Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections

RESPONDENT: (No. 10, who lives under a 2000 power microscope of himself 100% of the time).

RICHARD: Good. With such discerning power as that we should be able to proceed famously, non?

RESPONDENT: Proceed with what Richard?

RICHARD: Well, silly me kind of assumed, because you were writing on a Mailing List purporting to be dedicated to the exploration of the appalling mess that is the human condition, that you might actually participate in an exploration. I guess not, eh? Are love and compassion and beauty sacrosanct after all?

RESPONDENT: Perhaps with your constant need to look smart?

RICHARD: No ... I simply wish for my fellow human being to be happy and harmless; to be freed of the malice and sorrow that they nurse in their bosom because all of the Saints and the Sages, the Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours have all instructed them to revere love and compassion ... and without malice and sorrow to sublimate and transcend (transcend not eliminate) Love Agapé and Divine Compassion are stillborn.

If you consider that I am being smart just because I actually care about peace-on-earth, then no wonder there are so many wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides.

RESPONDENT: Or your need to look Intelligent?

RICHARD: As I am on record as saying again and again that there is no ‘Intelligence’ this is just a silly statement.

RESPONDENT: Or your need to control?

RICHARD: My ‘need to control’ what?

RESPONDENT: All of your messages I have read are you saying the same thing which is HEY look at ME I am the authority!!

RICHARD: May I ask? Why this hang-up about authority? If I wish to learn to play the piano, I go to an expert piano-player ... I do not invent piano-playing all over again from the beginning. There are two meanings to the word ‘authority’ and the one that causes all the troubles is the one connected with power. (The power of the authority to enforce obedience; the power of the authority to enforce moral or legal judgements; the power of the authority to command or give the final decision; the power of the authority to control; the power of the authority of a governing body; the power of an authoritative holy book; the power of the authority to inspire belief and so on). The second – less used – meaning is: an expert on a particular subject.

Because I live in an actual freedom twenty four hours a day, I am automatically an expert about what it is like to experience freedom from the Human Condition. I have no power – or powers – whatsoever. It is very simple to be an expert on actual freedom ... one has but to live it and report to others from this on-going experience of being here now. (Expert as in specialist, professional, virtuoso ... or being experienced, proficient, able, accomplished, apt, competent and so on).

I freely acknowledge – and delight in – my expertise on all matters pertaining to actual freedom and spiritual enlightenment. This expertise is drawn out of my personal experience on a day-to-day basis, for the last eighteen years ... twenty four hours a day. If you wish to maintain that this makes me an ‘authority’ as in the spiritual meaning of the word ‘master’ then you are entirely missing the point of all I have said, written and demonstrated. Because those otherwise intelligent ‘Enlightened Beings’ have surrendered their integrity to the psychic Power that lies hidden as the ‘Unmanifest Authority’ behind the scenes. This divine entity can go by many names, most of them obviously a god, but the most pernicious is the one usually described as either ‘The Truth’ or ‘The Absolute’. To have surrendered to ‘that which is sacred’ is the root cause of all the religious wars that have beset this planet since time immemorial. Power is what the ‘authority’ of a guru/master/sage/avatar/messiah/saint is all about. As they have surrendered to an ‘Higher Authority’, everyone else has to slot into the inevitable hierarchy which ensues. And so the battles rage. The hunger for power – or the subservience to it – is the curse of humanity. Curiously enough, the ‘energy’ that this power manifests as – whilst going under many and varied a nomenclature – is what I call Love Agapé and Divine Compassion.

In an actual freedom it is readily experienced and understood that Divine Compassion – which is born out of sorrow – is but a paltry substitute for the over-arching benevolence of the actual world. Similarly, Love Agapé is seen and known to be a pathetic surrogate for the actual intimacy of direct experiencing ... Love Agapé and Divine Compassion are deep feelings which the psychological or psychic identity within creates in order to sustain itself and perpetuate its self-centred existence. Love is born out of malice and is touted as being the cure-all for humankind’s failings because it imitates the intimacy of the actual via a feeling of oneness. The feeling of oneness creates an erroneous impression that separation is ended ... but the self survives triumphant, only to wreak its havoc in the real world once again. Life can be a grim and glum business in the real world, for separation ceases only when the psychological and psychic entity inside the body – the ego and the soul – is extirpated. In actual freedom there is a universal magnanimity which is so vastly superior to petty forgiveness or pardon that any comparison is worthless.

Actual intimacy – being here now – does not come from love and compassion, for the affective states of being stem from separation. The illusion of intimacy that love and compassion produces is but a meagre imitation of the direct experience of the actual. In the actual world, ‘I’ as ego, the personality, and ‘me’ as soul, the ‘being’ – both subjectively experienced as one’s identity – have ceased to exist; whereas love and compassion accentuates, endorses and verifies ‘me’ as being real. And while ‘I’ am real, ‘I’ am relative to other similarly afflicted persons; vying for position and status in order to establish ‘my’ credentials ... to verify ‘my’ very existence. To be actually intimate is to be without the separative identity ... and therefore free from the need for love and compassion with their ever un-filled promise of Peace On Earth. There is an actual intimacy between me and everyone and everything ... actual intimacy is a direct experiencing of the other as-they-are. I am having a superb time ... and it is a well-earned superb time, too. Nothing has come without application – apart from serendipitous discoveries because of pure intent – and I am reaping the rewards which are plentiful and deliciously satisfying. Actual intimacy frees one up to a world of factual splendour, based firmly upon sensate and sensual delight. The candid and unabashed sensorial enjoyment of being this body in the world around is such a luscious and immediate experience, that the tantalising but ever-elusive promise of the mystique of love and compassion has faded into the oblivion it deserves.

RICHARD: Mostly people do not grasp what I am getting at for some months, for I am talking about a condition that lies beyond enlightenment.

RESPONDENT: It really worries me that you are introducing a subtle form of authority here. If you are an authority on something that lies beyond enlightenment I have to believe you at your word. You told me what you think of that and I agree, mostly.

RICHARD: There are two meanings to the word ‘authority’ and the one that causes all the troubles is the one connected with power. (The power of the authority to enforce obedience; the power of the authority to enforce moral or legal judgements; the power of the authority to command or give the final decision; the power of the authority to control; the power of the authority of a governing body; the power of an authoritative holy book; the power of the authority to inspire belief and so on). The second – less used – meaning is: an expert on a particular subject.

Because I live in an actual freedom twenty four hours a day, I am automatically an expert about what it is like to experience freedom from the Human Condition. I have no power – or powers – whatsoever. It is very simple to be an expert on actual freedom ... one has but to live it and report to others from this on-going experience of being here now. (Expert as in specialist, professional, virtuoso ... or being experienced, proficient, able, accomplished, apt, competent and so on).

I ask no one to ‘believe me at my word’ ... that would be silly, for the most that the other could attain would be to live out that belief and not the actuality. It just would not work. I am merely pointing out to anyone who is interested in life, the universe and what it is to be a human being that an actual freedom exists of its own accord and that I arrived here via an altered state of consciousness called spiritual enlightenment. My experience was that it lay beyond enlightenment, given that for enlightenment to happen one’s ego died ... and for an actual freedom to occur one’s soul had to expire in a like manner. It is a description of how I did it ... another may find a more direct route that by-passes enlightenment altogether. I would rather that someone does, as I went through some consider mental trauma and experiential angst to ‘arrive’ ... which I would not wish upon anyone at all.

RESPONDENT: If enlightenment can be discarded altogether than actuality is the main thing. But that implies that I should try to grasp beyond something I haven’t even experienced! So again I need a guru to tell me where to go?

RICHARD: Not at all ... I am a fellow human being that is reporting to anyone who is at all interested that something far better than any altered state of consciousness exists here in this actual world ... here on earth. Spiritual enlightenment has been around for some thousands of years ... and there is still no peace on earth. Nowadays I know, experientially, why enlightenment does not deliver the goods ... and, of course, I now know what does. I am not an ‘Enlightened Master’ sitting in an exalted position ... and what a relief that is. As everyone I have spoken with at depth about this in the last eighteen years has eventually remembered at least one pure consciousness experience (PCE), that is virtually identical to an actual freedom, then I find that it is universal to the human experience. When remembered, the PCE tells one ‘where to go’ ... not some super-guru!

We are all fellow human beings who find ourselves here in the world as it was when we were born. We find war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and corruption to be endemic ... we notice that it is intrinsic to the human condition ... we set out to discover why this is so. We find sadness, loneliness, sorrow, grief, depression and suicide to be a global incidence ... and we gather that it is also inherent to the human condition ... and we want to know why. We all report to each other as to the nature of our discoveries for we are all well-meaning and seek to find a way out of this mess that we have landed in. Whether one believes in re-incarnation or not, we are all living this particular life for the very first time, and we wish to make sense of it. It is a challenge and the adventure of a life-time to enquire and to uncover, to seek and to find, to explore and to discover. All this being alive business is actually happening and we are totally involved in living it out ... whether we take the back seat or not, we are all still doing it. (...)

RESPONDENT: I hope you see the mistake if you are making one, because claiming authority is ‘not harmless’. I am only shortly beginning to understand that more fully.

RICHARD: This is because those otherwise intelligent ‘Self-Realised Beings’ have surrendered their integrity to the psychic Power that lies hidden as the ‘Unmanifest Authority’ behind the scenes. This divine entity can go by many names, most of them obviously a god, but the most pernicious is the one usually described as either The Truth or The Absolute. To have surrendered to ‘that which is sacred’ is the root cause of all the religious wars that have beset this planet since time immemorial.

It is possible to live in this modern era, freed from out-dated philosophy and psychiatry, challenging every spiritual and metaphysical tenet and surpassing any of the altered states of consciousness. 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.

RESPONDENT: I wouldn’t wish to be an authority on any part of inner existence.

RICHARD: Then you are destined to remain forever trapped within the Human Condition.

RESPONDENT: In this respect your lasting question about experiencing now is consistent with that.

RICHARD: Not so. By asking that lasting question: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ one can actually be here now as this body only ... bereft of any pernicious and persistent ‘I’. Then one no longer needs to ask that question ... one has arrived. It is all over and it is an obvious joy and delight to be alive. One is happy and harmless because with the demise of ‘I’ one is freed from sorrow and malice for the remainder of one’s life.

RESPONDENT: If only you would acknowledge your pattern of authority ... ‘sigh’.

RICHARD: I freely acknowledge – and delight in – my expertise on all matters pertaining to actual freedom and spiritual enlightenment. This expertise is drawn out of my personal experience on a day-to-day basis, for the last eighteen years ... twenty four hours a day.

If you wish to maintain that this makes me an ‘authority’ as in the spiritual meaning of the word – guru – then you are entirely missing the point of all I have written. I have no power – or powers – at all, for I have not surrendered to any one or any thing whatsoever. There is no trace of humility in me at all. Power is what the ‘authority’ of a guru and/or master and/or sage and/or avatar and/or messiah and/or saint is all about. They have surrendered to an ‘Higher Authority’ and everyone else has to slot into the inevitable hierarchy which ensues. And so the battles rage.

The hunger for power – or the subservience to it – is the curse of humanity.

RESPONDENT: For my own sanity, I’m beginning to compile an informal catalogue of techniques, tactics and antics that I find most detrimental to mutual understanding.

RICHARD: As you have entitled this e-mail ‘The Art of the Mind-Fuck’ then pride of place, in your list of techniques, tactics and antics most detrimental to mutual understanding, would go to the technique/tactic/antic which could, perhaps, be described as a ‘reductio ad falsum’ argumentum, surely?

Here is the only definition of the (hyphenated) word ‘mind-fuck’ a search of all the dictionaries at my disposal could find:

• ‘mind-fuck: noun (offensive) a brainwashing’. (Macquarie Book of Slang).

To reify what is generally known as logical fallacies – such as the ‘strawman’ and the ‘ad hominen’ fallacies you refer to further on in your e-mail – into being a masterly virtuosity (the art) in a brainwashing (the mind-fuck) of one’s fellow human being cannot possibly be conducive to mutual understanding.

RESPONDENT: (...) The likelihood that new mindfucks will be discovered here is small.

RICHARD: Here is the only definition of the (non-hyphenated) word ‘mindfuck’ a search of all the dictionaries at my disposal could find:

• ‘mindfuck: (noun) a situation or person who gives one a mentally overwhelming and disorientating experience; (verb) to mentally confuse and overwhelm’. (‘A Dictionary of Slang’ by Ted Duckworth).

To reify what is generally known as logical fallacies (such as the ‘strawman’ and the ‘ad hominen’ fallacies you refer to further on in your e-mail) into being a masterly virtuosity in the giving of a mentally overwhelming and disorientating experience to one’s fellow human being cannot possibly be conducive to mutual understanding.

RESPONDENT: Most of them are ancient, but there may be a few that are specific to actualism.

RICHARD: How on earth can actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – have a few logical fallacies that are specific to it?

RESPONDENT: If you repeatedly encounter a technique that drives you up the wall, let me know.

RICHARD: As no repeatedly encountered technique ever drives me up the wall I am unable to let you know of such ... and maybe, just maybe, therein lies a clue as to why the technique/tactic/antic you employed both in and by this e-mail escaped your attention prior to clicking ‘send’.

RESPONDENT: I am saying you have a tendency to want to be right.

RICHARD: I do not have to ‘want to be right’ ... because when it comes to the matter of being free from the human condition – the total extinction of the animal self and all its affective feelings – I am always right already as I speak from experience.

RESPONDENT: And to achieve that you read meanings into people’s communication that suits your purpose.

RICHARD: Okay then ... have all the affective feelings disappeared, in toto and never to return, in the flesh and blood body known as No. 12?

RESPONDENT: And that is the underlying dynamic of Actualism that you have passed onto the ‘inner circle’ as I call it facetiously. Period. Examine it. Or don’t.

RICHARD: I do not need to ‘examine it’ ... I already know that I relentlessly put my finger on the root cause of all the mayhem and misery. That is why The Actual Freedom Trust exists; that is why the Actual Freedom Web Page exists; that is why the Actual Freedom Mailing List exists ... and that is why I am writing.

If all you feel is that my words are ‘belittling’ ... then you ain’t seen half of it yet!

RESPONDENT: Richard, this is kindergarten stuff ... pass the blame to the self.

RICHARD: Okay ... let us do it your way, then: where do you lay the blame for all the animosity and anguish that exemplifies the human condition?

RESPONDENT: Tell everyone you don’t have one.

RICHARD: I already am ... have you not noticed?

RESPONDENT: Tell them what they believe and know.

RICHARD: I always advise against believing (and trusting and hoping and having faith and so on).

RESPONDENT: Tell them you are special.

RICHARD: I already do ... have you not noticed?

RESPONDENT: Because you are free. Yeah sure baby.

RICHARD: I rather fail to see the point you are making.

RESPONDENT: Have the actualists solved the riddle of nature vs. nurture?

RICHARD: As I was born and raised on a farm there never was a nature versus nurture riddle to solve ... the human animal was demonstrably born with instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) just like the other animals were.

RESPONDENT: The theories about the role of instincts on the website ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? Just what [quote] ‘theories’ [endquote] are you referring to? And the reason I ask is because what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential ... as in coming out of direct experience.

RESPONDENT: ... are confidently expressed as if they are describing something factual but there is considerable debate amongst researchers about the role of genes and environment on conditioning. See www.beyondintractability.org/m/aggression.jsp for an overview of theories on aggression. Clearly, there’s not a consensus amongst researchers but actualists seem confident.

RICHARD: Maybe, just maybe, that is because what actualists report/ describe/ explain is experiential and not theoretical.

RESPONDENT: On the website it is confidently said ‘contrary to popular belief instincts are not ‘hardware’ but ‘software’ and as such they can be deleted’. See www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/instinctualpassions.htm. What proof do actualists use to assert these claims?

RICHARD: They are neither claims nor an assertion of such ... and the ‘proof’ is the experience of the very deletion of same.

RESPONDENT: How is it known that any of the programming removed by the actualist method is actually genetically endowed programming?

RICHARD: In a word: experientially.

RESPONDENT: Are all instincts ‘software’ as implied in the quote above?

RICHARD: As the altruistic ‘self’-immolation, of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, was simultaneously the extirpation of all instinctual impulses, drives and urges – the entire affective faculty (including its epiphenomenal imaginative and intuitive facility) in fact – then the analogy to computer software is reasonable enough for the purpose of communication.

RESPONDENT: Seems like a sweeping statement about an area that is little understood.

RICHARD: It is an experiential account about an area that was understood well-enough 13+ years ago to successfully extirpate in its entirety.

RESPONDENT No. 107: The theories about the role of instincts on the website ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? Just what [quote] ‘theories’ [endquote] are you referring to? And the reason I ask is because what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential ... as in coming out of direct experience.

RESPONDENT: You ask people not to accept anything you say without verifying it for themselves.

RICHARD: Indeed so ... you are obviously referring to something like this:

[Richard]: ‘... I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. What one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus *verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written*. Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: Yet when they come back and question your theories ...

RICHARD: If I might interject? When they come back from ... from where? Clearly, not back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] as they would not be calling them theories, now would they?

RESPONDENT: Exactly my point.

RICHARD: No, it is not your point at all, that they would not be calling them theories had they come back from verifying it for themselves, let alone exactly that. What *is* exactly your point – if that be even remotely an appropriate word for what you are on about – is that the ‘Richard’ who has no existence outside of your fantasy-world then throws out ‘his’ last card (that ‘his’ words, being experiential, are as if carved in stone). Vis.:

 • [Respondent]: ‘You ask people not to accept anything you say without verifying it for themselves. Yet when they come back and question your theories, you throw out the last card in your deck – ‘what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential ... as in coming out of ‘direct experience’ and hence forthwith it is now as if carved in stone’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: According to you, unless they come back from ‘verifying it for themselves’ and agree with you, they would be wrong ... and they will continue to be wrong until they agree with you.

RICHARD: No, that is according to you ... according to me they would not be calling them theories had they come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote]. Here, see for yourself (it is written in plain English):

• [Respondent]: ‘You ask people not to accept anything you say without verifying it for themselves. Yet when they come back and question your theories ...
• [Richard]: ‘If I might interject? When they come back from ... from where? Clearly, not back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] as *they would not be calling them theories*, now would they? [emphasis added].

Maybe if I were to re-present what you initially wrote thisaway it might become clear:

 • [example only]: ‘You ask people not to accept anything you say without verifying it for themselves. Yet when they come back and question your experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations ...’. [end example].

Do you see that without the words [quote] ‘your theories’ [endquote] in what you initially wrote you really have nothing to say? For example:

 • [example only]: ‘You ask people not to accept anything you say without verifying it for themselves. Yet when they come back and question your experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations, you throw out the last card in your deck – ‘what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential ... as in coming out of ‘direct experience’ and hence forthwith it is now as if carved in stone’. [end example].

Now I ask you: were they to have come back from verifying my experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations for themselves then why on earth would they be questioning them (such as to warrant your assertion about my words being as if carved in stone) when I make it abundantly clear that it is a pure conscious experience (PCE) which is of vital importance (as in lodestone/ guiding light) and not my words? Here is another example:

• [Co-respondent]: ‘I appreciate your pointer back to my own experience [a PCE].
• [Richard]: ‘You are welcome ... after all it is your own experience which is of vital importance, and not my descriptions and explanations (which can be either inadequate or misconstrued), as you then intimately know for yourself where to go and what to do.
Ain’t life grand!’

And even more specific to your fantasy-world ‘Richard’ (whose words are as if carved in stone):

• [Richard]: ‘Nothing I have to say is carved in stone tablets.
• [Co-respondent]: ‘That’s good to hear.
• [Richard]: ‘There are those who do not hear it’.

*

RESPONDENT: [Yet when they come back and question your theories], you throw out the last card in your deck – ‘what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential ... as in coming out of ‘direct experience’.

RICHARD: No, that is not the last card in the deck – it is the first one – as well you know. Vis.: [Respondent]: ‘You ask people not to accept anything you say without *verifying it for themselves*. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: ... and hence forthwith it is now as if carved in stone.

RICHARD: No, it is carved (to use your terminology) in the PCE ... here it is again from that passage of mine you obviously referred to:

• [Richard]: ‘Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... *not me or my words*. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: You must be referring to the PCE or pure consciousness experience that you have recently redefined as being, well, not so pure after all.

RICHARD: No, I am referring to the same pure consciousness experience (PCE) I have referred to all along – where identity is in total abeyance – as I recently reaffirmed in unambiguous terms. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Is the identity in total abeyance or not in a PCE?
• [Richard]: ‘Unless identity is in total abeyance it is not a PCE but an ASC ... for instance: [quote] ‘... in a PCE the feelings – passion and calenture – can come rushing in, if one is not alert, *resulting in the PCE devolving into an altered state of consciousness (ASC)* ... complete with a super-self’. [emphasis added].

And again:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Either it is a PCE un-contaminated by an identity, be it in an ever-so-slight degree or to any degree, or it is not.
• [Richard]: ‘Aye ... unless identity is in total abeyance it is not a PCE’. (...) Where identity is casting an ever-so-slight influence upon what is being experienced it is not, or is no longer, a PCE’.

RESPONDENT: So a not so pure consciousness experience is to be ones lodestone or guiding light?

RICHARD: No, it is the pure consciousness experience I have referred to all along – where identity is in total abeyance – which is one’s lodestone or guiding light.

RESPONDENT: And what is one supposed to do with a memory?

RICHARD: Verify the facticity of what is written with it, of course. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus *verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written*. Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: What can one do with a memory?

RICHARD: Have it be one’s lodestone or guiding light, obviously ... not me or my words. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written. Then *it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words*. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: Use it for inspiration?

RICHARD: Use it for (a) verifying the facticity of what is written ... and (b) one’s lodestone or guiding light.

RESPONDENT: For a goal to get a passing moment from the past back?

RICHARD: Just what [quote] ‘passing moment’ [endquote] would that be you are referring to? Vis.:

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘... what is so actual/ factual, and thus irrefutable, about my direct experience that it is never not this moment here in this actual world – as contrasted to it being but a fleeting moment among many such moments in the real world – is the very actuality, and thus factuality, of the eternity of time itself (as contrasted to time, as in past/ present/ future, as a convention) ... as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE).

*

RESPONDENT: They can question your theories till the cows come home ...

RICHARD: No, were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] they would not be calling them theories.

RESPONDENT: Perhaps when they have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote], they may be calling your theories ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? As what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential – as in coming out of direct experience – it is in no way theoretical.

RESPONDENT: ... (which you insist on calling facts) ...

RICHARD: Maybe, just maybe, that is because what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential – as in coming out of direct experience – and thus is in no way theoretical.

RESPONDENT: ... trash, or useless concepts.

RICHARD: No, when they have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] they would not be calling what is coming out of direct experience trash or useless concepts.

*

RESPONDENT: ... but you have laid down the laws of the universe ...

RICHARD: No, it is the PCE which evidences what you are labelling as ‘the laws of the universe’ ... not me or my words.

RESPONDENT: And do you or do you not have this PCE which evidences the law of the universe which you have laid out for your fellow human?

RICHARD: I do not have PCE’s, period. For example:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... if Richard were attached to certain experiences (say PCE’s) it would probably make it more difficult for him to understand what you are saying about detachment.
• [Richard]: ‘May I ask? Given that you are self-acknowledged as being prone to conceptualising, could you conceptualise being free and then further conceptualise just what you would say to a person whose best effort at a dialogue (on a Mailing List purporting to be dedicated to the exploration of the appalling mess that is the human condition) is a weak ‘if Richard were attached to certain experiences (say PCE’s)’?
Because only an identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) can have a PCE ... the identity that inhabited this body (the ‘he’ who had the PCE) is extinct.
I do not have PCE’s ... let alone be attached to them’.

*

RESPONDENT: ... this universe according to your understanding of it ...

RICHARD: No, this universe according to the direct experience of it in a PCE.

RESPONDENT: Do you or do you not have PCE’s?

RICHARD: I do not have PCE’s.

*

RESPONDENT: ... or what you like to call ‘experiential’ ...

RICHARD: No, the direct experience in a PCE is not what I like to call experiential ... it is experiential. Vis.: [quote] ‘experiential: of, pertaining to, or derived from experience or observation’. (Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: ‘Direct experience’ mediated by what knowledge?

RICHARD: Here is what the word ‘direct’ means in that context:

• ‘direct: existing or occurring without intermediaries or intervention; immediate, uninterrupted’. (Oxford Dictionary).

And here is what ‘intermediary’ can mean:

• ‘intermediary: mediatory; serving as a means of mediation or interaction’. (Oxford Dictionary).

To ask what knowledge is mediating, in an experience which is occurring without mediation, just does not make sense ... perhaps you may be inclined to rephrase your question?

RESPONDENT: By what software?

RICHARD: To ask what software is mediating, in an experience which is occurring without mediation, just does not make sense ... perhaps you may be inclined to rephrase your question?

RESPONDENT: Cameras record images but they know not that they record images, nor do they frame these images in words or ‘experiences’.

RICHARD: As the word ‘experience’ refers to a sentient creature participating personally in events or activities then what a camera is or is not capable of is irrelevant.

RESPONDENT: Seismic sensors record vibrations yet they know not they are recorders nor what the information they have recorded means.

RICHARD: As seismic sensors are not sentient creatures then what they are or are not capable of is irrelevant.

RESPONDENT: Tape recorders record sounds yet know not that they have heard a thing nor what it is that they have heard ... etc.

RICHARD: As tape recorders are not sentient creatures then what they are or are not capable of is irrelevant.

*

RESPONDENT: ... and now your words are to be carved in stone ...

RICHARD: No, that that passage of mine you obviously referred to is quite explicit: [Richard]: ‘Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words *then offer confirmation ... and affirmation* in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: It is quite explicit that one must agree with your words ...

RICHARD: No, what is quite explicit is that unless people verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual ... and, as I like my fellow human beings, I do not wish this fate upon anyone.

RESPONDENT: ... derived from your own not quite so pure consciousness experience ...

RICHARD: No, what I write concerning life here in this actual world is a report coming immediately from the direct experience of this moment in eternal time at this place in infinite space as a flesh and blood body only (sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto) ... there is this which is actually happening and the words form themselves in accord to the very thing being referred to as it is occurring.

RESPONDENT: ... or they would be wrong ...

RICHARD: No, they would be missing out on the actual.

RESPONDENT: ... and you right ...

RICHARD: As it makes no sense to say one must agree with another’s words, or be wrong and the other right, you might be inclined to rethink whatever it is you are wanting to convey?

RESPONDENT: ... and it will forever be that way ...

RICHARD: As it makes no sense to say one must agree with another’s words, or be wrong and the other right, it is beside whatever point it is you are wanting to convey whether it will forever be that way or not.

RESPONDENT: ... hence, your words are as if carved in stone.

RICHARD: As it makes no sense to say one must agree with another’s words, or be wrong and the other right, there is no such [quote] ‘hence’ [endquote]. Vis.:

• ‘hence: for this reason, therefore’. (Oxford Dictionary).

*

RESPONDENT: ... because you hold the trump card of what you like to call ‘direct experience’ ...

RICHARD: No, were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] they would have the entire deck of cards (to keep with your analogy).

RESPONDENT: ... which trumps everyone else’s so-called direct experience.

RICHARD: No, the PCE is global in its spread. Vis.:

[Richard]: ‘I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name). *The PCE occurs globally ... across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age*. However, it is usually interpreted according to cultural beliefs – created and reinforced by the persistence of identity – and devolves into an ASC ...’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: You are trying to have it both ways, all ways, as usual ...

RICHARD: No, were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] the PCE would be their lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words.

RESPONDENT: A PCE would be their lodestone or guiding light even though ‘it is usually interpreted according to cultural beliefs – created and reinforced by the persistence of identity’?

RICHARD: No, not when it [quote] ‘devolves into an ASC’ [endquote] as it would no longer be a PCE

*

RESPONDENT: I believe that is call dualism ...

RICHARD: No, that is not called dualism.

RESPONDENT: ... perhaps you should rename the obviously erroneous name for your millions of words, actualism ...

RICHARD: No, the name for my millions of words is not actualism – either erroneously or otherwise – as that is the name for the direct experience that matter is not merely passive.

RESPONDENT: Most people, except a few scientists, metaphysicians, or others who can exploit this particular bit of knowledge to make a living or need to boast of having some insight into matters esoteric, have no interest in the particular ‘experience’ that matter is not passive.

RICHARD: Whilst I appreciate you being so willing to give that off the cuff demonstration of the way your mind works (the ability to move from a belief through taking words as being the thing described to conjecturing both about people in general and in particular without so much as blinking an eye is quite a remarkable feat) would it be too much to ask just exactly what it is you are talking about?

Just to refresh your memory: you began by (correctly) saying ‘you ask people not to accept anything you say without verifying it for themselves’.

*

RICHARD: ... [the name for my millions of words is not actualism – either erroneously or otherwise – as that is the name for the direct experience that matter is not merely passive.]. Vis.:

[Richard]: ‘The word actualism refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. I chose the name rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of categories and labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: Spiritualism is materialistic ...

RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say:

• ‘spiritualism: 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 opp. to material things. (Oxford Dictionary).
• ‘materialistic: pertaining to, characterised by, or devoted to materialism [the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications]. (Oxford Dictionary).

Thus what you wrote (‘spiritualism is materialistic’) would look something like this when spelled-out in full:

• [example only]: ‘the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter is characterised by the doctrine that nothing exists except matter’ [end example].

Or:

• [example only]: ‘the doctrine that spirit is the only reality is characterised by the doctrine that nothing exists except matter’ [end example].

RESPONDENT: ... & vice-verse.

RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say

• ‘spiritualistic: of or pertaining to spiritualism’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Thus the converse of ‘spiritualism is materialistic’ (‘materialism is spiritualistic’) would look something like this when spelled-out in full:

• [example only]: ‘the doctrine that nothing exists except matter is of, or pertains to, the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter’ [end example].

Or:

• [example only]: ‘the doctrine that nothing exists except matter is of, or pertains to, the doctrine that spirit is the only reality’ [end example].

RESPONDENT: How you can separate the two is only for purposes of your own agenda ...

RICHARD: How you can conflate the two is beyond comprehension.

RESPONDENT: ... which would be the spread, contagion & recognition of your own point of view.

RICHARD: As I am not separating the two – spiritualism was distinct from materialism long before I was born – your speculation about my agenda is entirely without substance.

*

RESPONDENT: ... into dualism ...

RICHARD: No, that would be a misnomer for were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] the PCE would be their lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words.

RESPONDENT: ... or Richardism.

RICHARD: No, that too would be a misnomer for were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] the PCE would be their lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. Ain’t life grand!

RESPONDENT: And life is grand because one thinks one has won a debate?

RICHARD: No, life is grand because it is the PCE which would be their lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘I often use the phrase ‘ain’t life grand!’ (great, pre-eminent, principal; from Latin ‘grandis’: full-grown, abundant) but only where something very significant about life’s beneficence has been demonstrated ... for example: [quote] ‘... it is your own experience which is of vital importance, and not my descriptions and explanations (which can be either inadequate or misconstrued), as you then intimately know for yourself where to go and what to do. Ain’t life grand!’ [endquote]. I was exclaiming that life is grand in that it provided you with your own experience to be guided by rather than just my words ...’.

Apart from that ... since when has correcting another’s misapprehension/ misunderstanding/ misreading/ misconception regarding what one experiences, been a debate? And even if it were a debate (which it is not) how on earth can the other ever win such a thing?

Quite frankly, you are on a hiding to nowhere trying to make out that you know better than me just what my life is like here in this actual world.

CO-RESPONDENT (to Peter): You simply and continuously confuse facts with hypotheses (= explanations of facts). Just to make sure that we agree on that: 1. There are facts, or are there not? (I assume for a moment that you agree there are facts). Example for a fact: ‘People are getting angry’.

RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that people are getting angry)?

CO-RESPONDENT: To be precise, my statement ‘people are getting angry’ is actually not a fact but a generalisation based on observations of facts. A factual statement would be: ‘A friend of mine got angry.’

RICHARD: How do you know that is a fact (that a friend of yours got angry)?

CO-RESPONDENT: By means of sense data (hearing him shout, seeing him getting red in his face), which I then subsequently interpreted as signs of ‘anger’ and by means of communication (asking him of he was angry and he confirmed).

RICHARD: Have you ever got angry (at any time at all including childhood)?

CO-RESPONDENT: Yes, I have got angry in the past. I can recall various occasions in which I felt anger. Now how do I know anger? I know it by experience. I experienced ‘anger’.

RICHARD: So you know from first-hand experience that it is a fact you got angry; that friend of yours knows from first-hand experience it is a fact he got angry; each and every one of those people getting angry knows from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry?

CO-RESPONDENT: Now here it becomes tricky.

RICHARD: It is not tricky at all ...

RESPONDENT: Not to you, but to No. 89 it’s tricky (also used as a turn of phrase for something hard to explain) ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? There is nothing to explain (let alone there be something hard to do so with) as all I am doing is asking three more straightforward questions, in the context of three previously answered straightforward questions, so as to elicit affirmation that such a summary is cogent before proceeding.

RESPONDENT: ... in those terms it’s tricky to me also, others may not care less.

RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to present the three questions sequentially, then? Vis.:

1. So you know from first-hand experience that it is a fact you got angry?
2. [So] that friend of yours knows from first-hand experience it is a fact he got angry?
3. [So] each and every one of those people getting angry knows from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry?

Unless/until there is a reply to the affirmative there is no point in continuing.

RESPONDENT: My interpretation from the way you correspond (steamroll/ verbally attack) is that ...

RICHARD: If I might interject once more? The following example should be self-explanatory:

• [example only]: ‘My interpretation, from what I interpret to be the way you correspond (steamrolling/verbally attacking), is that ...’ [end example].

RESPONDENT: ... [is that] peace on earth is no where to be found in your correspondence.

RICHARD: Golly ... all I did was ask my co-respondent whether they have ever got angry and, as they replied in the affirmative, I further enquired as to whether they, therefore, know from first-hand experience that it is a fact they got angry. Vis.:

• [Richard to Co-Respondent]: ‘I asked you whether you have ever got angry and you replied in the affirmative: therefore you know from first-hand experience, do you not, that it is a fact you got angry?

How on earth you can interpret that as being steamrolling/ verbally attacking (let alone devoid of peace on earth) has got me beat ... and the same applies to my next enquiry:

• [Richard to Co-Respondent]: ‘You asked that friend of yours if he was angry and he replied in the affirmative: therefore he knows from first-hand experience, does he not, that it is a fact he got angry?

And my next after that:

• [Richard to Co-Respondent]: ‘And the same applies to each and every one of those people getting angry: provided they too report being angry they too know, do they not, from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry?

And what I wrote after that:

• [Richard to Co-Respondent]: ‘Perhaps if I were to put it this way (in case that still appears tricky to you): by the very fact of having got angry on various occasions you report first-hand experiences (you are not expounding theory or hypotheses); by the very fact of having got angry that friend of yours also reports a first-hand experience (he too is not expounding theory or hypotheses); by the very fact of getting angry each and every one of those people getting angry can report first-hand experiences as well (they too would not be expounding theory or hypotheses)?

If I might suggest? Instead of interpreting my words try taking them at face value ... as I say what I mean, and mean what I say, it will make comprehension a whole lot easier.

RESPONDENT: You are just another vain ego on your pedestal imagining your own subjective interpretation (and that is all it can ever be, verbal or otherwise) is the final arbiter.

RICHARD: Hmm ... I see you have boned up on subjectivism.

RESPONDENT: And the interpretations of your correspondents amount to jack shit.

RICHARD: Here are you own words from above (edited for the sake of clarity in communication):

• [Respondent]: ‘My interpretation (...) is that peace on earth is no where to be found in your correspondence’ [endquote].

And, as I am clearly asking for affirmation that both my summary, of three previously answered straightforward questions, and my follow-up elucidation of same was cogent, I will pass without further comment.

RESPONDENT: So what’s new?

RICHARD: In terms of your apparent predilection for having egg on your face ... nothing. Vis.:

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘This may be an apt moment to point out that, as there is not all that much difference between saving face and having egg on it, I have always found it pays to be well-informed before mounting a critique.
Moreover, the more that certain persons doctor and/or misrepresent my words and/or *read things into them which are simply not there*, and so forth, in order to find fault the more they demonstrate that what I do report/ describe/ explain is indeed actual/ factual and, thus, irrefutable (else why resort to it).
As such a sterling PR service for actualism is being provided ... gratis’. [emphasis added].