V – Selected Correspondence

Please note that Vineeto’s correspondence below was written by the actually free Vineeto

(List D refers to Richard’s List D and his Respondent Numbers)

Vineeto’s Selected Correspondence

Infinitude

December 1 2024

KUBA: Wow yes I saw this just a few minutes ago, I was getting ready and looking in the mirror. I saw that where this body exists time has no duration, there is such an incredible safety to this. Whereas where ‘I’ exist, across past, present and future it is so precarious. It was so clear experientially that nothing could ever go wrong where time has no duration and yet intellectually ‘I’ cannot quite wrap ‘my’ mind around why.

This is incredible because I could never quite grasp the eternity of time, space was somehow easier to comprehend and I previously glimpsed that the space of this universe is infinite, as in having no edges and no outside.

But to comprehend that this moment is eternal, that time has no duration means finding something that exists outside of the real world time span altogether. It does not fit in with any descriptions revolving around the past, present and future because it exists outside of that construct altogether. It is in itself the actuality ascertained apperceptively and it is beyond wonderful!

It reminds me of Geoffrey writing that ‘he’ saw the ‘known way’ as the dangerous and the unknown way as safe, ‘I’ am the danger, where ‘I’ exist precariously across past, present and future. This body exists so safely where time has no duration.

VINEETO: Hi Kuba,

This is truly wonderful, “beyond wonderful”.

The way feeling being ‘Vineeto’ eventually understood actual time was to compare it to space – an arena, like a large football field, where events happen but the field always remains. Actual time is the arena, events happen and ‘I’, being emotional/ instinctually engaged with the events, take them for time itself. Because ‘I’ do know that this body was born and will die one day, and ‘I’ desperately yearn for permanency, for immortality … ‘I’ am too important to ever not be here.

Yet once ‘I’ go in abeyance it is patently obvious that ‘I’ am not the centre around which everything revolves but that there is this wide open actuality, infinite and eternal and utterly still and real-world time has no existence. It is utterly safe and still.

KUBA: This is yet another reason why actualism is experiential because all words have been invented by feeling beings and therefore on their own they cannot quite convey actuality, they will simply go around in circles and never reveal the actual nature of this universe.

Eternal will be taken to mean a very long lapse of time or infinite a very long stretch of space and yet the actual experience of infinitude is outside of those descriptions.

All of those real world descriptions still infer some ultimate movement/distance to time/space. Whereas actual time and space exist within the stillness of infinitude.

Even writing the word “within” seems to screw it up. As in that stillness is the very infinite and eternal nature of this universe.

VINEETO: Yes, I had the same thought when I read it – the word “within” didn’t seem to be quite right and then your last sentence expressed it exactly. Only someone experiencing (or having experienced) actuality can say this with utter confidence. It is indeed experiential.

SCOUT: May I ask – what does this mean? It feels directly in opposition to the Richard quote you shared in Henry’s thread about moments being finite and constantly running out, which makes them infinitely precious and relays the urgency of not wasting time on suffering.

KUBA (to Scout): I’ll have a go at this in the meantime

“You have all the time in the universe” is referring specifically to one’s experience as a flesh and blood body only, one exists where time has no duration. It is impossible to ever ‘run out of time’ as time does not move in actuality.

Whereas as an identity ‘I’ am locked out of eternal time and instead ‘I’ exist precariously across the past, present and future. This is where ‘I’ am always managing, anticipating and running out of time.

As it is always this moment, this body does not move through time like the identity moves across the past, present and future. Rather this body exists securelyineternal time.

In eternal time there is no distance to be travelled between ‘then’ and ‘now’ as the immediate is the ultimate, whereas ‘I’ am forever shifting between these thin slivers of ‘real time’, desperately trying to hold, manage and anticipate each one.

I think I have just answered in part my own question – of why is it that where time has no duration there is such safety. Because all this painful psychological/psychic activity which comes from ‘managing time’ (whilst being forever locked out of actual time) ceases when one exists in eternal time. Everything is in its place already as one is not actually going anywhere or coming from somewhere.

VINEETO: Yes, one can never run out of time in actuality, it is always now, and I am always here and the universe being perfect and pure everything is already perfect.

To answer Scout’s question more in detail, here is a quote from Richard’s journal –

Richard: Yet time is as intimate as this body being here now at this moment. It is so intimate that I – as a body only – am not separate from it. Whereas ‘I’, as a human ‘being’, have separated ‘myself’ from eternal time by being an entity. To be an ontological‘being’ is to mistakenly take this body being here as containing an ‘I’, a psychological or psychic entity. To ‘be’is to take this moment of being alive personally … as being proof of ‘my’ subjective existence. ‘I’ am an illusion; if ‘I’ think and feel that ‘I’ do exist, then ‘I’ am outside of eternal time. ‘I’ am forever complaining that there is ‘not enough hours in the day’, or ‘I am always running out of time’, or ‘I am always catching up with time’, or ‘I am always behind time’. All this activity is considered ‘normal’, as it is the common experience of humankind. (Richard’s Journal, Chapter Sixteen).

Cheers Vineeto (Actualism, Actualvineeto, Kuba 2, 1 December 2024).

July 11 2025

ALEXANDER: This is off topic but I can’t find a post you made that I read recently where you were quoting Richard about infinitude. I always found the idea that you could experience infinitude perplexing but the quote you used made it much clearer. He was saying how everywhere is anywhere and anywhere is everywhere. And how stillness is the essential character of the universe. If you could share that again I would appreciate it.

VINEETO: Perhaps this is the correspondence you are looking for – in any case it gives a detailed explanation regarding infinitude –

Henry: As I watched closely the void evaporated leaving me simply where I was, in the dim midnight light of my house. I could see that my posturing was just a way of ‘building myself up’ to avoid the void, but here there was no need to leave – everything is already here.

VINEETO: Hi Henry,

This is an excellent report of what exquisite awareness-cum-attentiveness can do – the “void” that at first felt “threatening” transformed into “everything is already here”. This feeling of the “void” can happen in many nuances and situations – a ‘lull’, boredom, not knowing what is going to happen next, feeling foolish when an old pattern is seen as no longer applicable. This is the door to naiveté and can, as in your report, lead to the full realisation that nothing needs to change because “everything is already here”.

Perhaps you even experienced that you are already here, in this eternal moment of now, the only moment you can actually experience.

This excerpt of a correspondence might give you even more (experiential) insight about “everything is already here” –

CLAUDIU: [...]. Another related thing I’m not sure of is from the transcript of one of the audio taped dialogues.

On a phone now so no link handy. But Richard was saying how the nature of infinitude is that it is always here and now. Thus to be here now is to be everywhere at once. I’m not sure what to make of this ‘everywhere’. China for example is pretty far away so how can I be in China if I am here? It makes sense that on the way to china I would also be here. But not that everywhere at once includes china right now. This train of thought already seems silly as I’m typing it out but I’m left without an answer. Ah well! Something to reflect on next PCE. [...].

RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, You are, presumably, referring to this:

• [Richard]: ‘The actual experience of the infinitude of space and time is to be ‘everywhere all at once’, because all time and all space are right here ... and right now. There is nowhere else but here and no time but now. Anywhere is everywhere and everywhere is anywhere’. (Richard, Audio-Taped Dialogues, Infinitude is the Boundlessness).

It is better explained in ‘Richard’s Journal’. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘The purity of life emerges from the perfection that wells up constantly due to a vast stillness which is utterly immense in its scope and magnitude. This stillness of infinitude is that something which is precious. It is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent. This stillness happens as me. This stillness is my essential disposition, for it is the principle character, the intrinsic basis of everything. It is this universe at its genesis. It is not, as it might commonly be supposed, at the centre of everything ... there is no centre here. This stillness, which is everywhere all at once, is the be all and end all of life itself. I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being’. (pp. 179-180, ‘Richard’s Journal’, 2nd Edition: Article 25, ‘Peace-On-Earth Is Not The Be All And End All Of Life’; for context see: (Richard, Selected Writing, Actual Freedom, #precious).

Thus if you think of it, initially, as the vast stillness which is ‘everywhere all at once’ (as in, there is no centre to physical infinitude) then, when following a train of thought about the audio-taped dialogue regarding the actual experiencing of that vast stillness – where matter-as-energy is the source of everything apparent (i.e., matter-as-mass) – as being a flesh-and-blood body’s essential disposition it will make more sense. (Richard, List D, Claudiu2, 28 May 2013).

(Actualism, Actualvineeto, Henry2, 1 Jul 2025)

ALEXANDER: And I was wondering if infinitude was something you experienced as soon as you became actually free or if it happened when you became fully free?

VINEETO: From ‘Vineeto’s’ PCEs I knew that the universe is infinite in space and eternal in time. However, to experience this in its full extent I had to lose a few more boundaries in consciousness in order to experience the full extent of this infinite and eternal universe. I have written about it in “From Basic Freedom to Full Actual Freedom (3)”.

Cheers Vineeto (Actualism, Actualvineeto, Alexander, 11 July 2025).

April 13 2026

ANDREW: So, if I can frame this as just “having a chat”, instead of what it actually is, a public declaration, (this is searchable public post, and not a private conversation), if I could for the sake of what I am going to type, pretend mutually that it’s a “safe space” (which it is not) then, we can read what I am about to write as if tomorrow neither of us will remember it, because we usually have conversations to be heard and to connect, rather that leave with a dossier on “he said this, and thus… I am on his side, or the other side.”

Preamble out of the way, here is the central thought:

This iteration of the universe sucks. I really felt genuinely whole saying and thinking this today.

A few who know me from before the 2015 trip (which I skipped) will potentially remember how obsessed I am about the words “infinite” and “eternal”. A long time before Actualism, these were the two words that shaped my core ideas.

It dawned on me today that this is not the ultimate form of the universe. There is no ultimate form. (This is not a declaration, imagination is key here; we are just chatting). There is, by definition of “infinite” and “eternal” no ultimate form.

I felt whole just saying out loud, this universe (this manifestation of infinite and eternal existence) sucks.

VINEETO: Hi Andrew,

As you would know, actualism is experiential. When there is no identity, either in a PCE or when actual free, the universe is experienced as it factually is – infinite and eternal. It is ‘you’, the identity which creates and experiences the self-centric limitation and boundary to then fill this limited experience with imagination and beliefs/ concepts. As such your “by definition” statement is without substance – it is either philosophical or imaginary, or both.

ANDREW: I pushed back at Vineeto about the statement “what I can eat, and what could eat me”. I understand the reference, but found it absurd. I know I can kill and eat chickens. Fish. Give me a sharp stick, and I can have a go at rabbits, sheep, all sorts of creatures. I can kill them and eat them.

Yesterday, as I thought about this, I felt completely “whole” when I said out loud “that sucks”.

VINEETO: By now, you made it clear that your whole message is an emotional reaction to what I wrote to you six days ago –

Vineeto: The instinctual passions are also called animal instinctual passions – because all animals are endowed with instinctual programming/ passions to ensure their survival and species proliferation – even jellyfish operate by the principle of attraction/ repulsion, the most primitive instinctual behaviour. Jellyfish are not free from the instinctive/ instinctual programming or behaviour, they are not felicitous either, let alone harmless. They operate under the same principle as all instinctive/ instinctual programmed creatures – what can I eat, what can eat me? (Actualism, Actualvineeto, Andrew3, 7 Apr 2026).

I understand from your ‘non-declaration’ that when you say “I pushed back at Vineeto about the statement” means that you do not question the fact of how instinctive/ instinctual passions operate but that you strongly express your displeasure/ resentment about the fact that it is so. You are riling against the way the universe, in this case sentient beings, operate and function.

ANDREW: So, what is the point?

It’s the infinitude! The infinitude is what is fundamentally enjoyable. This particular express of the infinitude does suck. But, the infinitude itself, the fundamental and essential existence of existence, is essentially what Richard called “pure intent”. Something fundamentally beyond the fact that the “red in tooth and claw” “dog eat dog” “what can I eat and what can eat me” circle of “life” in this out folding of infinite possibilities, is enjoyable. It is able to be experienced perfectly. Even though this current universe requires me to eat other living things, the infinitude itself, is not “tied to” this way of existence. It is existence. It is infinite and eternal existence.

VINEETO: There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what infinitude means [infinitude: infinite extent, amount, duration, etc.; a boundless expanse; an unlimited time; (Oxford English Dictionary)] – there is also a fundamental misunderstanding of what pure intent means but that is a topic for another conversation. This short quote from Richard might explain infinitude (there is more in Richard’s selected correspondence on the topic) –

Respondent: (9) Can you tell me how far the space around us extends. Can that space end somewhere? If so what is beyond that?

Richard: Space is infinite, so it extends indefinitely. As it is infinite, it can not end somewhere. As it does not end, there is nothing beyond the universe. It is ‘I’ who, being a fiction, desires Immortality to perpetuate ‘my’ real existence for all of Eternity – thus secretly despising this body and this physical life – and it is ‘I’ who, being a central figure in ‘my’ scheme of things, proposes that there is an outside to this material universe. There is not. This universe has no edges ... which means that there is no centre either. With no centre to existence we are nowhere in particular. Being here, as an actuality, is to be anywhere at all, for infinity is everywhere all at once. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List A, No. 23, #No.01)

As you say at the beginning of this message “this iteration of the universe sucks”, what you consider infinitude is ‘your’ imagined “iteration” of infinitude, experienced and expressed through the lens of your identity and resentment. The actual physical infinitude, boundless in expanse and time, does not have “iterations”, where suddenly different laws of physics operate, imagined perhaps of the nature that you wouldn’t find objectionable. As such your statement “the infinitude is what is fundamentally enjoyable” is altogether a product of your imagination, an ‘infinitude’ which has enjoyable “iterations” and those which “suck”.

ANDREW: Now, so this post has some depth, rather than me (in typical fashion) fill in the gaps in my own head, assuming everyone else is in my head, let me spell it out;

I will die, this is the only life that I will ever have. This universe does suck, it suck a lot! But, the infinitude itself, is enjoyable.

DNA, Stars, the entire brutality of 4 kelvin being the temperature of the measurable universe, the absence of life in general, and the brutality of the life we know; it’s just one of an infinite potential ways the infinitude can exist.

We already know this. We can already imagine a far better way of existing. I could rattle of a handful of ways this universe could be better. I would have to limit myself to a handful.

What is the point? This brutal existence, with creatures eating each other, is just another of the infinite ways the universe can … universe.

VINEETO: To say “We already know this. We can already imagine a far better way of existing” in one breath is an oxymoron – just because you can imagine something does not mean it is factual. It does not mean you “know this” for a fact, else there was no need to imagine. You already have filled in “the gaps in my own head”, suggesting that the universe you experience is “just one of an infinite potential ways the infinitude can exist”. In other words, you find your idea of infinitude “enjoyable”, while you find the emotional/ passional reality which ‘you’, the identity, experiences, anything but enjoyable.

This quote might be informative –

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

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

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

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

Richard: An identity is never here – let alone ‘always here’ – as to be here is to be at this place in space (now at this moment in time). [Emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 54, 1 November 2003)

ANDREW: We get the opportunity to free ourselves in this moment, from the very simple and apparent fact this example of the universe, sucks.

VINEETO: Whenever you allow your emotions full reign, as in this post, intelligence doesn’t get much of a chance to operate. By starting with an imagined premise that there are “infinite potential ways” of ‘universe-iterations’ you just dive deeper into imagination and metaphysics.

There is indeed “the opportunity to free ourselves” for those who are interested – allow the current strong feelings of resentment subside by neither pushing them away (repressing) nor feeding them (expressing) until you get back to feeling good. Then intelligence will get a word in edgeways.

Here is what Richard has to say about dealing with resentment [resentment: an indignant sense of injury or insult received or perceived, a sense of grievance … (Oxford Dictionary)] – best read when feeling good –

Richard: Sure, there is a whole range of reasons for getting angry (which vary according to different situations and circumstances) ... maybe the following will be of assistance in regards righteous anger (aka indignation):

• [Richard]: ‘One of the major issues the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago attended to very early in the piece was the indignation – ‘anger excited by a sense of wrong, or by injustice, wickedness, or misconduct; righteous anger’ (Oxford Dictionary) – which had dogged him from almost as early as ‘he’ could remember (‘he’ was often moved to indignancy because of injustice/ unfairness whilst still in grade school for instance) as righteousness, being oh-so-readily justifiable, is such an insidious feeling’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 79, 9 February 2005).

• [Richard]: ‘... one of the most persistent forms of anger is indignation (or righteous anger/justifiable anger): it can be eradicated rather simply by the realisation that its raison d’être – a guardian against injustice, unjustness, unfairness, inequality (partiality, discrimination, and so on) – is as much a human invention as those concepts it defends ... justice, justness, fairness, equality (impartiality, indiscrimination, and so on).

I have touched upon this elsewhere: (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 66, 27 April 2005).

• [Richard]: ‘There is no ‘chaos’ and ‘order’ as a ‘sub-stratum of the universe’ ... they are but human inventions and do not exist in actuality. The same applies to fairness/unfairness, justice/injustice and any other human concepts that, whilst being useful for human-to-human interaction, are futility in action when applied to the universe. Male logic is as useless as female intuition when it comes to being free: the everyday reality of the ‘real-world’ is a veneer ‘I’ paste over the top of the pristine actual world by ‘my’ very being ... and ‘being’ is the savage/ tender instinctual passions (giving rise to feelings of malice/ love and sorrow/ compassion etc., with the resultant concepts of bad/ good and evil/ god and so on) which cripples intelligence by invariably producing dualistic concepts. ‘Tis all a fantasy ... feelings rule in the human world’. (Richard, List B, No. 33c, 3 August 2000).

Put simply: nature is neither fair nor just – a volcanic eruption (for just one instance) does not discriminate between who or what it obliterates/ destroys – and thus coupled with the basic resentment at having to be alive in the first place is the further grievance that life is inequitable/ iniquitous. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 76, 16 June 2005).

Cheers Vineeto (Actualism, Actualvineeto, Andrew4, 13 April 2026).

May 30 2026

KUBA: Also I think I have got the flavour now, of pure intent, it is exactly as those words describe – “a genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe”.

Although I don’t know if ‘I’ can experientially tell (maybe in rare glimpses but not in general) that second part – “that originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe”. As in ‘I’ can experientially detect a “genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity” which is not of ‘me’ in any kind of way, but ‘I’ am not experientially aware of the infinitude of the universe to clearly know that it is coming from there.

VINEETO: Hi Kuba,

When you experience “a genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity” generally ‘you’ are temporarily in abeyance, hence the vital importance of the golden clew (the intimate connection to pure intent via rememoration) when ‘I’ return. However, nowadays pure intent can also be experienced from within the human condition (i.e., as a feeling ‘being’) when pure intent is experienced via that purity personified (i.e. those fully free human beings), reported by ‘Peter’, ‘Vineeto’ and ‘Pamela’ as “a sweetness that was palpable” – plus how ‘he’/ ‘she’ was “literally being bathed in this sweetness”.

Richard: … if you were to think of pure intent as being both (simultaneously) the palpable life-force and that (experiential) “state of being connected” it might make more sense, to start off with, as the experience is of them being one-and-the-same-thing … to wit: an indistinguishable composite; as in, no such grammatically-induced subject-object connective dichotomy. (Richard, List D, James, 11 July 2015).

In regards to “the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe”, I remember feeling being ‘Vineeto’ only had a few PCEs in which “the vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe” were experienced but it was enough to make it indisputably clear to ‘her’ that there is no higher power operating inside or ‘outside’ the universe (it also made it obvious from the start that freedom is in ‘my’ hands alone – that there is no entity/ presence/ deity which will set me free.

You can probe into the vast stillness yourself – best when having a ‘self’-less experience – and explore going deeper into the vast stillness by appreciating in wondrous amazement the fullness of this stillness. Richard explained “the actual experience of the infinitude of space and time is to be ‘everywhere all at once” this way –

Claudiu: … But Richard was saying how the nature of infinitude is that it is always here and now. Thus to be here now is to be everywhere at once. I’m not sure what to make of this ‘everywhere’. …

Richard: (…)

It is better explained in ‘Richard’s Journal’. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘The purity of life emerges from the perfection that wells up constantly due to a vast stillness which is utterly immense in its scope and magnitude. This stillness of infinitude is that something which is precious. It is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent. This stillness happens as me. This stillness is my essential disposition, for it is the principle character, the intrinsic basis of everything. It is this universe at its genesis. It is not, as it might commonly be supposed, at the centre of everything ... there is no centre here. This stillness, which is everywhere all at once, is the be all and end all of life itself. I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being’. (pp. 179-180, ‘Richard’s Journal’, 2nd Edition: Article 25, ‘Peace-On-Earth Is Not The Be All And End All Of Life’; for context see: (Richard, Selected Writing, Actual Freedom).

Thus if you think of it, initially, as the vast stillness which is ‘everywhere all at once’ (as in, there is no centre to physical infinitude) then, when following a train of thought about the audio-taped dialogue regarding the actual experiencing of that vast stillness – where matter-as-energy is the source of everything apparent (i.e., matter-as-mass) – as being a flesh-and-blood body’s essential disposition it will make more sense.

Incidentally, Vineeto affirmed this experience of being, in essence, that vast stillness in another way, during the period in which she was becoming essentially the same as me (how I have been, on my own, all these years), inasmuch she was able to detect four distinct properties of that ‘everywhere all at once’ matter-as-energy source ... to wit: ageless, genderless, shapeless, and limitless.

Here, in part, is how she wrote about it in an email to another back in February 2011:

• [Vineeto ]: ‘(...) before Richard left for India I experienced this fine energy/ gentle energy surrounding Richard (the word energy used in its general purpose sense) as being bathed in a delicious, delicate and appreciative intimacy, and Pamela reported the same. (...). Presently, I apperceptively experience this fine energy/ gentle energy surrounding Richard on a daily basis. Often I experience it as ambrosial in nature, of a quality that fills me with extraordinary delight and well-being, in a way that it makes every cell in my body hum with fulfilment as if a missing chemical has suddenly been added to each cell’s physical structure. (...). Other times this immanence was of a more expediently potentiating nature that furthered my progress to become fully actually free and nowadays is advancing the progress in my aim to *be* Richard, undifferentiated except bodily. (...). One day when I experienced the fullness of the quality of this energy, which I labelled ‘experiencing the source’, I described four outstanding qualities – it is genderless, ageless, shapeless and vast in its depth ...’. (Sunday, February 20, 2011 5:24 PM).

Thus, whenever we interacted intensively over the months after writing that, she inexorably came ever-closer to experiencing herself as each of those four distinct properties, one after the other, until only the last one – being limitless as an actuality – remained unconsummated.

And that is what took place between 3:30 and 4:00 AM, on the 28th August, 2011, which I wrote to you about in February last year on this forum. (Richard, List D, Claudiu2, 28 May 2013).

As you can see, “the last one – being limitless as an actuality – remained unconsummated” until 28 August 2011.

KUBA: Either way there is this genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity which is not of ‘me’ and as such it is completely unpolluted by ‘me’.

And it’s weird because the experience of it is indeed like a benefaction or a blessing, so when ‘I’ am experiencing that flavour there is no question at all that it is a safe thing to pass the baton to.

VINEETO: What you call “to pass the baton to” is ‘you’ giving permission to let life live you by allowing the ‘doer’, the ‘controller,’ to go into abeyance and allow the naïve ‘beer’ to be ascendant (agreeing to being out-from-control).

Richard: To explain further: when out-from-control – out from being under control of the ‘controller’; that self-centred/ self-centric ‘doer’ (i.e., the ‘doer’ of deeds; the ‘actor’ of acts; the ‘speaker’ of words; the ‘thinker’ of thoughts; the ‘feeler’ of feelings) – the primary impetus of agency is the benevolence and benignity of pure intent being dynamically operative via the full concurrence of the ‘beer’ of those deeds, acts, words, thoughts, feelings (i.e., being the experiencing of same, as a state-of-being, as opposed to doing them).

And the words “primary impetus of agency” (‘impetus’ as in, “being dynamically operative”, that is) are used advisedly as, with the ‘doer’ abeyant and the ‘beer’ ascendant, the modus operandi of this mutual agency is indeterminable due to an incapacity to distinguish between the one and the other.

I have written about this quite extraordinary state of affairs before (albeit expressed as “unable to distinguish between ‘me’ doing it and it happening to ‘me’” due to those words of mine being read/ heard by a ‘doer’ and not a ‘beer’). (Richard, List D, Srinath 2, #out-from-control)

Richard: As to be having an EE (or an IE) is to be out-from-control then the critical criterion, which you have evidentially been looking for throughout this email exchange, is the ascendant beer being in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent being dynamically operative (whereby the actualism method segues into the actualism process) and pulling one evermore unto one’s destiny. (Richard, List D, Srinath 2, 13 August 2016).

Cheers Vineeto (Actualvineeto, Kuba14, 30 May 2026a).

Selected Correspondence Index	Actual Vineeto’s Correspondence Index
Actualism Homepage	Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity