If you are a non-existent invisible being, does that mean you won't post anymore? Please?
If you are a non-existent invisible being, does that mean you won't post anymore? Please?

:D. If I was a malicious and sorrowful entity with nothing to contribute to end humanity's suffering then I might take your words into more than a passing consideration.
I know this is the "philosophy" section, where any ginned-up bullshit can pass first muster as a deep thought, but what the hell is this?

Just shut up.
One more thing. My new Philosophy is "Life is Grand." Read my questions to Richard from the Actual freedom website and allow your thoughts to line up perfectly with it and "Poof!"... your parasitical 'I' will die.
Reality is that Spellbound need help.

Spellbound, get help.

Thy truth is in thy head my fellow man.

Edit: Life is still grand! (sidenote: I have finally done it). Read the link above then effect it. It is of particular importance to your sobriety.
I'm pleasantly drunk, so get help.

Okey dokey.

By the way, I can finally relate to Richard (from the above website) statement that a body with the 'who' living in it is truly a waste of a life.

Btw, I am not passionate about communicating any of this as passionate expression causes all the wars of humanity and maintains our malice and it's opposite sorrow.
I am reading the links you sent me. The originality in it
authenticates the report of the perfection. It is a perfection found
only in the actual as there is no other universe but this universe in
which "I" inhabit. As an "I" inhabitting this flesh and blood body "I"
am an interloper. "I" am what is responsible for all the murders,
rapes and tortures. "Socially reprehensible" was a term that Richard
used to refer to the "I". In the dissemination of "me" ("I"), probity
is bestowed gratuitously and one finds it effortless to be innocent as
no less than a flesh and blood body and no more - that includes
grandiosity as the "more", and shame being the "less" of the
opposites. There is no need to transcend the opposites in the absence
of "I". The total and complete obliteration becomes obvious and
apparent with the stark contrast to the wonderful intricacy and
marvellous excellence that is this universe. It's simplicity renders
the need for an invisible being useless. As I understand it.

-Me, using reason to access the actual while suffering. 2008.
Last edited:
One more thing. My new Philosophy is "Life is Grand." Read my questions to Richard from the Actual freedom website and allow your thoughts to line up perfectly with it and "Poof!"... your parasitical 'I' will die.

Who are you calling a poof?
Mr. Richard wrote:

One’s psychological existence is so precarious that one needs constant endorsement, so as to feel that ‘I’ am alive, that ‘I’ still exist. When the ‘whole’ accuses one of being selfish – which it relentlessly does by extolling the virtues of duty, obligation and responsibility – one can then chastise oneself, thus maintaining one’s sense of being a social identity. With suitable remorse, one has then been coerced, cajoled and shamed into having one’s usefulness to the community restored ... and one feels needed again. Nonetheless, one is actually crazy to chastise oneself because ‘I’ am selfish by ‘my’ very created nature ... and ‘I’ will always be self-centred. Self-castigation only serves to crystallise ‘me’. It is essential to the community’s ‘well-being’ that ‘I’ remain selfish. Because the ‘whole’, having created ‘me’ so as to perpetuate its own existence – and being utterly selfish itself – desperately needs self-centred members. ‘I’ readily invest, morally, in the community for there one recognises one’s ilk ... ‘I’ am a lonely soul and it is essential that ‘I’ have a sense of belonging to the like-minded ‘whole’. It is an illusion of togetherness designed to assuage the feeling of aloneness that both oneself and the community experiences ... ‘I’ and ‘humanity’ feel lost and lonely in what is perceived to be the vast reaches of space and time that make up an empty universe. The search for extra-terrestrial life is but one outcome of this feeling of separation.


Here is an account of when it first struck home to the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body, all those years ago, that no one was in charge of the world.
• [Richard]: My adult questioning of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being all started in a war-torn country in 1966 at age nineteen where a religious man killed himself in a most gruesome way. There was I, a callow youth dressed in a jungle-green soldier’s uniform and with a loaded rifle in my hand, representing the secular way to peace. There was a fellow human being, dressed in a saffron-orange monk’s robes dowsed with petrol and with a cigarette lighter in hand, representing the mystical way to peace.
I was aghast at what we were both doing ... and I sought to find a third alternative to being either secular or spiritual.
This was to be the turning point of my life for, up until then, I was a typical western youth; raised to believe in a cultural ‘God, Queen and Country’ ethos. Humanity’s inhumanity to humankind – society’s treatment of its subject citizens – was driven home to me, there and then, in a way which left me appalled, horrified, terrified and repulsed to the core of my being with a sick revulsion.
I saw how no one knew what was going on and – most importantly – how no one was ‘in charge’ of the world. There was nobody to ‘save’ the human race insofar as all gods and goddesses were but a figment of a feverish imagination.
Out of a despairing desperation, which was collectively shared by my fellow humans, I saw and understood how I was as ‘guilty’ as anyone else. For in me – as is in everyone – was both ‘good’ and ‘bad’; it was that some people were better than others at controlling their ‘dark side’. However, in a war, there is no way anyone can consistently control any longer ... evil (aka malice) ran rampant. I saw how fear and aggression and nurture and desire ruled the world and, already knowing that these were the instinctual passions one was born with, thus started my search for freedom from the ‘Human Condition’. My attitude, all those years ago, was this:
I was only interested in changing myself fundamentally, radically, completely and utterly

Does this mean you've finally ditched Langan and his CTMU?
Does this mean you've finally ditched Langan and his CTMU?


From: [Respondent No. 4]
Date: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:55 pm

Subject: Re: Richard writes mysticism
• [Respondent No. 4]: I was there when it happened. [...snip...] (1) ‘no libido’: the claim that the instinctual-passionate drive for sex/ power/ dominance/ primacy is null and void in ‘actual freedom’ is ... well ... let’s put it this way: if it’s true, it certainly manifests in strange/ unexpected ways. Eg. In February 2010 the genitor of actual freedom [...] was actively trying to woo another woman back into a full-time sexual relationship with him (which she had suspended while trying to decide her future); [...].

I've been contemplating this scene from True Detective and trying to reconcile it with what I understand about the CTMU: