Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions

RICHARD: All sentient beings, to a greater or lesser extent, are connected via a psychic web ... a network of energies or currents that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’. Feeling threatened or intimidated can result from the obvious cues – the offering of physical violence and/or verbal violence – or from the less obvious ... ‘vibe’ violence (to use a ‘60’s term) and/or psychic violence. Similarly, feeling accepted can occur via the same signals or intimations. Power trips – coercion or manipulation of any kind – whether for ‘good’ or ‘bad’ purposes, are all psychic at root ... the psychic currents are the most effective power plays for they are the most insidious (charisma, for example).

Generally speaking, the word psychic or psychical in virtually any context refers to anything of or pertaining to the energies of the psyche or being itself – the soul, the spirit or the self parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body – any non-material, incorporeal, other-worldly, unworldly, unearthly, non-human or inhuman currents or emanations. Any energy flow which is ethereal, ephemeral, intangible, cryptic, inexplicable, enigmatic, unfathomable and which is instinctual, intuitive, prescient, telekinetic, telepathic or clairvoyant ... anything extrasensory.

It can refer to anything occult, arcane, esoteric or ghostly – anything to do with witchcraft, sorcery or wizardry (be it either white magic or black magic) – everything supernatural, supernormal, preternatural, preter-normal, transcendental or numinous ... anything religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical. The metaphysical includes the hallowed, consecrated, sanctified, deified, beatific, holy, divine, heavenly and sacred – including anything saintly, cherubic or angelic – and the sinful, black-hearted, damnable, sinister, fiendish, infernal, diabolical ... anything demonic, devilish, hellish, satanic and evil.

Terror and respect – awe and dread – are the ultimate rule in the human world.

ALAN: We have also discussed the ‘vibes’, which some people may have and whether it is possible for another to sense them. I presume you consider these to fall within the realm of psychic powers?

RICHARD: No, emotional ‘vibes’ are fairly obvious as in you can feel another’s fear, anger, love and so on when in physical proximity. Whereas psychic ‘currents’ span distance instantly. This is where the power play really happens between sentient beings ... vibe violence and verbal abuse and physical aggression are the outcome of psychic power-tripping and not the source. The same applies to the ‘good’ side ... loving vibes and affectionate words and physical caresses are control measures – power-play – and originate in the psyche as psychic currents.

ALAN: While not 100% convinced, my view is that these do not exist, other than in the form of subtle body language.

RICHARD: Body language plays a part, yes, and tone of voice and so on ... but there is an undercurrent as is evidenced when sitting in silence with another whilst not facing each other. There is an ‘atmosphere’ as is expressed in ‘the air was so thick that you could cut it with a knife’.

ALAN: It would be easy to prove, or disprove, by setting up an experiment with one person blindfolded, not able to hear and not able to smell (as pheromones could be involved) and introducing others radiating love, anger etc into their presence. I am not aware of any research which has been done on ‘vibes’ – are you?

RICHARD: I have not looked for any research as it has been so obvious from personal experience and in discussing with others. For example: returning from a walk abroad one is in good spirits ... yet as one goes to open the front door to one’s house a feeling of unease, of disquietude may be felt. Upon entering the supposed safety and sanctity of one’s own house one finds one’s husband and/or wife and/or mother and/or father and/or brother and/or sister fuming and ready and willing to give one a serve for either deserved or undeserved wrongs that one may or may not have committed. One felt it through a closed door.

RESPONDENT: My husband recently returned from a weeklong retreat given by an American, who is an Eastern type spiritual teacher. One of the main premises of this man’s teaching is that he ‘transmits’ Being-force that then ‘templates’ on those who receive the transmission and catalyzes the recipient’s own realization of Being. My husband (...) asked me what I thought the phenomenon of experiencing ‘transmission’ really was. I said, I honestly don’t know for sure, possibly a form of hypnosis, group hypnosis, self-hypnosis. I wasn’t sure.

Anyone have any ideas of the how we humans actually produce the astoundingly real when you have them spiritual phenomena?

VINEETO: The idea of the psychic world had captivated me for years and the mystical-psychic playground was a big attraction on the spiritual path at the time. Consequently, when I took up actualism, I was immensely curious to really find out as much as there is to know about psychic phenomena, psychic powers and the ‘rules’ of the psychic world. I was fascinated to learn that Richard not only said he lived without feelings and emotions but also admitted to not having any psychic powers like telepathy, ‘energy’, psychic influence or mystical secret knowledge.

In actualism there is no such thing as psychic transmission of energy because to become free of the Human Condition is to become free of the psychic web itself and this can only be done by oneself and for oneself. Such perfect freedom.

RESPONDENT: While we’re on this topic – I recently read where you (Richard) regard having an ‘I’ as socially reprehensible – as in blameworthy. I’m curious as to just what constitutes being ‘socially reprehensible’ for you ... a mere thought or ‘temptation’ – or more concrete action. You have even gone to the point of using the term ‘guilty at conception’. I wonder what guilt could possibly consist of if not in action? To take this to the extreme – would an aborted foetus be ‘guilty’? Or possibly ‘socially reprehensible’? Is one guilty just because they have the potential to do harm?

RICHARD: First of all a normal person does not have an ‘I’ (or have a ‘me’) as they are an ‘I’ (or are a ‘me’) ... and ‘I’ exist inside the body only because all human beings are genetically endowed at conception with a package of instinctual survival passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) which gives rise to emotions (such as malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) and this emotional and passional package is ‘me’ (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’).

And irregardless of whether ‘I’, who am the emotional and passional impulses, persuade the body to physically act or not ‘I’ involuntarily transmit emotional and passional vibes (to use a 60’s term) into the human world in particular and the animal world in general: therefore ‘I’ am not harmless even when ‘I’ refrain from inducing the body into physical action ... which is why pacifism (non-violence) is not a viable solution.

Children also involuntarily transmit emotional and passional vibes (thus they are not born innocent as certain peoples maintain) ... and a foetus would too (albeit in a very rudimentary form).

There is nothing that can stop other sentient beings picking up these vibes and/or picking up what are sometimes called psychic currents. This is because there is an interconnectedness between all the emotional and passional entities – all emotional and passional entities are connected via a psychic web – a network of invisible vibes and currents. This interconnectedness in action is a powerful force – colloquially called ‘energy’ or ‘energies’ – wherein one entity can either seek power over another entity or seek communion with another entity by affective and/or psychic influence.

For example, these interconnecting ‘energies’ can be experienced in a group high, a community spirit, a mass hysteria, a communion meeting, a mob riot, a political rally and so on ... it is well known that charismatic leaders ride to power on such ‘energies’.

Put simply: it is not violence per se (as in physical force/restraint) or the potential for violence which is the problem: it is ‘me’ as the emotions and passions fuelling the violence, or fuelling the potential for violence, who begets all the misery and mayhem. Violence itself (as in physical force/restraint) is essential lest the bully-boys and feisty-femmes would rule the world. And if all 6.0 billion peoples were to become happy and harmless overnight (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation) it would still be essential lest the predator animals should have the human animal for its next meal. Yet even if all the predator animals were to cease being predatory (à la the ‘lion shall lay down with child’ ancient wisdom) it would still be essential if the crops in the field be not stripped bare by the insect world. And so on and so on: taking medication – even traditional medicine – does violence to the whole host of bacterial life; so too does drinking water as one drop contains at least 1,000-10,000 tiny shrimp-like and crab-like creatures; even breathing does violence as a breath of air contains untold numbers of microscopic life-forms.

*

RESPONDENT: I’m never quite sure how to take the word, ‘actually’ when you use it – whether it’s sometimes the normal usage – or whether it’s always the ‘actualism’ usage. For example, I am tempted to say that even when one is empathetic and works to resolve another’s suffering – then one actually cared about their suffering – about the other person – again admittedly, via one’s own suffering, yet there is caring taking place – but it’s not actual caring (in the ‘actualism’ usage).

RICHARD: When empathy works to resolve another’s suffering an empathetic caring occurs – this is not under dispute – but it is occurring as a feeling activity ... in the form of affective vibes and/or psychic currents. However, it is only occurring in the real world – there is no empathetic caring here in this actual world – which is a salutary point few comprehend.

For instance, some ‘born-again’ people bailed me up in the street some time ago in order to save me from their devil (only they called it ‘The Devil’ so as to make their fantasy universal): as the conversation waxed they grew more and more intense, their words became loving words, their eyes became radiant eyes, their faces became soft and suffused with a glowing shade of pink, and if my companion had been with me at the time she could have verified, as she has on other occasions, that feeling vibes and psychic currents were swirling and eddying all about.

Eventually they gave up as they could not ‘reach’ me (aka establish a feeling connection).

RESPONDENT: Exactly what is the ‘collective psyche’ ...

RICHARD: No. 25, are you really trying to tell me that in all those years you were subscribed to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list – interacting with many co-respondents as well as with me (which also means reading emails you did not respond to) – you never once read anything about a psychic web/ a psychic network connecting all feeling beings?

For instance:

• [Richard to Respondent]: ‘(...) there is an interconnectedness between all the emotional and passional entities – all emotional and passional entities are connected via a psychic web – a network of invisible vibes and currents.

This interconnectedness in action is a powerful force – colloquially called ‘energy’ or ‘energies’ – wherein one entity can either seek power over another entity or seek communion with another entity by affective and/or psychic influence.

For example, these interconnecting ‘energies’ can be experienced in a group high, a community spirit, a mass hysteria, a communion meeting, a mob riot, a political rally and so on ... it is well known that charismatic leaders ride to power on such ‘energies’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27b, 17 August 2002).

You must surely have read those words as I wrote them to you (on the 17th of August 2002).

Be that as it may: the following is well worth quoting. Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Some thoughts on what it means to be ‘spiritual’. On the one hand, being ‘spiritual’ can mean believing in a god, truth (by whatever name), the afterlife, etc. i.e. – belief in the supernatural. On the other hand, being ‘spiritual’ can refer to an attitude or outlook on life which values such things as family, community and community service, a feeling of unity with the universe and all peoples and beings. It is this second sense of the word ‘spiritual’ that everyone inevitably shares to some extent. As a feeling being ‘I’ cannot help but attempt to unite my ‘self’ with other ‘selves’ for security and fortification. It is ‘my’ very nature to do so. [...snip...]. Not too long ago, I attended a single Humanist meeting. I was surprised to find out that on the one hand, spiritual beliefs were shunned as primitive belief, yet ‘spirituality’ (as in community, connection with all beings, etc) was quite important.

So, even in a room where I presume were mostly atheists, spirituality was accepted and sacrosanct. As I see it, this is the reason why it is a important insight that virtually everyone is ‘spiritual’ at least in their desire to connect with others, the truth, the universe, or whatever. It is the ‘real’ existence of the psychic web which makes the feeling of unity possible and the search for this unity in whatever form the essence of the ‘spiritual’.

• [Richard]: ‘There are times where I am particularly pleased when something comes into my mail-box ... this is one of them’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27h, 30 April 2004).

Can you see the words [quote] ‘it is the ‘real’ existence of the psychic web which makes ...’. [endquote] which you wrote there (on the 30th of April 2004)?

I know I can. (Richard, List D, No. 25, 12 February 2012).

RESPONDENT: Nothing you have ever said shows how ‘psychic currents’ can affect people at a longer distance where there can be no sensory clues.

RICHARD: The very fact you say ‘no sensory clues’ (aka cues) indicates that what I have written over the years – and all archived on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website – has been beyond your ken as I have indeed shown how ‘psychic currents’ can affect people who are not physically proximate.

First and foremost, the phrase ‘psychic currents’ (and ‘psychic energies’ as well) is a term which evolved throughout the many discussions between my second wife and myself so as to readily refer to an elementary aspect of animalistic interconnectedness (that we variously referred to as either the ‘psychic web’ or the ‘psychic network’) which had become more and more evident in the latter stages of that 11-year period of my life wherein the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body back then was living that/ being that which, up until the 30th October 1992, was held to be the summum bonum of human experience/ of human history.

The following is the specific sense in which we used the adjective psychic and/or psychical (and its adverbial form, psychically). Viz.:

• psychic (adj.): of or pertaining to the human mind or psyche. ~ (Oxford Dictionary).

• psychic (adj.): of, relating to, affecting, or influenced by the human mind or psyche. ~ (American Heritage Dictionary).

And the following is both what the word psyche refers to and its etymological derivation. Viz.:

• psyche (n.): soul, spirit, mind, fr. Latin psyche; Greek psukhe, ‘breath, soul, life’; rel. to psukhein, ‘breathe, blow’. ~ (Oxford Concise Dictionary of English Etymology).

And here is what that word ‘soul’, in the above definition, is referring to:

• soul (n.): the seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature. ~ (Oxford Dictionary).

I chose to use the word soul when I first went public because, as it refers to the innermost affective entity of both those of either a secular or spiritual persuasion (the essential difference being the materialists maintain this emotional/ passional/ intuitive self – aka ‘spirit’ – dies with the body whereas the spiritualists maintain it does not), my presentation of actualism as the third alternative to either materialism or spiritualism speaks to the self-same ‘being’, at root, with differentiation only a connotative matter dependent upon each particular ‘being’s (occasionally changeable) partiality, or leaning, in that regard.

(Incidentally, the reason why the Greek word psukhe (‘breath, soul, life’), from which the Latin word psyche is derived, and the related Greek word psukhein (‘breathe, blow’) refer to breath and to breathing is because, for ancient peoples and/or primitive peoples life began when a newly-born infant drew its first breath and ended with that body’s last breath).

Also, here is what the word affective refers to:

• affective (see affect): of or pertaining to the affections [the emotions, the feelings; esp. feelings as opp. to reason; the passions]; emotional. ~ (Oxford Dictionary).

• affect: (psychol.) an emotion, a mood; (affectless: without emotion, incapable of feeling emotion). ~ (Oxford Dictionary).

• affective: relating to, arising from, or influencing feelings or emotions: emotional [of or relating to emotion]; expressing emotion. ~ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

• affective: (psychology) influenced by or resulting from the emotions; concerned with or arousing feelings [susceptibility to emotional response; sensibilities] or emotions; emotional. ~ (American Heritage Dictionary).

• affective: characterised by emotion; affectional, emotive. ~ (WordNet 2.0).

And here is an explanation about the word vibes:

• [Richard]: ‘The colloquialism ‘vibes’ does not refer to body-language but to the affective feelings and gained currency in the ‘sixties (as in ‘I can feel your pain’ or ‘I can feel your anger’ and so on) – even the military are well aware of this as I had it impressed upon me, prior to going to war in my youth, that fear is contagious and can spread like wildfire if unchecked – and another example is being in the presence of an enlightened being (known as ‘Darshan’ in the Indian tradition) so as to be bathed in the overwhelming love and compassion such a being radiates.
Yet behind the feelings lie the psychic energies/ currents which emanate from being itself’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 41, 3 December 2003, Vibes).

For instance:

• vibe: (slang) transmit in the form of vibrations; affect in a specified way by means of vibrations. ~ (Oxford Dictionary).

• vibe: (slang) an emotional quality believed to be detectable in a person or thing by intuition; vibration; often plural; related word: intuition. ~ (Wordsmyth Dictionary).

• vibe: a distinctive usually emotional atmosphere capable of being sensed – usually used in plural. ~ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

Lastly, I am using the word current (from the Latin currere, ‘to run’) in its ‘something which flows’ Oxford Dictionary meaning purely as a matter of convenience and am in no way suggesting thereby that ‘psychic currents’ (or even ‘psychic energies’) are electrical or electromagnetic in nature ... being affective they are non-physical/ non-material and, thus, have no existence in actuality.

Viz.:

#11018
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:26 am
Subject: Re: [...] about two types of Actual Freedom

• [Richard to No. 2]: [...snip...]. 1. As he did not know of any scientific evidence for what [No. 25] could understand as ‘vibes’ (affective feelings) being passed between people, Richard asked whether he (No. 25) would mind venturing an hypothesis or theory as to how those ‘vibes’ (emotions/ passions) could have occurred in a purely physical manner; Richard added that he was happy to rescind his description of the ‘affective’ nature of [No. 25]’s current writings if he (No. 25) could provide a convincing case as to how those extraordinary events he (No. 25) could understand as ‘vibes’ (those affective feelings labelled emotions/ passions) can occur in the physical world.
2. As there is no scientific evidence – evidence as to what physical mechanism (as in what scientists know about physics) would or could support both their existence and function – for those ‘vibes’ (the affective feelings labelled emotions/ passions which are common to all feeling-beings) then one of the two primary characteristics of a PCE (the abeyance of the entire affective faculty) is not contradicted by science. [...snip...].
6. Now, when Richard writes/ talks to a fellow human being, to a person who is living the illusion that they really are a feeling-being/ really do have affections, he pays lip-service to their illusion – else communication be rendered quite ridiculous – and writes/ talks in a way appropriate to their illusion/ to illusion itself (which to them is their reality/ is reality itself) so as to enable/ facilitate them see that their reality/ reality itself (the real-world of the psyche) is but their illusion/ is illusion itself. [...snip...].
9. As it is simply not rational to discount the ‘paranormal’ phenomena of other feeling-beings (who were indeed intuitively sensitive to its epiphenomenal presence in their psyche), solely because there is no scientific evidence for its existence and function, Richard provided a practical demonstration to [No. 25] (by paraphrasing [No. 25]’s own words) how pointless it was to discount ‘paranormal’ phenomena via an appeal to scientific evidence because ‘affective’ phenomena – which for him (No. 25) is evidently part of his reality/ reality itself (his illusion/ illusion itself) – can be similarly discounted because there is no scientific evidence for the existence and function of ‘affective’ phenomena either.

*

As I said at the beginning, it is all quite simple, in actuality.

1. Feeling-beings have no existence in actuality.

2. Emotions and passions have no existence in actuality.

3. Affective vibes have no existence in actuality.

4. Psychic currents have no existence in actuality.

5. The ‘psychic network’ has no existence in actuality.

6. The psyche itself has no existence in actuality.

7. All of the above is an illusion.

8. Hence no scientific evidence for any of the above.

9. Paying lip-service to illusions is just that (lip-service).

Regards, Richard. (Message 11018, Richard, List D, No. 2, 14 February 2012)

Now, if you have followed all of the above (and if you have not you will be well-advised to re-read it again and again until you do) – including all of the dictionary definitions/ my explanations as to what those key-words refer to – then you will comprehend both ... (a) why ‘being’ to ‘being’ psychic currents/ psychic energies are instantaneous in their effect ... and (b) why physical distance is irrelevant to their propagation/ their reception.

(Hint: as they have no existence in actuality there is no such thing as a physical distance for them to travel).

As I said before (in #14641, Richard, List D, No. 25b, 19 June 2013a & #14651 Richard, List D, No. 25b, 30 June 2013): this is all new to human history/ human knowledge.

RESPONDENT: The following P.S. note also doesn’t throw any light on the source of what is known, in actualism terminology, as psychic currents.

RICHARD: It does indeed throw some light on the source – the psychic force itself in fact – of what is known, in actualism terminology, as psychic currents (aka psychic energies).

Perhaps if I were to put that postscript of mine back into the context you have snipped-off it might become more clear. Viz.:

#14681
From richard.actualfreedom
Date: Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:56pm
Subject: Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative

• [Respondent No. 25]: [...]. Based on the fact that you stated that my suspicion that the paranormal component of the *actualist term* ‘psychic currents’ may be explained by other causal factors (other than the paranormal), I suppose that I have not yet understood what you really mean by the term. As a result, you state that I would indeed be wasting your time, mine, Peter’s, Vineeto’s, et al., if I do not begin reading with both eyes what your words actually say on this subject. I have attempted to ‘read with both eyes’ what you have stated on this subject, but I will endeavor to try again.
• [Richard]: As you have snipped-off those very words of mine which (as you rightly observe) I have ‘stated on this subject’, in order to type-out your above reply, I am only too happy to re-insert them in sequence so as to assist you in your endeavour to try again.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ... unless you start reading with both eyes what my words on this very subject actually say.

Here they are again:

• [Richard]: ‘On your first visit you frittered away the first 3 days/ first 4 evenings going on and on, over and again, about all that made-up stuff – endeavouring to extract private and personal information out of me (that which has not been made public knowledge due to me being circumspect when it comes to talking about others) – so as to allay all the verbal/ written doubts which had been affectively/ psychically augmented/ reinforced in you, via the affective vibe/ psychic current network connecting all feeling-beings ... but to no avail as verbal/ written refutations/ rebuttals cannot compete, in an *undiscerning listener/ reader*, unless they are similarly augmented/ reinforced affectively/ psychically by the speaker/ writer’.
Put differently, as I have no affective vibes/ psychic currents to over-ride those which were implanted affectively/ psychically into you (in conjunction with the verbal/ written doubts conveyed to you vocally/ literarily), such as to convince you [viscerally, non-cognitively] they came from a [quote] ‘reliable source’ (see #123xx), all you are going to get from me, in-person, is words only ... the same-same as appear here on your computer screen. [square-bracketed words added].

Incidentally, I am using that (added) word viscerally in the following sense.

Viz.:

• visceral (adj.): relating to deep inward feelings rather than to the intellect; [e.g.]: ‘the voters’ visceral fear of change’; (adv): viscerally. ~ (Oxford Dictionary).

• [Respondent No. 25]: At this point, I do not want to waste anyone’s time, so I will take your suggestion to ‘cut my losses.’ I will not be on the flight out this evening.
• [Richard]: A wise decision, [No. 25], given that this totally new way of being conscious (a completely original consciousness) can only have a global spread, in our life-times, if it be implemented via happy and harmless (affective) ‘vibes’ and felicitous and innocuous (psychic) ‘currents’, eh?
Viz.:

05 January 2010:
• [Co-Respondent]: ... the way is open for the consciousness mutation to be implemented on a global level.
• [Richard]: Indeed so ... via happy and harmless (affective) ‘vibes’ and felicitous and innocuous (psychic) ‘currents’.
(I have oft-times said that is where the real power-play occurs). (Long Awaited Announcement).

Ain’t life grand!

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

P.S.: The following will throw some light on the source (the psychic force itself) of what is known, in actualism terminology, as psychic currents. Viz.:

• [Co-Respondent]: These analogies [‘a whirlpool or an eddy of water or air’] are illustrative but not clarifying.
• [Richard]: I will put it this way, then: do you comprehend that an identity’s anger, for instance, can be affectively felt by another identity from a near-distance and, as such, can have an effect (and, quite often, the desired effect) despite the intervening physical space ... and that the same applies to love (for another instance) or virtually any other strongly-felt feeling?
If so, then by experientially going deeper into those affective feelings it can be found that they swirl around, as it were, forming a whirlpool or an eddy and thus creating a centre (a vortex) which is the very stuff of the swirling as the one is not distinct from the other ... ‘you’ are ‘your’ feelings and ‘your’ feelings are ‘you’.
It is that vortex – which is essentially ‘you’ at the core of ‘your’ being – that is the (affective) force known as a psychic force ... it is not for nothing that I say psychic currents are the most effective power plays. (Message #14681, Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 74e, 10 August 2005).

(Richard, List D, No. 25b, 30 June 2013).

RESPONDENT: Experientially going deeper into those affective feelings don’t show how they can act at a distance. It just shows how they are acting out in a person’s head, not at a distance.

RICHARD: How about you were to have said ‘a person’s psyche’ – which, as I have oft-times said before (e.g. #14807), is the human psyche – instead of that (physical) word ‘head’ that you used? And, again for emphasis, the following is both what the word psyche refers to and its etymological derivation. Viz.:

• psyche (n.): soul, spirit, mind, fr. Latin psyche; Greek psukhe, ‘breath, soul, life’; rel. to psukhein, ‘breathe, blow’. ~ (Oxford Concise Dictionary of English Etymology).

And, also again for emphasis, here is what that word ‘soul’ (aka ‘spirit’) – be it of either a secular or a spiritual connotation – is referring to:

• soul (n.): the seat of the emotions or sentiments; the emotional part of human nature. ~ (Oxford Dictionary).

I will leave you with a quote of mine, written and posted over a decade ago (on August the 17th 2002), as a concise reminder of just what this discussion is all about. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘... there is an interconnectedness between all the emotional and passional entities – all emotional and passional entities are connected via a psychic web – a network of invisible vibes and currents.
This interconnectedness in action is a powerful force – colloquially called ‘energy’ or ‘energies’ – wherein one entity can either seek power over another entity or seek communion with another entity by affective and/or psychic influence’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27b, 17 August 2002, Vibes).

Regards, Richard.

RESPONDENT: And you can eliminate malice and sorrow all you want, but it does not change the fact that life is interconnected.

RICHARD: As for ‘the fact that life is interconnected’ ... well that is the problem, is it not? Humans are all connected via a psychic web – a network of invisible ‘vibes’ – that leads to incredible power-trips between competing members of society. A person may be nice to your face, for example, but the intuitive feeling is that they hate your guts ... this is the interconnectedness in action. It is a powerful force – an ‘energy’ – that seeks to control by psychic manipulation and leads to the most horrific consequences ... as has been the sorry demonstration of history. The elimination of the psychic entity – ‘I’ the self as an ego and a soul – is the ending of interconnectedness. One is then, for the first time, a free individual beholden to no one ... and free from both being controlled and being a controller. In other words, one is happy and harmless ... by having extirpated malice and sorrow completely. The enlightened people merely transcend malice and sorrow – they sit above it in a cocoon of love and compassion – and never eliminate them. And so the wars go on ... and on and on.

VINEETO: As you say you quite enjoy the practice of ‘grooving on ecstatic vibes’ then clearly actualism is not for you because, as the very term expressively states, actualism is all about what is actual whereas vibes, being feelings, are not actual.

RESPONDENT: Sorry I’m not hip to your lingo ...

RICHARD: It is quite commonplace ‘lingo’ actually. Viz.:

• ecstatic: of the nature of, characterized by, or producing ecstasy [the state of being distracted by some emotion; a frenzy, a stupor; (now the usual sense) an exalted state of feeling]. (Oxford Dictionary).
• ecstatic: of, relating to, or marked by ecstasy [a state of being beyond reason and self-control; a state of overwhelming emotion; trance, especially: a mystic or prophetic trance]. (Merriam Webster Dictionary).
• ecstatic: feeling or characterized by ecstasy [an overwhelming feeling of great happiness or joyful excitement; an emotional or religious frenzy or trancelike state]. (Compact Oxford English Dictionary).
• ecstatic: showing or feeling great pleasure or delight; completely dominated by an intense emotion; (plural) somebody who undergoes spells of intense emotion. (Encarta® World English Dictionary).
• ecstatic: enraptured, rapturous, rhapsodic; feeling great rapture or delight. (WordNet® 2.0).
• ecstatic: marked by or expressing ecstasy [a state of emotion so intense that one is carried beyond rational thought and self-control]. (American Heritage® Dictionary).

And:

• vibes: a distinctive emotional atmosphere; sensed intuitively; synonym: vibration. (WordNet® 2.0).
• vibe: (slang) an emotional quality believed to be detectable in a person or thing by intuition; vibration; often plural; related word: intuition. (Wordsmyth Dictionary).
• vibe: (slang) a vibration; often used in the plural; short for vibration [a distinctive emotional aura or atmosphere regarded as being instinctively sensed or experienced; often used in the plural]. (American Heritage® Dictionary).
• vibes: (slang) the feeling you get from being in a particular place or situation or from being with a particular person. (Cambridge Dictionary of American English).
• vibe: (informal) the atmosphere or aura of a person or place as communicated to and felt by others. (Compact Oxford English Dictionary).
• vibes: (slang) atmosphere or feeling: a particular kind of atmosphere, feeling, or ambience; plural: vibes. (Encarta® World English Dictionary).
• vibe: mood or atmosphere; feeling; (plural) signals or messages sent out to someone. (Macquarie Dictionary).
• vibe: (slang) transmit in the form of vibrations [characteristic signals or impressions about a person or thing, regarded as communicable to others; (an) atmosphere: also, a mental (esp. occult) influence]; affect in a specified way by means of vibrations. (Oxford Dictionary).
• vibe: a characteristic emanation, aura, or spirit that infuses or vitalizes someone or something and that can be instinctively sensed or experienced – often used in plural; a distinctive usually emotional atmosphere capable of being sensed – usually used in plural. (Merriam Webster Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: (...) I was not referring to ‘Psychic Vibes’ or vibes as ‘feelings’, sorry.

RICHARD: That being the case then, for the sake of clarity in communication, it would be handy to use some other expression than ‘grooving on ecstatic vibes’ as that phraseology does not convey what you explain it to mean in this e-mail (more on this below).

RESPONDENT: As you continue to put (unintended) meaning into my words you will continue to misunderstand me, making effective communication impossible. This has happened countless times now.

RICHARD: As I also took your ‘grooving on ecstatic vibes’ as to be conveying that you were intensely enjoying (as in ‘grooving’) exalted (as in ‘ecstatic’) feelings (as in ‘vibes’) I checked with a wide range of dictionaries to see why I too had taken it that way ... given the (further above) definitions it is a quite understandable take and thus your remonstrations (above) are most definitely uncalled for.

Here is what you say, in this e-mail, that you were conveying (from the parenthesised snip above):

• [Respondent]: ‘What I am referring to is the utter delight in experiencing the universe as it actually is’.

And the following is how the universe ‘actually is’ (also from the parenthesised snip) according to you:

• [Respondent]: ‘... as I recall, the whole universe is vibrating. Atoms are themselves harmonic oscillators, same for molecules, etc. Molecules are constantly vibrating in your body, and effective chemical signalling between neurons would be impossible with out vibration (diatomic, etc.). So, when you are sensately experiencing the universe, this input can only come in the form of vibration (sensation, sight, sound, even taste and smell)’.

Thus ‘grooving on ecstatic vibes’ is your way of conveying that you are utterly delighting (as in ‘grooving’) in experiencing exalted (as in ‘ecstatic’) vibrations (as in ‘vibes’) of the nature proposed by theoretical physicists ... which, being but a mathematical model of the universe, cannot be experienced sensately.

Here is what you go on to say:

• [Respondent]: ‘If you insist that vibrations are feelings and you have no part of them I wonder in what realm your experience happens’.

Going by what your co-respondent has written it is most certainly not the realm where the following occurs (from the web site you provided a link to previously):

• [Question]: What are vibrations? How do they affect us?
• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: Everything in the Universe is vibrating. This is no theory, it is a fact. The entire Universe is nothing but vibrations. The good vibrations make us happy, the unwholesome vibrations cause misery. Vipassana will help you come out of effect of bad vibrations – the vibrations caused by a mind full of craving and aversion. When the mind is perfectly balanced, the vibrations become good. And these good or bad vibrations you generate start influencing the atmosphere all around you. Vipassana helps you generate vibrations of purity, compassion and goodwill – beneficial for yourself and all others’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/question.html#vibrations).

As compassion is unambiguously a passion it would appear that the [quote] ‘good vibrations’ [endquote] of the entire universe are affective in character ... as is evidenced by the following:

• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘... at the end of a 10-day Vipassana course, you are taught how to send metta, the vibrations of love and compassion. He or she [the deceased person being referred to in the question being answered] will be happy. Wherever you are, your metta vibrations will touch this person’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/question.html#emotion).

Thus the [quote] ‘metta vibrations’ [endquote] are indeed the ‘good vibrations’ being referred to and, furthermore, like all such vibes, are both transmittable and receivable. Viz.:

• [Question]: ‘Are there Dhamma forces that support us as we develop on the Path?
• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘Certainly – visible as well as invisible ones. (...) If we develop love, compassion and goodwill, we will get tuned up with all beings, visible or invisible, that have these positive vibrations, and we will start getting support from them. It is like tuning a radio to receive waves of a certain meter band from a distant broadcasting station. Similarly, we tune ourselves to vibrations of the type we generate; and so we receive the benefit of those vibrations’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/question.html#dhammaforces).

And: (...)

• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘This is how mara (which is nothing but the manifestation of your own impurities) gets into the centre; you start fighting with each other and generating bad vibrations of anger and hatred and this spoils the entire atmosphere of the centre. You have come to help develop good vibrations of love and compassion and peace, and in the name of Dhamma you have started harming the centre and also harming yourselves. Be careful to see that you do not fight with each other; you must live together in peace and harmony’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/dgedays.html).

And:

• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘Vipassana wants you to observe the natural vibration that you have – in the form of sensations – vibrations when you become angry, or when you are full of passion, or fear, or hatred, so that you can come out of them’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/question.html#mantras).

Needless is it to add there there are no such vibrations, be they either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ vibrations, here in the actual world (the world of the senses)?

I have provided those detailed quotes because the problem with the peoples who discard the Christian/Judaic/Islamic god is they do not realise that by turning to the eastern spiritual philosophy they have effectively jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. Eastern spirituality is religion ... merely in a different form to what people in the west have been raised to believe in. Eastern spiritual philosophy sounds so convincing to the western mind which is desperately looking for answers. The Christian/Judaic/Islamic conditioning actually sets up the situation for a thinking person to be susceptible to the esoteric doctrines of the east. It is sobering to realise that the intelligentsia of the west are eagerly following the east down the slippery slope of striving to attain to a self-seeking divine immortality ... to the detriment of life on earth. At the end of the line there is always a god/goddess/truth, of some description, lurking in disguise wreaking its havoc with its ‘ancient wisdom’.

Have you ever been to India to see for yourself the results of what they claim are tens of thousands of years of devotional spiritual living?

I did, back when there was a full suite of affections in this body, and it was hideous.

*

RESPONDENT: Richard, I would like to bring your attention to the following: 

[quote] ‘Of course I could go with her to the protest rally for it is not against any principle that I hold. I readily concede that demonstrations can ‘get things done’. That is not my point ... my point is the unwholesome atmosphere inhering at these rallies that reinforces the identity. The insalubrious ambience is always thick with ‘vibes’ that are palpable and factually unpleasant; be they going under the name of hate or love. Apparently she gets a ‘high’ from this, as further discussion with her elucidates the actual reason – the secretive motivation – for her attraction to these events. She admits, rather shame-facedly, that the ‘high’ makes her feel ‘alive’; by which she indicates that her daily life is dull, boring. She finds it thrilling to be at a confrontation; the adrenaline ‘buzz’ of a perceived imminent danger is irresistible to an addict. She does not appreciate the implied suggestion that she might very well be a ‘junkie’ herself, however.’ [from www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedwriting/sw-feelings.htm].

So, if no ‘vibes’ exist in the actual world, then how can they be ‘factually unpleasant’ to you?

RICHARD: If you could point out where I said that the insalubrious vibes inhering at protest rallies are factually unpleasant to me I would be only too happy to answer your query.

RESPONDENT: I cannot, I only assumed you were referring to yourself. Who exactly were those vibes at that place factually unpleasant for?

RICHARD: Specifically ... the person whom I was discussing the matter with; generally ... anyone and everyone who attended that rally.

RESPONDENT: This is an excellent topic, and one I constantly drilled ‘Spiritual Teachers’ on. The answers I always received were unsatisfactory, explaining to me that I need be a victim of circumstances. (ex. bad vibrations here, watch out! ...

RICHARD: Ha ... as I understood it, from previous correspondence, you were not taught Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) by quacks. Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘I think Vineeto (and perhaps Richard) do not know what they are talking about when they speak of Vipassana (...) Maybe you guys just know Vipassana as taught by quacks’. (‘Misunderstanding of Vipassana by Actualists’; Thursday 28/10/2004 AEST).

Vibes – both the good and the bad vibrations – are central to Mr. Satya Goenka’s teaching ... for just one instance (from the web site you provided a link to previously):

• [Question]: What are vibrations? How do they affect us?
• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: Everything in the Universe is vibrating. This is no theory, it is a fact. The entire Universe is nothing but vibrations. The good vibrations make us happy, the unwholesome vibrations cause misery. Vipassana will help you come out of effect of bad vibrations – the vibrations caused by a mind full of craving and aversion. When the mind is perfectly balanced, the vibrations become good. And these good or bad vibrations you generate start influencing the atmosphere all around you. Vipassana helps you generate vibrations of purity, compassion and goodwill – beneficial for yourself and all others’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/question.html#vibrations).

RESPONDENT: ... (ex. bad vibrations here, watch out! (quite silly, like a haunted house)).

RICHARD: Oh? Am I to take it, then, that you sat for hours ‘doing’ the Vipassana Bhavana Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west completely dismissive of that which is central to it?

RESPONDENT: Your writings make much more sense to me, but this time I can only make guesses on how you find these ‘vibes’ to be factually unpleasant.

RICHARD: Both by observation of, and by asking, my fellow human (plus, of course, an intellectual memory of once being the same). Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) Apparently she gets a ‘high’ from this, as *further discussion with her* elucidates the actual reason – the secretive motivation – for her attraction to these events. She admits, rather shame-facedly, that the ‘high’ makes her feel ‘alive’; by which she indicates that her daily life is dull, boring. She finds it thrilling to be at a confrontation; the adrenaline ‘buzz’ of a perceived imminent danger is irresistible to an addict’. [emphasis added]. (Richard’s Journal, pg 181, Article Twenty-Five).

All vibes are factually unpleasant – both the good and the bad vibrations – inasmuch they reinforce the identity and thus perpetuate all the misery and mayhem, which epitomises the human condition, forever and a day ... and it cannot get much more unpleasant than that.

RESPONDENT: I’m aware that it [telepathy] is not a sympathetic subject here, but I still would very much care to talk about it. I had a few experiences with telepathy, and I just can’t deny them and what happened.

RICHARD: Nobody is asking you to deny them ... on the contrary:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Please, could you bring some examples of siddhis that came and went to/ from your experience?
• [Richard]: ‘Sure ... telepathy, telemetry and psychometry are the ones that immediately spring to mind’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 20, 13 June 2001).

Nor will you be asked, for that matter, to deny ASC’s/ CCE’s, OBE’s/ NDE’s, egos/ souls, gods/ goddesses, imagination/ intuition, emotions/ passions, and so on, and so forth, either as such events/ entities/ experiences are all too real to be invalidated by mere denial.

RESPONDENT: There was one time when I’ve dreamt about something very, very precise that actually happened in the future, and few other incidents, that just can’t be random, like synchronous me-calling-to-a-friend that haven’t been in touch with for some time, and he-calling-to-me. I’m a very critical person when it comes to these issues and spirituality.

So how does Actual Freedom explains these phenomenon?

RICHARD: As the words ‘Actual Freedom’ are a shortened way of saying ‘an actual freedom from the human condition’ then what you are actually asking is how do I explain intuitive/ psychic phenomena.

RESPONDENT: It says that thought originates in the brain ...

RICHARD: As that is something I wrote then, presumably, you are referring to this:

• [Richard]: ‘... if I sit here writing this e-mail and the bladder indicates that it is full and there is the thought ‘shall I finish writing this paragraph and then go and relieve the pressure or shall I go now’ that thought is originating in this human brain and in this human skull (not in some abstract ‘thought sphere’ which exists outside of this brain). Viz.: [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘The thoughts do not come from here [pointing to his head], they are coming from outside’. [endquote]. This now reads like a nonsense statement. (...) The brain inside this skull does not pick-up thoughts from outside that exist in some abstract ‘thought sphere’ ... it originates its own thoughts as occasioned by the current situation and circumstances’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27, 11 January 2002a).

RESPONDENT: ... [It says that thought originates in the brain], and that everyone creates them ...

RICHARD: As that is something I wrote then, presumably, you are referring to this:

• [Richard]: ‘.... thoughts originate in a particular human brain in a particular human skull at a particular time at a particular place’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27, 11 January 2002a).

RESPONDENT: ... [It says that thought originates in the brain, and that everyone creates them], so how can telepathy be explained?

RICHARD: Quite simply: telepathy is a function of the affective faculty’s intuitive/ psychic facility.

RESPONDENT: Yes, I’m aware that for actual freedom one doesn’t need telepathy.

RICHARD: It is not a case of it being needed or not ... intuitive/ psychic phenomena have no existence in this actual world (the world of the senses).

RESPONDENT: I’m struggling to glue the telepathy experienced and the Actual Freedom view of things that says thoughts are created within us ...

RICHARD: It has nothing to do with any [quote] ‘view of things’ [endquote] ... it is an observable fact that a particular human brain in a particular human skull at a particular time at a particular place originates thought.

RESPONDENT: ... [I’m struggling to glue the telepathy experienced and the Actual Freedom view of things that says thoughts are created within us], and so thought processes can’t be interconnected in between humanity.

RICHARD: Perhaps the following exchange (posted four days before this e-mail of yours) will throw some light upon the matter:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Can one feel other’s feelings?
• [Richard]: ‘Only if one is a feeling being.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Thoughts?
• [Richard]: ‘Only if one is a feeling being with developed psychic abilities.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘From a distance?
• [Richard]: ‘In the first instance ... yes, from a near-distance; in the latter instance ... yes, from a far-distance’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 115, 10 June 2006).

RESPONDENT: Confused, please help.

RICHARD: By way of explanation I will first draw your attention to this quote (also posted four days before this e-mail of yours):

• [Richard]: ‘... there is an interconnectedness between all the emotional and passional entities – all emotional and passional entities are connected via a psychic web – a network of invisible vibes and currents. This interconnectedness in action is a powerful force – colloquially called ‘energy’ or ‘energies’ – wherein one entity can either seek power over another entity or seek communion with another entity by affective and/or psychic influence’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27b, vibes).

Put briefly: a feeling being (an emotional/ passional entity within a body) imbues thought with affectivity and those affectively-tinged/ affectively-charged thoughts are involuntarily broadcast, as psychic currents/ energies, into the real world (the world of the psyche) ... thus another feeling being does not pick-up thoughts as such but, rather, intuitively feels what those psychic currents/ energies convey.

Hence the inaccuracy inherent to psychic phenomena ... but that is another topic.

RESPONDENT: This really explains a lot. It makes it clear that you deal strictly with the meaning of the words someone types out and do not get involved in the ‘guessing games’ that may occur in trying to figure out intention. What can be perceived or made out to be ‘willful and malicious ignorance’ (on your part) of a person’s intent, or further, an inability to understand the difference between speaker meaning and word meaning (on your part) is actually a practical decision to only concern yourself with word meaning, since at least that can typically be ‘nailed down’ in a factual manner, unlike speaker intent.

RICHARD: G’day No. 25, It is not a ‘decision’ on my part (be it ‘practical’ or otherwise) to not ‘read the intention’ and/or not ‘read between the lines’ and/or not ‘see the picture not the pixels’ and/or not (whatever description) but of being, of course, incapable of what Claudiu so eloquently described as [quote] ‘automatically ascrib[ing] the feeling-tones that the person intended to convey’ [endquote] in his very pertinent post of Jun 12, 2013. (Message 13996)

It is well-worth a re-read ... for instance:

• [Claudiu]: ‘... not all humans now have that feeling-being doing the talking for them (so to speak). Yet so intrinsic to writing is the generation of feeling-tones over it/ the reading-into it of affect coming from the other side that of course we continue to do this even when communicating with someone who no longer is a feeling-being (e.g. Richard)’. (#13996)

Of course, Claudiu has yet to extend his thesis so as to account for what he described as [quote] ‘an amorphous blob of whatever (for lack of a better word)’ [endquote] in his earlier but certainly related post of Jun 7, 2013. (Message 13787)

Viz.:

• [Claudiu]: ‘It actually does seem like a really simple thing that did get massively overblown. It seems like there’s an amorphous blob of whatever (for lack of a better word) surrounding this whole situation, such that whenever it comes up, us feeling-beings get massively worked up over it’. (#13787).

He is, of course, referring to the psychic currents – which the (further above) ‘generation of feeling-tones over it/ the reading-into it of affect coming from the other side’ automatically attunes to – whereby all feeling-beings are interconnected (in the human psyche) via an ethereal network.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: It is not just the emotional/ passional ‘vibes’ which constitute the ethereal network but, more insidiously, the psychic currents – a network of intuitive/ affective energies that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’ (aka ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’) – which stem from ‘being’ itself (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) regardless of conscious intent. There are some peoples, of course, who cultivate these psychic currents such that they do become conscious intent (as in psychic powers). [...].
• [Richard]: The colloquialism ‘vibes’ does not refer to body-language but to the affective feelings and gained currency in the ‘sixties (as in ‘I can feel your pain’ or ‘I can feel your anger’ and so on) – even the military are well aware of this as I had it impressed upon me, prior to going to war in my youth, that fear is contagious and can spread like wildfire if unchecked – and another example is being in the presence of an enlightened being (known as ‘Darshan’ in the Indian tradition) so as to be bathed in the overwhelming love and compassion such a being radiates.
Yet behind the feelings lie the psychic energies/ currents which emanate from being itself. [...].
• [Richard]: It has no existence outside of the psyche – which includes the imaginative/ intuitive faculty of course – and whilst the psyche is in situ the psychic currents reign supreme ... albeit behind the scenes, as it were, and most often overlooked/ unnoticed.
Hence my observation regarding them being the most effective power plays. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 41, #Vibes).

*

• [Richard]: Humans are all connected via a psychic web – a network of invisible ‘vibes’ – that leads to incredible power-trips between competing members of society. A person may be nice to your face, for example, but the intuitive feeling is that they hate your guts ... this is the interconnectedness in action.

It is a powerful force – an ‘energy’ – that seeks to control by psychic manipulation and leads to the most horrific consequences ... as has been the sorry demonstration of history. The elimination of the psychic entity – ‘I’ the self as an ego and a soul – is the ending of interconnectedness. One is then, for the first time, a free individual beholden to no one ... and free from both being controlled and being a controller. In other words, one is happy and harmless ... by having extirpated malice and sorrow completely.

The enlightened people merely transcend malice and sorrow – they sit above it in a cocoon of love and compassion – and never eliminate them. And so the wars go on ... and on and on. (Richard, List A, 16, #Vibes).

*

• [Richard]: No, emotional ‘vibes’ are fairly obvious as in you can feel another’s fear, anger, love and so on when in physical proximity. Whereas psychic ‘currents’ span distance instantly.
This is where the power play really happens between sentient beings ... vibe violence and verbal abuse and physical aggression are the outcome of psychic power-tripping and not the source.
The same applies to the ‘good’ side ... loving vibes and affectionate words and physical caresses are control measures – power-play – and originate in the psyche as psychic currents.
• [Alan]: While not 100% convinced, my view is that these do not exist, other than in the form of subtle body language.
• [Richard]: Body language plays a part, yes, and tone of voice and so on ... but there is an undercurrent as is evidenced when sitting in silence with another whilst not facing each other. There is an ‘atmosphere’ as is expressed in ‘the air was so thick that you could cut it with a knife’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Alan-a, #Vibes).

*

• [Richard]: All sentient beings, to a greater or lesser extent, are connected via a psychic web ... a network of energies or currents that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’. Feeling threatened or intimidated can result from the obvious cues – the offering of physical violence and/or verbal violence – or from the less obvious ... ‘vibe’ violence (to use a ‘60’s term) and/or psychic violence.
Similarly, feeling accepted can occur via the same signals or intimations. Power trips – coercion or manipulation of any kind – whether for ‘good’ or ‘bad’ purposes, are all psychic at root ... the psychic currents are the most effective power plays for they are the most insidious (charisma, for example).
Generally speaking, the word psychic or psychical in virtually any context refers to anything of or pertaining to the energies of the psyche or being itself – the soul, the spirit or the self parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body – any non-material, incorporeal, other-worldly, unworldly, unearthly, non-human or inhuman currents or emanations. Any energy flow which is ethereal, ephemeral, intangible, cryptic, inexplicable, enigmatic, unfathomable and which is instinctual, intuitive prescient, telekinetic, telepathic or clairvoyant ... anything extrasensory.
It can refer to anything occult, arcane, esoteric or ghostly – anything to do with witchcraft, sorcery or wizardry (be it either white magic or black magic) – everything supernatural, super-normal, preternatural, preternormal, transcendental or numinous ... anything religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical. The metaphysical includes the hallowed, consecrated, sanctified, deified, beatific, holy, divine, heavenly and sacred – including anything saintly, cherubic or angelic – and the sinful, black-hearted, damnable, sinister, fiendish, infernal, diabolical ... anything demonic, devilish, hellish, satanic and evil.
Terror and respect – awe and dread – are the ultimate rule in the human world. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 12c, #Energies).

*

• [Richard]: When empathy works to resolve another’s suffering an empathetic caring occurs – this is not under dispute – but it is occurring as a feeling activity ... in the form of affective vibes and/or psychic currents. However, it is only occurring in the real world – there is no empathetic caring here in this actual world – which is a salutary point few comprehend. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27d, #Vibes).

*

• [Richard]: Speaking personally, I have no connectedness – actual or otherwise – as there is no ‘me’ to be connected. Connection is affective ... which is why ‘vibes’ can be picked up by another similarly afflicted. I cannot receive – or transmit – any ‘vibes’ at all ... hence people rarely ever offer physical harm.
Verbal abuse very rarely happens (in face to face interactions) and when it does it falls flat on the floor for want of a receiver.
The other then stops doing it in puzzlement ... to be followed by a growing delight in finding a fellow human being free of any of the nonsense that epitomises the normal human interaction called ‘relationship’. (Richard, List B, 12b, #Vibes).

Ain’t life grand!

RESPONDENT to No. 4: [No. 4], I agree the appearance of what has occurred can seem quite bizarre, although I think you are going too far to suggest that Richard is accusing you of putting out malicious psychic currents (at least in a paranormal way) when you had simply misunderstood who [No. 3] was referring to.

RICHARD: G’day no. 25, You have packed four points worthy of comment into one sentence.

1. Richard is not ‘accusing’ anyone, in regards to what is known as ‘psychic currents’ in actualism terminology, because ... (a) they are only detectable by feeling-beings ... and (b) to do so would similarly be as fraught with problems as me trying to divine intent by regular means (trying to ‘read’ between the lines, seeing ‘the picture not the pixels’, and etcetera).

2. Please stop conflating what is called ‘psychic currents’, in actualism terminology, with all that paranormal psychism such as attracts the attention of peoples of the ‘James Randi Organisation’ ilk as we have already had that conversation, on more than a few occasions, in the past.

3. Any affective vibes and/or psychic currents [No. 4] may or may not be *automatically* generating (in the current email exchanges) would carry an overarching quality of earnestness – as previously indicated with those ‘no matter how earnestly presented’ words of mine to [No. 15] on Jun 24, 2013 (in #14400, Richard, List D, No. 15, 24 June 2013) – coupled with, *perhaps*, a flavour of righteous indignation and/or traces of institutionalised victimisation (as in ‘underdog’, ‘being treated badly from on high’, ‘sticking up for the downtrodden’ and so forth) as the very name ‘<snip Irish last name>’, in that ‘[No. 4] <snip Irish last name>’ moniker, bespeaks the Irish/ English divide of yore.

4. To say ‘when you had simply misunderstood ...’ is to give the benefit-of-doubt to a person with a (demonstrable) track-record of, literally, hundreds of instances of presenting made-up stuff – be it either mindlessly regurgitating (i.e. not even any basic fact-checking for veracity) made-up stuff from an un-named but (demonstrably) deceitful/ lying person or made-up stuff personally formulated but so earnestly believed to be true that it by-passes internal fact-checking – and an openly declared (in #136xx) agenda to [quote] ‘warn a few friends’ [endquote] that they are [quote] ‘part of a deluded cult’ [end quote].

RESPONDENT to No. 4: And yes, I do understand that you may still not think it was clear to whom [No. 3] was referring. I am not at all sure that [No. 3] has been entirely clear in that regard.

Anyway, I think Richard’s reference to psychic currents, the psychic web, etc in this context was directed at answering my inquiry... not necessarily directly related to what is occurring with you and your understanding then or now to whom [No. 3] was referring.

RICHARD: It most certainly pertained to both your inquiry and what is currently occurring.

RESPONDENT to No. 4: I am still trying to put all of the pieces in place, as I do not personally believe in a ‘psychic web’ ...

RICHARD: Please, whatever else you do, do not ‘believe’ (be it either ‘personally’ or otherwise) in a ‘psychic web’ ... else you will remain oblivious to the real network of affective vibes and psychic currents *automatically* generated, within the human psyche, by virtue of being feeling-beings.

RESPONDENT to No. 4: ... in precisely the same manner as Richard presents it (the paranormal aspects being suspect for me), although I cannot completely rule such a thing out entirely. Having said that, I do think that Richard’s reports stem from his experience, whether correctly or incorrectly evaluated on his part.

RICHARD: Again, there is that ‘paranormal aspects’ furphy you keep perpetuating – long after it has been exposed as being just that (a furphy promoted by the ... um ... the ‘Tricky Trio’ for obvious propaganda purposes) – only this time coupled with vague allusion to experiential reports being questionable, by virtue of being experiential, and an even vaguer allusion to my evaluative skills being suspect ... despite me being totally and utterly free from the very affective/ psychic network itself.

May I ask? Why are you spending the time, energy and money to fly half-way around the world, and back, for the second time when you entertain such doubts about my competence in these matters?

Maybe, just maybe, you would be better-off cutting your losses and cancelling the flight forthwith (incurring a cancellation fee) than wasting both your time and mine – not to mention Vineeto, Peter, et al. – or, conversely, arrange instead to spend the month of July with [No. 4] so as to not only absorb his wisdom first-hand but to see just how well it works in practice in his day-to-day lifestyle/ his living arrangements.

Oh, incidentally, if you were ever to do something like that it would be in your interests to learn to differentiate betwixt being earnest and being sincere (between earnestness and sincerity).

RE: affective vibes are real

RICHARD: [...]. And speaking of ‘reception’: all feeling-beings are operating and functioning in a virtual sea of affective vibes (not to mention the far-deeper, longer-ranging and more-powerful ‘psychic currents’/ ‘psychic energies’), swirling around and coming at them from all directions, influencing them affectively/ psychically, pushing and pulling them into involuntarily making all manner of decisions which they might otherwise not make (and later regret). (Message 15684, Richard, List D, No. 15, 28 October 2013).

RESPONDENT: How can it be verified independently that these vibes and psychic currents are not transmitted via physical means?

RICHARD: G’day No. 25, Did you not read my ‘through a closed door’ description (first made public knowledge 14 years ago) and my follow-up report/ explanation to No. 15? (Richard, List D, No. 15, 28 October 2013)

Furthermore, I do not understand why you would ask such a question (as both affective vibes and psychic currents – being affective/ psychic in nature – are non-physical, your tacit assumption a physical transmission mechanism is involved makes no sense).

As a matter of idle interest: just what [quote] ‘physical means’ [endquote] of transmission are you alluding to?

And, as a supplementary question, by what mechanism are the non-physical vibes/ currents coded, for physical transmission, and then decoded, from physical reception, for non-physical sampling?

RESPONDENT: Most people are familiar with picking up on someone’s vibe due to bodily cues ...

RICHARD: I will interject here because of a category error.

What most people are familiar with is trying to pick-out what someone is feeling – anger, sadness, love, hate and so on – via physical cues (such as tone of voice/ facial expression/ body language).

In other words, those physical cues – such as tone of voice/ facial expression/ body language – are not the transmission mechanism for vibes (they could not possibly be as peoples regularly fake those physical cues, on a daily basis, for all manner of conjugal, familial, social, cultural and commercial reasons) but are the effect which feelings are having on their vocal chords/ on their physiognomy/ on their posture.

RESPONDENT: ... but how can we distinguish between vibes that are detected due to bodily cues and those that are not?

RICHARD: Again, your question makes no sense – and especially so in the context you ask it from – as vibes are detected (to use your phrasing) extrasensorially.

Viz.:

• [Richard to No. 15]: ‘In other words (affective) vibes are something you (affectively) feel – as in, intuitively, viscerally – emanating extrasensorially from another feeling-being. (Incidentally, a feeling-being’s feelings – the emotions, passions and calentures which make-up their very ‘being’ – are extrasensorial in and of themselves ... as in, not of or pertaining to hearing, seeing, touching, tasting and smelling)’. (Message 15684, Richard, List D, No. 15, 28 October 2013).

RESPONDENT: Also, what is the relative importance with the actualism method of ‘not expressing’ an emotion as opposed to feeling happy and harmless, thus putting out happy and harmless vibes?

RICHARD: As there is no such [quote] ‘actualism method of ‘not expressing’ an emotion’ [endquote] it is difficult to determine just what it is you are asking ... and why you are.

If what you are referring to is to neither express nor suppress any of the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ feelings/ emotions/ passions – and thus put them into a bind so the third alternative (felicity/ innocuity) may hove into view – then the relative importance (to use your phrasing) is the resultant involuntary extrasensorial emanation of those happy and harmless vibes into the human psyche, in particular, and the animal psyche in general.

RESPONDENT: If good and bad vibes are felt by others regardless of emotional expression, why is it important not to express the good and bad feelings if they will be felt regardless of expression?

RICHARD: As nowhere is it advised that it is [quote] ‘important not to express the good and bad feelings’ [endquote] then I am unable to answer your query as-is.

(It is, essentially, a matter of choice/ personal preference as to what feelings are expressed).

What I can say is this: as the many and various emotions/ passions are the same affective energy, at root, then directing all of that affective energy into being the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (that is, ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself), via minimisation of the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and maximisation of the happy and harmless feelings, will have the effect of involuntarily radiating felicitous/ innocuous vibes and currents as a matter of course.

RESPONDENT: Isn’t it possible to hide what one is feeling?

RICHARD: If you mean ‘hide what one is feeling’ as in disguising the physical effects such feeling has on one’s vocal chords/ one’s physiognomy/ one’s posture (as per the tone of voice/ facial expression/ body language mentioned further above) then, yes, of course one can ... peoples everywhere do so regularly on a daily basis.

(Diplomats, for an obvious instance, elevate doing so into a high art-form as part and parcel of their job-description).

If, however (going by your follow-up question below), you mean is it possible to hide the affective vibes which all feeling-beings involuntarily transmit, extrasensorially, by virtue of affectively/ psychically existing as a ‘being’ then, no, one cannot ... and the word ‘involuntarily’ should explain why.

RESPONDENT: Is it a matter of sensitivity whether or not a vibe is picked up if it is not expressed?

RICHARD: As a vibe is not [quote] ‘expressed’ [quote], but is involuntarily transmitted regardless of whether feelings are expressed or suppressed, your query cannot be answered as-is.

What I can say is this: it is a matter of sensitivity whether affective vibes are consciously discerned or not.

The vast majority of feeling-beings experience other feeling-being’s vibes as if they are their own feelings – and are, of course, totally oblivious to the very existence of psychic currents – as is evidenced with people like yourself denying there is any such thing as is reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust website (and repeatedly talking about physical cues/ physical means as if those physical effects which feelings display bodily were the vibes themselves).

*

So as to obviate this email exchange getting ever-longer, with yet more and more back-and-forth additions, it would be great if you could comprehend this one thing:

A feeling-being, by virtue of being an affective/ psychic ‘being’, involuntarily emanates/ transmits/ radiates affective vibes (and psychic currents), extrasensorially, regardless of whether they express or suppress feelings and/or whether they display or conceal any physical effects feelings may have on their tone of voice/ their facial expression/ their body language.

Regards, Richard.

Re: affective vibes are real

SYD: i thought i’d write a post on this [affective vibes] especially as there have recently been a discussion on vibes in this list. during the evening of day 8 (some days ago), i informed richard that i don’t experientially see how feelings can travel from one body to another without involving cues (e.g.: body language). richard was understandably stern in explaining psychic [correction: ‘affective’] vibes and questioning my understanding, as the whole milieu effect depends on it.

yesterday i had a first-hand experiential understanding of psychic [correction: ‘affective’] vibes as i could acknowledge it while it was happening. if you have been following Jon’s report, you should already know that yesterday afternoon he went through a period of disillusionment following a lunch conversation with richard/peter/vineeto. we both had decided to stroll back to the lodge and meet again for coffee about an hour later. Jon’s room is within a few walking steps from mine.

i was sitting in my room, researching ‘windows mobile phones’ on my computer (that afternoon, richard and i were talking about phones) and all of sudden i began to experience the feeling of embarrasment ... specifically, embarrassed in front of the yahoo list members. for the first minute i glossed over this feeling, while being busy doing the online research, but then it caught my full attention and i remember thinking something along the lines of ‘wait, why am i feeling this embarrassment when i had not done anything to lead to it; in fact, i wasn’t even thinking/ feeling anything related to it, just doing some online research’. as there was no preceding trigger to that feeling, and it wasn’t pertaining to my experiences, it became obvious that it must be coming from someone else.

i noted down the time, about 4:30pm. Jon knocked on my door at about 5:10pm and we were planning to go out for a cup of coffee. i asked him what he was feeling at around 4:30pm ... and, as he was trying to recall it, i asked him ‘was it fear?’ and waited only a second to ask again specifically ‘was it embarrassment?’. he answered yes (to that effect). as we were walking to a coffee shop, i remember becoming fascinated at the whole subject of psychic [correction: ‘affective’] vibes (how the brain does it, etc.). while having a chat about Jon’s issue over coffee, i asked what the embarrassment was about (i.e., who was involved). as i sensed Jon was getting comfortable talking about the issue, i directly asked him if the embarrassment involved list members. he said yes.

so not only were i feeling the feeling (embarrassment), but also the contents of it (list members)! psychic [correction: ‘affective’] vibes are indeed real, and they are quite an interesting topic in itself. (vibes also relate to altruism and ‘doing it for the benefit this body, that body, every body’, but that is a topic for another day).(#14983 Actualism, Others, Syd’s Report, 30 July 13a).

RESPONDENT: Syd, Are you 100% certain that you hadn’t thought once about the yahoo list at all after strolling back to the lodge with Jon? What did you speak about on the way to the lodge? Never thought of something you’ve done that you were embarrassed about after the days learnings and events with the company you kept?

I think you do yourself a disservice by taking the conclusion that your feelings are not your own. It’s dangerous territory, projection. Taken as a new pattern for behaviour, you’ll start looking for psychic [correction: ‘affective’] vibes everywhere ... this is called magical thinking. Next time please take a bit more time and look back at what could have possibly triggered such a feeling during the past few hours. When a feeling is going on that you can’t explain, it’s not because it’s from someone else. It’s because it happened a while ago and the conscious thoughts associated with triggering the feeling have passed from your mind, and are forgotten for the moment. You need to trace back to remember them. The feeling just keeps going. It has its own momentum. It doesn’t need the original thought to keep going. It can pass away complete for a while and then come back at full strength at the slightest prompt. So had you felt any embarrassment earlier in the day?

SYD: hi No. 15, if you were to read what i wrote – ‘there was no preceding trigger to that feeling, and it wasn’t pertaining to my experiences’ – you would already know the answer to all of your i-know-what-you-experienced-better-than-you-do type of questions above. to spell it out further,

* there was no preceding trigger to that feeling, be it in the last hour or that entire day.

* the feeling wasn’t pertaining to my (triggered or recalled) experiences that day.

* the feeling arouse ‘out of the blue’ while i was fully engaged in doing something totally irrelevant.

also note that it does not matter whether i had sussed out the possibility of [Jonathan] experiencing embarrassment earlier or not, as the out-of-the-blue feeling was experienced (at 4:30pm) as if i was feeling embarrassed ... even though i never recalled, let alone relived/felt, my past incidents of embarrassment. let me ask you directly: do you deny the existence of affective vibes? if not, why go into such bizarre length as to claim to know better of what another person actually experienced? (#14955 Actualism, Others, Syd’s Report, 31 July 2013).

RESPONDENT: Science does not recognise what you are attributing that feeling to.

RICHARD: G’day No. 15, That is such a waste of a sentence – given the very raison d’être of this forum – and especially so on account of a post of mine, earlier in the month, specifically worded so as to ‘nip in the bud’ and/or ‘head off at the pass’ that very meme you have resorted to in a pathetic attempt to remain in situ as a ‘being’ (currently via practising some form of a 20th century version of a sectarian buddhistic lineage known for its theravadin aspirations).

Viz.:

#14733
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Tue Jul 2, 2013 10:25 am
Subject: Re: Power, dominance hierarchy, control of narrative

• [Richard to No. 5 (Sock-Puppet ‘H’)]: [...] And, whilst at it, I may as well nip in the bud an as yet nascent meme, currently peeking coyly out from where it presently lies buried, amidst a whole mess of pottage, but surely about to soon burst forth into full bloom in follow-up posts of similar ilk. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) what I share with my fellow human, being experiential, is not at all scientifical ...’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 74f, 11 February 2006).

• [Richard]: ‘This is an apt place to point out, right up-front and out-in-the open, that what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential and not scientifical’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 116, 13 May 2006).

• [Richard]: ‘Moreover, as I am an actualist, and not a scientist, my reports/ descriptions/ explanations are experiential, not scientifical ...’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 78a, 12 December 2004).

• [Richard]: ‘Oh? Yet another person insisting I be a laboratory guinea-pig for them (even though I say again and again that actualism is experiential and not scientifical), eh?’ (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 78b, 5 January 2005a).

• [Richard]: ‘I mention this because actualism, being experiential, is not a matter for science ... nor are my reports/ descriptions/ explanations scientifical’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 89c, 10 September 2005).

Now, having headed that off at the pass ... back to the latest of your ever-changing theses (per favour either ‘YouTube’ or the ‘BBC’) on how to preserve the status-quo. [...]. (Richard, List D, No. 5, 2 July 2013)

The colloquialism ‘vibes’ gained currency in the nineteen-sixties – as in ‘I can feel your pain’ (i.e., emotional pain) or ‘I can feel your anger’ and so on – and has thus had at least fifty years of usage all around the globe.

RESPONDENT: And not for lack of testing either.

RICHARD: You do realise, do you not, that unless you cite some peer-reviewed scientific articles, wherein said ‘testing’ of affective vibes has been duly published for the edification of the scientific community, those words of yours will just continue to sit there bearing a remarkable resemblance to empty rhetoric?

RESPONDENT: The burden of proof, therefore, is upon you.

RICHARD: As colloquial usage of the word ‘vibration’ has been recorded as far back as 114 years ago – thus having acceptance over more than a few generations of peoples – any such ‘burden of proof’ would fall, rather, on those who are in denial of a feeling-being’s intuitive ability to (affectively) feel another feeling-being’s affections.

RESPONDENT: But hey, if you’d rather take the easy path and assume your own feelings originate from others and not yourself, ultimately it’s your business. This fellow traveller is just advising differently in my experience is all.

RICHARD: As your experience is that of being a family man – with a spouse and children – it is quite mind-boggling to comprehend how you are hereby publicly claiming to have never felt either your spouse’s love for you (especially obvious during the courting/ honeymoon period) or your children’s love for their father.

It is as if you are living in some sort of (affective) equivalent of an astronaut’s/ cosmonaut’s full-body spacesuit ... hermetically sealed, so to speak, and isolated from any and all other feeling-being’s affections.

‘Tis for reasons such as this women can get so frustrated and/or exasperated, at times, by the male of the species.

RESPONDENT: The suggestion has been given. Do with it as you wish. On the plus side if you’re right James Randi has a million bucks waiting for you.

RICHARD: The intuitive ability of any (non-insensitive) feeling-being to affectively feel another feeling-being’s affections does not fall under the purview of either the James Randi Education Foundation or any other organisation of similar ilk as their interest lies in debunking [quote] ‘psychics, medical frauds, televangelists and others’ [endquote] via offering a million dollar reward for proof of [quote] ‘occult, psychic or supernatural powers’ [endquote].

RESPONDENT: Re: denying affective vibes I don’t deny aliens either... Just haven’t seen any evidence for themyet.

RICHARD: Ha ... what you are ‘just advising’ fellow travellers (further above) reminds me of the ‘Simon and Garfunkel’ hit of the 1960’s ‘I am a rock’. Apart from being damn’ good music, with exquisite lyrical over-tones, the lyrics speak well of more than just a few human being’s experience such as you describe.

For instance:

‘I am shielded in my armour;
Hiding in my room,
Safe within my womb,
I touch no one;
And no one touches me ...
I am a rock,
I am an island ...
And a rock feels no pain;
And an island never cries’.

Regards, Richard.

*

Re: affective vibes are real

(...)

RESPONDENT: Science does not recognise what you are attributing that feeling to.

RICHARD: G’day No. 15, That is such a waste of a sentence – given the very raison d’être of this forum – and especially so on account of a post of mine, earlier in the month, specifically worded so as to ‘nip in the bud’ and/or ‘head off at the pass’ that very meme [i.e., the invoking of ‘science’ in regards to experiential matters] you have resorted to in a pathetic attempt to remain in situ as a ‘being’ (currently via practising some form of a 20th century version of a sectarian buddhistic lineage known for its theravadin aspirations). (Message 15048 Richard, List D, No. 15, 5 August 2013).

RESPONDENT: Hi Richard Apologies for taking so long to reply. I was ill for a protracted period and am finally returning to a semblance of good health.

Back to your email, I got the feeling we weren’t talking about the same thing here.

RICHARD: G’day No. 15, Regardless of that feeling you got we are indeed talking about the same thing ... to wit: science (specifically, the invoking of that ‘science does not recognise ...’ meme in regards to experiential matters) and affective vibes.

I have written about science vis-a-vis matters experiential on many occasions over the years ... and on this forum, too.

For instance (also re-posted, in part, in #14817 (Richard, List D, No. 37b, 8 July 2013):

#11018
From: richard.actualfreedom
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:26 am
Subject: Re: [...] about two types of Actual Freedom

[Respondent No. 2]: [...].
[Richard]: G’day No. 2, I have snipped-out your above attempts to comprehend how things operate in actuality as it is all quite simple here, where flesh-and-blood bodies are already living, when contrasted to what feeling-beings make of it. For instance: [...snip...].
As I said at the beginning, it is all quite simple, in actuality.

1. Feeling-beings have no existence in actuality.
2. Emotions and passions have no existence in actuality.
3. Affective vibes have no existence in actuality.
4. Psychic currents have no existence in actuality.
5. The ‘psychic network’ has no existence in actuality.
6. The psyche itself has no existence in actuality.
7. All of the above is an illusion.
8. Hence no scientific evidence for any of the above.
9. Paying lip-service to illusions is just that (lip-service).

Regards, Richard. (Richard, List D, No. 2, 14 February 2012).

I really do not see any way to be more clear ... how can ‘science’ – no matter what way you define it – detect and/or measure illusions (i.e., that which ‘has no existence in actuality’)?

On a related matter ... here is a useful word to remember:

• scientism (n.): [...]; 2. excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques; (adj.): scientistic. ~ (Oxford Dictionary).

• scientism (n.): [...]; 2. the belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry; (adj.): scientistic. ~ (American Heritage Dictionary).

• scientism (n.): [...]; 2. the uncritical application of scientific or quasi-scientific methods to inappropriate fields of study or investigation; (adj.): scientistic. ~ (Collins Dictionary).

• scientism (n.): [...]; 2. the belief that the principles and methods of the physical and biological sciences should be applied to other disciplines; 3. [...]; (adj.): scientistic. [1875-80]. ~ (Webster’s College Dictionary).

• scientism (n.): [...]; 2. the belief that the assumptions and methods of the natural sciences are appropriate and essential to all other disciplines, including the humanities and the social sciences; 3. [...]; (adj.): scientistic. ~ (The -Ologies & -Isms Dictionary).

• scientism (n.): [...]; 2. an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities); (adj.): scientistic. [1st known use: 1870]. ~ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: I was referring to ‘extra sensory perception’, not just vibes.

RICHARD: As vibes, being affective by nature, are extrasensory (i.e., not of or pertaining to the senses) we are indeed talking about the same thing. Viz.:

• extrasensory (adj.): derived by means other than the known senses. ~ (Oxford Dictionary).

• extrasensory (adj.): being outside the normal range or bounds of the senses. ~ (American Heritage Dictionary).

• extrasensory (adj.): of or relating to extrasensory perception [without the use of normal sensory channels]. ~ (Collins Dictionary).

• extrasensory (adj.): [1930-35] outside one’s normal sense perception. ~ (Webster’s College Dictionary).

• extrasensory (adj.): [1934] residing beyond or outside the ordinary senses. ~ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).

• extrasensory (adj.): without the use of hearing, seeing, touch, taste, and smell. ~ (Cambridge Dictionary).

Furthermore, Syd made it unambiguously clear in that initial report of his (in #14955 Actualism, Others, Syd’s Report, 30 Jul 2013a), which you first replied to, that he felt the affective vibe in question – namely, embarrassment – as per that Cambridge Dictionary definition (i.e., ‘without the use of hearing, seeing, touch, taste and smell’).

Viz.:

• [Syd]: ‘Jon’s room is within a few walking steps from mine’ .

What we are *not* talking about is the ‘extra sensory perception’ (ESP) of psychics, mediums, occultists, and so forth, inasmuch all that preternatural/ supernatural stuff, such as telepathy, clairvoyance/ cryptaesthesia, psychokinesis/ telekinesis, clairaudience, psychometry, and so on and so forth, is most certainly not what the colloquialism ‘vibes’ – as made popular in the 1960’s – refers to.

RESPONDENT: My understanding of vibes is that they are only ever transmitted face to face.

RICHARD: Oh? Yet I made public the following description 14 years ago (in 1999) of a typical example of feeling another’s affective vibes when not in a face-to-face situation. Viz.:

• [Alan]: We have also discussed the ‘vibes’ (...). I presume you consider these to fall within the realm of psychic powers?
• [Richard]: No, emotional ‘vibes’ are fairly obvious as in you can feel another’s fear, anger, love and so on when in physical proximity. (...).
• [Alan]: It would be easy to prove, or disprove, by setting up an experiment with one person blindfolded, not able to hear and not able to smell (as pheromones could be involved) and introducing others radiating love, anger etc into their presence.
I am not aware of any research which has been done on ‘vibes’ – are you?
• [Richard]: I have not looked for any research as it has been so obvious from personal experience and in discussing with others.
For example: returning from a walk abroad one is in good spirits ... yet as one goes to open the front door to one’s house a feeling of unease, of disquietude may be felt. Upon entering the supposed safety and sanctity of one’s own home one finds one’s husband and/or wife and/or mother and/or father and/or brother and/or sister fuming and ready and willing to give one a serve for either deserved or undeserved wrongs that one may or may not have committed.
One felt it through a closed door. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Alan-a, 25 February 1999).

Although I couched that response of mine in generic terms it was drawn from a real-life situation (circa 1980-81) for the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago when ‘he’ was returning home from a pleasant stroll over the meadows and through some forest-land near ‘his’ ex-farmhouse (and made all the more obvious to ‘him’ as ‘his’ wife had been in a good mood when ‘he’ had set-off for ‘his’ walk several hours earlier).

RESPONDENT: When not face to face, I own my own feelings rather than project them onto others ...

RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body circa 1980-81 was projecting ‘his’ feelings, through the closed door of ‘his’ ex-farmhouse, then ‘he’ would have felt a feeling of joie de vivre, just prior to opening the front door of ‘his’ home, despite the at-that-moment-unknown presence of a fuming wife on the other side (pacing up and down, in the front room, ready and willing to give ‘him’ an unwarranted serve for imagined slights she generated as her earlier good mood spiralled into negativity in ‘his’ absence).

It was by virtue of being observant thataway, above, that ‘he’ was then able, over the ensuing years, to become aware not only of many more instances of similar ilk but of the far-deeper, longer-ranging and more-powerful ‘psychic currents’/ ‘psychic energies’ (which we have not even mentioned in this exchange) that lie underneath/beyond the affective vibes.

For instance:

• [Richard]: I went to a semi-final football match once in Melbourne, Australia, in my early twenties, just for the experience and sat amongst 80,000+ peoples: although I did not know which team was which, and was not at all concerned one way or the other which won the game, I was able to *feel* the intensity of ‘the roar of the crowd’ coming in waves and thus can recall the attraction to such events. [emphasis added].
The last occasion I was ever to *feel* such an intensity of emotion was in New Delhi, India, at the funeral procession of the recently deceased political leader Ms. Indira Gandhi: after waiting for ages amongst a dense crowd of peoples for the motorcade to drive by I was able to ascertain, long before visually sighting it over the heads of others, its imminent arrival by a rising wave of *passion* in the crowds lining the motorway way to my right as it approached, reaching a crescendo as it passed by to the immediate front, and ebbing away as it passed on to my left. [emphases added].
It was only then that I was finally able to fully understand how mob violence can so easily take over in otherwise decent, intelligent human beings. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 68c, 31 May 2005).

I could provide more examples but maybe that will do for now.

RESPONDENT: ... so it is impossible of me to conceive of experiencing a feeling and then ascribing that to someone else in any kind of direct ‘that was their feeling’ sense.

RICHARD: Nobody is asking you to [quote] ‘conceive’ [endquote] of anything because vibes, being affective, are experiential and, thus, not conceptive (i.e., cognitive) in their nature.

In other words (affective) vibes are something you (affectively) feel – as in, intuitively, viscerally – emanating extrasensorially from another feeling-being.

(Incidentally, a feeling-being’s feelings – the emotions, passions and calentures which make-up their very ‘being’ – are extrasensorial in and of themselves ... as in, not of or pertaining to hearing, seeing, touching, tasting and smelling).

RESPONDENT: I have replied further below.

RICHARD: As this email is already quite lengthy I will leave any response I may make, to those further replies of yours, for another post.

*

However, I will take this opportunity to stress just how vital this matter of affective vibes is, in regards to successful actualism practice, as it is central to the ‘feeling harmless’ aspect of such practice (as in the phrase ‘happy and harmless’ that is) inasmuch the whole point is the minimisation – and the ultimate cessation via extirpation of ‘being’ itself – of any malicious feelings and, thus, their resultant transmission as affective vibes throughout the human psyche.

I have, of course, written of this before ... for instance:

• [James]: I do understand about minimising both the good and bad feelings as I have been down the road of trying to eliminate the bad while maximising the good. It is clear that I can’t have the good without the bad.
• [Richard]: Exactly ... and thus the way is cleared to be launched upon the adventure of a lifetime. (Richard, List B, James3, 28 October 2002a).
• [Respondent]: (...). A wise person sits on the shore and watches the ebb and flow of these waves.
• [Richard]: Yet, as ‘a wise person’ is a being residing inside the body, irregardless of whether the being persuades the body to physically act or not, the being involuntarily transmits ‘these waves’ – these emotional and passional vibes (to use a 60’s term) – into the human world in particular and the animal world in general: therefore the being is not harmless even when the being refrains from inducing the body into physical action ... which is why pacifism (non-violence) is not a viable solution.
There is nothing that can stop other beings picking up these vibes (...). (Richard, List B, No. 33j, 2 Nov 2002a).

Here is another instance:

• [Respondent]: What was the most harmful action you did to other human beings when being a ‘Richard’? What was the most harmful action you did to other human beings when being a Self? I’m referring to an actual harm and not to a potential for harmful action (be it psychological or physical).
• [Richard]: The most harmful action in both cases (both being ‘human’ and being ‘divine’) operated twenty-four hours of the day: involuntarily radiating affective vibes and transmitting psychic currents ... and the divine vibes and currents, being so powerful, are the most insalubrious and reprehensible. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25b., 24 June 2003).

Now, if it were to really be the case – as you maintain – that no other ‘being’ can feel your (affective) feelings then why put the actualism method into practice? Why not just fake the requisite facial-expression/ tone-of-voice/ body-language and carry on as you were born?

*

It has got me beat how anyone can spend years and years reading and writing, to forums such as this, about actualism practice (and its aims or goals) yet all the while be ignorant of or ignoring the central feature of such practice ... to wit: the transmission and the reception of the many and various affective feelings which make-up a feeling-being.

And speaking of ‘reception’: all feeling-beings are operating and functioning in a virtual sea of affective vibes (not to mention the far-deeper, longer-ranging and more-powerful ‘psychic currents’/ ‘psychic energies’), swirling around and coming at them from all directions, influencing them affectively/ psychically, pushing and pulling them into involuntarily making all manner of decisions which they might otherwise not make (and later regret).

Claudiu recently referred to theses vibes as [quote] ‘completely permeating the space around us’ [endquote], in a post to this forum, and how [quote] ‘each person was like a little dot in that vibespace, somehow picking it up & affecting it’ [endquote].

Viz.:

#15648
From: Claudiu
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 23:39:37
Subject: Re: Knack at seeing silliness

[Jonathan]: [...snip...].
[Claudiu]: [...] feelings & beliefs don’t affect the actual world at all.
I remember sitting at the airport on my way back with Richard & Vineeto. By that point I had been in a vibeless space for so long that I grew very sensitive to perceiving vibes. There were tons of people in the airport, and there were vibes just completely permeating the space around us, everything at all. And each person was like a little dot in that vibespace, somehow picking it up & affecting it.
Yet when I looked at Richard he was just sitting, completely at ease, and completely oblivious to the vibes around us.
They were just passing right through him as if he wasn’t there. Trippy shit yo.
The only effect they have on the actual world is in what they get the feeling-beings inhabiting various actual bodies to do in terms of controlling their bodies to do this or that, which actions then actually happen. But they do affect other feeling-beings directly, obviously. (Actualism, Others, Claudiu’s Report, 24 October 2013)

As already referred to further above, in regards to how mob violence can so easily take over in otherwise decent, intelligent human beings, I happened to be in New Delhi in October 1984 when Sikh bodyguards assassinated India’s Hindu Prime Minister Ms. Indira Gandhi after the assault by the Indian army on the Harimandir of Amritsar, the Sikhs’ holiest shrine. This set off a rampage of terror and violence that closed down the city for three days; the normally ubiquitous police were nowhere to be seen for the entire period. I was there – with a nine year old daughter – and saw with my own eyes what happened: it was out-and-out internecine conflict; after three days of unrestricted rioting and slaughter (with at least 3,000 persons massacred) the military came in with helicopters, planes, tanks, armoured vehicles, machine guns, and so on, and eventually law and order was restored by sheer brute force. The affective/ psychic atmosphere – and the wanton destructiveness I personally witnessed – was identical to my experience in a war-torn foreign country in 1966 when I was a serving soldier in a declared war-zone.

*

Quite frankly, a head-in-the-sand attitude towards the evidential reality of affective vibes (and the far more insidious ‘psychic currents’/ ‘psychic energies’ where the real power-play resides) is going to get you nowhere fast.

Regards, Richard.

Subject: Re: A Long-Awaited Public Announcement

RESPONDENT No. 4: I’ve felt for a few months now that something is brewing; some sort of change is afoot. The rational part of me figured it might be merely a projection of ‘my’ own personal change of heart/ mind ... but another part of me senses that it’s bigger than that, as if a threshold is about to be crossed ... and it isn’t just personal any more.

RESPONDENT: There was a counter-strike in the upper levels of the Psyche. The head was taken out of the network, probably the feminine being that Richard was talking about, a sort of ‘machine’ ...

RICHARD: G’day No. 22, You are quite close to the mark, actually, although it was not – repeat not – a counter-strike (be it in the upper levels of the human psyche or not) as that is not possible for a person with absolutely no power, or powers, whatsoever.

What was taken out of the network – a psychic web connecting all feeling ‘beings’ – was the anti-actualism/ pro-spiritualism blockage/ diversion created by my second (de jure) wife’s ‘presence’ ... as in ‘her’ very ‘being’ (which is ‘being’ itself).

RESPONDENT: ... the way is open for the consciousness mutation to be implemented on a global level.

RICHARD: Indeed so ... via happy and harmless (affective) ‘vibes’ and felicitous and innocuous (psychic) ‘currents’. (I have oft-times said that is where the real power-play occurs).

RESPONDENT: I’d estimate a few years, probably decades to take root ...

RICHARD: My estimate (and that is all it is) is a global peace and harmony – as in the (methodological) still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom Peter and Vineeto so delightfully established and wrote so prolifically about for their fellow human beings – within my lifetime.

As my genitor is a hale and hearty 98 years old (albeit a trifle deaf and with diminished vision), and my progenitrix a 90 year old who is quite miffed at having her driver’s licence taken from her upon reaching that age, this means some period during the next 30-40 years. (Although I often not just jokingly say I would like to out-live the oldest-on-record human being ... a woman in France who died at 122 after a lifetime of wine, cigarettes and chocolate).

RESPONDENT: ... there are a number of people interested, maybe vitally interested, that are in a position to enable radical change on an exponential basis.

RICHARD: Yes, what No. 2 described elsewhere as [quote] ‘an ambassador of humanity’ into the actualist hinterland is also the very first convivium’s ambassador into the real-world (the world of the psyche). (Actualism, Others, Respondent No. 4 Report).

It has therefore been decided that the guest cabin on the MSV Actualis will be known as the ‘Ambassadorial Suite’ with a brass plaque affixed engraved with the words ‘The Respondent No. 4 Memorial Cabin’.

Ha ... the boy from the farm is having so much fun, here in this actual world of sensuous delight, playing at the game of being a mature adult.

Regards, Richard.

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity