Richard’s Selected Correspondence
On Vibes and Psychic Currents
Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative
RESPONDENT: Nothing you have ever said shows how ‘psychic currents’ can affect people at a longer distance where there can be no sensory clues.
RICHARD: The very fact you say ‘no sensory clues’ (aka cues) indicates that what I have written over the years – and all archived on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website – has been beyond your ken as I have indeed shown how ‘psychic currents’ can affect people who are not physically proximate.
First and foremost, the phrase ‘psychic currents’ (and ‘psychic energies’ as well) is a term which evolved throughout the many discussions between my second wife and myself so as to readily refer to an elementary aspect of animalistic interconnectedness (that we variously referred to as either the ‘psychic web’ or the ‘psychic network’) which had become more and more evident in the latter stages of that 11-year period of my life wherein the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body back then was living that/ being that which, up until the 30th October 1992, was held to be the summum bonum of human experience/ of human history.
The following is the specific sense in which we used the adjective psychic and/or psychical (and its adverbial form, psychically).
And the following is both what the word psyche refers to and its etymological derivation.
And here is what that word ‘soul’, in the above definition, is referring to:
I chose to use the word soul when I first went public because, as it refers to the innermost affective entity of both those of either a secular or spiritual persuasion (the essential difference being the materialists maintain this emotional/ passional/ intuitive self – aka ‘spirit’ – dies with the body whereas the spiritualists maintain it does not), my presentation of actualism as the third alternative to either materialism or spiritualism speaks to the self-same ‘being’, at root, with differentiation only a connotative matter dependent upon each particular ‘being’s (occasionally changeable) partiality, or leaning, in that regard.
(Incidentally, the reason why the Greek word psukhe (‘breath, soul, life’), from which the Latin word psyche is derived, and the related Greek word psukhein (‘breathe, blow’) refer to breath and to breathing is because, for ancient peoples and/or primitive peoples life began when a newly-born infant drew its first breath and ended with that body’s last breath).
Also, here is what the word affective refers to:
And here is an explanation about the word vibes:
Lastly, I am using the word current (from the Latin currere, ‘to run’) in its ‘something which flows’ Oxford Dictionary meaning purely as a matter of convenience and am in no way suggesting thereby that ‘psychic currents’ (or even ‘psychic energies’) are electrical or electromagnetic in nature ... being affective they are non-physical/ non-material and, thus, have no existence in actuality.
Now, if you have followed all of the above (and if you have not you will be well-advised to re-read it again and again until you do) – including all of the dictionary definitions/ my explanations as to what those key-words refer to – then you will comprehend both ... (a) why ‘being’ to ‘being’ psychic currents/ psychic energies are instantaneous in their effect ... and (b) why physical distance is irrelevant to their propagation/ their reception.
(Hint: as they have no existence in actuality there is no such thing as a physical distance for them to travel).
RESPONDENT: The following P.S. note also doesn’t throw any light on the source of what is known, in actualism terminology, as psychic currents.
RICHARD: It does indeed throw some light on the source – the psychic force itself in fact – of what is known, in actualism terminology, as psychic currents (aka psychic energies).
Perhaps if I were to put that postscript of mine back into the context you have snipped-off it might become more clear.
RESPONDENT: Experientially going deeper into those affective feelings don’t show how they can act at a distance. It just shows how they are acting out in a person’s head, not at a distance.
RICHARD: How about you were to have said ‘a person’s psyche’ – which, as I have oft-times said before (e.g. #14807), is the human psyche – instead of that (physical) word ‘head’ that you used? And, again for emphasis, the following is both what the word psyche refers to and its etymological derivation.
And, also again for emphasis, here is what that word ‘soul’ (aka ‘spirit’) – be it of either a secular or a spiritual connotation – is referring to:
I will leave you with a quote of mine, written and posted over a decade ago (on August the 17th 2002), as a concise reminder of just what this discussion is all about.
Subject: Re: A Long-Awaited Public Announcement
RESPONDENT No. 4: I’ve felt for a few months now that something is brewing; some sort of change is afoot. The rational part of me figured it might be merely a projection of ‘my’ own personal change of heart/ mind ... but another part of me senses that it’s bigger than that, as if a threshold is about to be crossed ... and it isn’t just personal any more.
RESPONDENT: There was a counter-strike in the upper levels of the Psyche. The head was taken out of the network, probably the feminine being that Richard was talking about, a sort of ‘machine’ ...
RICHARD: G’day No. 22, You are quite close to the mark, actually, although it was not – repeat not – a counter-strike (be it in the upper levels of the human psyche or not) as that is not possible for a person with absolutely no power, or powers, whatsoever.
What was taken out of the network – a psychic web connecting all feeling ‘beings’ – was the anti-actualism/ pro-spiritualism blockage/ diversion created by my second (de jure) wife’s ‘presence’ ... as in ‘her’ very ‘being’ (which is ‘being’ itself).
RESPONDENT: ... the way is open for the consciousness mutation to be implemented on a global level.
RICHARD: Indeed so ... via happy and harmless (affective) ‘vibes’ and felicitous and innocuous (psychic) ‘currents’. (I have oft-times said that is where the real power-play occurs).
RESPONDENT: I’d estimate a few years, probably decades to take root ...
RICHARD: My estimate (and that is all it is) is a global peace and harmony – as in the (methodological) still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom Peter and Vineeto so delightfully established and wrote so prolifically about for their fellow human beings – within my lifetime.
As my genitor is a hale and hearty 98 years old (albeit a trifle deaf and with diminished vision), and my progenitrix a 90 year old who is quite miffed at having her driver’s licence taken from her upon reaching that age, this means some period during the next 30-40 years. (Although I often not just jokingly say I would like to out-live the oldest-on-record human being ... a woman in France who died at 122 after a lifetime of wine, cigarettes and chocolate).
RESPONDENT: ... there are a number of people interested, maybe vitally interested, that are in a position to enable radical change on an exponential basis.
RICHARD: Yes, what No. 2 described elsewhere as [quote] ‘an ambassador of humanity’ into the actualist hinterland is also the very first convivium’s ambassador into the real-world (the world of the psyche).
It has therefore been decided that the guest cabin on the MSV Actualis will be known as the ‘Ambassadorial Suite’ with a brass plaque affixed engraved with the words ‘The Respondent No. 4 Memorial Cabin’.
Ha ... the boy from the farm is having so much fun, here in this actual world of sensuous delight, playing at the game of being a mature adult.
Re: Richard writes about two types of Actual Freedom
RESPONDENT No. 25: [...]. Let me be clear, because it seems that you are not getting my point – or you are avoiding it, I don’t know which.
RICHARD: I have snipped all of my words as they were getting in the way of what you want to say ... to wit: that Richard is either myopic or evasive.
Yet, I got your point the moment you posted your first reply (Message No. 10xxx) to my initial response to your initial email to me (Message No. 10xxx) ... namely: unless Richard cites a physical mechanism, as in what scientists know about physics, which supports both the existence and the function of the collective psyche then it (that psychic web/psychic network connecting all feeling-beings) is what is termed as ‘paranormal’.
And I also did not avoid your point as I am in full agreement that the collective psyche (that psychic web/ psychic network connecting all feeling-beings) is paranormal; indeed, nowhere at all on The Actual Freedom Trust website do I ever say otherwise; I even refer to the ‘James Randi Educational Foundation’, the ‘Indian Sceptic’, the ‘Australian Sceptic’, as well as a now-defunct society in the UK, which all offer a large amount of money to the first person who can conclusively demonstrate paranormal or supernatural phenomena. (Incidentally, those references in my writings do not even have to be searched for as they are helpfully copy-pasted into the ‘Selected Correspondence’ section under the headings ‘Psyche’, ‘After-Life’ and ‘Metaphysical’).
RESPONDENT No. 25: The ‘metaphysical’ does not come in with your reference to ‘calorific energy’ or even the ‘quickening.’
RICHARD: I am pleased to know you comprehend that salient fact.
RESPONDENT No. 25: Again, I can understand the ‘psychic web’ as ‘vibes’ passed between people when there is the potential to interact – or even in proximity.
RICHARD: Oh? What physical mechanism, as in what scientists know about physics, would or could support the existence and function of what you can understand as ‘vibes’ passed between people when there is the potential to interact – or even in proximity? You do realise, do you not, that ‘vibes’ is a colloquial-ism for affective feelings – emotions/ passions – which have no existence in actuality?
(If you do not then, next you may well be telling me how emotions/ passions have a physical existence and function, as in what scientists know about physics, and are not as what could or would be normally termed as ‘affective’).
Also, if you are ‘way off base’ as to your understanding (as ‘vibes’ passed between people when there is the potential to interact, for example)– one can ask where else such a person who allows himself to use a ‘bizarre’ understanding strays unwittingly from the facts. Your current writing is just as ‘affective’ as what one finds on the Mills & Boon bookshelves. It is possible that some romanticists may be able to accept what you can understand, but this closes the door to those that begin with what is known scientifically about physics. If your understanding is correct, then science – as we know it – would have to be radically revised. If we see a radical revision is necessary to physics, then that would open the door to all manner of ‘affective’ phenomena – emotions, passions, feelings, affections, moods, vibes (love/ hate; fear/ courage; anger/ affection; gladness/ sadness), etc. Where does it end?
I wrote my above words due to the fact that you stated what you can understand as ‘vibes’ passed between people when there is the potential to interact – or even in proximity. Considering that I don’t know of any scientific evidence for what you can understand as ‘vibes’ passed between people, would you mind venturing an hypothesis or theory as to how those ‘vibes’ could have occurred in a purely physical manner? I am happy to rescind my description of the ‘affective’ nature of your current writings if you can provide a convincing case as to how those extraordinary events you can understand as ‘vibes’ can occur in the physical world.
RESPONDENT: Richard’s modus operandi:
1: Spout utter nonsense about world in ‘reality’ [...snip...].
2: People say: [...snip...].
3. Say that: [...snip...].
4: Problem solved.
1. Spout utter nonsense about world in ‘actuality’ [...snip...].
2: People say: [...snip...].
3. Say that: [...snip...].
4: Problem solved.
1. Spout misleading or patently false or confusing nonsense to promote [...snip...].
2: People say: [...snip...].
3. Make it even more confusing by [...snip...].
4: Problem solved.
RICHARD: G’day No. 2, I have snipped-out your above attempts to comprehend how things operate in actuality as it is all quite simple here, where flesh-and-blood bodies are already living, when contrasted to what feeling-beings make of it.
1. No. 25 wrote that without scientific evidence – evidence as to what physical mechanism (as in what scientists know about physics) would or could support both its existence and function – this ‘collective psyche’ (that psychic web/ psychic network connecting all feeling-beings) which Richard refers to is what would normally be termed as ‘paranormal’.
2. Richard wrote that he is in full agreement that the collective psyche he refers to – that psychic web/ psychic network connecting all feeling-beings – is indeed paranormal (and further advised that nowhere at all on The Actual Freedom Trust website does he ever say otherwise).
3. You assert, above, that Richard’s modus operandi is to spout utter nonsense about world in ‘reality’ (in your Section A, sub-section No. 1 assertion).
4. What is implicit your assertion is that No. 25 is spouting utter nonsense too.
5. Since he spouted that which you assert is utter nonsense first – and has been most insistent, throughout several emails, that Richard spout it too – then what you characterise as ‘Richard’s modus operandi’ would be better characterised by you, in this instance, as ‘No. 25’s modus operandi’, would it not?
6. Richard wrote that without scientific evidence – evidence as to what physical mechanism (as in what scientists know about physics) would or could support both their existence and function – those ‘vibes’ (the emotional/ passional feelings common to all feeling-beings) which No. 25 refers to are what would normally be termed as ‘affective’.
7. You assert, above, that Richard’s modus operandi is to spout utter nonsense about world in ‘reality’ (in your Section A, sub-section No. 1 assertion).
8. What is implicit in your assertion is that the categorisation of ‘vibes’ – those emotional/ passional feelings common to all feeling-beings – as being ‘affective’ is utter nonsense.
9. As it is simply not rational to characterise that categorisation (of those emotional/ passional feelings common to all feeling-beings as ‘affective’) as to be spouting utter nonsense it is, therefore, quite valid to infer that what you characterise ‘Richard’s modus operandi’ as – as to spout utter nonsense about world in ‘reality’ – would be better characterised by you, in this instance, as ‘Respondent’s modus operandi’, would it not?
1. Richard wrote that ‘vibes’ is a colloquialism for affective feelings – emotions/ passions – which have no existence in actuality.
2. You assert, further above, that Richard’s modus operandi is to spout utter nonsense about world in ‘actuality’ (in your Section B, sub-section No. 1 assertion).
3. What is implicit in that assertion of yours is that anybody who is having, or can recall having, a PCE (a pure conscious experience) is, according to you, spouting utter nonsense as well.
4. You are on record (in the Yahoo Group forum archives) as stating you cannot recall ever having had a PCE.
5. Despite having no experiential understanding/no intimate knowledge of a PCE you nevertheless – and thus solely by the exercising of intelligence – categorise an actual freedom from the human condition as being ‘Mahasamadhi’ (in the Yahoo Group forum archives) and ‘Parinirvana’ (on your ‘Remains of the Day’ web log).
6. What is implicit in that intellectual categorisation of yours – that an actual freedom from the human condition is, therefore, an ASC (an altered state of consciousness) – is that all PCE’s are thus really ASC’s.
7. What is further implicit in that intellectual categorisation of yours – that all PCE’s are really ASC’s – is that anybody who is having, or can recall having, a PCE is, according to you, spouting utter nonsense as well.
8. As the primary characteristic of a PCE (the abeyance of the entire affective faculty/ the identity in toto) is quite distinct from the primary characteristic of an ASC (the sublimation of negative affections/ the transcendence of egoic identity) it is, therefore, quite valid to infer that your inability to recall ever having had a PCE is what is crippling your intelligence.
9. As it is simply not rational to categorise PCE’s as being ASC’s then what you characterise ‘Richard’s modus operandi’ as – as to spout utter nonsense about world in ‘actuality’ – would be better characterised as ‘Respondent’s modus operandi’, would it not?
1. As he did not know of any scientific evidence for what No. 25 could understand as ‘vibes’ (affective feelings) being passed between people, Richard asked whether he (No. 25) would mind venturing an hypothesis or theory as to how those ‘vibes’ (emotions/ passions) could have occurred in a purely physical manner; Richard added that he was happy to rescind his description of the ‘affective’ nature of No. 25’s current writings if he (No. 25) could provide a convincing case as to how those extraordinary events he (No. 25) could understand as ‘vibes’ (those affective feelings labelled emotions/ passions) can occur in the physical world.
2. As there is no scientific evidence – evidence as to what physical mechanism (as in what scientists know about physics) would or could support both their existence and function – for those ‘vibes’ (the affective feelings labelled emotions/ passions which are common to all feeling-beings) then one of the two primary characteristics of a PCE (the abeyance of the entire affective faculty) is not contradicted by science.
3. Therefore it is simply not rational to characterise Richard’s modus operandi as being to spout misleading or patently false or confusing nonsense, as in your Section C, sub-section No. 1 assertion, just because Richard wrote that ‘vibes’ – which is a colloquialism for affective feelings (emotions/ passions) – have no existence in actuality (and especially so given a PCE evidences it to be entirely factual and, thus patently, neither misleading nor confusing).
4. One of the fundamental and outstanding features of a PCE – which you are on record (in the Yahoo Group forum archives) as stating you cannot recall ever having – is that both the entire affective faculty and the identity in toto are but an illusion; similarly, one of the fundamental and outstanding features of an actual freedom from the human condition (about which you have no experiential understanding/ intimate knowledge of whatsoever), is that both the entire affective faculty and the identity in toto were indeed but an illusion.
5. Integral to what Richard wrote overall (in this email you are responding to) is that the term ‘affective faculty’ includes its epiphenomenal psychic facility – an integral factor made explicit via quotes to that very effect in the previous email – regardless of whether any particular feeling-being is (intuitively) sensitive to its epiphenomenal presence in their psyche or not.
6. Now, when Richard writes/ talks to a fellow human being, to a person who is living the illusion that they really are a feeling-being/ really do have affections, he pays lip-service to their illusion – else communication be rendered quite ridiculous – and writes/ talks in a way appropriate to their illusion/to illusion itself (which to them is their reality/is reality itself) so as to enable/ facilitate them see that their reality/ reality itself (the real-world of the psyche) is but their illusion/is illusion itself.
7. In this particular instance No. 25 is demurring over which parts of his reality/ reality itself (his illusion/ illusion itself) are real (aka ‘normal’) and which parts of it are not real (aka ‘paranormal’) and is insisting that Richard admit that the parts which to No. 25 are not real (as in ‘paranormal’) are indeed, in reality, not real; as Richard is in full agreement that there is no scientific evidence that ‘paranormal’ phenomena occur in a purely physical manner he thus also unreservedly agrees that ‘paranormal’ phenomena do not occur in the physical world.
8. What Richard does not agree with is No. 25’s point that, because he (No. 25) is not intuitively sensitive to the ‘paranormal’ phenomena in his (No. 25’s) psyche, Richard should also discount the ‘paranormal’ phenomena of some other feeling-beings (who were indeed intuitively sensitive to its epiphenomenal presence in their psyche) as being invalid in regards to being the reason why, all-of-a-sudden and within the hour of Devika’s/ Irene’s death, they had unrestricted access to the personification of that palpable life-force called ‘pure intent’ – that actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity which originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself – and, thereby, altruistically enabled/ facilitated access to the completely new consciousness (a totally original way of being conscious) for all humankind to avail themselves of.
9. As it is simply not rational to discount the ‘paranormal’ phenomena of other feeling-beings (who were indeed intuitively sensitive to its epiphenomenal presence in their psyche), solely because there is no scientific evidence for its existence and function, Richard provided a practical demonstration to No. 25 (by paraphrasing No. 25’s own words) how pointless it was to discount ‘paranormal’ phenomena via an appeal to scientific evidence because ‘affective’ phenomena – which for him (No. 25) is evidently part of his reality/ reality itself (his illusion/ illusion itself) – can be similarly discounted because there is no scientific evidence for the existence and function of ‘affective’ phenomena either.
As I said at the beginning, it is all quite simple, in actuality.
Re: Richard writes about two types of Actual Freedom
RESPONDENT: [...] The ‘metaphysical’ does not come in with your reference to ‘calorific energy’ or even the ‘quickening.’
RICHARD: I am pleased to know you comprehend that salient fact.
RESPONDENT: Richard, let me see if I understand this correctly ... The ‘blockage’ that occurred quite simply was in the the imaginations of your associates. Therefore, there was no actual or ‘physical’ causation that removed the blockage when Devika/Irene died? The event you are referring to is not some grand metaphysical drama that actually happened – rather, it all occurred only within the collective imagination of your associates. Is that right? So... the grandiosity of ‘Veil Devika’ for example – was only grandiose because your associates made it so?
Now THAT – I can understand ... but I would still want to know whether any of your associates were notified about her death ‘within the hour.’ Or possibly, they had some knowledge that she was near death... ? Just as ‘vibes’ (though non-existent in actuality as you say... I am trying to understand ...) are transmitted via light, sound, smell, etc. Wouldn’t some kind of information regarding her death have to be transmitted for the illusion of ‘blockage’ or a ‘veil’ to collapse and for a new receptivity to begin?
In a way, I am beginning to think that you are being very playful with your explanations of these events due to the fact that you have extreme license to tell the story as you wish – as it is all fictional anyway ... Am I on the right track?
RICHARD: G’day No. 25, If by playful you mean playing around (frivolous, for instance) then, no, I am entirely sincere; if by playful you mean playing with the truth (untruthful, for example) then, no, I am entirely accurate; if by playful you mean having a lot of fun here at the keyboard then, yes, I am having a marvellous time.
As for extreme licence because it is all fictional: no, not at all as the paranormal dimension of the real-world (the world of the psyche) is not fictitious – in a real-world context – as it is as real to an experiencer of it as the real-world’s normal dimension is ... quite real indeed; in fact, to some, more real than the real-world’s normal reality (as in a sub-strata, or bedrock, out of which the real-world’s normal dimension arises).
None of it is actual, mind you, and it could probably be best characterised – from here in the actual world – as an illusion within the illusion (as in, going deeper into the illusion of the real-world’s reality and, thus, becoming twice-removed from actuality).
Now, in regards to your query about some kind of (normal) information having to be transmitted, ‘for the illusion of the ‘blockage’ or a ‘veil’ to collapse’, I will first have to make it clear that, as I have not heard about any such ‘veil collapse’ event before, I can therefore only assume it comes from those hearsay tales (especially so as the person identifying on this forum as ‘No. 4’ also referred to a ‘Veil’, in relation to ‘Devika’, just as you have done further above).
And I say this as the psychic force-field protecting others from Richard (and thus barring access) was established by Irene and not Devika (Devika established her psychic force-field to protect Richard from others). Furthermore, Devika was ‘extinguished’ in 1997, when she transmogrified into Irene, and thus had nothing to do with what took place in 2009.
Thus your ‘grandiose’/ ‘grandiosity’ allusions in regards to my associates at the time just do not make any sense as there was nothing of that nature (whatever it purportedly was) that ever happened – nor could have ever taken place – which means that your ‘grandiose’/ ‘grandiosity’ allusions can exist only in the imagination of the originator of those hearsay tales.
(Do you see the problems these hearsay tales create, in the mind of the reader/ listener, when it comes to comprehending my reports/ descriptions/ explanations? Due to the clandestine nature of all that made-up stuff, about a phantom ‘Richard’ of passionate imagination, it is not possible for your queries about them to be directly addressed).
Okay, having had to waste three paragraphs trying to guess at whatever it is which you have had fed to you clandestinely, and thus unnecessarily complicating your comprehension of what is otherwise a very simple thing to comprehend, I will attend to the essence of your queries ... to wit: whether there was some kind of normal transmission of information – such as via short-wave radio, telephone, carrier-pigeon, and so on – such as to occasion the psychic force-field protecting others from Richard (and thus barring access) to vanish from the psyches/ collective psyche of the feeling-beings at the moment of the death of my second wife.
As I have already made public knowledge that I was notified by telephone the following afternoon your query implies that (1) someone notified each of my associates, but not me, and (2) each of my associates withheld that information from me.
Now, why the originator of those hearsay tales would want to plant a suggestion in the recipient’s minds that there was some kind of conspiracy going on, amongst ‘Richard’s Associates’ to conceal information from him, is anybody’s guess but there is no way I am going to dignify it with a comment.
Here is what happened:
As that email was posted on the 16th of November 2009 then the word ‘yesterday’ in that text refers to the 15th – the day after my second wife died (at 11:25 AM on the 14th) – and the phone call advising me came about 29 hours later (at 4:30 PM).
As my associates were in the vicinity when I took the call they could hear my side of the telephonic exchange and thus all I had to do was fill them in on the details after I finished the call.
As we were all expecting it – she had been given 6-12 months to live when diagnosed with her terminal illness in February – it came as no surprise.
What was a surprise (at least initially) was the congruent nature of the two events – as I have already said ‘within the hour’ – and it was with the benefit of this hindsight that a connection could be made betwixt the two events.
As for your comment regarding ‘vibes’ (a shortened form of the word vibrations) being transmitted via ‘light, sound, smell, etc.’ it does seem rather odd how you do not comprehend that those affective ‘vibes’ are, of course, transmitted affectively (and not physically).
In regards to your query about physical causation: nothing at all happened in any physical way whatsoever (let alone physically here in the actual world) in relation to that psychic force-field.
Lastly, regarding your query about the psychic force-field being imaginary – as in, it all taking place only in ‘the imaginations of your associates’ – and thus fictional: no, the psychic force-field under discussion, just like the affective faculty’s epiphenomenal psychic facility itself, was not imaginary (aka not fictional).
Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative
RESPONDENT No. 25: At this point, I do not want to waste anyone’s time, so I will take your suggestion to ‘cut my losses.’
I will not be on the flight out this evening.
RICHARD: A wise decision, No. 25, given that this totally new way of being conscious (a completely original consciousness) can only have a global spread, in our life-times, if it be implemented via happy and harmless (affective) ‘vibes’ and felicitous and innocuous (psychic) ‘currents’, eh?
RESPONDENT: Would it be possible to have this global spread online as we can’t all make it to Australia?
RICHARD: G’day No. 17, You raise two points there which can only be answered by mentioning the third point you left unspoken.
First, even if all 7.0+ billion peoples on this planet could make it to Australia – a mind-boggling thought, true, but bear with me for the nonce – it would take far, far more than this life-time to interact intensively with each and every one such as to bring about global peace-on-earth via 7.0+ billion instances of individual peace-on-earth.
In order to illustrate the magnitude of this scenario I will defer to the scholarly studies of Prof. Rudolph Rummel.
On his website (www.hawaii.edu/powerkills) he graphically demonstrates how democracies are decidedly safer for its peoples by statistically estimating the number of citizens dead at the hands of autocratic governments, in the last 100 years (via genocide, politicide, mass murder, extra-judicial executions, starvation/ privation, and so forth), to be a probable 262,000,000 peoples (and that is a mid-estimate formed from all possible low-range/ high range estimates).
The scale of that mid-range figure (262,000,000) is not only difficult to digest it is not even easy to properly comprehend just how many persons – men, women, and children – this is. For example, if all of those citizens killed by governments, in the twentieth century alone, were to have inhabited a country of their own then it would be the world’s fourth most populous nation. Vis.:
Put graphically: assuming that the average height of these murdered citizens was little more than five feet, because of the many children killed, their corpses would encircle this planet about ten times.
Whereas the battle-field cadavers (38,000,000) for the same period would barely girdle the earth once.
Or, for another illustration, if one were to sit on a chair in a room and have that amount of people (262,000,000) come in one door, go by at a walking pace without stopping, and exit through another door, for 24 hours a day 365 days a year, it would take about nine years for all to pass by.
So, given it would take 9 years for 1/4 billon then 1 billion would require 35 years, approximately, and as 35 years by 7 billion = 245 years (at 24 hours a day 365 days a year) the sheer magnitude becomes self-evident ... especially so as this example is simply walking in one door and out the other without stopping.
Second, although the internet has (potentially) a global reach there are many billions of peoples who are neither connected nor even have access (an estimated 39% do have access) ... let alone read English either at all or even sufficiently enough to comprehend, for just one instance, the sharp distinction drawn betwixt the word real and the word actual (in actualism terminology).
(Besides, what with the ... um ... The Bragg Bros All-Bling Side-Show ever at the ready to pounce upon each and every would-be list-member – so as to perpetuate the status-quo (all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so forth) – as well as those several and similarly motivated pusillanimous poltroons, recreants, cravens, caitiffs, nidderings, and so on, any such course of action could conceivably drag on for ever and a day).
Third, (the point you left unspoken): there already exists a world-wide network – requiring neither technological wizz-bangs nor competency in the English language – which has a truly global reach (inherently connecting every single man, woman and child alive today no matter what their age) and is instantaneous in its effect.
And, most importantly, it is where the real power-play takes place anyway – given that it by-passes both the cognitive and the affective filters – as it operation has the immediacy of ‘being’ to ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) directivity.
RESPONDENT: What would it take?
RICHARD: Ha ... enjoying *and* appreciating being alive/ being here, each moment again come what may, by being as happy and as harmless as is humanly possible via minimising both the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ feelings and maximising both the felicitous *and* the innocuous feelings.
Put simplistically (for maximum effect): the way to bring about global peace and harmony, in our lifetimes, is by having fun.
(I am having such a ball here at the keyboard).
RESPONDENT: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_experience: ‘Recent Developments: Prof. Gad Yair from The Hebrew University has developed a line of research on Key Experiences, especially relating to educational events. (...)
Richard, is this your intention?
RICHARD: No, not educational as such as all the reports/ descriptions/ explanations freely available online are already of a sufficiently informative nature as to render any further instructive material superfluous to requirements. (Items for sale are optional extras – luxury items as it were – and are not at all necessary in order to be fully-informed of just what is involved in becoming either actually or virtually free).
As to my intention in regards not only facilitating direct access to me but also enabling an informal interaction with some other actualists as well: being sans identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty (plus its epiphenomenal psychic facility) any residence or venue of mine is marked by an absence of both affective vibes and psychic currents ... a pristine ambience made all the more marked, for many a person, upon returning from the ‘real-world’ environs after a previous visit.
(For instance, my second wife would say, upon her return after an outing on her own into town, that it was like coming back in to a sanctuary. Even a stranger, a real-estate agent (known as a realtor in some places), after showing some potential clients around the duplex I was at the time renting, took me aside and told me how fresh and clean the ambience was; I said it must be because of no children, no cats or dogs, no wild parties, etc., but she looked straight into my eyes and said, ‘no, it’s you; it’s you who makes the ambience clean and fresh’).
Now, this pristine ambience is conducive to a sincere actualist activating their potential – albeit temporarily – as in some form of an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being (to whatever degree of intimacy they be comfortable with at the time). Furthermore, experience has shown that these intimacy experiences can be contagious, so to speak, for other sincere actualists also present as the atmosphere generated affectively/ psychically by the first to be out-from-control/ in a different-way-of-being can propagate a flow-on effect, on occasion.
In short: a felicitous and innocuous atmosphere, begotten in an ever-fresh affectless/ selfless ambience, fosters a milieu where happiness and harmlessness can be the norm rather than the exception.
As I have already provided one of the reasons why I finally agreed to a personal-meeting request earlier on this year (in March 2009) and another one only a couple of months ago (for January 2010) – after declining each and every such request for twelve years – it is apropos to mention that the pivotal factor in my turnabout was the incontrovertible fact that a fellow human being had a 5-month PCE which was triggered solely by, and during, a personal conversation with me in a casual setting.
There was no way I could deny it/ ignore it/ dismiss it and/or brush it aside – even if I had wanted to – as she was quite clear to others that, were it not for this interaction, it would never have happened.
It thus became obvious that by continuing to keep myself locked away, so to speak, in an exclusive nuclear couple/ nuclear family type of living arrangement there would continue to be a denial of access, to my fellow human beings at large, for any such potentially potent interactions. (Please note that nothing is guaranteed, however, as anything of such a nature is entirely dependent upon where the other is currently at, where they are coming from, and what their overall intent is).
Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative
RESPONDENT No. 15: Being mistaken about typing the wrong word is hardly the same as admitting a wild accusation was way off the mark ...
RICHARD: First of all, my response to [No. 15] was to set the record straight about an assumption he had made (i.e. ‘accusation’) as what I drew [No. 25’s attention to (in #14225) was quite matter-of-fact ... inasmuch pointing out that a spade is a spade, for example, is neither an ‘accusation’ (let alone a ‘wild’ one) nor ‘way off the mark’ but, rather, making a statement of fact. Second, if you re-read what I wrote to [No. 25] (in #14225) you will see that I never said those specific words (‘[No. 4] was lying’) – although such could readily be inferred of course – but, rather, drew [No. 25]’s attention to [quote] ‘something so *outrageously* mendacious it is no surprise it has passed everyone by without even a comment’ [emphasis added] and invited him to scroll upward and re-read, in the context of the entire sequence, the words in that particular response/ the way that particular response was worded.
It is always fascinating to have feedback on what many and various self-centric feeling-beings make of my words/ my wording. To explain: words, being referent as they are, refer to some thing, some body (some one), some event (some episode) or some occasion (some time) and, in the above situation, the operative words posted by both parties – namely, [No. 3] and [No. 4] – referred not only to a some one but to a specific someone ... and just who it is being referred to is critical to comprehension.
With [No. 4]’s text it is dead easy to detect just who it was his words referred to ... to wit: [quote] ‘the person you’re suspecting’ [endquote].
So, all that is left is to discern just who it was [No. 3]’s words referred to and the matter is settled, over and done with, finished.
And, given that ‘the bullet is through the church’ (see #14083) for [No. 3], on this issue (i.e. ‘soapy’, ‘soap-opera’, ‘melodrama’), then his operative words are readily apparent as they provide a unique identifier (a phrase used both exclusively and extensively, by me, to refer to a specific female) ... namely: [quote] ‘when she made up all that stuff’ [endquote].
RESPONDENT: This really explains a lot. It makes it clear that you deal strictly with the meaning of the words someone types out and do not get involved in the ‘guessing games’ that may occur in trying to figure out intention. What can be perceived or made out to be ‘willful and malicious ignorance’ (on your part) of a person’s intent, or further, an inability to understand the difference between speaker meaning and word meaning (on your part) is actually a practical decision to only concern yourself with word meaning, since at least that can typically be ‘nailed down’ in a factual manner, unlike speaker intent.
RICHARD: G’day No. 25, It is not a ‘decision’ on my part (be it ‘practical’ or otherwise) to not ‘read the intention’ and/or not ‘read between the lines’ and/or not ‘see the picture not the pixels’ and/or not (whatever description) but of being, of course, incapable of what Claudiu so eloquently described as [quote] ‘automatically ascrib[ing] the feeling-tones that the person intended to convey’ [endquote] in his very pertinent post of Jun 12, 2013. (Message 13996)
It is well-worth a re-read ... for instance:
Of course, Claudiu has yet to extend his thesis so as to account for what he described as [quote] ‘an amorphous blob of whatever (for lack of a better word)’ [endquote] in his earlier but certainly related post of Jun 7, 2013. (Message 13787)
He is, of course, referring to the psychic currents – which the (further above) ‘generation of feeling-tones over it/the reading-into it of affect coming from the other side’ automatically attunes to – whereby all feeling-beings are interconnected (in the human psyche) via an ethereal network.
Ain’t life grand!
Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative
RESPONDENT to No. 4: [No. 4], I agree the appearance of what has occurred can seem quite bizarre, although I think you are going too far to suggest that Richard is accusing you of putting out malicious psychic currents (at least in a paranormal way) when you had simply misunderstood who [No. 3] was referring to.
RICHARD: G’day no. 25, You have packed four points worthy of comment into one sentence.
1. Richard is not ‘accusing’ anyone, in regards to what is known as ‘psychic currents’ in actualism terminology, because ... (a) they are only detectable by feeling-beings ... and (b) to do so would similarly be as fraught with problems as me trying to divine intent by regular means (trying to ‘read’ between the lines, seeing ‘the picture not the pixels’, and etcetera).
2. Please stop conflating what is called ‘psychic currents’, in actualism terminology, with all that paranormal psychism such as attracts the attention of peoples of the ‘James Randi Organisation’ ilk as we have already had that conversation, on more than a few occasions, in the past.
3. Any affective vibes and/or psychic currents [No. 4] may or may not be *automatically* generating (in the current email exchanges) would carry an overarching quality of earnestness – as previously indicated with those ‘no matter how earnestly presented’ words of mine to [No. 15] on Jun 24, 2013 (in #14400) – coupled with, *perhaps*, a flavour of righteous indignation and/or traces of institutionalised victimisation (as in ‘underdog’, ‘being treated badly from on high’, ‘sticking up for the downtrodden’ and so forth) as the very name ‘<snip Irish last name>’, in that ‘[No. 4] <snip Irish last name>’ moniker, bespeaks the Irish/ English divide of yore.
4. To say ‘when you had simply misunderstood ...’ is to give the benefit-of-doubt to a person with a (demonstrable) track-record of, literally, hundreds of instances of presenting made-up stuff – be it either mindlessly regurgitating (i.e. not even any basic fact-checking for veracity) made-up stuff from an un-named but (demonstrably) deceitful/ lying person or made-up stuff personally formulated but so earnestly believed to be true that it by-passes internal fact-checking – and an openly declared (in #136xx) agenda to [quote] ‘warn a few friends’ [endquote] that they are [quote] ‘part of a deluded cult’ [end quote].
RESPONDENT to No. 4: And yes, I do understand that you may still not think it was clear to whom [No. 3] was referring. I am not at all sure that [No. 3] has been entirely clear in that regard.
Anyway, I think Richard’s reference to psychic currents, the psychic web, etc in this context was directed at answering my inquiry... not necessarily directly related to what is occurring with you and your understanding then or now to whom [No. 3] was referring.
RICHARD: It most certainly pertained to both your inquiry and what is currently occurring.
RESPONDENT to No. 4: I am still trying to put all of the pieces in place, as I do not personally believe in a ‘psychic web’ ...
RICHARD: Please, whatever else you do, do not ‘believe’ (be it either ‘personally’ or otherwise) in a ‘psychic web’ ... else you will remain oblivious to the real network of affective vibes and psychic currents *automatically* generated, within the human psyche, by virtue of being feeling-beings.
RESPONDENT to No. 4: ... in precisely the same manner as Richard presents it ( the paranormal aspects being suspect for me), although I cannot completely rule such a thing out entirely. Having said that, I do think that Richard’s reports stem from his experience, whether correctly or incorrectly evaluated on his part.
RICHARD: Again, there is that ‘paranormal aspects’ furphy you keep perpetuating – long after it has been exposed as being just that (a furphy promoted by the ... um ... the ‘Tricky Trio’ for obvious propaganda purposes) – only this time coupled with vague allusion to experiential reports being questionable, by virtue of being experiential, and an even vaguer allusion to my evaluative skills being suspect ... despite me being totally and utterly free from the very affective/ psychic network itself.
May I ask? Why are you spending the time, energy and money to fly half-way around the world, and back, for the second time when you entertain such doubts about my competence in these matters?
Maybe, just maybe, you would be better-off cutting your losses and cancelling the flight forthwith (incurring a cancellation fee) than wasting both your time and mine – not to mention Vineeto, Peter, et al. – or, conversely, arrange instead to spend the month of July with [No. 4] so as to not only absorb his wisdom first-hand but to see just how well it works in practice in his day-to-day lifestyle/his living arrangements.
Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative
RESPONDENT: G’Day, Richard, Due to the fact that my plane is scheduled to leave in less than 24 hrs and my tickets are non-refundable, I would like to address the most pressing part of your email.
RICHARD: G’day No. 25, As you say you would like to address the most pressing part of my email I have re-inserted the oh-so-vital context you snipped out so that what you are addressing has some substance to it ... rather than vague generalisations about ‘... still outstanding confusions or misunderstandings’ and perhaps being able to state your ‘reservations clearly and the reasons for such reservations ...’ and so on.
RESPONDENT: I would like to discuss this in person as I would like the opportunity to clear up any of my still outstanding confusions or misunderstandings.
RICHARD: And just what ‘outstanding confusions or misunderstandings’ about the affective vibes/ psychic currents network (operating within the human psyche by virtue of being feeling-beings) do you still have despite all the conversations we have already had on more than a few occasions in the past?
For instance (more recent occasions):
(Because the above #10968 has been deleted, censored, by this forum’s busybody partisan moderator – who parked an edited copy of it in an obscure forum virtually nobody knows about – access the following URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom_privacydeletedposts/message/45).
RE: affective vibes are real
RICHARD: [...]. And speaking of ‘reception’: all feeling-beings are operating and functioning in a virtual sea of affective vibes (not to mention the far-deeper, longer-ranging and more-powerful ‘psychic currents’/ ‘psychic energies’), swirling around and coming at them from all directions, influencing them affectively/ psychically, pushing and pulling them into involuntarily making all manner of decisions which they might otherwise not make (and later regret). (Message 15684).
RESPONDENT: How can it be verified independently that these vibes and psychic currents are not transmitted via physical means?
RICHARD: G’day No. 25, Did you not read my ‘through a closed door’ description (first made public knowledge 14 years ago) and my follow-up report/ explanation to No. 15?
Furthermore, I do not understand why you would ask such a question (as both affective vibes and psychic currents – being affective/ psychic in nature – are non-physical your tacit assumption a physical transmission mechanism is involved makes no sense).
As a matter of idle interest: just what [quote] ‘physical means’ [endquote] of transmission are you alluding to?
And, as a supplementary question, by what mechanism are the non-physical vibes/ currents coded, for physical transmission, and then decoded, from physical reception, for non-physical sampling?
RESPONDENT: Most people are familiar with picking up on someone’s vibe due to bodily cues ...
RICHARD: I will interject here because of a category error.
What most people are familiar with is trying to pick-out what someone is feeling – anger, sadness, love, hate and so on – via physical cues (such as tone of voice/ facial expression/ body language).
In other words, those physical cues – such as tone of voice/ facial expression/ body language – are not the transmission mechanism for vibes (they could not possibly be as peoples regularly fake those physical cues, on a daily basis, for all manner of conjugal, familial, social, cultural and commercial reasons) but are the effect which feelings are having on their vocal chords/ on their physiognomy/ on their posture.
RESPONDENT: ... but how can we distinguish between vibes that are detected due to bodily cues and those that are not?
RICHARD: Again, your question makes no sense – and especially so in the context you ask it from – as vibes are detected (to use your phrasing) extrasensorially.
RESPONDENT: Also, what is the relative importance with the actualism method of ‘not expressing’ an emotion as opposed to feeling happy and harmless, thus putting out happy and harmless vibes?
RICHARD: As there is no such [quote] ‘actualism method of ‘not expressing’ an emotion’ [endquote] it is difficult to determine just what it is you are asking ... and why you are.
If what you are referring to is to neither express nor suppress any of the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ feelings/ emotions/ passions – and thus put them into a bind so the third alternative (felicity/ innocuity) may hove into view – then the relative importance (to use your phrasing) is the resultant involuntary extrasensorial emanation of those happy and harmless vibes into the human psyche, in particular, and the animal psyche in general.
RESPONDENT: If good and bad vibes are felt by others regardless of emotional expression, why is it important not to express the good and bad feelings if they will be felt regardless of expression?
RICHARD: As nowhere is it advised that it is [quote] ‘important not to express the good and bad feelings’ [endquote] then I am unable to answer your query as-is.
(It is, essentially, a matter of choice/ personal preference as to what feelings are expressed).
What I can say is this: as the many and various emotions/ passions are the same affective energy, at root, then directing all of that affective energy into being the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (that is, ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself), via minimisation of the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and maximisation of the happy and harmless feelings, will have the effect of involuntarily radiating felicitous/ innocuous vibes and currents as a matter of course.
RESPONDENT: Isn’t it possible to hide what one is feeling?
RICHARD: If you mean ‘hide what one is feeling’ as in disguising the physical effects such feeling has on one’s vocal chords/ one’s physiognomy/ one’s posture (as per the tone of voice/ facial expression/ body language mentioned further above) then, yes, of course one can ... peoples everywhere do so regularly on a daily basis.
(Diplomats, for an obvious instance, elevate doing so into a high art-form as part and parcel of their job-description).
If, however (going by your follow-up question below), you mean is it possible to hide the affective vibes which all feeling-beings involuntarily transmit, extrasensorially, by virtue of affectively/ psychically existing as a ‘being’ then, no, one cannot ... and the word ‘involuntarily’ should explain why.
RESPONDENT: Is it a matter of sensitivity whether or not a vibe is picked up if it is not expressed?
RICHARD: As a vibe is not [quote] ‘expressed’ [quote], but is involuntarily transmitted regardless of whether feelings are expressed or suppressed, your query cannot be answered as-is.
What I can say is this: it is a matter of sensitivity whether affective vibes are consciously discerned or not.
The vast majority of feeling-beings experience other feeling-being’s vibes as if they are their own feelings – and are, of course, totally oblivious to the very existence of psychic currents – as is evidenced with people like yourself denying there is any such thing as is reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust website (and repeatedly talking about physical cues/ physical means as if those physical effects which feelings display bodily were the vibes themselves).
So as to obviate this email exchange getting ever-longer, with yet more and more back-and-forth additions, it would be great if you could comprehend this one thing:
A feeling-being, by virtue of being an affective/ psychic ‘being’, involuntarily emanates/ transmits/ radiates affective vibes (and psychic currents), extrasensorially, regardless of whether they express or suppress feelings and/or whether they display or conceal any physical effects feelings may have on their tone of voice/ their facial expression/ their body language.
Re: affective vibes are real
SRID: i thought i’d write a post on this [affective vibes] especially as there have recently been a discussion on vibes in this list. during the evening of day 8 (some days ago), i informed richard that i don’t experientially see how feelings can travel from one body to another without involving cues (e.g.: body language). richard was understandably stern in explaining psychic [correction: ‘affective’] vibes and questioning my understanding, as the whole milieu effect depends on it.
yesterday i had a first-hand experiential understanding of psychic [correction: ‘affective’] vibes as i could acknowledge it while it was happening. if you have been following Jon’s report, you should already know that yesterday afternoon he went through a period of disillusionment following a lunch conversation with richard/peter/vineeto. we both had decided to stroll back to the lodge and meet again for coffee about an hour later. Jon’s room is within a few walking steps from mine.
i was sitting in my room, researching ‘windows mobile phones’ on my computer (that afternoon, richard and i were talking about phones) and all of sudden i began to experience the feeling of embarrasment ... specifically, embarrassed in front of the yahoo list members. for the first minute i glossed over this feeling, while being busy doing the online research, but then it caught my full attention and i remember thinking something along the lines of ‘wait, why am i feeling this embarrassment when i had not done anything to lead to it; in fact, i wasn’t even thinking/feeling anything related to it, just doing some online research’. as there was no preceding trigger to that feeling, and it wasn’t pertaining to my experiences, it became obvious that it must be coming from someone else.
i noted down the time, about 4:30pm. Jon knocked on my door at about 5:10pm and we were planning to go out for a cup of coffee. i asked him what he was feeling at around 4:30pm ... and, as he was trying to recall it, i asked him ‘was it fear?’ and waited only a second to ask again specifically ‘was it embarrassment?’. he answered yes (to that effect). as we were walking to a coffee shop, i remember becoming fascinated at the whole subject of psychic [correction: ‘affective’] vibes (how the brain does it, etc.). while having a chat about Jon’s issue over coffee, i asked what the embarrassment was about (i.e., who was involved). as i sensed Jon was getting comfortable talking about the issue, i directly asked him if the embarrassment involved list members. he said yes.
so not only were i feeling the feeling (embarrassment), but also the contents of it (list members)! psychic [correction: ‘affective’] vibes are indeed real, and they are quite an interesting topic in itself. (vibes also relate to altruism and ‘doing it for the benefit this body, that body, every body’, but that is a topic for another day). (#14983)
RESPONDENT: Srid, Are you 100% certain that you hadn’t thought once about the yahoo list at all after strolling back to the lodge with Jon? What did you speak about on the way to the lodge? Never thought of something you’ve done that you were embarrassed about after the days learnings and events with the company you kept?
You’ve written to the list over a long period of time... there’s a lot of material in your mind that you could have been embarrassed about. It seems quite reasonable that you may have remembered something you have done, some pattern you’ve engaged in or opinion you’ve presented yourself in the past on the list that you had been given an opportunity to reflect on after your discussions with Richard and Vineeto. Was it really all about Jon that day? Surely you’re looking at your own life, your own behaviour, your own opinions as you spend time with Richard and Vineeto. Typically a feeling of embarrassment can go on in the background without any conscious awareness of why or how it’s happening until one applies concentration and diligently figures out how it arose. What beliefs were triggered etc, first at a surface level and then a deeper belief that was the trigger of the feeling.
I think you do yourself a disservice by taking the conclusion that your feelings are not your own. It’s dangerous territory, projection. Taken as a new pattern for behaviour, you’ll start looking for psychic [correction: ‘affective’] vibes everywhere ... this is called magical thinking. Next time please take a bit more time and look back at what could have possibly triggered such a feeling during the past few hours. When a feeling is going on that you can’t explain, it’s not because it’s from someone else. It’s because it happened a while ago and the conscious thoughts associated with triggering the feeling have passed from your mind, and are forgotten for the moment. You need to trace back to remember them. The feeling just keeps going. It has its own momentum. It doesn’t need the original thought to keep going. It can pass away complete for a while and then come back at full strength at the slightest prompt. So had you felt any embarrassment earlier in the day?
SRID: hi No. 15, if you were to read what i wrote – ‘there was no preceding trigger to that feeling, and it wasn’t pertaining to my experiences’ – you would already know the answer to all of your i-know-what-you-experienced-better-than-you-do type of questions above. to spell it out further, * there was no preceding trigger to that feeling, be it in the last hour or that entire day.
* the feeling wasn’t pertaining to my (triggered or recalled) experiences that day.
* the feeling arouse ‘out of the blue’ while i was fully engaged in doing something totally irrelevant.
also note that it does not matter whether i had sussed out the possibility of Jon experiencing embarrassment earlier or not, as the out-of-the-blue feeling was experienced (at 4:30pm) as if i was feeling embarrassed ... even though i never recalled, let alone relived/felt, my past incidents of embarrassment. let me ask you directly: do you deny the existence of affective vibes? if not, why go into such bizarre length as to claim to know better of what another person actually experienced? (#14955)
RESPONDENT: Science does not recognise what you are attributing that feeling to.
RICHARD: G’day No. 15, That is such a waste of a sentence – given the very raison d’être of this forum – and especially so on account of a post of mine, earlier in the month, specifically worded so as to ‘nip in the bud’ and/or ‘head off at the pass’ that very meme you have resorted to in a pathetic attempt to remain in situ as a ‘being’ (currently via practising some form of a 20th century version of a sectarian buddhistic lineage known for its theravadin aspirations).
The colloquialism ‘vibes’ gained currency in the nineteen-sixties – as in ‘I can feel your pain’ (i.e., emotional pain) or ‘I can feel your anger’ and so on – and has thus had at least fifty years of usage all around the globe.
RESPONDENT: And not for lack of testing either.
RICHARD: You do realise, do you not, that unless you cite some peer-reviewed scientific articles, wherein said ‘testing’ of affective vibes has been duly published for the edification of the scientific community, those words of yours will just continue to sit there bearing a remarkable resemblance to empty rhetoric?
RESPONDENT: The burden of proof, therefore, is upon you.
RICHARD: As colloquial usage of the word ‘vibration’ has been recorded as far back as 114 years ago – thus having acceptance over more than a few generations of peoples – any such ‘burden of proof’ would fall, rather, on those who are in denial of a feeling-being’s intuitive ability to (affectively) feel another feeling-being’s affections.
RESPONDENT: But hey, if you’d rather take the easy path and assume your own feelings originate from others and not yourself, ultimately it’s your business. This fellow traveller is just advising differently in my experience is all.
RICHARD: As your experience is that of being a family man – with a spouse and children – it is quite mind-boggling to comprehend how you are hereby publicly claiming to have never felt either your spouse’s love for you (especially obvious during the courting/ honeymoon period) or your children’s love for their father.
It is as if you are living in some sort of (affective) equivalent of an astronaut’s/ cosmonaut’s full-body spacesuit ... hermetically sealed, so to speak, and isolated from any and all other feeling-being’s affections.
‘Tis for reasons such as this women can get so frustrated and/or exasperated, at times, by the male of the species.
RESPONDENT: The suggestion has been given. Do with it as you wish. On the plus side if you’re right James Randi has a million bucks waiting for you.
RICHARD: The intuitive ability of any (non-insensitive) feeling-being to affectively feel another feeling-being’s affections does not fall under the purview of either the James Randi Education Foundation or any other organisation of similar ilk as their interest lies in debunking [quote] ‘psychics, medical frauds, televangelists and others’ [endquote] via offering a million dollar reward for proof of [quote] ‘occult, psychic or supernatural powers’ [endquote].
RESPONDENT: Re: denying affective vibes I don’t deny aliens either... Just haven’t seen any evidence for them yet.
RICHARD: Ha ... what you are ‘just advising’ fellow travellers (further above) reminds me of the ‘Simon and Garfunkel’ hit of the 1960’s ‘I am a rock’. Apart from being damn’ good music, with exquisite lyrical over-tones, the lyrics speak well of more than just a few human being’s experience such as you describe.
Re: affective vibes are real
RESPONDENT: Science does not recognise what you are attributing that feeling to.
RICHARD: G’day No. 15, That is such a waste of a sentence – given the very raison d’être of this forum – and especially so on account of a post of mine, earlier in the month, specifically worded so as to ‘nip in the bud’ and/or ‘head off at the pass’ that very meme [i.e., the invoking of ‘science’ in regards to experiential matters] you have resorted to in a pathetic attempt to remain in situ as a ‘being’ (currently via practising some form of a 20th century version of a sectarian buddhistic lineage known for its theravadin aspirations). (Message 15048)
RESPONDENT: Hi Richard Apologies for taking so long to reply. I was ill for a protracted period and am finally returning to a semblance of good health.
On top of that, I’ve gone down the rabbit hole with my investigations lately as a result of an enthusiasm to compare and contrast everything that was available to me. From the ‘direct path’ of awareness/ nondualism, to emptiness, to various flavours of buddhism, to actualism, to faux actualism and the faux PCE (i.e. AFfer practices). My view of reality has been on rotation every couple of days. That makes replying to emails a bit difficult. By the time I am ready to reply, I have been seeing the world through a different lens. Hahaha. It’s been good from an insight perspective, but it’s hard to comment on views outside the one currently taken when doing this type of thing.
Back to your email, I got the feeling we weren’t talking about the same thing here.
RICHARD: G’day No. 15, Regardless of that feeling you got we are indeed talking about the same thing ... to wit: science (specifically, the invoking of that ‘science does not recognise ...’ meme in regards to experiential matters) and affective vibes.
I have written about science vis-a-vis matters experiential on many occasions over the years ... and on this forum, too.
I really do not see any way to be more clear ... how can ‘science’ – no matter what way you define it – detect and/or measure illusions (i.e., that which ‘has no existence in actuality’)?
On a related matter ... here is a useful word to remember:
RESPONDENT: I was referring to ‘extra sensory perception’, not just vibes.
RICHARD: As vibes, being affective by nature, are extrasensory (i.e., not of or pertaining to the senses) we are indeed talking about the same thing.
Furthermore, Srid made it unambiguously clear in that initial report of his (in #14955), which you first replied to, that he felt the affective vibe in question – namely, embarrassment – as per that Cambridge Dictionary definition (i.e., ‘without the use of hearing, seeing, touch, taste and smell’).
What we are *not* talking about is the ‘extra sensory perception’ (ESP) of psychics, mediums, occultists, and so forth, inasmuch all that preternatural/ supernatural stuff, such as telepathy, clairvoyance/ cryptaesthesia, psychokinesis/ telekinesis, clairaudience, psychometry, and so on and so forth, is most certainly not what the colloquialism ‘vibes’ – as made popular in the 1960’s – refers to.
RESPONDENT: My understanding of vibes is that they are only ever transmitted face to face.
RICHARD: Oh? Yet I made public the following description 14 years ago (in 1999) of a typical example of feeling another’s affective vibes when not in a face-to-face situation.
Although I couched that response of mine in generic terms it was drawn from a real-life situation (circa 1980-81) for the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago when ‘he’ was returning home from a pleasant stroll over the meadows and through some forest-land near ‘his’ ex-farmhouse (and made all the more obvious to ‘him’ as ‘his’ wife had been in a good mood when ‘he’ had set-off for ‘his’ walk several hours earlier).
RESPONDENT: When not face to face, I own my own feelings rather than project them onto others ...
RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body circa 1980-81 was projecting ‘his’ feelings, through the closed door of ‘his’ ex-farmhouse, then ‘he’ would have felt a feeling of joie de vivre, just prior to opening the front door of ‘his’ home, despite the at-that-moment-unknown presence of a fuming wife on the other side (pacing up and down, in the front room, ready and willing to give ‘him’ an unwarranted serve for imagined slights she generated as her earlier good mood spiralled into negativity in ‘his’ absence).
It was by virtue of being observant thataway, above, that ‘he’ was then able, over the ensuing years, to become aware not only of many more instances of similar ilk but of the far-deeper, longer-ranging and more-powerful ‘psychic currents’/ ‘psychic energies’ (which we have not even mentioned in this exchange) that lie underneath/beyond the affective vibes.
I could provide more examples but maybe that will do for now.
RESPONDENT: ... so it is impossible of me to conceive of experiencing a feeling and then ascribing that to someone else in any kind of direct ‘that was their feeling’ sense.
RICHARD: Nobody is asking you to [quote] ‘conceive’ [endquote] of anything because vibes, being affective, are experiential and, thus, not conceptive (i.e., cognitive) in their nature.
(Incidentally, a feeling-being’s feelings – the emotions, passions and calentures which make-up their very ‘being’ – are extrasensorial in and of themselves ... as in, not of or pertaining to hearing, seeing, touching, tasting and smelling).
RESPONDENT: I have replied further below.
RICHARD: As this email is already quite lengthy I will leave any response I may make, to those further replies of yours, for another post.
However, I will take this opportunity to stress just how vital this matter of affective vibes is, in regards to successful actualism practice, as it is central to the ‘feeling harmless’ aspect of such practice (as in the phrase ‘happy and harmless’ that is) inasmuch the whole point is the minimisation – and the ultimate cessation via extirpation of ‘being’ itself – of any malicious feelings and, thus, their resultant transmission as affective vibes throughout the human psyche.
I have, of course, written of this before ... for instance:
Here is another instance:
Now, if it were to really be the case – as you maintain – that no other ‘being’ can feel your (affective) feelings then why put the actualism method into practice? Why not just fake the requisite facial-expression/ tone-of-voice/ body-language and carry on as you were born?
It has got me beat how anyone can spend years and years reading and writing, to forums such as this, about actualism practice (and its aims or goals) yet all the while be ignorant of or ignoring the central feature of such practice ... to wit: the transmission and the reception of the many and various affective feelings which make-up a feeling-being.
And speaking of ‘reception’: all feeling-beings are operating and functioning in a virtual sea of affective vibes (not to mention the far-deeper, longer-ranging and more-powerful ‘psychic currents’/ ‘psychic energies’), swirling around and coming at them from all directions, influencing them affectively/ psychically, pushing and pulling them into involuntarily making all manner of decisions which they might otherwise not make (and later regret).
Claudiu recently referred to theses vibes as [quote] ‘completely permeating the space around us’ [endquote], in a post to this forum, and how [quote] ‘each person was like a little dot in that vibespace, somehow picking it up & affecting it’ [endquote].
As already referred to further above, in regards to how mob violence can so easily take over in otherwise decent, intelligent human beings, I happened to be in New Delhi in October 1984 when Sikh bodyguards assassinated India’s Hindu Prime Minister Ms. Indira Gandhi after the assault by the Indian army on the Harimandir of Amritsar, the Sikhs’ holiest shrine. This set off a rampage of terror and violence that closed down the city for three days; the normally ubiquitous police were nowhere to be seen for the entire period. I was there – with a nine year old daughter – and saw with my own eyes what happened: it was out-and-out internecine conflict; after three days of unrestricted rioting and slaughter (with at least 3,000 persons massacred) the military came in with helicopters, planes, tanks, armoured vehicles, machine guns, and so on, and eventually law and order was restored by sheer brute force. The affective/psychic atmosphere – and the wanton destructiveness I personally witnessed – was identical to my experience in a war-torn foreign country in 1966 when I was a serving soldier in a declared war-zone.
Quite frankly, a head-in-the-sand attitude towards the evidential reality of affective vibes (and the far more insidious ‘psychic currents’/ ‘psychic energies’ where the real power-play resides) is going to get you nowhere fast.
Re: How to avoid vibe violence.
RESPONDENT: Back when I was in the whole spiritual game, I was immensely aware of the push and pull of affective vibes. Being thus affectively pressured is quite painful, people with degrees of awakening have particularly strong vibes, so the violence experienced from people with inflamed emotional identities is POWERFUL.
It actually really hurts, as I can recall from the whole trolling shebang that occurred on the DhO (if you don’t know who I am, then you don’t read enough of the DhO, true story). But when I dropped out of the game, the pain in my chest that plagued me for ‘all eternity’ (hyperbole here) disappeared forever. So the switch from one playing field to another, actually is what lead me to become free from the psychic pressure that followed me all the time before.
Of course now I encounter another problem, I’m still an extant entity, and I still experience vibe violence. So, because you guys seem especially good at this stuff, I ask you for some tips to avoid affective-vibe-exchange with other entities.
In the first paragraph of my reply I provide a link to a post by Claudiu (plus a short quote from it) which is well-worth a re-read in regards to what he called ‘feeling- tones’ or ‘affect’ vis-a-vis the written word (Message 13996).
In the second paragraph of my reply I provide a link to another post by Claudiu (plus a short quote from it too) regarding what he at-the-time referred to as ‘an amorphous blob of whatever (for lack of a better word)’ (Message 13787) and my third paragraph provides a brief explanation for it which should throw considerable light upon why ‘the whole trolling shebang that occurred on the DhO’ was ‘quite painful’ for you (to the point you recall that it not only ‘actually really hurts’ but how it ‘sometimes cripples people’).
In short: that which is crippling lies behind/ under the vibes.
RESPONDENT: As this shit, is so powerful that... well it sometimes cripples people, and prevents them from functioning.
The word ‘involuntary’ is the key to comprehending what takes place behind/ under/ beyond the (affective) vibes ... for example: can you recall what you experienced viscerally, upon reading #157xx, such as to prompt you to write #157xx/xx/xx (and maybe even #157xx because of #157xx)?
If not, it may be worthwhile making a point of watching out for it, in any future exchanges where the potential exists for a repeat of similar ilk, as it is empowering just to get a handle on what is going on affectively/ psychically.
In years gone by it has been helpful, for example, for those peoples I have spoken to extensively who suffered from paranoia to know/be aware that it is not *just* a figment of their imagination, that others are ‘out to get them’, given their experience of same is so real for them ... albeit with imaginary layers added to it (mostly out of ignorance of that extrasensory network).
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.