about by living happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and not by attempting to change people, things and events so as to have the world at large conform with whatever scheme or dream the identity within may come up with in order to perpetuate its existence. In other words: global peace and harmony starts at home. RESPONDENT: ... [Perhaps not deeply useful] but worthwhile in its sphere no? RICHARD: And just what [quote] ‘sphere’ [endquote] would that be? * RESPONDENT: 2) Related to this I notice that the conveniences and pleasures of the modern world are celebrated on the site. RICHARD: As you are referring to the enjoyment and appreciation of what has been achieved physically despite the human folly (aka the human condition) it is pertinent to point out that anything other than being naked in the forest, without so much as a box of matches, a knife, or a packet of salt, and staying alive by gathering berries/ fruit by hand and digging for roots/ yams with same is what constitutes that achievement. In other words what is currently available, as a result of human ingenuity/ human endeavour, is an extension of what the very first person to utilise a receptacle to gather in/a stick to dig with achieved. RESPONDENT: Is it not the case that such things are at the expense of the poor people who provide the raw labour and material to produce them under horrific conditions? RICHARD: All throughout human history some peoples have profited at other people’s expense – the feudal system is just one example that immediately springs to mind – and what is most outstanding about the current modern era, in regards such profiteering, is the expansive rise of a mercantile middle class ... and, of course, middle-class values/ principles and ethics/ morals. RESPONDENT: I’m not suggesting that one shouldn’t sensuously and guiltlessly immerse oneself in the splendid array of things at hand in our civilisation, but is there no recognition that they come at someone’s expense? RICHARD: There does seem to be something amiss with your query about whether 6.0+ billion peoples, whom you are not suggesting should not sensuously and guiltlessly immerse themselves in the splendid array of things at hand in their civilisation, are recognising that any such array comes at (some undesignated) others’ expense. RESPONDENT: And is there no movement to help those people? RICHARD: If you were to indicate just who those (thus far undesignated) peoples are, that 6.0+ billion peoples may or may not be moving to help, the nature of your query might very well become obvious. RESPONDENT: Again I’m not suggesting any political ‘solution’ to anyone’s problems. Absurd. RICHARD: Again ... if you were to indicate just who those (thus far undesignated) peoples with problems are, that you are not suggesting 6.0+ billion peoples provide a political solution for, the nature of your query might very well become obvious. RESPONDENT: And I’m not interested in adding a caring eco-friendly socialist adjunct to my personality. RICHARD: Just so that there is no misunderstanding ... are you suggesting that 6.0+ billion peoples also not add a caring eco-friendly socialist adjunct to their personalities either? RESPONDENT: But I still find that, at the very least, I prefer to know where my jeans were made, and under what conditions, and perhaps even do something to make life a little better for the slaves. RICHARD: If I might point out? Unless you are currently naked in a forest, without so much as a box of matches, a knife, or a packet of salt, and staying alive by gathering berries/ fruit by hand and digging for roots/ yams with same, you have just set yourself an enormous task – ascertaining where each and every component of each and every item you either ingest or utilise is made/ produced, and under what conditions, and perhaps doing something to make life a little better for (some undesignated) slaves – and for what purpose ... just so you can justify claiming that what Mr. Noam Chomsky has to say about power structures and the form and function of western propaganda is worthwhile in its sphere, perchance? RESPONDENT: I dunno though. I recognise that it is all besides the point. RICHARD: And just what [quote] ‘point’ [endquote] would that be? * RESPONDENT: 3) You have a link to an advaita site. Why is that? Do you not find Ramana Maharshi fundamentally misguided? RICHARD: I have located the following text:
* RESPONDENT: 4) I find the layout of your site is inefficient, confusing, unpleasing to the eye and ever so slightly cheesy (corny). RICHARD: Here is what various dictionaries have to say about those last two words:
RESPONDENT: Not that I mind particularly, and it is a tiny superficial qualm, and it’s also ‘just how it seems to me’. But it does seem that way to me. What do you think? RICHARD: I think that you find the layout of The Actual Freedom Trust web site to be inefficient, confusing, unpleasing to your eye and ever so slightly cheesy (corny) and that you do not particularly mind as it is a tiny superficial qualm and is also just how it seems to you. RESPONDENT: Could I be right? RICHARD: Yes, you could be right. RESPONDENT: Wrong? RICHARD: Yes, you could be wrong. RESPONDENT: Does it matter one tiny bit? RICHARD: Obviously it does (else why take the time to type it out and the bandwidth to send it). * RESPONDENT: 5) Related to this (the link between ‘the inner’ and ‘the outer’), is it possible for someone who is actually free, happy and harmless, to freely, happily and harmlessly punch someone in the face? RICHARD: First and foremost, as there is no ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ in actuality there is nothing here in this actual world to have any such linkage. Second, to be actually free from the human condition is to be sans the affective faculty/ identity in toto. Third, the happiness and harmlessness referred to on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is the total absence of malice and sorrow. Fourth, to freely punch a fellow human being in the face is to utilise physical force non-prejudiciously. Fifth, to happily punch a fellow human being in the face is to utilise physical force without sorrow. Sixth, to harmlessly punch a fellow human being in the face is to utilise physical force without malice. Thus your query can look something like this when spelled-out in full:
In a word ... yes. RESPONDENT: I mean I’m talking ‘in context’ here – not just through malice, but to protect someone, or something like that. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way? One does not become actually free from the human condition in order to be beaten to a pulp by someone – anyone – who chooses to let themselves continue being run by blind nature’s instinctual survival passions. * RESPONDENT: 6) Do you enjoy stories? RICHARD: If by that you mean true narratives (factual accounts or historical anecdotes) of people, other creatures, vegetation, things, or events then ... mostly, yes/ occasionally, no; if by that you mean false narratives (fictional tales or mythical legends) about fictitious people, imaginary other creatures, un-real vegetation, non-existent things, or made-up events then ... occasionally, yes/mostly, no. * RESPONDENT: That’s all for now. Everything else I currently find completely reasonable and thrillingly engaging. RICHARD: Just what is it that you are currently finding completely reasonable and thrillingly engaging? RESPONDENT: I will continue to plough through the website, and will probably find answers to these questions (another reason for you to ignore them). RICHARD: I have no reason to ignore what my fellow human being considers important enough to spend their most irreplaceable commodity – their time – writing extensively to me about. RESPONDENT: I’m really grateful for what I have read though. RICHARD: Whilst I appreciate your sentiments as expressed please do watch out for gratitude ... because that warm fuzzy feeling can, and does, lead on to all manner of disastrous consequences (in regards peace-on-earth). It is not for nothing that many spiritual teachers insist their students be grateful.
RESPONDENT: I’m really grateful for what I have read though [apart from that which occasioned various queries categorised earlier as being very superficial questions]. RICHARD: Whilst I appreciate your sentiments as expressed please do watch out for gratitude ... because that warm fuzzy feeling can, and does, lead on to all manner of disastrous consequences (in regards peace-on-earth). It is not for nothing that many spiritual teachers insist their students be grateful. RESPONDENT: Thank you for replying. As far as gratitude goes, I don’t SEEM to be able to feel anything. RICHARD: May I ask? As when you do not seem to be able to feel anything you say you are [quote] ‘really’ [endquote] grateful just what is it that you say when you do seem to be able to feel something ... that you are unreally grateful, perchance? RESPONDENT: But yet I recognise that it is good that you replied. RICHARD: Just what is it about the undeniable fact I replied that you recognise is good? RESPONDENT: Is it good? RICHARD: As the word ‘good’ can be utilised in various ways – as in meaning qualitied or virtuous or enjoyable or skilful or helpful or nice or well-behaved or beneficial (for just eight instances out of at least nineteen) – I will put your query in the form of a multiple-answer question ... for example:
As it is you who recognises that the undeniable fact I replied is [quote] ‘good’ [endquote] perhaps you might be better-placed than me to answer just what it is that you acknowledge as, and/or consider to be, something which you do not seem able to feel, non? RESPONDENT: I would like to go through some of your replies, and then add some more questions which came to me last night and this morning. I have to say I am hungry for answers. RICHARD: You do realise, do you not, that it is only experiential answers which can satisfy an otherwise insatiable appetite? * RESPONDENT: I discovered the actual freedom site a few days ago and find it compelling. It seems from my investigations so far to really actually and in fact offer something new. RICHARD: Just what is it, from your investigations so far, that is new? RESPONDENT: Good question. I suppose ... er... I don’t know. I really don’t. RICHARD: Okay ... here are the very first words on The Actual Freedom Trust home page (immediately below the ‘Actual Freedom’ logo):
From that very succinct heading (which is not placed in such a key position merely for decoration) three key aspects of the freedom referred to can be readily ascertained ... and without inference:
And not to forget, of course, from the logo itself:
RESPONDENT: I mean, it seems like perhaps I can sort it out, sort out ‘the problem’, by doing/being/not being what you say? RICHARD: As there are many peoples other than myself saying all manner of things about doing/ being/ not being many different things just what is new about doing/ being/ not being what I have to say? RESPONDENT: I’ve got no idea, but I’ve tried a lot and nothing comes up with the goods – me not being unhappy and trapped and lonely and frustrated and all of that. RICHARD: Well now ... it was obviously high time that somebody came up with something new, then, and yet the question remains as to just what that something new is, eh? RESPONDENT: This site seems to be something different from other alternatives. RICHARD: Aye ... just for starters it is (a) non-spiritual ... and (b) down-to-earth ... and (c) actual. RESPONDENT: I don’t know yet. I just don’t. RICHARD: Okay ... this is what a dictionary has to say about the word ‘spiritual’:
The term ‘non-spiritual’, then, means not of, pertaining to, or affecting the spirit – thus the freedom being referred to is not the freedom spiritualism has to offer – and by way of practical example the following is what you wrote (in part) much further below:
If (note ‘if’) the new and non-spiritual down-to-earth actual freedom was none other than the same freedom which spiritualism has to offer, only expressed in words which have not been rejected, then it would not be:
Instead it would be:
* RESPONDENT: Noam Chomsky is disparaged on the site. RICHARD: More specifically it is Mr. Noam Chomsky’s contribution to global peace and harmony which is disparaged, on one particular occasion, on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... to wit: [Richard]: ‘For just one instance of Mr. Noam Chomsky’s contribution to global peace and harmony one needs look no further than, when the National Liberation Front was trying to take control of South Vietnam, him telling a forum in New York on December 15 1967 that [quote] ‘I don’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this – and I think we should – we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified’. [endquote]. The all-up ‘comparative costs’ of the political terror unleashed under the leadership of Mr. Nguyen That Thanh (aka Ho Chi Min) – which terror Mr. Noam Chomsky rationalises as being justifiable – was of the magnitude of 1,670,000 citizens of Vietnam being murdered by their government’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: At first glance that seems totally reasonable as he has never offered any solution to what fundamentally is wrong in my life. RICHARD: Indeed not ... it is common-place to blame the politicians, the teachers, the clergy, the parents and so on, for the troubles that beset the community and the citizen alike. It is to no avail to blame the politician, for example, for the antics they get up to, because underneath the politician – under the role and the image – lies a ‘human’ heart. The politician is making the best job of it that he or she can do, considering the burden that they carry ... which is the burden of being ‘human’. They have, like any other ‘human’, an ego and a soul nestled uncomfortably within them. They have an identity, a psychological or psychic entity that exists inside of their bodies. RESPONDENT: But is it not true that their entity causes my entity pain in making decisions that restrict my movement, my happiness? RICHARD: It matters not whether it is true, that another identity causes you pain with their decisions, or not ... the fact remains that any action, as proposed by Mr. Noam Chomsky for instance, within ‘humanity’ as it is, is doomed to failure. Unless this fact can be grasped with both hands and taken on board to such an extent that it hits home deeply, nothing will change, radically. There will be changes around the edges, variations upon a familiar theme, but nothing structurally new, nothing even approaching the mutation-like change which is essential for the human race to fully appreciate the fullness and prosperity of being alive on planet earth, in this era, as a flesh and blood body. To remain ‘human’ is to remain a failure. RESPONDENT: Perhaps this ‘my happiness’ is a lie and freedom from it will also avail me of the necessity to kow-tow to absurd rules and people that the system raises to power. RICHARD: As you are your happiness (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) you can never become free from it. RESPONDENT: Should I just toss it all off and get fired, etc? RICHARD: If all you wish to do is make changes around the edges, to produce variations upon a familiar theme, then that is your business ... I can only suggest and what another does with my suggestions is, of course, entirely up to them because, when all is said and done, it is they who either reap the rewards or pay the consequences for any action or inaction they may or may not have happen. RESPONDENT: Okay so there is no point whatsoever in reading of how the world is organised? RICHARD: No ... all I said was that it is common-place to blame the politicians, the teachers, the clergy, the parents and so on, for the troubles that beset the community and the citizen alike and that it is to no avail to blame the politician, for example, for the antics they get up to, because underneath the politician – under the role and the image – lies a ‘human’ heart and that the politician is making the best job of it that he or she can do, considering the burden that they carry (which is the burden of being ‘human’) inasmuch they have, like any other ‘human’, an ego and a soul nestled uncomfortably within them ... that they have an identity, a psychological or psychic entity that exists inside of their bodies. RESPONDENT: I certainly see that nothing of use can come of it. RICHARD: I never said that nothing of use can come of reading how the (human) world is organised ... all I said was that any action within ‘humanity’ as it is, is doomed to failure and that unless this fact can be grasped with both hands and taken on board to such an extent that it hits home deeply, nothing will change radically inasmuch there will be changes around the edges, variations upon a familiar theme, but nothing structurally new, nothing even approaching the mutation-like change which is essential for the human race to fully appreciate the fullness and prosperity of being alive on planet earth, in this era, as a flesh and blood body ... that to remain ‘human’ is to remain a failure. RESPONDENT: Is my interest in such analysis therefore fraudulent and based on a stupid desire to work out the problem from the problem? RICHARD: Indeed so ... just as Mr. Noam Chomsky has been doing/ currently does, for instance, all throughout human history peoples have been endeavouring to bring about communal peace and harmony through political change, social reform, economic reconstruction, cultural revisionism, and so on. It is vital to comprehend that one of the fundamental understandings, if there is to be radical change, is that peace and harmony comes about by living happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... and not by attempting to change people, things and events so as to have the world at large conform with whatever scheme or dream the identity within may come up with in order to perpetuate its existence. In other words: global peace and harmony starts at home. RESPONDENT: If I were to actually see what I was doing, is it probable that I’d find the essay that I’m reading about what REALLY happened in Afghanistan a silly irrelevance? RICHARD: No ... more probably you would invest in a capacious salt-shaker (to save having to re-fill so often as you read such essays). * RESPONDENT: I’m not suggesting that one shouldn’t sensuously and guiltlessly immerse oneself in the splendid array of things at hand in our civilisation, but is there no recognition that they come at someone’s expense? RICHARD: There does seem to be something amiss with your query about whether 6.0+ billion peoples, whom you are not suggesting should not sensuously and guiltlessly immerse themselves in the splendid array of things at hand in their civilisation, are recognising that any such array comes at (some undesignated) others’ expense. RESPONDENT: I don’t understand what you mean. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it more simply (and contextualised in the terms which occasioned the disparagement of Mr. Noam Chomsky’s contribution to global peace and harmony): just who of us are those whom all of us may or may not give recognition to that it is at whose expense it comes that it be quite amazing what has been achieved despite the human folly (aka the human condition)? RESPONDENT: Probably this means that I don’t understand what I mean. But still, why is it ‘amiss’? RICHARD: Is there not something awry in being all-inclusive (with your ‘in our civilisation’ phrasing) yet, simultaneously, being part-exclusive (with your ‘at someone’s expense’ phrasing) ... or, put differently, are not those who only have their snout in the trough, as contrasted to those with their front trotters in as well (if not all four), participating in and partaking of what has been achieved physically despite the human condition (aka the human folly)? RESPONDENT: Ah – guilt. You mean that one cannot guiltlessly enjoy, say, a pair of light strong trainers and at the same time know that a starving Indonesian slave-girl made it? RICHARD: No, I do not mean that at all ... here are a few questions for you:
And:
RESPONDENT: Or are you? RICHARD: No, I am not meaning that at all ... a person obtaining food to put in their mouth by making, say, a pair of light strong trainers is participating in and partaking of what has been achieved physically despite the human folly (aka the human condition). Or, to put that another way, they are not having to be naked in the forest, without so much as a box of
matches, a knife, or a packet of salt, and staying alive by gathering berries/ fruit by hand and digging for roots/ yams with same
... and it is heartening, is it not, to reflect upon the great strides humankind has made in the last hundred years or so, in
terms of material well-being, compared with what transpired over the tens of thousands of years that humans have been inhabiting
this planet. It is quite amazing what has been achieved despite the human condition (aka the human folly). RESPONDENT: Is it perfectly okay that very poorly treated people made my stuff? RICHARD: Not unless you consider it is perfectly okay for yourself to be treated very poorly for the stuff you make/the service you provide. RESPONDENT: I’m prepared to accept that it is, because I don’t actually feel that guilty. RICHARD: Probably not ... for such is the fickle nature of the affective feelings (and the middle-class values/ principles and morals/ ethics they can give rise to). RESPONDENT: There’s not much I can do about it. RICHARD: Au contraire ... there is the very best thing you can do about it sitting right under your nose, as it were, but you would rather fritter away a vital opportunity on changes which virtually anyone with half a brain, so to speak, can see may be made around the edges (and producing variations upon a familiar theme). RESPONDENT: But ... it’s a shame isn’t it? RICHARD: Ah, if only you meant that ... really meant that (with all of your being). * RESPONDENT: And is there no movement to help those people? RICHARD: If you were to indicate just who those (thus far undesignated) peoples are, that 6.0+ billion peoples may or may not be moving to help, the nature of your query might very well become obvious. RESPONDENT: I suppose I mean the unhappy hoards who are forced to do shit jobs. RICHARD: Are they not getting the wherewithal to obtain water, food, clothing and shelter ... rather than having to be naked in the forest, without so much as a box of matches, a knife, or a packet of salt, and staying alive by gathering berries/ fruit by hand and digging for roots/ yams with same and thus being at the mercy of the elements, the vagaries of nature, for their physical survival? RESPONDENT: Like factory workers and so on. RICHARD: In what way are factory workers being prevented from enjoying and appreciating what has been achieved physically despite the human folly (aka the human condition)? RESPONDENT: I know that everyone is hideously unhappy really, all in the same boat. RICHARD: And therein lies the clue to the lack of enjoyment and appreciation for what has been achieved physically despite the human condition (aka the human folly): nothing, but nothing, can satisfy the discontent of an hubristic identity ... and more than a few identities suffer from an insolent contempt for the universe. People generally resent having to be here; they could be given whatever they demanded and they would still be not satisfied. Nothing, but nothing, can assuage the troubled identity, the psychological/ psychic entity having parasitical residence within the body of virtually all the peoples inhabiting this planet. That alien entity – both ego and soul (spirit) – will spoil any enterprise, sabotage every endeavour and breed discontent and misery throughout its domain. It is the central or core reason for the human condition, sometimes more sardonically referred to as the human folly. Almost every person I meet, nearly every printed word I read, states in one way or another that ‘you can’t change human nature’ and sets about fiddling with the levers and controls in an ultimately useless attempt to ameliorate the human situation within the human condition ... with, of course, less than perfect results. RESPONDENT: But children and really helpless people ... isn’t it particularly wrong that they are shat upon? RICHARD: Not unless you consider it is not particularly wrong that adults and unreally helpful people be defecated upon RESPONDENT: I don’t know. I mean, I realise that when you do help out these people they just end up in the same boat, the same cruelty and misery. RICHARD: Indeed so ... and, given that you all-inclusively say everyone is hideously unhappy anyway, it is high time then, surely, that somebody came up with something new (rather than just try and ameliorate the cruelty and misery with variations on a familiar theme), eh? RESPONDENT: So perhaps it is pointless spending a second’s thought on them. RICHARD: Not at all ... what *is* pointless, however, is to spend time thinking on them in terms of bandaid solutions (there are already more than enough people doing just that). RESPONDENT: Unfortunately the nature of my query is still not obvious. RICHARD: Okay ... to go looking for a particular victim amongst 6.0+ billion victims is like looking for a specific needle in a haystack of needles is it not? And for what ... as a sop to a (presumably) middle-class conscience? * RESPONDENT: And I’m not interested in adding a caring eco-friendly socialist adjunct to my personality. RICHARD: Just so that there is no misunderstanding ... are you suggesting that 6.0+ billion peoples also not add a caring eco-friendly socialist adjunct to their personalities either? RESPONDENT: I suppose I am suggesting that. I don’t think it would help them. RICHARD: Just so that there is no misunderstanding ... are you saying that all those peoples who have already added a caring eco-friendly socialist adjunct to their personalities are not being helped by doing so? * RESPONDENT: But I still find that, at the very least, I prefer to know where my jeans were made, and under what conditions, and perhaps even do something to make life a little better for the slaves. RICHARD: If I might point out? Unless you are currently naked in a forest, without so much as a box of matches, a knife, or a packet of salt, and staying alive by gathering berries/ fruit by hand and digging for roots/ yams with same, you have just set yourself an enormous task – ascertaining where each and every component of each and every item you either ingest or utilise is made/ produced, and under what conditions, and perhaps doing something to make life a little better for (some undesignated) slaves – and for what purpose ... just so you can justify claiming that what Mr. Noam Chomsky has to say about power structures, and the form and function of western propaganda, is worthwhile in its sphere, perchance? RESPONDENT: I don’t think I meant that. RICHARD: I only asked as that is the context in which you made your ‘at the very least’ comment. Viz.:
All I have to go by is what you choose to type out and send. RESPONDENT: Not sure, but I think I meant that it’s good to have a general idea that helpless miserable slaves (e.g. in Indonesian Export Processing Zones) produce much of what I enjoy. RICHARD: Hmm ... just for starters who made the buttons, and under what conditions, that were sown on your jeans by those peoples, for example, in the Indonesian Export Processing Zone, and just what is the something you might do to make life a little better for them, and who delivered those buttons, and under what conditions, to the place of sewing, and just what is the something you might do to make life a little better for them, and who processed the raw material, and under what conditions, those buttons were fashioned out of, and just what is the something you might do to make life a little better for them, and who delivered the raw material, and under what conditions, to the processing place where those buttons were fashioned, and just what is the something you might do to make life a little better for them, and who extracted that raw material, and under what conditions, from the ground, and just what is the something you might do to make life a little better for them, and ... and need I go on? RESPONDENT: I might have suggested that I could that knowing this and acting on it would help them somehow, make their lives a little less painful. RICHARD: I see ... here is a word-of-the-day for you:
RESPONDENT: But actually I don’t think I can help them. RICHARD: Oh? Was what Mr. Noam Chomsky had to say about power structures, and the form and function of western propaganda, not worthwhile in its sphere after all? RESPONDENT: I’ve always felt it is better to know about these things though. Is that not so? RICHARD: Why not find out right now .. for instance: what benefit has accrued for those peoples in the Indonesian Export Processing Zone (for example) from you feeling it is better to know about those things? * RESPONDENT: I dunno though. I recognise that it is all besides the point. RICHARD: And just what [quote] ‘point’ [endquote] would that be? RESPONDENT: I suppose the point that there is this body tapping away at these keys, a woman to my right, sunny day, sounds ... Real things. RICHARD: Where you said you know that [quote] ‘everyone is hideously unhappy really, all in the same boat’ [endquote] did that not include yourself and the fellow human being to your right, then? * RESPONDENT: 4) I find the layout of your site is inefficient, confusing, unpleasing to the eye and ever so slightly cheesy (corny). RICHARD: Here is what various dictionaries have to say about those two words: [snip dictionary definitions]. RESPONDENT: Not that I mind particularly, and it is a tiny superficial qualm, and it’s also ‘just how it seems to me’. But it does seem that way to me. What do you think? RICHARD: I think that you find the layout of The Actual Freedom Trust web site to be inefficient, confusing, unpleasing to your eye and ever so slightly cheesy (corny) and that you do not particularly mind as it is a tiny superficial qualm and is also just how it seems to you. RESPONDENT: You said, repeating me, ‘I think that you find the layout of The Actual Freedom Trust web site to be inefficient, confusing, unpleasing to your eye and ever so slightly cheesy (corny) and that you do not particularly mind as it is a tiny superficial qualm and is also just how it seems to you’. RICHARD: If I may point out? I was not repeating you. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Perhaps it is not superficial. RICHARD: Obviously not (else why take the time to type out more of the same and use even more bandwidth to send it). * RESPONDENT: Could I be right? RICHARD: Yes, you could be right. RESPONDENT: Wrong? RICHARD: Yes, you could be wrong. RESPONDENT: You concede that I could be right in finding the site cheesy and corny ... RICHARD: You are way out there on your own in drawing that conclusion from my even-handed response ... here is what a dictionary has to say about the word ‘concede’:
RESPONDENT: ... but could it actually BE cheesy and corny? RICHARD: Again here is what various dictionaries have to say about those two words:
Thus what you are now asking is, in effect, could The Actual Freedom Trust web site actually be inferior, second-rate, cheap and nasty/ of poor quality; shoddy/ shabby (as in inferior in quality), cheap (as in of inferior quality or worth; tawdry, sleazy; contemptible because of lack of any fine, lofty, or redeeming qualities)/ clearly of cheap quality or in bad style/ tacky; cheap and tawdry/ of very poor quality; of low or inferior quality and rustic, unsophisticated; ridiculously or tiresomely old-fashioned or sentimental/ trite, dated, melodramatic, or mawkishly sentimental/ mawkishly old-fashioned; tiresomely simple and sentimental/ lacking new ideas and sincerity; too often repeated and therefore not amusing or interesting/ dull and tiresome but with pretensions of significance or originality; bromidic, platitudinal, platitudinous. RESPONDENT: I asked you ‘Does it matter one tiny bit?’ And you replied, ‘obviously it does (else why take the time to type it out and the bandwidth to send it)’. And indeed you are right. It does matter to me. Is this a symptom of my lack of actualness? RICHARD: No ... going solely by what you go on to say (further below) it would appear to be symptomatic of your penchant for determining whether a person is fundamentally fraudulent or not by their taste (aesthetics). RESPONDENT: Do YOU find it cheesy? RICHARD: I do not find The Actual Freedom Trust web site to be inferior, second-rate, cheap and nasty/of poor quality; shoddy/ shabby (as in inferior in quality), cheap (as in of inferior quality or worth; tawdry, sleazy; contemptible because of lack of any fine, lofty, or redeeming qualities)/ clearly of cheap quality or in bad style/tacky; cheap and tawdry/of very poor quality; of low or inferior quality. And, just for the record, neither do I find The Actual Freedom Trust web site to be rustic, unsophisticated; ridiculously or tiresomely old-fashioned or sentimental/ trite, dated, melodramatic, or mawkishly sentimental/ mawkishly old-fashioned; tiresomely simple and sentimental/lacking new ideas and sincerity; too often repeated and therefore not amusing or interesting/ dull and tiresome but with pretensions of significance or originality; bromidic, platitudinal, platitudinous. RESPONDENT: Related to this, I’ve recently discovered a few pages on your site that are accompanied by the most appalling music. RICHARD: A possible clue as to why may be found in what you have to say much further below:
In short: the quality of the playback of the midi-files you are referring depends upon the quality of a computer’s sound card and speakers ... even so some peoples have an aversion to electronic tones anyway (no matter how technically superior the quality of a sound system is). RESPONDENT: Wish you were here, by Pink Floyd and other middle-of-the-road seventies rock classics. RICHARD: You are now (‘middle-of-the-road’) talking about taste ... aesthetic appreciation, varying as it does from person-to-person, has no fixed standard against which it can be conclusively judged. RESPONDENT: I quite like the songs themselves, not ecstatically but a fair amount, but I find the versions of them here, aside from the jarringly crude recording, are, although not without interest, cheesy and corny (according to the dictionary, yes). RICHARD: As I am not a midi-file recordist I am unable to comment meaningfully on whether they have all been recorded in the manner you assert they have been or not ... if you could point me to where those midi-file versions can be found, which meet your criteria of recording excellence, it would be most appreciated. Needless is it to add that if you cannot then what you assert here is purely rhetorical (designed for cheap effect)? RESPONDENT: Either this is because a) my taste is irrelevant ... RICHARD: In terms of forming an objective judgement taste is indeed irrelevant. RESPONDENT: b) my taste is wrong ... RICHARD: Given that what is appealing to one person, aesthetically speaking, is as equally appalling to another you are on a hiding to nowhere in pursuing that line of reasoning. RESPONDENT: c) you have chosen this poor music (and the poor layout mentioned last time) for some devilishly subtle reason ... RICHARD: Try this on for size and see how it fits:
Now try the obverse:
And here is a third alternative:
RESPONDENT: d) my sense organs are picking up on something with is fundamentally fraudulent in you. RICHARD: Ah, now you get to the nitty-gritty of what all this inefficient-confusing-unpleasing-cheesy-corny business is really about, eh? RESPONDENT: I am very willing to accept any of these options are true because they have all been true in the past. RICHARD: Surely you do not go about determining whether each and every person is fundamentally fraudulent or not by their taste in graphic design and electronic tones? If so, since when has your taste in same been adjudged to be sterling (and by whom and under what criteria)? RESPONDENT: However here, as yet, I have no idea what the answer might be and would appreciate (and investigate) any assistance you have. RICHARD: Hmm ... how could assistance from somebody so fundamentally fraudulent as to have an inefficient/ confusing/ unpleasing/ cheesy/ corny website layout, and the most appalling middle-of-the-road and jarringly crudely recorded cheesy and corny (according to the dictionaries) music on same, possibly be to your benefit? RESPONDENT: Please give me the most direct answer you can. RICHARD: CLICK HERE
RESPONDENT: That’s all for now. Everything else I currently find completely reasonable and thrillingly engaging. RICHARD: Just what is it that you are currently finding completely reasonable and thrillingly engaging? RESPONDENT: An extremely articulate expression of what I hope to be true. RICHARD: I always advise throwing hope out the window ... right along with faith, belief, trust and certitude. * RESPONDENT: Here then are last night’s/this morning’s questions. I have written a helluva lot here. I realise it will take a long time to answer them all (guilt/ hope surfaces ... plough on) ... if the universe is experiencing itself through this flesh and blood body ... RICHARD: If I may interject? The universe experiences itself *as* this flesh and blood body (and the distinction is not trivial). RESPONDENT: ... and if actual pleasure comes from just being that experience without possession or identity, doesn’t it follow that the end of the flesh and blood body leaves behind something which continues in some way to experience itself (in other forms)? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: And if that, is it not possible to say that in some way ‘I’ continue after the flesh and blood body dies? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: I don’t mean ‘I’ as a psychic or spiritual entity, a ‘realised state’, rather ‘the universe experiencing itself’ continues; ‘the experience of this’ that is actually known remains. RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Many spiritual teachers say in a similar (although, I don’t know, perhaps a subtly and vitally different) way to you that there is a difference between the spiritual or deeply psychic ‘realisation’ and consequent (and stunningly subtle) false identity, and an actual and real enlightenment where all identity disappears. RICHARD: Any spiritual teacher who says that [quote] ‘all identity’ [endquote] disappears upon spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment is being disingenuous. RESPONDENT: Could it be that when they have used words that you reject, Self, God and so on ... RICHARD: I do not reject words such as Self, God and so on ... I lived that/was that, which those words aptly refer to, night and day for eleven years, and found it wanting. RESPONDENT: ... [Could it be] that sometimes they are referring to the same state as you? RICHARD: No, it could not be ... not at all. RESPONDENT: If not, why? RICHARD: Because of this (for instance):
Or this (for another instance):
And this (just in case there still be some ambiguity):
RESPONDENT: Tony Parsons for example, while pointing to a crucial event in his life (a ASC? a PCE?) ... RICHARD: An altered state of consciousness (ASC). RESPONDENT: ... and while using words like enlightenment, liberation, fulfilment, freedom, oneness and so forth, all of which might be evidence of his misguidedness, says that ‘the open secret’ is in fact absolute death of ‘I’. RICHARD: Oh? How about this, then:
RESPONDENT: I was attracted to Barry Long for a while because he offers a very practical method. But that seemed not to have delivered either. I’ve got no idea. I’m utterly confused! When he said that ‘love is not a feeling’, he claimed not to be referring to psychic or emotive love. Is this the same love as the actualist rejects? RICHARD: The love which Mr. Barry Long was the embodiment of is the same love as what I use the term ‘Love Agapé’ for. RESPONDENT: Is Barry Long’s divine love the actualist’s apperceptive thrill by another name? RICHARD: Nothing in the actualism writings is love by another name ... nothing whatsoever. RESPONDENT: Barry Long offered more of a path than the last teacher to hold my attention, Tony Parsons, who said that there is no path to that which evidently is and all meditations, techniques and processes are completely besides the point. That rang very true at the time, how indeed could anything at all not be the totality I strive to lose myself in. Thus total acceptance of what is. But I still seem to be left with wretched feelings and lack of brilliance, the only two things I really want to get rid of. Where am I going wrong??? RICHARD: By only really wanting to get rid of two things, perchance? * RESPONDENT: Humans are the means by which the universe can know itself. It seems to have taken a long time for a nothing but tiny percentage of people to relinquish the main impediment to the fullness of this experience. RICHARD: Except that the [quote] ‘tiny percentage of people’ [endquote] you are referring to have not relinquished the main impediment to this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe being able to experience itself apperceptively ... to wit: the affective faculty/ identity in toto. RESPONDENT: Why didn’t the universe design itself more efficiently? RICHARD: What is inefficient about your freedom, or lack thereof, being in your hands and your hands alone? RESPONDENT: Why the necessity for so much pain? RICHARD: There is no such pain in actuality. RESPONDENT: Pain might be in some deep sense holy and actual ... RICHARD: Such pain is not, in some deep sense, actual. RESPONDENT:... but it is still very painful. RICHARD: Your pain, or lack thereof, is in your hands and your hands alone. RESPONDENT: I’m not suggesting that the universe should be or somehow imperfectly is ‘moral’, but ... RICHARD: If I may interject? As you are not suggesting that then why say it in the first place? RESPONDENT: [but] if it’s mission is to experience itself, it seems to have buggered about quite a lot to fully get there ... RICHARD: Ha ... so you were suggesting that the universe should be, or somehow imperfectly is, moral after all, eh? RESPONDENT: ... can I trust such a clumsy entity? RICHARD: I always advise throwing trust out the window ... right along with hope, faith, belief and certitude. RESPONDENT: Or is it my clumsy reasoning and vision? RICHARD: No ... it is more likely the basic resentment at having to be alive. * RESPONDENT: You suggest asking oneself ‘how am I experiencing this moment?’ RICHARD: More specifically ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ (as this moment is the only moment one is ever alive). RESPONDENT: When I ask myself this, firstly there is the mental question; ‘how am I experiencing this moment?’ Then there is the attempt to answer it. The results are as follows: Experiencing the sensory world around me to some extent (there does seem to be levels of experiencing – I find I can ‘let in’ more if I sort of relax, get more sound more vision more feeling), experiencing the inner world to some extent (the light buzzy sensation in the body, perhaps a feeling in there; and again I can ‘go into it’) and then thinking about it or other things (which I can also do endlessly). Is one of these things more genuine than another? RICHARD: Nothing in the real-world is genuine (as in actually authentic, true, pure, bona fide, veritable, valid, non-counterfeit, non-fake, original, unadulterated, unalloyed, the real McCoy, and so on). RESPONDENT: I have no idea. It all seems to give me pleasure or pain depending on what’s going on. I’d say that thinking, imagining and feeling give me less pleasure than anything sensory, but then some thoughts I find ‘interesting’ (which is pleasurable) and some feelings I find ‘nice’ (like when I’m really happy). It’s all very confusing. What needs to go? RICHARD: Eventually ... everything. RESPONDENT: What needs to stay? RICHARD: Ultimately ... nothing. RESPONDENT: If the whole lot is to go, then how is it done? RICHARD: By asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) until it becomes a non-verbal attitude towards life, a wordless approach to being alive, so that the slightest deviation from the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition – a way epitomised by a felicitous and innocuous naďve sensuousness – is not only automatically noticed almost immediately but the instance whereby the deviation occurred is readily ascertained such as to enable the resumption of one’s habituated blithesome and benign way again ... sooner rather than later. RESPONDENT: If it is asking yourself the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment?’ how does one let go of the answers, or the wrong answers? RICHARD: The whole point of asking oneself, each moment again until it becomes a non-verbal attitude or a wordless approach to life, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) is to experientially ascertain just exactly what way or manner it is in which one is personally participating in the events which are occurring at this particular moment that one is alive. Thus the answers you would obtain are experiential answers ... and are dependent on, on each occasion again, just exactly what the way or manner it is that you are personally participating in the occurrences which are currently happening. RESPONDENT: Why doesn’t the universe want to experience my pain, my thoughts, my boredom, my pleasure, etc? RICHARD: Or, more to the point, why do you want to? RESPONDENT: Or does it? RICHARD: No. * RESPONDENT: I cannot recall a PCE. If this is a barrier to understanding actualism, being actual, then obviously I’d like to do that. I’d like to do it anyway if it might be at all useful or good (whatever those words mean). I’m still not sure what comprises them. I’ve had what you call Aesthetic Experience, Spiritual Revelation, Religious Vision, Intellectual Insight, and Emotional Intuition, but I’m not sure I’ve had this PCE thing. If it is different from the others, and if as you suggest you can somehow remind me, there would, I assume, be an immense actual thrill in the knowing of it. RICHARD: I have located the following text:
RESPONDENT: Assuming, as you say, that I must have had a PCE at some time in my life, has, in some sense, my entire life been inauthentic since then? RICHARD: Nothing in the real-world is authentic (as in actually genuine, true, bona fide, valid, the real McCoy, and so on). RESPONDENT: I’m prepared to accept that (am I?), but sometimes it has been right good. Have these lovely long walks on the beach chatting with a friend or admiring the coast been a bit PCE-ish? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Is ishness possible PCEly-speaking? RICHARD: No. * RESPONDENT: I would, as much as I am capable, be really amazingly grateful for satisfying responses to all of these questions. I mean, I see your objections to gratitude (do I?) ... RICHARD: Obviously not. RESPONDENT: It’s more substantive ‘vibic’ self going on. But it seems like a word that can fit the feverish pleasure that I will no doubt feel on reading the reply to this whopper. RICHARD: Hmm ... size is not everything. RESPONDENT: This pleasure is, you would say, a sham? RICHARD: Everything in the real-world is a sham (as in really a fake, a counterfeit, an imitation, a simulation, artificial, synthetic, ersatz, phoney, pseudo, and so on). RESPONDENT: I don’t know. I just don’t seem to know anything except that lots of letters are slowly appearing on my computer screen and the woman to my right is extremely attractive but a bit aloof, and should I try and chat her up (won’t work, always fail in such situations), looking forward to having a cigarette when I step outside the shop I’m in ... blah blah ... the fine apparently dialogue of sensory experience and interpretation – it’s realer than anything I can conclusively say about it, but still I suffer from ALL the human pains. Not now though. Now I’m fine. But I know it’s there, bubbling up in the background, another missed-cue, another poor performance, another shameful outburst, another desperate wanting. Help MUCH appreciated. I’m going to investigate it with an electron microscope. Should I? RICHARD: A sincere, dedicated attentiveness to how you are experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive) will do just fine.
RESPONDENT: If the universe is experiencing itself through this flesh and blood body ... RICHARD: If I may interject? The universe experiences itself *as* this flesh and blood body (and the distinction is not trivial). RESPONDENT: ... and if actual pleasure comes from just being that experience without possession or identity, doesn’t it follow that the end of the flesh and blood body leaves behind something which continues in some way to experience itself (in other forms)? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: And if that, is it not possible to say that in some way ‘I’ continue after the flesh and blood body dies? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: I don’t mean ‘I’ as a psychic or spiritual entity, a ‘realised state’, rather ‘the universe experiencing itself’ continues; ‘the experience of this’ that is actually known remains. RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: I still don’t understand your answers to death. You said that the end of the flesh and blood body does not leave behind anything which continues to experience itself in other forms. RICHARD: By replying in the negative to your query – wherein you posited that (1) if the universe is experiencing itself *through* this flesh and blood body and (2) if actual pleasure comes from just being *that* experience without possession or identity and then asked whether it follows that the end of the flesh and blood body leaves behind something which continues in some way to experience itself in other forms – all I am saying (after first pointing out that universe experiences itself *as* this flesh and blood body) is it does not follow that the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body continues in some way at the end of this flesh and blood body by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: That doesn’t make any sense to me at all. RICHARD: Well now ... I did say, did I not, that the distinction between ‘through’ and ‘as’ is not trivial? RESPONDENT: Are you saying that the entire ‘infinite and eternal’ universe started when I was born and will finish when I die? RICHARD: No ... all I am saying is that at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: Thus everyone else I perceive, who seem, details aside, to be pretty similar to me will, as soon as I die, stop experiencing the universe. RICHARD: No ... I am not saying thus everyone else you perceive, who seem, details aside, to be pretty similar to you will, as soon as you die, stop experiencing the universe. RESPONDENT: In fact, if I die, you, Richard, will stop being actual. RICHARD: No ... I am not saying in fact, if you die, I, Richard, will stop being actual. RESPONDENT: Isn’t what you are saying a bit like the old ‘tree falling in an empty forest doesn’t exist’ philosophical mind-game? RICHARD: No ... what I am saying is not a bit like the old ‘tree falling in an empty forest doesn’t exist’ philosophical mind-game. RESPONDENT: When I leave this room for example, the chair I am sitting on may cease to exist as a physical fact for me, but it obviously continues to exist, because here I am sitting on it again after having left it many times in the past. RICHARD: Whereas when I leave this room, for example, the chair I am sitting on does not cease to exist as a physical fact (as an always-on camera would readily demonstrate) for me as it obviously continues to exist ... if only because here I am sitting on it again after having left it many times previously. RESPONDENT: I suppose the answer to these questions is tied up with your comments on the ‘real world’ being ersatz? RICHARD: No ... the answer to those questions is not tied up with my comments on the ‘real world’ being ersatz. RESPONDENT: How do you know that nothing continues after your body dies though? RICHARD: As I never even implied, let alone said, that nothing continues after this flesh and blood body dies your query has no answer. RESPONDENT: And how is it liberating to know that absolutely nothing survives after death? RICHARD: As I never even implied, let alone said, that it liberating to know that absolutely nothing survives after death that query of yours also has no answer. RESPONDENT: I have read quite a lot about death on your site, but cannot understand the answers. RICHARD: Given the way you read my replies (at the top of this page) that is not at all surprising. RESPONDENT: They just seem to be affirmations that it is so. RICHARD: What, specifically, just seems to you to be affirmations that it is so? RESPONDENT: But why? RICHARD: As I am not cognisant of what, specifically, just seems to you to be affirmations that it is so your query cannot be answered. RESPONDENT: How does it follow that my inevitable and imminent extinction on ALL fronts (including pure spiritual unbounded universal (etc) awareness) is a liberating fact? RICHARD: It follows in regards to endurance and, therefore, seriousness. As no body endures, and thus no identity does either, it means that nothing really matters in the long-term and, as nothing actually is of enduring importance (in this ultimate sense), it is simply not possible to take life seriously ... sincerely, yes, but seriously? No way ... life is much too much fun to be serious! RESPONDENT: Doesn’t it lead to a crazy rush to suck the juice out of life before it’s all gone, and to hang on to pleasurable things and identities for as long as one can? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: That’s the mystic take on it anyway. RICHARD: Hmm ... do you realise that what you are saying is, in effect, that the very fact the death of a flesh and blood body means the simultaneous extinction of identity is being denied by mystics just so there be no crazy rush to suck the juice out of life, before it is all gone, and to hang on to pleasurable things and identities for as long as one can? Mystics, whilst being entirely delusional, are not essentially moralistic killjoys ... they instinctually intuit, affectively feel, and therefore seriously think they are timeless ‘being’ itself (pure spirit). RESPONDENT: I’d still sort of thought of it all like that though, that something which in some fundamental sense I am will continue – without mind, body and vibe. RICHARD: The very stuff of what you are (‘what’ not ‘who’) continues ... matter itself, being neither created nor destroyed, is eternal. RESPONDENT: I will kind of dissolve back into the infinite eternal universe. RICHARD: Various bits and pieces of what you are (such as flakes of skin for an obvious instance) are falling off you each moment again ... physical death simply means all of what you are is available at once for recycling. RESPONDENT: How exactly is that wrong, if it is? RICHARD: What exactly is wrong is that who you are (‘who’ not ‘what’) has no existence in actuality ... let alone being able to dissolve into it upon the death of the body you have a parasitical residence in.
CORRESPONDENT No. 90 (Part Two) 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 |
