Selected Correspondence: Identity

Richard’s Selected Correspondence

On Identity

RESPONDENT: Practically speaking: How do you see that something needs to be done?

RICHARD: The way something is seen to be needing to be done, sans the imaginative/ intuitive facility, is by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/ awareness.

RESPONDENT: Which percepts tell you ‘that thing is different from what it ought/what I want it to be’?

RICHARD: The word ‘percept’ can refer to two things: ‘percept: (1) an object of perception; (2) the mental product or result of perceiving (as distinguished from the action)’. (Oxford Dictionary). If you are asking which object of perception occasions the noticing that something is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be that very object of perception which is indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be (such as, for example, an approaching vehicle being on the same side of the road as the vehicle being travelled in is on). If you are asking which mental product, or result of perceiving, is informative about something being different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, then it can only be the mental product, or result of perceiving, which the object of perception that is different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, readily evokes (by virtue of the cognitive, ratiocinative/conceptive and insightful faculty being able to operate freely under an overall apperceptive attentiveness/awareness) by the very fact of it being indeed different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be.

(...)

RICHARD: ... in what way would a down-to-earth response to a query from an identity asking [quote] ‘Practically speaking: How do you see that something needs to be done? Which percepts tell you ‘that thing is different from what it ought/what I want it to be’?’ [endquote] be couched?

RESPONDENT: In the way you just couched it.

RICHARD: Aye ... that down-to-earth response, which has been just sitting there at the top of this page all along, is couched in such a way as to contain, as a matter of course, no reference to an identity at all (for no other reason than no such imaginative/ intuitive ‘being’ whatsoever is in situ) for the mental product, or result of perceiving, which is readily evoked – and which is directly informative about the situation/circumstances – by the very fact of the object of perception being different from what it ought to be, or from what it is wanted to be, to tell that something is different from what it ought to be/is wanted to be and, furthermore, by virtue of the mental product/result of perceiving being directly informative (about the object of perception being different from what it ought to be or from what it is wanted to be) it is that particular situation/those specific circumstances which calls for something to be done.

Any grammatical use of passive voice (typically used in scientific text so as to emphasise objectivity) over active voice is besides the point – as is any grammatical absence of the first person pronoun – as to be a sentient creature is to be an agent anyway (and agency of necessity involves self-reference).

In short: a flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto is itself the agency (which is dramatically different to an identity being the agent and who needs to be told information/who needs to call for something to be done) and, as such, cause and effect are not separated by an intrusive intermediary.

With no identity in situ/no affective faculty extant, to stuff things up, it is all quite straightforward.

RESPONDENT: Richard, I think that you will be able to spot the survival tricks of the entity in all its hypocrisy and cunningness in the first glance ... by being free I think you see the identities in their nakedness ... the prize for seeing yourself fully naked! Is my surmise true?

RICHARD: As a generalisation ... yes; as a personalisation ... no (I cannot possibly know another person’s every thought, every feeling, every instinctual impulse; nor the nuances of their ethnic background, the intimate details of their familial upbringing, the subtleties of their peer-group coercions, and so on).

RESPONDENT: When I realize that you might be reading what I write, I discover some of the ulterior motives and some of the deliberate misrepresentations in my mails (projecting something that I am not) ( the shame and pain and all ... less and less, though).

RICHARD: Oh? You do realise, do you not, that when someone fools another they are really only fooling themself (in the final analysis)?

RESPONDENT: I realize that the ‘me’ is still craving for approval from you and others.

RICHARD: Just for the record: the only thing that will impress me is another’s actual freedom from the human condition ... for then they cannot change their mind/have a change of heart (it being irrevocable).

RESPONDENT: The list social identity! And that is why I write sometimes? Or maybe always? What is behind this desire to bond with you?

RICHARD: As there is no identity extant in this flesh and blood body – meaning that you could only ever bond with your own projection anyway – you might as well desist from what is nothing but an exercise in futility.

RESPONDENT: I know you will not entertain any of my survival tricks ... I am not following the user’s manual here: I am expressing and expressing. I may not send this mail. I want to reach your heights ... I want to overtake you ... I cant stand this lower positions in the hierarchy – which is in my mind!

RICHARD: For what it is worth: whenever I came across somebody who had already accomplished what I wanted to achieve I unabashedly set out emulate them – avidly reading every word they wrote/listening intently to what they had to say (colloquially known as ‘picking their brains’) plus being generally appreciative that they be willing to pass on experience and information – inasmuch at the beginning of the path which led to me becoming a practising artist in my own right, for instance, in the area of the fine arts I slavishly copied, imitated meticulously, acquiring the necessary skills along the way, until the moment came where everything pertaining to that aspiration had became second-nature to me.

Then I let go of the controls ... and it all happened of its own accord.

RESPONDENT: The ‘me’ showing its ugly head.

RICHARD: If you say so ... why would you inhibit aspiration, though?

RESPONDENT: I am not like this all the time ... this is the dirty stuff that gets in now and then.

RICHARD: Apart from the mistaken impression there be heights to reach/overtake in some fanciful hierarchy the sentiments expressed are laudable, are they not?

RESPONDENT: Mostly it is wonderful. Maybe 15 hours out of 24.

RICHARD: And if it were not for aspiration would it currently be wonderful 15/24?

RESPONDENT: I am riding a mad elephant.

RICHARD: Is that a reference to Mr. Gilbert Chesterton’s fictitious nobleman ... or an expression from the Indian Sub-Continent indicating something else?

RESPONDENT: I hope to get down soon and enjoy the scenery soon.

RICHARD: You might as well enjoy it wherever you are ... you will never have this particular opportunity ever again.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

P.S.: You may find the following useful:

• [Richard]: ‘... instead of having Love/ God/ Truth/ IT give you some ‘shattering kicks in the butt’ may I suggest adopting the benevolent, and thus beneficial, approach? Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘It is important not to view ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ as an enemy – blind nature is the culprit – and to be friends with yourself ... only you live with yourself twenty four hours a day. Coopt any aspect of yourself as an ally in this investigation into the human psyche ... eventually ‘I’ come to realise that the very best thing that ‘I’ can do is altruistically ‘self’-immolate for the benefit of this body and all bodies’. [endquote].
• [Richard]: ‘It is important not to turn the thinker into the villain, an enemy: the thinker is thus one’s greatest ally (...) whilst peoples beat themselves up for not being good enough or for being ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ (or whatever description) they have no chance of ever enabling [peace-on-earth]. None of this mess is ‘my’ fault ... ‘I’ was born like this. Now that ‘I’ realise this ‘I’ can willingly, cheerfully be in concordance. (...) ‘I’ can never, ever become perfect or be perfection. The only thing ‘I’ can do – the only thing ‘I’ need to do – is to say !YES! so that the already always existing perfection can become apparent’. [endquote].
• [Richard]: ‘Nothing of substance will happen less ‘I’ be the willing participant ... the 100% committed participant. I always maintain that each and every person holds their freedom in their own hands ... no one else can either grant it or prevent it. I see that I have written of it many times thus: ‘I’ deliberately and consciously – and with knowledge aforethought [from the PCE] – set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise. What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and intentionally, is to press the button which precipitates a momentum – oft-times alarming but always thrilling – that will result in ‘my’ inevitable self-immolation. What one does is that one dedicates oneself to the challenge of being here as the universe’s experience of itself. When ‘I’ freely and cheerfully sacrifice ‘myself’ – the psychological and psychic entities residing inside this body – ‘I’ am gladly making ‘my’ most supreme donation, for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is the greatest gift one can bestow upon this body and that body and every body’. [endquote].

Put succinctly: be kind to yourself ... you are the only friend you have, so to speak’.

RICHARD: (...) My progenitors were farmers ... pioneer settlers carving a livelihood by hand out of virgin forest (I personally used axes and hand saws to help cut down the trees to make pasture land).

(...)

RESPONDENT: So it was the f&bb that used axes, not the identity ...

RICHARD: Yes (just as no identity in any flesh and blood body uses axes).

RESPONDENT: Then the f&bb is responsible for murders using axes and not the identity ...

RICHARD: No, it is the identity who, being emotional/passional in and of its very make-up, is responsible for axe-murders.

RESPONDENT: ... which would seem to be contrary to what you are in general saying that it is the identity who is responsible for war, rape, murder, general mayhem

RICHARD: Not at all ... an identity, a psychological/psychic entity, impels/compels a flesh and blood body to act out all manner of its malicious and sorrowful/loving and compassionate impulses, urges, drives, cravings, yearnings, and so forth.

RICHARD: (...) the blessed release into oblivion is something only an identity, a psychological/psychic entity, would desire.

RESPONDENT: According to your chosen definition of oblivion below ...

RICHARD: That Oxford Dictionary definition of the word blessed – ‘enjoying supreme felicity; fortunate; happily endowed with; pleasurable; bringing happiness; blissful’ – is not this flesh and blood body’s chosen definition of oblivion .. it is a definition chosen to describe the nature of the release into oblivion (which felicitous let-go is indeed a blessed release).

RESPONDENT: ... it [the Oxford Dictionary definition of the word blessed] does say ‘blissful’, ‘bringing happiness’ and haven’t you said that bliss and happiness is nowhere to be found in what you refer to as actuality?

RICHARD: This flesh and blood body has indeed reported that the affective feelings of bliss and happiness – including experiencing same as (affective) states of being – are nowhere to be found here in this actual world, the world of the senses, where all is pure, pristine and perfect.

RESPONDENT: Is there awareness/perception in what you are calling oblivion?

RICHARD: None whatsoever (just as in being anesthetised, knocked unconscious, falling into a faint, during deep sleep, or in any other way being rendered comatose).

RESPONDENT: Are you in this state of oblivion?

RICHARD: It was the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago that went felicitously into oblivion (in 1992) and not this flesh and blood body ... that blessed let-go into oblivion was something only an identity, a psychological/psychic entity, could desire.

RESPONDENT: Because recently you have said that it is the survivors who experience grief and suffering and not the tsunami victims who are now in oblivion ...

RICHARD: You can only be referring to this:

• [Richard]: ‘... as it is a question of the measure of (affective) impact such an event [as a seismic se-wave] has, and its resultant quantification in terms of it being a (human) tragedy, the scale of an event of that nature in 18th century Japan exceeds the scale of the recent 21st century event. Or, to put that another way, for the dead it is not a tragedy (death is oblivion) and it is those left alive who have to get on with the business of living – digging out the dead, burying the dead, ministering to water-borne disease, re-establishing the means of production, re-building domiciles and infrastructure, and so forth – and proportionate to the population left alive to carry out such necessities 100,000 deaths in 1703 is far larger than 150,000 deaths in 2004.

RESPONDENT: ... and from this one could infer/deduce that you are saying that there is a state of oblivion after the death of the f&bb.

RICHARD: There is no way the words [quote] ‘death is oblivion’ [endquote] can be inferred as conveying there is such an after-death state – death *is* oblivion – just as it cannot be deduced from those words that there is any after-death state ... death is the end, finish.

RESPONDENT: Are you saying the identity did not swing axes?

RICHARD: Yes (just as the psychological/psychic entity did not eat, drink, urinate, defecate, and so on). The following link will flesh this out somewhat: (snip link).

RESPONDENT: But don’t you think that the cause of overeating (over-anything) is the identity and not the f&bb?

RICHARD: No, this flesh and blood body *knows*, from direct experience, that it is a psychological/psychic entity which impels/compels a body to act out all manner of its malicious and sorrowful/loving and compassionate impulses, urges, drives, cravings, yearnings, and so forth.

RESPONDENT: So it follows that while it is the f&bb that is doing the physical activity of eating (anything), it is the identity that is the cause of the overeating (over-anything).

RICHARD: Exactly.

RESPONDENT: Who is answering these emails, the f&bb or some identity?

RICHARD: It is not a question of ‘who’ but of ‘what’ ... what is answering these e-mails is this (apperceptively aware) flesh and blood body.

RESPONDENT: But Richard clearly has established an identity for himself as the first, the only, the method promoter, etc. ...

RICHARD: Here is an example of that sentence, when written in accord with what was actually conveyed (further above), might look like:

• [example only]: ‘But Richard clearly has established a psychological/psychic entity for himself as the first, the only, the method promoter, etc. [end example].

Or, to put that another way, it might look like this:

• [example only]: ‘But Richard clearly has established an emotional/passional identity for himself as the first, the only, the method promoter, etc. [end example].

RESPONDENT: ... isn’t it that identity that resides in the f&bb ...

RICHARD: There is no psychological/psychic entity residing in this flesh and blood body ... or, to put that another way, there is no emotional/passional identity residing in this flesh and blood body.

RESPONDENT: ... and whose life/existence/awareness/perception is dependent on the f&bb that is answering these emails and not the f&bb which is just the stuff of the physical universe?

RICHARD: It is most definitely this (apperceptively aware) flesh and blood body – which is indeed the very stuff of this infinite, eternal, and perpetual, universe – that is answering these e-mails ... no emotional/passional identity-psychological/psychic entity could persuade a body to respond in such a congruent way, and with such consistent detail, despite whatever it is that is presented and/or in whatever manner it is presented.

RICHARD: (...) what the actualism method does is occasion the extinction of that which is standing in the way of such inconceivable/unimaginable, and thus incomprehensible/unbelievable, perfection being apparent ... to wit: the identity (a psychological/psychic entity) within the flesh and blood body.

RESPONDENT: Assuming you are what you claim, until another, using your method, occasions the extinction of that which is standing in the way of such inconceivable/unimaginable, and thus incomprehensible/unbelievable, perfection being apparent, then it stands that each and every person will indeed have to find their own way/method/whatever.

RICHARD: What actually stands is that, until another identity does find their own way/method/whatever to enable the already existing peace-on-earth into being apparent 24/7, the method the identity inhabiting this body all those years devised is the only way so far to successfully deliver the goods ... which also means this flesh and blood body cannot, quite obviously, endorse any way/method/whatever which is yet to be successful.

RESPONDENT: And I, quite frankly, would be quite surprised if your method does this for another F&BB, ever.

RICHARD: It is, of course, entirely up to each and every identity to decide what to do with the information that a proven method now exists ... it is their life they are living, when all is said and done, and only they get to reap the rewards or pay the consequences for whatever action they may or may not do.

RESPONDENT: While anything is possible, it is my opinion, that borrowing another’s method, can only alter or add to an identity and not extinguish it.

RICHARD: As speculation derived from armchair philosophising goes nowhere, and fast, this flesh and blood body will pass without further comment.

RICHARD: There is, of course, no such psychological/psychic entity [standing in the way of such inconceivable/unimaginable, and thus incomprehensible/unbelievable, perfection being apparent] in actuality ... ‘twas all an illusion/delusion.

RESPONDENT: I’ll agree with that ...

RICHARD: Just so there is no misunderstanding: an identity, a psychological/psychic entity, has just agreed with a flesh and blood body (provisionally assumed to be) sans any such emotional/passional ‘being’ that it is all an illusion/delusion they (a) have any existence in actuality ... and (b) are, therefore, standing in the way of such inconceivable/unimaginable, and thus incomprehensible/unbelievable, perfection as actuality indisputably is being apparent 24/7.

RESPONDENT: ... [I’ll agree with that] and that is why I think your method does not make sense. It is dependent on an illusion thinking it is not an illusion.

RICHARD: Whereas what the actualism method is really dependent upon is each and every emotional/passional identity getting off their backside – discarding all armchair philosophising for being the delaying tactic it indubitably is in doing so – and giving their undivided attention to how they are experiencing each and every moment of their emotional/passional life.

Incidentally, any identity who does not do that (give their undivided attention to how they are experiencing each and every moment of being alive) cannot properly assert that the actualism method has not worked/is not working/never will work.

RESPONDENT: The whole process [of an illusion thinking it is not an illusion] is a fabricated game.

RICHARD: Just so there is no misunderstanding: is an illusory/delusory identity, whilst agreeing it is all an illusion/delusion that they have any existence in actuality and are, therefore, standing in the way of such inconceivable/unimaginable, and thus incomprehensible/unbelievable, perfection being apparent 24/7, now asserting that such an agreement is a fabricated game?

RESPONDENT: ... I can’t conceive of a situation where I will exist and no universe will exist. Where else is there to be except in the universe?

RICHARD: As a flesh and blood body ... nowhere else (nowhere else but here in space and now in time); as an identity ... anywhere else (anywhere else other than here in space and now in time).

RESPONDENT: SO are you saying if the thought arises (I am god, enlightened or any other false belief) that you are somehow ejected out of infinitude?

RICHARD: Nope ... I am saying the identity within, being but an illusion/delusion, can never be here in space and now in time. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘There is no intrinsic identity, essence, core, or quality ... what is flawed is attempting to find/locate that phantasm, that ghost in the machine, when all that needs to be done is to altruistically ‘self’-immolate for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. As there is no such ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) or ‘presence’ in actuality there is nothing to lose ... except ‘who’ you instinctively know, feel, and thus think, you are. And therein lies the rub: ‘I’/‘me’ am so very real, so very, very real, that ‘I’/‘me’ am prepared to do virtually anything – virtually anything at all – than go blessedly into oblivion.

In short: as an identity, one is forever locked-out of paradise (this actual world of sensate delight); as a flesh and blood body, one is never out of paradise.

RESPONDENT: I hope not, otherwise infinitude would not be infinite.

RICHARD: The only ‘infinitude’ there is, for an identity, is a metaphysical infinitude (a timeless and spaceless and formless ‘being’ or ‘presence’).

RESPONDENT: I would say that regardless of the thoughts, feelings, beliefs present, it is impossible to not be in the universe.

RICHARD: Ha ... it is impossible for an identity (being but an illusion/delusion) to ever be in actuality.

RESPONDENT: But where else is there to be, for you are always here, even if you say I am something/somewhere else.

RICHARD: An identity is never here – let alone ‘always here’ – as to be here is to be at this place in space (now at this moment in time).

RESPONDENT: The something includes anything that can be perceived (e.g. a nice feeling, enlightenment (in the sense you use), any state of mind, a job, a relationship. In other words as soon as I say ‘ahh ... that is what I am’ if that is an identifiable thing, standing out in anyway, then it will be impermanent and therefore I will have the rug pulled from under my feet when it dies.

RICHARD: Oh? You plan on surviving the physical death of the flesh and blood body currently going by the name ‘Respondent’ then, eh?

RESPONDENT: No, I was saying why bother identifying with the body.

RICHARD: Indeed ... that would be silly.

RESPONDENT: Why do we need to say I am the body?

RICHARD: Maybe because ‘I’ am not the body and never will be?

RESPONDENT: But you also say ‘I am this flesh and blood body only’.

RICHARD: Why do you say ‘also’ when I have never said anything about ‘identifying with the body’ (and have made this patently clear to you in a prior e-mail)? Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘Where I say I am this living flesh and blood body I am not identifying with this flesh and blood body – identifying with this flesh and blood body as an identity be it intrinsic or not – as what I am describing is what I am (what, not ‘who’) ... only an identity would translate my descriptions as describing a particular core/a static essence/an intrinsic identity (or a true identity/a real identity or whatever).

Furthermore, it was made quite clear what the first person pronoun refers to by replacing it with what it refers to (in the first part of the above passage):

• [Richard]: ‘Where this flesh and blood body says this flesh and blood body is this living flesh and blood body this flesh and blood body is not identifying with this flesh and blood body – identifying with this flesh and blood body as an identity be it intrinsic or not – as what this flesh and blood body is describing is what this flesh and blood body is (what, not ‘who’).

RESPONDENT: So these two statements are contradictory. Please clarify.

RICHARD: When an identity says ‘I am the body’ it is identifying with something it is not; where a flesh and blood body says ‘I am this flesh and blood body’ it is stating a fact.

RESPONDENT: Reactions of the actual universe :)) to the human condition (both real and spiritual) is something to be watched with great interest.

RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well you put a smiley there as I have no notion as to what you are talking about ... this actual universe, not being sentient per se, does not react to anything. And, as the identity within is oblivious to all things actual, it cannot be watched anyway.

RESPONDENT: Yet, it manifests through yourself, does it not?

RICHARD: No ... what I am, as this flesh and blood body only (sans identity/affections in toto), is this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself *as* an apperceptive human being (and not *through* a human being). I have written about this as/through distinction before ... for example:

• [Richard]: ‘The whole point of actualism is the direct experience of actuality: as this flesh and blood body only what one is (what not ‘who’) is these eyes seeing, these ears hearing, this tongue tasting, this skin touching and this nose smelling – and no separative identity (no ‘I’/‘me’) means no separation – whereas ‘I’/‘me’, a psychological/psychic entity, am inside the body busily creating an inner world and an outer world and looking out through ‘my’ eyes upon ‘my’ outer world as if looking out through a window, listening to ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ tongue, touching ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ skin and smelling ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ nose.

Hence my comment in the previous e-mail about the identity within being oblivious to all things actual ... there is no outer world in actuality.

RESPONDENT: You react to the posts on this mailing list and you make no secret from the fact that your words come directly from your moment-to-moment experiencing of the actual universe?

RICHARD: Oh, I see ... you were referring to my responses to what is written on this mailing list.

Okay then ... but while on the subject: the direct experiencing of actuality, as this flesh and blood body only (sans ‘being’ itself), simply means there is no separation whatsoever – the very stuff of this flesh and blood body is the very stuff of the universe – and if you were to reach forward and touch the glass, which is a few scant millimetres to the front of these words you are reading, then the very stuff of the universe, currently in a shape/form called finger-tip, is directly experiencing the very stuff of the universe, currently in the shape/form called glass.

The universe is not just the outer reaches of what is called ‘deep space’ as it is as much the room you are sitting in reading these words as it is anything else ... the universe is not just nebulae and stars and so on, it is as much the flesh and blood body you actually are, sitting in the room reading these words, as it is the pixels currently forming these words.

In short: there is nothing which is not this universe.

RESPONDENT: I was commenting in regard to the assumption (for me) that everyone (6.000.000.000 people - Richard) experiences his own universe, that everyone represents a different and unique world, as unique as the identity within.

RICHARD: Yes, whereas I was responding to you (seemingly) calling such a universe – an identity’s ‘own universe’ – the actual universe. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Reactions of the actual universe (...) is something to be watched with great interest.
• [Richard]: ‘As the identity within is oblivious to all things actual, it [the actual universe] cannot be watched [by an identity].

An identity, being but an illusion, is of course forever locked-out of the actual world by its very nature ... it cannot see what the eyes are seeing.

RESPONDENT: I haven’t met two similar persons or similar world-views as there are no two similar bodies.

RICHARD: At root everyone is not all that dissimilar – virtually all sentient beings are identical at the core of their being – as one person’s sorrow, for instance, is not all that different to another’s ... and so on through virtually all the emotions/passions.

It (the similarity of the affective feelings and thus the ‘being’ they automatically form themselves into) is what makes for empathy.

RESPONDENT: And your universe is the actual universe except from the fact that it’s not yours: it exists on its own accord.

RICHARD: Aye, this actual universe existed long before this flesh and blood body was born and will exist long after this flesh and blood body is dead ... only an identity can claim ownership of their own creation (the identity’s ‘own universe’ you referred to further above).

RESPONDENT: This is what actually fascinates me.

RICHARD: The identity, who used to inhabit this body all those years ago, was so fascinated by the wonder of it all ‘he’ voluntarily (willingly and cheerfully) pressed the button which would ensure ‘his’ demise so that this actual universe could become apparent ... and thus went blessedly into oblivion.

RESPONDENT: As for ‘the identity within is oblivious to all things actual, it cannot be watched anyway’ (it = the actual universe), then how can an identity be sensible to what you’re saying? Is it not the identity who writes on this mailing list?

RICHARD: This is the way I usually put it:

• [Richard]: ‘What one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written.
Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path.

RESPONDENT: The great number of objections to what you convey is understandable, as for an identity to agree to what you’re saying it would have to contradict its very nature: survival at all costs and if it would be an experiential agreeing, it will disappear.

RICHARD: Ahh ... the word ‘altruism’, in the phrase ‘altruistic ‘self’-immolation’, refers to the more powerful survival instinct than the selfism survival instinct and is what ensures success (blind nature ensures that survival of the species takes precedence over survival of the individual by making the for-the-good-of-the-whole instinct the dominant survival instinct).

Thus it could be said I am appealing to what is sometimes called one’s ‘better nature’.

RESPONDENT: And how can anyone agree with you as there are so few PCE’s one experiences during life compared to the time spent busy being an identity?

RICHARD: As a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is a direct experience of the pristine perfection of the peerless purity this actual world is then even a momentary experience (quality) will stand out amongst years of normal experiencing (quantity).

RESPONDENT: First I should like to ask you why you are breaking a question and you don’t copy and paste it in its integrity. And then to answer it.

RICHARD: Just for starters ... if the premise in first part of a sentence is invalid then the conclusion in the second half is bound to be incorrect and, as a person asks their queries from their (incorrect) conclusions, based upon their (invalid) premises, then for the sake of clarity in communication I usually set the record straight right from the start.

Also, you may find the following exchange helpful:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I sometimes receive your mail as rather uptight, answering every single sentence.
• [Richard]: ‘Since when has listening with both ears to what the other is saying, and responding squarely and thoroughly to each aspect they find important enough to take the time to mention, been being ‘rather uptight’? I like communicating and have no interest in ignoring or glossing over or otherwise trivialising and/or disregarding my fellow human being’s contribution to a mutual discussion through inattention and/or laziness.

Perhaps if I were to put it into words you might relate to: I pay attention to what it is you have to say.

RESPONDENT: Here I am obliged to copy my whole question in its integrity. [Respondent]: ‘And to end, I should like to say what I think is happening. I think that the sense of existence, is common to all humankind. After with the different conditionings and identities, we think we are separate human beings. Right now my sense of existence is exactly the same with yours and everybody’s else. May be now I am swimming and you have headache. But the sense of existence without the identities is the same EXACTLY. [endquote]. Your answer in the last part of the question is: [Richard]: ‘Ahh ... without the parasitical identity within the sense of being here, as a flesh and blood body only, would be very similar (if not exactly the same). [endquote]. I had mention in my question WITHOUT THE IDENTITIES. You agreed with the above statement and you added also IF NOT EXACTLY THE SAME. As I had also stated with capital letters EXACTLY. Take that answer of yours under consideration. Now I am going again in the top of your email: [Respondent]: ‘In the moment you speak about oblivion after death ...’. [Richard]: ‘First and foremost: I report the identity in toto going into blessed oblivion whilst this flesh and blood body was still alive. Second, with no identity in situ it is patently obvious that there be nothing whatsoever to survive physical death. Third, hence there was, similarly, nothing which predated birth. Lastly, physical death is, just as being anaesthetised or even each night upon going to sleep is, the oblivion of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being conscious) as well as the awareness of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being aware of being conscious) ... only never coming to or waking up again. In other words, physical death is the end, finish’. [Respondent]: ‘... this means that now you are in another state, because you are alive’. [Richard]: ‘No, because to say ‘another’ state is to imply that physical death is also a state to exist in when it is not’. [Respondent]: ‘You are in a state of existence’. [Richard]: ‘I exist as a flesh and blood body, in time and space, being apperceptively aware’. [endquotes]. Can you see your big contradiction here? You stated before that if the identities end then the feeling of existence is EXACTLY THE SAME for all human beings. You accepted now that the identity for you went in oblivion while the body is still alive. Then you say that the death of the body is the end, finish. What about the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE if there is no identity? That’s why I said that I exist in every baby. If you say that with the death of the body is the end of the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE then you are again in contradiction, because that should mean that now you, without identity, are in separation of the other human EXISTENCE. So the body dies but what about the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE that you agreed before?

RICHARD: I have not only left your ‘whole question in its integrity’ intact but also the entire section ... now may I respond to the points you raise and the assumptions you make on the way through? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘And to end, I should like to say what I think is happening. I think that the sense of existence, is common to all humankind.
• [Richard]: ‘To all those not yet free of the human condition the intuitive, or instinctive, feeling of existing (the feeling of ‘being’) is common to all humankind’. [endquotes].

The reason why I responded to the first sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ immediately after you wrote it was that there is a vast difference between the sensitive (sensate) sense of existing and the affective (intuitive) sense of existence ... which is why I provided the following explanation:

• [Respondent]: ‘You must have a sense of existence.
• [Richard]: ‘You will see, upon re-reading my response (above) that I clearly say ‘the sense of being here, in space, as a body’ – which is another way of saying ‘the sense of existing, in space, as a body’ – which is most certainly not the same thing as the ‘feeling of existence’ you speak of in a recent e-mail. Vis.: [Respondent]: ‘Existence is not mine or yours. Existence is one. We are experiencing the same feeling of existence, the identities made us think we are separate.’ [endquote]. The ‘sense of existence’ you are enquiring about is intuitive, or instinctive, and thus affective, not sensitive’. [endquotes].

In the jargon: you are talking about chalk and I am talking about cheese. Here is the second sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ which I responded to:

• [Respondent]: ‘After with the different conditionings and identities, we think we are separate human beings.
• [Richard]: ‘No, it is because of blind nature’s biological inheritance that each and every human being feels separate ... the social conditioning is a well-meant attempt to keep the wayward self under control’. [endquotes].

The reason why I responded to the second sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ immediately after you wrote it was that, as you have bought Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s insight that society and its conditioning is to blame, you were pointing the finger at thought thinking the ego-self is separate and not feelings feeling the soul-self/spirit-self which the ego, or ego-self is born out of, is separate by its very nature.

In the jargon: you are talking about apples and I am talking about oranges. Here is the first half of your third sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ which I responded to:

• [Respondent]: ‘Right now my sense of existence is exactly the same with yours ...
• [Richard]: ‘You have to be joking, right?’ [endquotes].

The reason why I responded to the first half of your third sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ immediately after you wrote it should be patently obvious if (note ‘if’) you had actually paid attention my responses to you ... as exemplified by this exchange:

• [Respondent]: ‘I again ask you to excuse me for the questions, but I try to understand.
• [Richard]: ‘Sure ... it would help your understanding considerably, however, if you were to take note of what I have to report (for example I notice that you have persisted in your ‘the perceiver and the perceived are one thing’ borrowed wisdom in another e-mail recently whilst regurgitating what you told me about the tree’s leaves being green). There is no ‘observer’ to be the ‘observed’ here in this actual world’. [endquotes].

I say what I mean and I mean what I say. Here is the second part of your third sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ which I responded to:

• [Respondent]: ‘ ... and everybody’s else.
• [Richard]: ‘I have talked with many and varied peoples from all walks of life (I have both travelled the country and overseas), and watched television, videos, films (whatever media is available), plus read about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet), for more than two decades, to find somebody else actually free from the human condition, but to no avail. Therefore, if you could provide web pages, books titles, magazine articles, newspaper reports, manuscripts, pamphlets, brochures or whatever that I can access – or other mailing lists that I can subscribe to – wherein the words of these people, who have written about how their ‘sense of existence’ is ‘exactly’ the same as mine, can be found I would be most pleased. We could compare notes, as it were, to determine what is idiosyncratic and what is common’. [endquotes].

The reason why I responded to the second half of your third sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ immediately after you wrote it was because it is one thing to make a blanket statement (such as ‘right now my sense of existence is exactly the same with yours and everybody’s else’ for example) and quite another to back it up with something substantial ... therefore, if you could provide the evidence that you and everyone else are also sans the intuitive, or instinctive, and thus affective, not sensitive, ‘sense of existence’ you are referring to I would be most chuffed.

Either that or cease making such outlandish claims. Here is the fourth sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ which I responded to:

• [Respondent]: ‘May be now I am swimming and you have headache. But the sense of existence without the identities is the same EXACTLY.
• [Richard]: ‘Ahh ... without the parasitical identity within the sense of being here, as a flesh and blood body only, would be very similar (if not exactly the same)’. [endquotes].

The reason why I responded to the fourth sentence of your ‘whole question in its integrity’ immediately after you wrote it was to re-emphasise what I had already explained further above ... to wit: the sense of being here, as a flesh and blood body only, sans identity. This is your response to this sentence of mine in this e-mail:

• [Respondent]: ‘I had mention in my question WITHOUT THE IDENTITIES. You agreed with the above statement and you added also IF NOT EXACTLY THE SAME. As I had also stated with capital letters EXACTLY. Take that answer of yours under consideration’. [endquote].

Would it not serve your understanding better if you were to take my answer under consideration instead of telling me to? I only ask because if you had not ignored my point-by-point responses in your haste to tell me that you are ‘obliged to copy my whole question in its integrity’ you would have seen that I was not agreeing with you at all but restating what I had said further above:

• [Respondent]: ‘You must have a sense of existence.
• [Richard]: ‘You will see, upon re-reading my response (above) that I clearly say ‘the sense of being here, in space, as a body’ – which is another way of saying ‘the sense of existing, in space, as a body’ – which is most certainly not the same thing as the ‘feeling of existence’ you speak of in a recent e-mail. Vis.: [Respondent]: ‘Existence is not mine or yours. Existence is one. We are experiencing the same feeling of existence, the identities made us think we are separate.’ [endquote]. The ‘sense of existence’ you are enquiring about is intuitive, or instinctive, and thus affective, not sensitive’. [endquotes].

There are two parts to the identity: the thinking-self and the feeling-self ... and by ‘feeling’ I am meaning the affective feelings (the emotional, passional, and calentural feelings) and not the sensitive feelings (the sensorial, sensual, and sensuous feelings).

In the perceptive process the sensations are primary, the affections are secondary, and the cognitions are tertiary: you are ignoring what is primary and cogitating about what is secondary ... you are theorising about what it would be like without the identity, for example, without taking into account that the identity’s affectively felt experience of existing – the ‘feeling of existence’ you speak of – is also non-existent in actuality.

Again: actualism is experiential, not theoretical.

RESPONDENT: Now I am going again in the top of your email: [Respondent]: ‘In the moment you speak about oblivion after death ...’. [Richard]: ‘First and foremost: I report the identity in toto going into blessed oblivion whilst this flesh and blood body was still alive. Second, with no identity in situ it is patently obvious that there be nothing whatsoever to survive physical death. Third, hence there was, similarly, nothing which predated birth. Lastly, physical death is, just as being anaesthetised or even each night upon going to sleep is, the oblivion of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being conscious) as well as the awareness of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being aware of being conscious) ... only never coming to or waking up again. In other words, physical death is the end, finish’. [Respondent]: ‘... this means that now you are in another state, because you are alive’. [Richard]: ‘No, because to say ‘another’ state is to imply that physical death is also a state to exist in when it is not’. [Respondent]: ‘You are in a state of existence’. [Richard]: ‘I exist as a flesh and blood body, in time and space, being apperceptively aware’. [endquotes]. Can you see your big contradiction here?

RICHARD: No, but then again, that would be because there is no contradiction – either big or little – to see.

RESPONDENT: You stated before that if the identities end then the feeling of existence is EXACTLY THE SAME for all human beings.

RICHARD: I did nothing of the kind ... I was most specific that I was referring to the sense of being here, as a flesh and blood body only, sans identity and not the ‘the feeling of existence’ you make it out to be.

RESPONDENT: You accepted now that the identity for you went in oblivion while the body is still alive.

RICHARD: What do you mean by ‘you accepted now’ when I have acknowledged all along that identity in toto altruistically became extinct while this flesh and blood body was still alive?

Golly ... it is why The Actual Freedom Trust web site exists.

RESPONDENT: Then you say that the death of the body is the end, finish.

RICHARD: Indeed I do ... physical death is, just as being anaesthetised or even each night upon going to sleep is, the oblivion of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being conscious) as well as the awareness of consciousness (the state or condition of a body being aware of being conscious) ... only never coming to or waking up again.

RESPONDENT: What about the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE if there is no identity?

RICHARD: Here is that exchange again:

• [Respondent]: ‘... the sense of existence without the identities is the same EXACTLY.
• [Richard]: ‘Ahh ... without the parasitical identity within the sense of being here, as a flesh and blood body only, would be very similar (if not exactly the same)’. [endquotes].

The sense of being here, as a body only, will of course cease to happen upon physical death ... just as in being anaesthetised, for example, or even as in each night upon going to sleep, for another instance (provided there be no dreaming).

Being knocked unconscious is another example ... as is fainting.

RESPONDENT: That’s why I said that I exist in every baby.

RICHARD: Sure ... I do understand where you are coming from (as I lived spiritual enlightenment, night and day for eleven years, I know it intimately thus even theoretical re-hashes are easily comprehended if they be extensive enough).

RESPONDENT: If you say that with the death of the body is the end of the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE then you are again in contradiction, because that should mean that now you, without identity, are in separation of the other human EXISTENCE.

RICHARD: As I did not say ‘with the death of the body is the end of the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE’ you are referring to then whatever conclusion you come up with will be a non-sequitur.

RESPONDENT: So the body dies but what about the EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE that you agreed before?

RICHARD: As I never agreed to ‘EXACTLY THE SAME EXISTENCE’ your question, arising out of your erroneous conclusion, is meaningless ... do you now see why I sometimes interject part way through a sentence and at other times respond sentence-by-sentence?

I will put it this way: if the premise in first part of a sentence – or the first part of a paragraph – is invalid then the conclusion in the second half is bound to be incorrect ... and any query arising from that incorrect conclusion is quite simply a waste of a question.

And I will not be here forever on this mailing list to answer queries.

RESPONDENT: ... this means that now you are in another state, because you are alive.

RICHARD: No, because to say ‘another’ state is to imply that physical death is also a state to exist in when it is not.

RESPONDENT: How you arrived in such conclusion if not through logic and the scientific knowledge of today’s?

RICHARD: It is quite simple: when the identity in toto went into blessed oblivion, whilst this flesh and blood body was still alive, it was, and is, patently obvious that with no identity in situ there be nothing whatsoever to survive physical death.

In other words, physical death is the end, finish ... and this obviousness is because of direct experience, observation, and native intelligence (what is called ‘commonsense’ in the real-world) operating without being crippled by either the instinctual passions or the ‘self’ (by whatever name) they automatically form themselves into.

Neither ‘scientific knowledge’ is required (I only provide complementary scientific discoveries so nobody has to take my word for something) nor ‘logic’ (I only provide reasoned responses to complement my report for people who cannot think for themselves) ... it is all experiential.

As any pure consciousness experience (PCE) will verify.

RESPONDENT: All this is speculation and implies belief.

RICHARD: Au contraire ... it is all experiential (direct experience, observation, and a freed intelligence).

RESPONDENT: Had you died to know?

RICHARD: The identity within died in toto and, as a consequence, it is patently obvious there be nothing whatsoever to survive physical death.

As physical death is the end, finish, if one does not find out whilst one is alive one never will.

RICHARD: (...) there is more to identity than just the ego-self ... much, much more.

RESPONDENT: Okay ... then I want to find out what it is that’s more to it.

RICHARD: As simply as possible: it is who you feel yourself to be at the very core of your being (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’).

(...)

RESPONDENT: You know, I’m asking for something like a message such as ‘Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish’, or ‘Sorry for the inconvenience’, just in neurological terms.

RICHARD: If you would explain what those two messages refer to I may be able to respond meaningfully.

RESPONDENT: Just a joking metaphor – a reference to Douglas Adams. In one of his books the dolphins, before collectively leaving earth because they were informed of its imminent destruction (it must give way to an intergalactic superhighway), leave the message: ‘Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish’.

RICHARD: Given that you asked me for such a metaphorical message in the context of having just enquired as to whether or not some of the members of the phylum Arthropoda are once-removed from actuality in the perceptive process and, or, when it was historically that all species of animals became inhabited by a rudimentary ‘self’, if you would explain who it is that the metaphor refers to (who is being thanked) I may be able to respond meaningfully.

RESPONDENT: In the book, the human race is being thanked by the dolphins, in its metaphorical use, it would be the flesh & blood body being thanked by the psyche before leaving forever.

RICHARD: In which case ... the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago left no grateful message at all (albeit in neurological terms) before altruistically ‘self’-immolating, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body – least of all in the form of neurological remainders of ‘self’ (as per your explication further below) – as ‘he’ had no neuronal/ neuronic existence in the first place.

RESPONDENT: ‘Sorry for the inconvenience’, on the other hand and in another Douglas Adams book, is good’s final message to Creation.

RICHARD: Again, given that you asked me for such a metaphorical message in the context of having just enquired as to whether or not some of the members of the phylum Arthropoda are once-removed from actuality in the perceptive process and, or, when it was historically that all species of animals became inhabited by a rudimentary ‘self’, if you would explain who it is that the metaphor refers to (who is apologising) I may be able to respond meaningfully.

RESPONDENT: The above will enable you to answer that question yourself.

RICHARD: In which case ... the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago left no apologetic message at all (albeit in neurological terms) before altruistically ‘self’-immolating, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body – least of all in the form of neurological remainders of ‘self’ (as per your explication further below) – as ‘he’ had no neuronal/ neuronic existence in the first place.

RESPONDENT: To translate into the neurological terms which you have given above ...

RICHARD: If I might interject? I gave no neurological terms in the text you are referring to ... indeed I specifically mentioned that identity cannot be located neuronally/ neurologically. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Did you have a tomodensitometry of the brain (PET-scan)?
• [Richard]: ‘No ... this is a matter I discussed in depth with both the accredited psychiatrist and the psychologist who both examined me over a three-year period (the first year on a weekly basis then on a three weekly basis). This is how I understand the situation: as *no scientist has yet been able to locate ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (the identity by whatever name)* despite all their RI scans (Radio Isotope), CAT scans (Computerised Axial Tomography), CT scans (Computed Tomography), NMR scans (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), PET scans (Positron Emission Tomography), MRA scans (Magnetic Resonance Angiography), MRI scans (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), and fMRI scans (functioning Magnetic Resonance Imaging) in any normal identity-bound flesh and blood body it would be pointless to scan for the absence of identity in this flesh and blood body’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: ... ‘twas but another metaphorical inquiry about neurological remainders of the ‘self’.

RICHARD: As it is you who posits that identity has a neuronal/ neurological existence, and not me, I will pass without further comment.

RESPONDENT: Brilliant. The reason I posited that is that I assume that nothing exists in the brain which has no neuronal existence.

RICHARD: If you were to scroll to the top of this page you would see that this discussion is, at your request, about finding out what it is which is more to identity than just the ego-self ... and nowhere either before or since has it ever been either stated or implied that ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – which is ‘being’ itself – exists in the brain.

Indeed, I have consistently referred to the brainstem ... to the point of specifically suggesting the ‘Substantia Nigra’, in or near the top two thirds of the ‘Reticular Activating System’ (sometimes known as the ‘Reticular System’), as being the source of the instinctual self/ the instinctual passions.

Therefore, your [quote] ‘brilliant’ [endquote] response would be more in keeping with what is being discussed were it to look something like this:

• [Respondent]: ‘... ‘twas but another metaphorical inquiry about neurological remainders of the ‘self’.
• [Richard]: ‘As it is you who posits that identity has a neuronal/ neurological existence, and not me, I will pass without further comment.
• [example only]: ‘Brilliant. The reason I posited that is that I assume that nothing exists in the brainstem which has no neuronal existence’ [endquote].

Now, whilst a case can be made that the instinctual passions have a neuronal existence the instinctual self they automatically form themselves into, by the very movement or motion of those affections, which blind nature genetically endows as a rough and ready survival programme, being extant/ being in situ (in a process similar to an eddy in currents of air/a whirlpool in currents of water), does not.

Put somewhat simplistically: an emotional/ passional identity is phantom ‘being’ in the affective faculty, an affective ‘ghost in the machine’ (in the survival software), as it were.

RESPONDENT: It either happens in the neurons and as the neurons, or it doesn’t happen.

RICHARD: If I might point out? An instinctual ‘self’ happens in the instinctual passions, as the instinctual passions, and not in the neurones as the neurones.

RESPONDENT: You, on the contrary, seem to assume that hallucinations exist without a correlating neuronal activity. Is that correct?

RICHARD: Presuming that you meant to write ‘illusions’ (given that the subject under discussion is the soul-self as the seat of the emotions or sentiments and not that seat of the emotions or sentiments imaginatively felt/ instinctively intuited to be an immortal self/ the supreme being) I do not assume that the illusion of existing as a feeling ‘being’ (as a ‘feeler’) exists without that illusion’s concomitant feelings. For instance:

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘... the genetically-inherited instinctual passions do not so much create you but, rather, automatically form themselves *as* you by the very movement or motion of being extant/ being in situ (in a process similar to an eddy in currents of air/a whirlpool in currents of water). (...) The feeling of ‘being’ does not so much arise from the genetically-inherited instinctual passions but, rather, forms itself (in a process similar to an eddy forming itself in currents of air/a whirlpool forming itself in currents of water) *as* the very movement or motion of same being extant/ being in situ’. [emphasises added].

RESPONDENT: In your answer to No 97 for the same question you used a computer analogy (deletion of a software program from a chip without a trace).

RICHARD: Were you to be inclined to ponder the distinction between ‘... without a trace’ and ‘remainders of ...’ it might save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails regarding Mr. Douglas Adams’ thinly disguised religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical messages.

RESPONDENT: In light of your response here I would ask: what happened to your substantia nigra?

RICHARD: Put simply: ‘my’ demise was as fictitious as ‘my’ apparent presence.

RESPONDENT: O.k.. So nothing happened in your brain at all?

RICHARD: If I may again point out? The substantia nigra is located in the brainstem – not the brain – in or near the top two thirds of the ‘Reticular Activating System’ (sometimes known as the ‘Reticular System’) and something quite sensational happened thereabouts. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) To cut a long story short ‘he’ psychologically and psychically (ontologically and autologically) ‘self’-immolated in ‘his’ totality (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. This altruistic action, set in motion with knowledge aforethought, precipitated *much sensational activity* at the top of the brain-stem/ base of the brain (popularly known as the ‘lizard brain’/ ‘reptilian brain’). (...) as there was *much sensational activity* at the top of the brain-stem/ base of the brain during the extinction of identity in this flesh and blood body, it makes sense to me to suggest that this speculation [amongst various professionals in the field that the Substantia Nigra was the seat of consciousness/ the location of identity] could very well be the case. Plus, as reptiles (and birds and fishes) do not have a ‘mammalian’ brain and/or a ‘cortical’ brain it seems obvious that the ‘seat of consciousness’ be located in what is popularly known as the ‘lizard brain’/ ‘reptilian brain’. An instinctual self, in other words, is the root of the problem’. [emphasises added].

RESPONDENT: Given the magnitude of the problems [all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and so on] you detailed above ( ...) a closer (neuro-scientifical) investigation of these aspects ...

RICHARD: If I may again interject? Just what [quote] ‘aspects’ [endquote] are you referring to?

RESPONDENT: The aspects grounded in the theory that there is nothing happening in the brain which does not translate into neuronal activity and changing of neuronal patterns.

RICHARD: In order for an hypothesis to qualify as a theory there does have to be (repeatable) experimental evidence and, as I understand it, no scientist has yet been able to locate either ‘I’ as ego or ‘me’ as soul (the identity by whatever name) despite all their RI scans (Radio Isotope), CAT scans (Computerised Axial Tomography), CT scans (Computed Tomography), NMR scans (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), PET scans (Positron Emission Tomography), MRA scans (Magnetic Resonance Angiography), MRI scans (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), and fMRI scans (functioning Magnetic Resonance Imaging) in any normal identity-bound flesh and blood body ... what such scans indicate (by mapping, for instance, increased blood-flow) is neuronal activity which correlates to the emotional/ passional feelings being felt.

RESPONDENT: Apparently you do not share that (materialist) assumption?

RICHARD: Presuming by that you mean a material – as opposed to a spiritual – assumption I am not suggesting for a moment that ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) is a metaphysical entity ... just as I would never suggest that an eddy in currents of air/a whirlpool in currents of water is a supernatural vortex.

RESPONDENT: ... [a closer (neuro-scientifical) investigation of these aspects] might, if it serves to convince some actual sceptics, be of use for this world.

RICHARD: I am not in the business of convincing anyone of matters experiential ... I unambiguously make it clear that experiential proof is the only proof worthy of the name in regards to consciousness studies. For example (from the home page of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site): [Richard]: ‘I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (*which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name*). The PCE occurs globally ... across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age. However, it is usually interpreted according to cultural beliefs – created and reinforced by the persistence of identity – and devolves into an ASC. Then ‘I’ as ego – sublimated and transcended as ‘me’ as soul – manifest as a god or a goddess (‘The Truth’ by any name) and preach unliveable doctrines based upon their belief that they are ‘not the body’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: ‘Tis but a suggestion, mind you.

RICHARD: Perhaps, just perhaps, were you to read what I have to say with both eyes open there would be no need to make any such suggestion?

RESPONDENT: I’ll open the other one and read again.

RICHARD: Whilst you are doing that it may be handy to bear in mind that, analogous to an eddy formed by currents of air/a whirlpool formed by currents of water only existing provided there be currents of air/ currents of water, an instinctual self only exists provided there be currents of instinctual passions.

The affective feelings are not colloquially known as ‘vibes’ (an abbreviation of ‘vibrations’) for nothing.

RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

The Third Alternative

(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)

Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.