Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Consciousness?

RESPONDENT: What is
consciousness?
RICHARD: Here is how I have explained it before:
• [Respondent]: ‘I should like to tell you, that the moment you are speaking about
consciousness (...)’.
• [Richard]: ‘(...) When I am speaking about consciousness I am referring to the condition of a flesh and blood body being
conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun meaning a state or condition) as in being alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and
sensible, not insensible (comatose), and when I am talking about pure consciousness I am referring to the condition of a flesh and
blood body being conscious sans identity in toto – both ego-self (the thinker) and the feeling-self (the feeler) – which means
that perception is bare perception (unmediated perception) ... the term ‘apperceptive awareness’ is but another way of
referring to this simple perception (aka naďve perception) and being thus direct it is non-separative (not separated from the
physical).
Thus there is nothing metaphysical about being apperceptive ... indeed, if anything the
normal way of perception – a mediated, or indirect and thus separative, perception – being once-removed from the physical, is
arguably already well on the way to being beyond time and space and form’. (August 31 2003).
What is there about that description you are having difficulty in comprehending?
RESPONDENT: Is
consciousness material?
RICHARD: As consciousness is the condition of the flesh and blood body being
conscious I will leave that one for you to work out for yourself as well.
RESPONDENT: If yes is matter that forms consciousness
conscious of itself?
RICHARD: If by this you mean the various elements which constitute a flesh and
blood body ... then no.
RESPONDENT: Is consciousness in the body, or the body
in consciousness?
RICHARD: Neither ... consciousness is the condition of the flesh and blood body
being conscious.
RESPONDENT: If you mix together the elements from whom
the body is made in the right analogy, will consciousness take place?
RICHARD: Ha ... the book ‘Frankenstein’ was a fictional novel. 

RESPONDENT: You are speaking
about PCE’s. What is consciousness?
RICHARD: It is exactly the same as when you asked me exactly the same question
– ‘what is consciousness’ – on another occasion. Vis.:
• [Respondent]: ‘What is consciousness?
• [Richard]: ‘Here is how I have explained it before:
• [Respondent]: ‘I should like to tell you, that the moment you are speaking about
consciousness (...)’.
• [Richard]: ‘(...) When I am speaking about consciousness I am referring to the condition of a flesh and blood body being
conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun meaning a state or condition) as in being alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and
sensible, not insensible (comatose) ...’. (August 31 2003).
What is there about that description you are having difficulty in comprehending? (September 22 2003).
What is it about that description you are still having difficulty in comprehending?
RESPONDENT: You are explaining me the manifestation of
consciousness.
RICHARD: As consciousness is the condition of a flesh and blood body being
conscious – which is to be alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose) – in what way is that
an explanation of ‘the manifestation of consciousness’ and not an explanation of what consciousness is?
RESPONDENT: I had asked you what is consciousness per
se, in itself.
RICHARD: As consciousness – the condition of a flesh and blood body being
conscious – is indistinguishable from what a body is (when it is alive, awake, and sensible) then to suggest that consciousness
is something other than that, that which is indeed what it is per se, in itself, just does not make sense.
What is the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious, then, if not what
consciousness is per se, in itself? 
*
RESPONDENT: When I asked you what is consciousness, you
answered to me, to be conscious, no comatose.
RICHARD: This is what I actually wrote:
• [Richard]: ‘the word ‘consciousness’ refers to the state or condition of a
flesh and blood body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) and to be conscious is
to be alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose). (August 31 2003)
RESPONDENT: I am asking you is your consciousness
different from mine, in which way?
RICHARD: The condition of this flesh and blood body being conscious is marked by
a total absence of any identity whatsoever.
RESPONDENT: I am not comatose.
RICHARD: Obviously not.
RESPONDENT: If you answer me that your consciousness is
pure consciousness, then you differentiate between states of consciousness.
RICHARD: The word ‘pure’ in the phrase a pure consciousness experience (PCE)
is synonymic with ‘unadulterated’, ‘uncontaminated’, ‘unpolluted’, and so on, thus a PCE is the condition of a flesh
and blood body being conscious sans an adulterant, a contaminant, a pollutant, and so on ... specifically an identity (both ‘I’
as ego and ‘me’ as soul).
RESPONDENT: Are you conscious now?
RICHARD: Yes.
RESPONDENT: Conscious of what?
RICHARD: Primarily, of the infinitude this physical universe actually is ... as
this flesh and blood body only (sans identity in toto) I am proprioceptively conscious of being just here, right now and, as such,
the other somatic perceptions currently in operation – tactile, olfactive, visual, audile – are direct: this skin is savouring
the touch, the caress, of the mid-winter ambience; these nostrils are rejoicing in the abundance of aromas and scents drifting
fragrantly all about; these retinas are delighting in the profusion of colour and texture and form; these eardrums are revelling
in the cadence of tones as their resonance and timbre fills the air.
Further to that this mind, other than the sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being
alive as this flesh and blood body, is ambling along in neutral as all the while there is the apperceptive wonder that this
marvellous paradise actually exists in all its vast array.
RESPONDENT: How you know you are not in an altered
state of consciousness?
RICHARD: Because of eleven years of experiencing, night and day, what an altered
state of consciousness (ASC) really is ... as a living reality.
RESPONDENT: Because the one who is in an altered state
of consciousness, does not have any means to know it.
RICHARD: As I am not in an ASC your (borrowed) wisdom has no application. 

RESPONDENT: What is ‘consciousness’
without thought?
RICHARD: Apperception. Which is the mind’s ability to perceive itself. Thus I
am the sense organs: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this
thinking is me. Whereas ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a
window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’
skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone
and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world ... the world as-it-is. ‘I’ am condemned to live
everlastingly in the land of sorrow and malice, forever lamenting ‘my’ fate. ‘I’ am eternally separate from the benignity
of the actual, where the utter absence of any angst and anger at all is infinitely more rewarding than the deepest, the most
profound, beauty there is in the real world.
RESPONDENT: What exactly is ‘self-less’ awareness,
which apparently can exist without thought?
RICHARD: A total and utter absence – through extinction – of any ‘I’ or
‘me’ (a psychological or psychic entity) having a parasitical residence within this body results in a self-less awareness. Not
‘I’ being aware ... awareness happening of its own accord.
RESPONDENT: What is consciousness for that matter?
RICHARD: Being alive and awake, basically, as opposed to being dead or asleep. A
neuro-biological process of being aware of being here on this planet now.
RESPONDENT: Without precisely defining the terms
thought, consciousness, awareness, etc ... such statements as above are incomprehensible. Oh yes, like fine poetry, you can read
into it your own favourite meaning. But what exactly does Richard mean to say?
RICHARD: One can become happy and harmless by ridding oneself of malice and
sorrow. To do so one has to plunge into the source of one’s ‘being’, which is generated by the instinctual passions
generated from within the brain-stem ... in the Substantia Nigra (although there is scientific dispute about this as there is
about almost all matters scientific). The elimination of ‘being’ itself engenders an astonishing freedom the likes of which
have never been before in human history.
RESPONDENT: So, you have a lump of tissue in your head,
you claim as one of its attributes something you call ‘pure’ consciousness (as opposed to what?).
RICHARD: Unmediated consciousness as opposed to mediated consciousness.
RESPONDENT: What about it makes it ‘pure’?
RICHARD: An utter absence of any alien ontological entities whatsoever.
RESPONDENT: This consciousness can apparently perceive
(whatever that means), and even do so without something called thought (whatever that means).
RICHARD: Yeah, ain’t life grand!
RESPONDENT: What is the neuro-physiological or
neuro-psychological state in which the brain is ‘conscious’ without thought?
RICHARD: A marvellous state ... though I call it a condition so as to not
confuse it with altered states of consciousness.
RESPONDENT: What facts about the brain and mental
states of the brain render this plausible?
RICHARD: What type of facts are you looking for? A problem-free life kind of
fact ... or PET scan, NMR scan and CAT scan type of facts? I have been examined by two accredited psychiatrists who have
ascertained that I fulfil the criteria for determining depersonalisation, derealisation, alexithymia and anhedonia. One of the
psychiatrists – who has been observing me since 1994 – has proposed that this brain is secreting abnormal amounts of Dopamine
in the post-synaptic receptors ... such as what happens when someone takes Ecstasy, Cocaine, Heroin or Amphetamines. A
psychologist who has followed the course of my condition for about four years has often been desirous of me undergoing scan-type
tests ... but I decline to be a guinea-pig for people who are not going to do anything about their own malice and sorrow
regardless of the outcome of the tests. It is more than a matter of idle curiosity or academic scholarship. It is all about
peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body.
There is also plenty of personal accounts of PCE’s to examine. 
Actual
Freedom Homepage
Freedom from the Human
Condition – Happy and Harmless
Design,
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity
|