Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence

On Materialism

RESPONDENT: Richard, I remember you saying that what the West represents in terms of culture/ civilization (individualism, liberal democracy, market economy, etc.) is threatened/undermined by Eastern spiritual concepts.

RICHARD: You are obviously referring to this:

• [Richard]: ‘... western civilisation, which has struggled to get out of superstition and medieval ignorance, is in danger of slipping back into the supernatural as the eastern mystical wisdom, that is beginning to have its strangle-hold upon otherwise intelligent people, is becoming more and more widespread.
The ancient wisdom has even infiltrated modern physics’.

Or this (a variation on the theme):

• [Richard]: ‘I do appreciate science and have the highest regard for facts – it is what enabled western civilisation to get out of superstition and medieval ignorance – hence the concern that it not be taken over by the metaphysicists who would have future generations slip back into the supernatural’.

The only occasion I have discussed democracy with you was in regards to Christianity (and not eastern mystical wisdom). Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Capitalism in my view is a more fortunate [than Communism] mixture between Christianity and instinctive drives.
• [Richard]: ‘The primary distinction between capitalism and communism, as currently and previously practised, is the private ownership of property/ means of production (privatisation) versus the public ownership of property/ means of production (nationalisation); the secondary distinction is a representative democracy (regular competitive elections for governance) versus a non-representative autocracy (non-competitive elections or imposition of governance); the other distinctions lie in the areas of accountable jurisprudence versus unaccountable jurisprudence, freedom of speech (uncensored media) versus restricted speech (censored media), freedom of association/ assembly versus restricted association/assembly, freedom of contract versus restriction of contract, and freedom of religion versus restriction of religion (all of which involve issues of public policing versus secret policing) ... apart from the freedom/ restriction of religion issue where is Christianity part of the mixture?
The Christian god not only owns everything, but is totally autocratic, arbitrarily imposes judgement, despotically punishes dissention, condemns proscribed association/ assembly, has an authoritarian insistence on an exclusive contract ... and secretly spies on everyone (all of which makes the most notorious dictator but a rank amateur by comparison).
However if you can somehow manage to love this god you will be loved in return ... but even that is a matter of caprice (grace)’.

RESPONDENT: To me, it seems that the danger is broader and includes, above all, demographics. In a few generations, Europe will not be the place we now know ... and not for the better. I also think that the Western Civilization is helping its own extinction via fancy concepts like multiculturalism ... something akin to a suicidal gesture. There’s no better example than the country/ society you currently live ... and I’m speaking of trends. I can see no solutions though ... except maybe for a ‘white Australia policy’. Values are not actual, okay ... but some are better than others.

What’s your practical take on this?

RICHARD: The following encapsulates my practical take on sociological issues/ societal values as well:

• [Richard]: ‘I do not seek to advise anybody on what to do, or not do [in regards to political issues], and I have stated the reason why on many an occasion ... for example: [quote]: ‘I have oft-times said that I have no solutions for life in the real-world ... the only solution is dissolution’. [endquote]. Which means I have no solutions for governments either ...’.

Just so there is no misunderstanding ... when I say I have no solutions for life in the real-world I am referring to systematised solutions like political change, social reform, economic reconstruction, cultural revisionism, and so forth. For instance:

• [Respondent]: ‘I have a first hand experience that this [communism] could only lead to hypocrisy, theft, corruption, greed; even brain-washing won’t work, these instincts have an innate ability to turn almost anything to their own advantage and fulfil their priorities.
• [Richard]: ‘Any system brought about by political change, social reform, economic reconstruction, cultural revisionism, and so on, is bound to fail, no matter how well thought out, because blind nature’s genetically endowed survival passions, and the ‘being’ or ‘presence’ they automatically form themselves into, will stuff it up again and again.
I have seen this repeatedly on the familial level, on the local community level, on the national level, and on the an international level ... plus, more pertinently, on the partnership (marriage/relationship) level.
Unless one can live with just one other person, in peace and harmony twenty four hours of the day, nothing is ever going to work on any other scale’.

RESPONDENT: (Aside: As a barista at Starbucks, I spend a stretch of 8 hours moving constantly, trying to make drinks as quickly as possible, and attending to customers to provide so-called Legendary Service. If, during that time, I ask myself how I’m experiencing this moment being alive, the answer is going to be something like, ‘Well, I had to wait half a second to put whipped cream on this frappuccino because John needed to reach in front of me to grab a lid for the drink he’s making, which made me impatient for the whole half second, but now I’m pleased to be finishing this drink off to hand to my customer in the drive-thru (is anyone going to be in my way as I walk toward the drive-thru window?) so that I can get started on the next 3 drinks I have to make ... and I really need to get those blenders to the dishwasher because the timer went off and we need to switch those out’.

RICHARD: And all the while that such a commentary is occurring is this moment of being alive – the only moment you are ever alive – being experienced happily and harmlessly (sans sorrow and malice) … as in being gay and benevolent (sans anguish and animosity), as in being blithesome and benign (sans fear and aggression), as in being carefree and considerate (sans nurture and desire), perchance?

Is all of the above occurring in the pristine purity of this actual world (where nothing ‘dirty’, so to speak, can get in)?

RESPONDENT: That sounds really long, but in the blink of an eye I am aware of precisely how I’m experiencing the moment …

RICHARD: If, as you say, you are aware of ‘precisely how’ you are experiencing this moment then you will have no difficulty at all in answering my (above) questions, eh?

RESPONDENT: … [in the blink of an eye I am aware of precisely how I’m experiencing the moment] and it has nothing to do with the human condition …

RICHARD: May I ask? What do the words ‘precisely how’ mean to you, then?

RESPONDENT: … [it has nothing to do with the human condition]; it just has to do with being efficient because if I’m not then I’m not doing a good job, and I need to do a good job in order to remain gainfully employed so that I can pay for rent and bills and groceries. So I can survive.

RICHARD: And you are doing all this in order to survive for …. for what?

RESPONDENT: By the way, if you want to send me a fat cheque so that I can quit my shit job and escape from the human condition, then I’m all for it.

RICHARD: Surely you are not really suggesting that someone – anyone – in possession of ‘a fat cheque’ has escaped from the human condition … that they are totally happy and harmless (completely free from malice and sorrow) and thus living in the pristine perfection of this actual world where only purity abounds?

RESPONDENT: While I’m waiting for that cheque, however, I’ll be obliged to conform my behaviour to the expectations of a profit-seeking corporation).

RICHARD: You could, of course, pursue a career in a non-profit organisation (you would still be expected to conform your behaviour but at least you would no longer be able to take cheap shots at a business being successful enough to provide paid employment).


RESPONDENT: Don’t get side-tracked by my rant like I did, though.

RICHARD: Sure … you may find the following to be of interest, however:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘… but I have a lot of taxes to pay to the society, family, etc., which give me no time to sit and watch the rising sun ...
• [Richard]: ‘Speaking personally, the ‘I’ that was made freedom the number one priority in ‘his’ life. ‘He’ was a married man, with four children, running ‘his’ own business, with a house mortgage to pay off and a car on hire purchase ... working twelve-fourteen hour days, six-seven days a week.
In other words: normal.
And all the while the enabling of freedom took absolute precedence over all other matters and dominated ‘his’ every moment.


• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I find myself in a situation where I am raising two children and I am married.
• [Richard]: ‘So? I found myself in a situation where I was married and raising four children.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I am doing my best to raise the kids – but how could I possibly be pleased with raising them only to be in ‘abysmal’ situation – only to live in a ‘grim and glum’ reality where the best they can do is live on the better side of misery?
• [Richard]: ‘Indeed ... being married and raising four children was one of the many incentives for the ‘me’ who was to get off ‘his’ backside and do something about the whole sorry mess.
And now, as a direct result of that altruistic action, the possibility exists for those five fellow human beings to also live fully (as is anybody else) if they so choose.

Put simply: actualism works in the market-place. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘The words and writings promulgated and promoted by The Actual Freedom Trust explicate the workings of an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice in the market place. There is no meditating in silence or living in a monastery shut away from the world. There are no celibacy or obedience requirements. There are no dietary demands or daily regimes of exercise. No one is excluded by age or racial or gender origins. There are no prescribed books to study ... upwards of maybe two million [now maybe four million] words are available for free on The Actual Freedom Web Page. There are no courses to follow or therapies to undergo or workshops to endure. There are no fees to pay or any clique to join ... there are no rules at all.
I have no plan whatsoever ... there is no authority here in charge of a hierarchical organisation.

RESPONDENT: So, in my life, I recently decided to pursue just the masters in physics (instead of the previously intended PhD), so that I could move back in with my parents and ‘help’ them free themselves of their interpersonal obstructions. (My mom is over 50 and my dad is over 70) This was before I came to actualism, and I had intended to go back there to serve as an example of spiritualist practice. Now, however, I’m not sure what my agenda is in planning on moving back. On one hand, its that gut-feeling instinct to care for and support (emotionally and financially) my ‘tribe’. This also fulfils the social Asian-American duty of filiality, which I did not intend. On the other hand, this type of compassion and social identity obedience to being a ‘good son’ is exactly the stuff I’ve always wanted to obliterate.

So, my question is, is it possible to go through with these plans in an altruistic manner, like saving someone who is in danger?


RESPONDENT: Another issue, related to this one, is my choice of career. I was considering teaching physics at the HS level, because I understand there is a shortage of science teachers in California. Is this also a part of the instinctual duty to fulfil the needs of society?

RICHARD: Not necessarily, no ... one does need to put food/water into the belly, and a roof over the head/clothes on the back (if the weather be inclement), and in this day and age the main way of obtaining the necessary wherewithal is through the covert slavery euphemistically known as ‘earning a living’.

RESPONDENT: Thank you for your help.

RICHARD: You are very welcome.

RESPONDENT: And ... if you agree with that statement, are ‘materialists’ and ‘atheists’ actually ‘spiritualists’ in disguise?

RICHARD: I have been unable to find where Peter ever said that ... if you could provide the passage (or passages) it would be appreciated.

RESPONDENT: I do not mean to imply that Peter said that. It is a natural inference ...

1) Everyone but Richard is ‘spiritual.’

2) There are ‘materialists’ other than Richard.

3) ‘Spiritualists’ and ‘materialists’ are normally mutually exclusive.

4) Therefore, ‘materialists’ are actually ‘spiritualists’ in disguise.

I do understand after your explanation of Peter’s usage of the word ‘spiritual’ though that it would not necessarily be exclusive of being a ‘materialist’ – since his usage was a broader sense – more likely a synonym for ‘metaphysical’.

RICHARD: I cannot say I follow your points 1-4 (especially No. 2) but it does not really matter as the issue now seems to be satisfactorily clarified ... I could add, however, that because of ‘being’ itself an atheistic materialist cannot help but be, to some degree at least, metaphysical in outlook (to use the more likely synonym).

Just as a matter of related interest: has all this thrown some more light upon the topic of atheistic and/or materialistic physicists and/or mathematicians and their cosmogonical and/or cosmological theories?


RESPONDENT: Just as a matter of interest – how do you normally use the word ‘materialist’? Do you use it to mean ‘someone who believes there is only matter’ – or ‘someone who pursues ‘worldly’ possessions and concerns as their highest value in life’? I find that the word normally straddles those two meanings (the second blending 2 and 3 from the above definition) – yet those two meanings can mean 2 quite different things. For example, you cannot have ‘someone who believes there is only matter’ who also ‘believes in the divine’. (A spiritual materialist). But you can have ‘someone who believes in the divine’ who ‘pursues worldly possessions and concerns as their highest value in life.’ (A materialistic spiritualist).

RICHARD: I have located the following exchange:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘As I see AF is a mix of materialism, spirituality (in a good way, no nonsense), atheism, and nihilism.
• [Richard]: ‘Hmm ... materialism, as a generalisation, typically holds that life is a chance, random event in an otherwise empty (meaningless) universe; spirituality, as a generalisation, typically holds that life is a purposeful manifestation by or of the supreme being who created or creates the universe; atheism, as a generalisation, typically holds that, as there is no such supreme being, ethical considerations and human love and/or compassion – instead of moral dictates and divine love and/or compassion – are the way to live (somewhat) peacefully and harmoniously; and nihilism, as a generalisation, typically holds that life is whatever one makes of it and, as it is all pointless anyway, the only true philosophical question is whether to commit suicide, or not, and if so, then whether now or later.
As actualism is none of the above (bearing in mind that they are all generalisations) then whatever ‘mix’ it is that you are seeing it has nothing to do with what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site.

As well as that I also favour the following definition:

• ‘materialist: an adherent of materialism [the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications; also, the doctrine that consciousness and will are wholly due to the operation of material agencies]; a person who takes a material [relating to the physical as opposed to the spiritual] view of things or who favours material possessions and physical comfort. (Oxford Dictionary).

RICHARD: As for being a spiritualist or of that ilk: he certainly was not a materialist; he spoke often of the ‘otherness’ (which he described as meaning ‘other than matter’); he spoke often of what it was to be truly religious; he declared that he had realised God or truth; he affirmed that what he was speaking of is enlightenment.

RESPONDENT: I don’t think K would appreciate you describing him as a spiritualist. That word has quite a lot of baggage, especially in Theosophical circles.

RICHARD: When I typed the word it had no ‘baggage’ whatsoever attached to it – and when I clicked ‘send’ it still carried none – so unless it accumulated some in transit, in the one-and-a-half seconds it bounced from earth to satellite to earth, the ‘baggage’ which you see can only have been added at your end. Here is the word I sent (plus some related words):

• spiritualist (noun): a person who regards or interprets things from a spiritual point of view.
• spiritual (adjective and noun): of, pertaining to, or affecting the spirit or soul; concerned with sacred or religious things, holy; pertaining to or consisting of spirit, immaterial; of or appropriate to a spirit or immaterial being.
• spiritualism (noun): the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality; any philosophical or religious doctrine stressing the importance of spiritual as opposed to material things.
• spiritualistic (adjective): of or pertaining to spiritualism. (Oxford Dictionary).


• materialist (noun): a person who takes a material view of things; an adherent of materialism.
• material (adjective and noun): of or pertaining to matter or substance; formed or consisting of matter; corporeal; of conduct, a point of view, etc.: not elevated or spiritual; relating to the physical, as opposed to the spiritual aspect of things.
• materialism (noun): the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications and that consciousness and will are wholly due to the operation of material agencies.
• materialistic (adjective): pertaining to, characterised by, or devoted to materialism. (Oxford Dictionary).

Also, I did add ‘or of that ilk’ just in case calling a spade a spade is not de rigueur.

RESPONDENT: But I agree that the ‘otherness’ is to be regarded as outside of ‘materialism’. If you have only black and white, that would make him the other colour.

RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is quite explicit on the subject:

• ‘Materialism means evaluating life as matter, matter in its movement and modification, also matter as consciousness and will. We have to go into it to find out if there is anything more than matter and if we can go beyond it. (...) We have this problem, which man right from the beginning has sought to solve, which is: Is all life mechanical? Is all life material? Is all existence, including mind and consciousness and will, matter? Is your whole life that? (Saanen, July 18, 1974; ‘Total Action Without Regret’ ©1975 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust, Ltd.).

It does seem that for him it is a case of ‘only black and white’ and, as he clearly defines what the word materialism stands for (‘materialism means ...’), it would indicate that ‘the other colour’ is indeed spiritualism.

Incidentally, seeing that for him the life of matter is [quote] ‘mechanical’ [endquote] it appears he never came across the third alternative to materialism and spiritualism:

• actualism (noun): the theory that nothing is merely passive (now rare).
• actualist (noun): an advocate of actualism.
• actualistic (adjective): of the nature of actualism.
• actual (adjective and noun): pertaining to or exhibited in acts; practical, active; existing in act or fact; in action or existence at the time; present, current; actual qualities, actualities. Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: Re: the matter/ spirit split. You say, ‘yes, but resolving the split through dissolving the spirit (an active dissolution of being)’. I would counter that both matter and spirit as they were understood while split are dissolved.

RICHARD: Hmm ... I also wrote: ‘most people attempt to resolve ‘the great matter/spirit split’ from within the human condition: either cognitively (philosophy and psychology) or affectively (spirituality and mysticality)’.

By this I indicated that peoples attempt to integrate matter and spirit (either cognitively through mental understanding or affectively through feeling recognition). My experience (which is where all my description/understanding is drawn from) is that ‘spirit’ goes whilst ‘matter’ (this flesh and blood body) is alive. And also, research has shown me that, despite peoples best efforts, there is no 100% successful ‘healing’ of the matter/spirit split. Thus traditionally, for the spiritualists, the matter/ spirit split is resolved at physical death when ‘matter’ (the body) goes ... and ‘spirit’ lives on in the Timeless and Spaceless and Formless void. And for the materialist, both ‘spirit’ and ‘matter’ goes at physical death.

Which is why the spiritualist usually triumphs, in those materialist/spiritualist debates on TV or the Internet as the spiritualist can ascribe meaning to life (drawn from value ascribed to the quality of the after-death state) while the materialist cannot (hence the Existentialist Philosophers’ twentieth century dilemma of knowingly creating value ex nihilo).

RESPONDENT: I have noticed that you apply many of the traditional attributes of spirit to matter: infinite, eternal, benevolent, benign, even, I believe, intelligent in a non-anthropomorphic way.

RICHARD: Not ‘applying’, no ... these ‘attributes’ are actually properties (infinite and eternal) and qualities (immaculate and consummate) and values (benevolent and benign) and are my direct experience, each moment again, and those words are my description of what is actually happening (properties plus qualities equals values). It is that peoples for millennia have been ‘stealing’ the properties and qualities and values of this physical universe and attributing them to their particular metaphysical fantasy (whichever god or goddess that is the ‘flavour of the month’) ... and anthropocentrically adding a few (power-based) properties and qualities and values while they at it in order to make him/her into a supreme being. I am simply bringing those properties and qualities and values back where they have belonged all along ... to this infinite and eternal universe (stripping the power-based extraneities along the way).

But the universe itself is not intelligent (even in a ‘non-anthropomorphic way’ ) ... this universe, being infinite and eternal, is much, much more than merely intelligent. Intelligence, which is the ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered action for benevolent reasons, cannot comprehend infinity and eternity (as infinitude has no opposite there is none of the cause and effect relationship which is what intelligence needs in order to operate). Only apperceptive awareness can perceive and/or apprehend infinitude (thus I am this universe experiencing its own infinitude apperceptively). And, as a human being, I am this universe experiencing itself intelligently (just as the universe experiences itself as a cat or a dog or whatever: as a cat, this universe experiences itself miaowing and as a dog this universe experiences itself barking and so on).

Thus this universe is not consciousness per se (nor capital ‘C’ Consciousness).

RESPONDENT: If you take away that which perpetuates the split (everything that is mutually exclusive, which can only be ascribed to either spirit or matter), then everything is present here and now. I am not trying to make a theist out of you by this statement. But, I also understand that you are not a nihilistic, an existentialist.

RICHARD: What I experience is neither ‘existentialistic’ (materialism) nor ‘theistic’ (spiritualism) ... there is a third alternative: ‘actualistic’ (actualism) To be actualistic is to be living the infinitude of this fairy-tale-like actual world with its sensuous quality of magical perfection and purity: where everything and everyone has a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, wondrous, scintillating vitality that makes everything alive and sparkling ... even the very earth beneath one’s feet. The rocks, the concrete buildings, a piece of paper ... literally everything is as if it were alive (a rock is not, of course, alive as humans are, or as animals are, or as trees are). This ‘aliveness’ is the very actuality of all existence ... the actualness of everything and everyone. We do not live in an inert universe ... but one cannot experience this whilst clinging to immortality.

I am mortal.


RESPONDENT: So, I don’t quite know what to make of your proposition. A simple and simplistic solution to the ‘human condition’ is somewhat reminiscent of the promises of Self-realization and transcendence.

RICHARD: Oh yes, it is similar in some respects because it is a condition that lies beyond enlightenment ... and is much, much better as this is actual and not a fantasy just for starters. But there is more to it than that ... there is all the advantages of spiritualism and none of the disadvantages; there is all the advantages of materialism and none of the disadvantages.

Actualism is a genuine third alternative.

RESPONDENT: I was quite successful in my spiritual endeavours, but I found I didn’t want to distance myself from being here, being this body, being a physical being.

RICHARD: Yea verily, ‘distance oneself’ is the appropriate term: all religiosity, spirituality, mysticality and metaphysicality is 180 degrees in the wrong direction ... it is unequivocally a massive dissociation.

RESPONDENT: I found I just really wanted to be HERE. So, there is something new for me, a new slant about this physical primitive reptilian self you speak of.

RICHARD: Great stuff, is it not? Personally, I am so glad to be able to be alive and living in this era wherein all kinds of discoveries have been made which threw off the stranglehold religion had upon the Western mind for centuries (people used to be burnt at the stake for much less heretical writing than what I do). This emerging clarity of Western thought has been swamped recently by the insidious doctrines of the Eastern mind creeping into scientific research ... it is sobering to realise that the intelligentsia of the West are eagerly following the pundits of the East down the slippery slope of ‘spiritual science’ and ‘mystical philosophy’ ... thinking that it has nothing to do with religiosity.

But I am confident that this is but a passing phase.

RESPONDENT: The way of normality and the way of the spiritual have been the ONLY options humans have had till now ...

RICHARD: Exactly ... either materialism or spiritualism.

RESPONDENT: ... and your way has now arrived and ... you clearly state that we must turn around 180 degrees and renounce our past, including the contributions that those who came before us have made to our freedom.

RICHARD: Hmm ... this is the way I have put it time and again:

• [Richard]: ‘Nothing that I am on about will you find in the scriptures. Nothing. Eventually one has no recourse but to face the facts and the actuality of the human situation squarely. Which is: if the ‘ancient wisdom’ is so good, why has it not worked? How long must we try something before abandoning it in favour of something more promising? There is as much animosity and anguish now as back then. The experiment has failed. Love and its Compassion; Beauty and its Truth have had thousands of years to demonstrate their efficacy ... where is the evidence that they should be persevered with? Where is the Peace On Earth that they supposedly promised? Clear the work-bench and start fresh. Learn from those that have gone before and move on’.

I do see the words ‘learn from those that have gone before and move on’ ... couple this with my ‘I am very appreciative of all those brave peoples who dared to enter into ‘The Unknown’; if it were not for them leaving their written words behind I could not be where I am today’ and you will see I do both acknowledge and appreciate ‘the contributions that those who came before’. What seems to be the nub of the issue is that I do not and will not ‘ascribe value to the work and play and being of others’ which is of importance to you ... it is a constantly recurring theme in your posts. Perhaps if I put it this way:

I acknowledge and appreciate the contributions of all the peoples who puzzled over and proposed and explored the ‘flat earth theory’ and the ‘geocentric cosmology’ for umpteen years but I ascribe no value whatsoever to their work ... I ascribe value to those who proposed a ‘spherical earth’ and the ‘heliocentric system’.

I have only ever been interested in facts and actuality.


RESPONDENT: You have no right to announce that your Third way is the only way and that all other ways fit into your simplistic categorisation scheme as normal or spiritual and thus FALSE.

RICHARD: It is not a question of having ‘no right’ (or having the ‘right’) ... a fact just sits there making your ‘no right’ (or ‘right’) look silly. It is a fact that there has been only two ways thus far in human history – materialism and spiritualism – and it is a fact that there is now a third alternative. Facts can not be legislated out of existence.

RICHARD: This is an opportune time to vitalise any sincere study of actualism with a pertinent observation: life is neither a random, chance event in an otherwise empty and meaningless universe (the materialist experience) nor the deliberate, determined expression of a malicious/loving and sorrowful/compassionate divinity (the spiritualist experience). Rather it is due to the inevitable emergence of its intrinsic character that this physical universe is spontaneously personifying itself as a sensate, reflective and apperceptively aware human being: as such the universe is stunningly conscious of its own infinitude.

To paraphrase/plagiarise: both materialism (aka western dualism) and spiritualism (aka eastern non-dualism) miss something essential; they have seen and scrutinised what has happened, and in each their own way how it has happened (movingly expressed in trillions of words), but they are shutting their eyes to this which makes human life possible, this which is here to be lived now.

Which means that there is no fundamental significance in regards to people, things and events if humans miss the actuality of this moment in eternal time at this place in infinite space whilst being the particular form perpetual matter is organising itself as; for such people remain embedded in either the huge surface crust of everyday reality or the massive subterranean core of Divine Reality.

In actuality it is the magic of the perfection of the purity of the infinitude this physical universe actually is that peoples are unwittingly trying to analyse or subjectify; only when a person eliminates the human condition in its entirety can the factual significance of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, be directly experienced and thus intimately known.

This experiential understanding is beyond anyone’s wildest dreams and schemes.

RESPONDENT: I must admit that I have not seen anybody denying any life after death so clearly (except Charvaka philosophy, which is infamous for being materialistic, and I have not read it in detail.)

RICHARD: Aye, I am not a materialist, I am an actualist – which is the experiential understanding that nothing physical is merely passive – and is evidenced with the personal experience of the universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being (as opposed to a cerebral or affective perception). The Carvarka or Lokayata philosophy as propounded by Mr. Brhaspati has some similarities to the Epicurean philosophy of the West. The Carvakas sought to establish their materialism on an epistemological basis and in their ethics they upheld a hedonistic theory according to which enjoyment of the maximum amount of sensual pleasure here in this life and avoidance of pain that is likely to accompany such enjoyment are the only two goals that humans ought to pursue. There is no evidence that they addressed the issue of consciousness per se ... that is: what to do about the persistence of ‘self’.

RESPONDENT: Now, this is only my intellectual comprehension and not my experience. In fact I don’t remember of any peak experience kind or PCE, which you say everybody has once in a while. So, to me it does not matter, if what you are saying is ‘new’ or not. If you have experienced it and can help me experience it, I am ready to learn because I already see, intellectually, the need for it.

RICHARD: Good ... but we need to be clear what it is that you want to experience. Nothing that I am on about will you find in the scriptures. Nothing. Eventually one has no recourse but to face the facts and the actuality of the human situation squarely. Which is: ‘If the ‘ancient wisdom’ is so good, why has it not worked? How long must we try something before abandoning it in favour of something more promising?’ There is as much animosity and anguish now as back then. The experiment has failed. Love and its Compassion; Beauty and its Truth have had thousands of years to demonstrate their efficacy ... where is the evidence that they should be persevered with? Where is the Peace On Earth that they promised? Why is it that only 0.0000001 of the population becomes enlightened? Why? Why?? Why??? Clear the work-bench and start fresh. Learn from those that have gone before and move on.

RESPONDENT: Richard, it is always good to find your email in my hotmail mailbox. There is one important point that hit me in your response: [Richard]: ‘After my break-through into actual freedom I went through thirty months of mental anguish thinking that I had lost the plot completely (although physically everything was perfect). No one could help me as nobody had traversed this territory before’ [endquote]. How did you experience the mental anguish from the perspective of actual freedom?

RICHARD: As a severe cerebral agitation ... it all happened only in the brain cells. There was perfect sensate experiencing: the direct, startlingly intimate sensuousness of the eyes seeing, the ears hearing, the skin feeling, the nose smelling and the tongue tasting all of their own accord (deliciously unfettered by a ‘me’ or an ‘I’) yet the cognitive faculty was face-to-face with the stark fact that it had been living a deluded dissociative state for eleven years ... and that religion – fuelled by its spirituality and mysticism – was nothing short of institutionalised insanity. That this disconcerting perplexity was only cerebral was evidenced by no sweaty palms, no increased heartbeat, no rapid breathing, no palpations in the solar plexus ... none of those things connected with the existential angst of being a contingent ‘being’. If I were to look in a mirror during that period and ask ‘who am I’ there was no answer – not even ‘the silence that speaks louder than words’ that had been experienced for eleven years – yet the answer to ‘what am I’ was patently obvious and undeniable ... I am this flesh and blood body.

In psychiatric terms the neurons were agitated: energised and excited with an excess of dopamine in the post-synaptic receptors, described as being similar to the effect of amphetamines, cocaine or LSD ... yet nothing could be done about it with psychiatry’s extensive arsenal of anti-psychotic drugs. Initially I had no alternative but to seek resolution in terms of either ‘the known’ (psychiatry) and/or ‘the unknown’ (mysticism) ... and I knew from eleven years experience that no mystic could be of any assistance whatsoever. I was truly on my own. The mental anguish was in determining the validity of uncharted territory – 5,000 years of recorded history and perhaps 50,000 years of oral tradition made no mention of this dimension of human experience – for I was irreversibly plunked fair-square in the midst of either ‘insanity’ (the psychiatric model) or ‘the unknowable’ (the metaphysical model) ... which is something else entirely. In the context of metaphysical human experience this condition is only achievable after physical death: the Buddhists call it ‘Parinirvana’ and the Hindus call it ‘Mahasamadhi’.

This was no ‘dark night of the soul’ – which I knew from 1981 – nor ‘real-world’ insanity ... this was something beyond either psychiatric or mystic human experience. It was pretty freaky stuff for a mere boy from the farm: who was he to set himself up to be the final arbiter of human experience ... and what was I doing in this territory anyway? What had I become? There was neither self (psychiatric diagnosis: Depersonalisation) nor any Self (metaphysical analysis: Atheistic Materialism); there was neither reality (psychiatric diagnosis: Derealisation) nor any Reality (metaphysical analysis: Atheistic Materialism); there was no affective feelings (psychiatric diagnosis: Alexithymia) nor any ‘State Of Being’ (metaphysical analysis: Atheistic Materialism); there was neither a pleasure centre for beauty (psychiatric diagnosis: Anhedonia) nor a centre for ‘Truth’ (metaphysical analysis: Atheistic Materialism). In the context of known human experience this was a severe mental disorder ... a psychotic condition according to the DSM-IV (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders – fourth edition – which is the diagnostic criteria used by all psychiatrists and psychologists around the world for diagnosing mental disorders). On top of that was the obvious fact that everybody else other than me – especially the revered and respected ‘Great Teachers’ of antiquity – were all quite seriously mad ... which is a classic indication of insanity in itself.

I do consider it so cute that freedom from the human condition is considered a mental disorder.

RESPONDENT: It must have been quite interesting since the mental anguish happened in the perfection of this moment back then ... to nobody in particular and thus the situation must have, as paradoxical as it might sound, been quite pleasurable.

RICHARD: Hmm ... ‘interesting’, yes; ‘pleasurable’, no. It was extremely uncomfortable and very disconcerting, perplexing and bewildering. It was also distressing for my companion and caused considerable disturbance in her ... she was a constant witness to my endeavour to come to grips with what had happened and what was going on. Despite the fact she was a qualified nursing sister this was beyond her ken and altogether too much to handle in the first few months. I must emphasise the immediacy and urgency of the dilemma: how could I be right and 5.8 billion peoples then currently alive (and maybe 4.0 billion once living) be wrong? This was an outrageous supposition to contemplate – as I remarked in my previous E-Mail I thought that I had lost the plot – yet all about people were hurting and being hurt: bickering, quarrelling, arguing, fighting and then applying band-aid solutions such as the cycle of guilt, remorse, repentance, forgiveness, empathy, trust, compassion through to love ... until next time.

There were 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 the such-like to account for ... and all the Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours and the Saints and the Sages did not have peace-on-earth on their agenda. Obviously someone had to be the first ... and this fact was thrilling to the nth degree. It meant that an actual freedom from the human condition, here on earth in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body had been discovered and could be demonstrated and described ... no one else need ever take that route again (and I would not wish upon anyone to have to follow in my footsteps and run that full gamut of existential angst to break through to what lay beyond). I always liken it to the physical adventure that Mr. James Cook undertook to journey to Australia two hundred plus years ago. It took him over a year in a leaky wooden boat with hard tack for food and immense dangers along the way. Nowadays, one can fly to Australia in twenty-seven hours in air-conditioned comfort, eating hygienically prepared food and watching an in-flight movie into the bargain.

No one has to go the path of the trail-blazer and forge along in another leaky wooden boat.

RESPONDENT: For what it’s worth, I didn’t find this ‘Mailing List in question’ to be un-moderated at all.

RICHARD: It is definitely an un-moderated list ... all E-Mails posted are automatically duplicated and copies are sent out to all subscribers via a fully computerised process. No posts are viewed, let alone vetted, by a human before release for mass publication.

RESPONDENT: I found it to be extremely moderated seeing as how I wasn’t free to be there unless I wanted to be a true-believing Actualist who practices Actualism.

RICHARD: It would appear that you are tilting against what may seem to be an insurmountable problem for some people: a name, a classification, a descriptive label. However, it is impossible to be ‘a true-believing Actualist who practices Actualism’ because belief – the very activity of believing per se – prevents one from ever being an actualist and thus blocks one from ever experiencing what actualism is all about. Perhaps some dictionary definitions (which is where the names originate) will throw some light upon the matter for you? Vis.:

• materialism (noun): the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications and that consciousness and will are wholly due to the operation of material agencies: materialist (noun): an adherent of materialism: materialistic (adjective): pertaining to, characterised by, or devoted to materialism.
• spiritualism (noun): the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality; any philosophical or religious doctrine stressing the importance of spiritual as opposed to material things: spiritualist (noun): an adherent of spiritualism who regards or interprets things from a spiritual point of view: spiritualistic (adjective): of or pertaining to spiritualism.
• actualism (noun): the theory that nothing is merely passive (now rare): actualist (noun): an advocate of actualism: actualistic (adjective): of the nature of actualism.

In the English language, the application of ‘-ist’ and ‘-ism’ has a very common usage ... it enables someone to say, for example, ‘I am an artist’ or ‘I am a scientist’ or ‘I am a pianist’ or ‘I am an atheist’ or ‘I am a communist’ or ‘I am an actualist’ (and so on) and ‘I am studying feudalism’ or ‘I am learning about existentialism’ or ‘I am interested in relativism’ or ‘I am exploring actualism’ (and so on). It may be helpful to give an example of how this simplification into a single word, of what would otherwise be a long-winded description each time one talked about oneself and one’s interests, actually works in practise ... when I first wrote to this Mailing List over two and a half years ago the following exchange took place:

• [Richard]: ‘This flesh and blood body is very simple. It is the identity that is complex ... because it is a mental-emotional construct. Being thus imaginary, it can be almost infinitely complex.
• [Respondent No. 20]: ‘What is flesh and blood about the mind?
• [Richard]: ‘If by ‘the mind’ you mean ‘consciousness’ – as in being awake and conscious as compared with being asleep or unconscious – then it is very much a product of flesh and blood. When the body dies, consciousness dies. Death is the end. Finish.
• [Respondent No. 20]: ‘Are you a materialist? Certainly all evidence points to the dependence of mind on body, but that does not mean that the one is the other. I am dependent on eating food, but I am not the food.
• [Richard]: ‘Well, speaking personally, I am indeed the food. I come out of the ground in the form of carrots, lettuce, celery, and etcetera. When I eat cheese, it is made from milk which the cow produces by eating grass – which comes out of the ground. The same goes for eggs and meat ... everything edible. This body is, literally, of the ground. Along with water, sunlight and air, everything comes out of the ground – from this very earth under my feet. As this earth is hanging in space, then it is clear that I am made of the very stuff of the physical universe. I was not created ‘outside’ of this universe by some mysterious god and planted ‘in’ here for some inscrutable reason. I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. I am this body only ... and this body is of this physical universe. If that makes me a ‘materialist’ then so be it ... I am certainly not a ‘spiritualist’. However, I find the word ‘materialist’ too restrictive, for it implies deadness, inertness. I would rather call myself an ‘actualist’. An actualist is a person who sees that matter is not merely passive. (

I am only too happy to expand on this subject if the above explanation leaves you unsatisfied ... after all it was me who chose the names ‘actualist’ and ‘actualism’ out of the dictionary when I first started writing about my discovery that there is an actual world right under everybody’s nose, as it were. This actual world is evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) in all its sensuous quality of magical perfection and purity. This actual world is where everything and everybody has a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, wondrous, scintillating vitality that makes everything alive and sparkling ... even the very earth beneath one’s feet. There is an actual intimacy with everything – the rocks, the concrete buildings, a piece of paper – literally everything is as if it were alive (a rock is not, of course, alive as humans are, or as animals are, or as trees are). This ‘aliveness’ is the very actuality of all existence – the actualness of everything and everybody – for one is not living in an inert universe.

Speaking personally, I am very happy to call myself an actualist ... and I thoroughly recommend a study of actualism.

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:

• [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’.

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?



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 and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity