(@Miguel Use this submission to play around with the footnote settings. I would also be interested in your comments and feedback to what is presented below.)
You know I think you made the right call to narrow the scope of your article. Those doubts and ideas you yourself were entertaining, and which you were going to ask me to develop/exemplify, could be controversial as it strikes at, and questions, one of the central premises of actualism, namely, that all instances of either happiness or unhappiness are the result of one’s choice or preference. [1][2][3]
Richard no doubt would object to the characterization of his position as a “premise.” He would maintain that his position derives from experience, which is to him synonymous with irrefutable objective fact. As such, there is no question or doubt or debate as to the matter.[4] To be clear, there is no need to doubt his self report. But to take what is the case for one person, or even a handful of people, and apply that to every human being, is a gross extrapolation. As such, the characterization of Richard’s position as being a “premise” is warranted. For in this instance he is not only commenting on his experience and his capacities, but on the experiences and capacities of all eight billion human beings. And he does so with precisely the same consummate conviction and conclusiveness. Yet not only do his conclusions pertaining to the experiences and capacities of humanankind extend far the beyond the boundaries of his limited data set, they also do not even reflect the data which he encounters. That is to say, in addition to projecting his nature onto human nature through an inductive advancement from the specific to the general, perhaps due to an over-reliance on his insight that “I” am humanity and humanity is “me,”[5] he simultaneously discounts, disregards, and dismisses submitted evidence that undermines and weakens his inductively inferred conclusions, such as those countless experiential reports expressing an inability to choose how each moment is being experienced.[6]
(Putting aside all the above for a moment, it is worth mentioning that if one were to discover or attain to the power to choose how one feels irrespective of events – and the cases of Richard et alia demonstrate that this ability is within the range of human potential – then it would be much more than just “silly” to ever again opt to feel bad. Rather, it would be incomprehensibly ludicrous, absurd, preposterous, unconscionable, inconceivable, outrageous even. The term “silly” to describe such a ridiculous course of action would make it a laughable understatement. Given Richard’s propensity towards unassuming and subtle humor, I envision him making these understatements with not a little bit of tongue thrust into the cheek.)
In addition, I find it instructive, as you similarly did @Miguel, to consider those “different physical and psychological cases” which reveal a gap between the wanting of something and its attainment. A gap which is evident after one considers, as you did, the “impossibility for someone to do certain physical things while having a certain disability no matter how strongly he/she wants to do it, to psychological cases, including scenarios equivalent to wanting to be rich vs. being able to be rich, not wanting to get cancer vs. not being able to avoid it, etc.” Those considerations are relevant because this principle premise of actualism awkardly extends itself into the fields of medicine, biology, and neurology, all the while appropriating a bold stance that are rather contrary to the findings, research, and models being developed in those fields.[7] [8] For example, Richard apparently had such control over his own experiences and psychological state that to this day he cannot fathom how a human being could descend into psychotic states against their will. Since the premise is that every experience and psychological state of every person is the result of a personal choice, then the conclusion is that psychosis is a choice, a decision that people willfuly make.[7:1] This position, this outlook, that human beings choose to be psychotic, is, in my opinion, not only unempathetic to the persons impaired by psychosis – placing fault on the afflicted person for their unfortunate disorder – but it is so remarkably odd and idiosyncratic, and so contrary to the available literature developed through painstaking research[8:1], that the word “delusional” to describe such an outlook seems ironically fitting.[9][10]
To close out, I will offer a brief comment pertaining to the degree or intensity or sincerity or pureness of the want, desire, will, intention, or volition to be happy which is being prescribed in actualism, since that has been a popular topic in recent days. Envision a scenario where a genie or magic fairy appeared before you, granting you the option to choose either everlasting happiness or everlasting unhappiness. Which would you choose? Would you not choose happiness as a matter of course? Or would you spend countless hours analyzing yourself and agonizing over whether you really or truly wanted to be happy? That you, and no doubt a vast majority of people randomly inverviewed on the street, would choose everlasting happiness without hesitation reveals that people generally are already naturally disposed to want happiness and well-being to a degree that meets or exceeds the standards proposed in actualism.[11] The fact that everlasting happiness fails to manifest for so many despite the requisite want being inherently active suggests the influence of other “hidden variables.”
Richard (2009): It is plainly and simply ‘my’ choice as to how ‘I’ experience this moment.
Mailing List 'D' Respondent No. 13 ↩︎Richard (2016): It is your choice, and your choice alone, as to how you feel, each moment again.
Mailing List 'D' Martin ↩︎MARTIN: When someone cuts in front of me in line I feel slightly humiliated / embarassed / annoyed.
RICHARD: Why do you choose to feel “slightly humiliated / embarrassed / annoyed” when someone cuts in front of you in line when you could choose to feel good (a general feeling of well-being) instead
Mailing List 'D' Martin ↩︎RESPONDENT No. 60: The way Richard put it, it sounded like he was able to simply choose the way he felt, and seemed surprised that others could not.
RESPONDENT: It does sort of give that impression.
RICHARD: It does far more than merely give that impression … it is precisely what I am saying.
RESPONDENT: Interestingly ‘the option method’ is built upon the premise that one can choose at any moment happiness … interesting.
RICHARD: ‘Tis not a [quote] ‘premise’ [endquote] that one can choose to be as happy (and as harmless) as is humanly possible each moment again – it is experientially evident that it be possible.
Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 68 ↩︎Richard (1999): In investigating my nature I am investigating human nature Mailing List 'B' Respondent No. 33 ↩︎
RESPONDENT: I do not experience it as possible to choose how I am feeling at any given moment.
RICHARD: If it be not you who is doing that choosing then who is? For instance: who was it who chose to [quote] ‘feel continually wretched and frustrated and miserable’ [endquote] whilst trying to hoist themself into the air by their shoelaces if it was not you? And who, for another instance, preferred to [quote] ‘gradually yet persistently add feelings of frustration and bewilderment’ [endquote], at the fact that the method you have been applying was not working, if not you? Or, for yet another instance, who is it that decides, on occasion, to deal with the vicissitudes of life by [quote] ‘throwing a tantrum’ [endquote] if it be not you?
Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 60 ↩︎Richard (2003): When a ‘normal’ person becomes ‘psychotic’ it is because they have found the pressures of life too much to handle and have chosen for psychosis as their way out.
Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 3 ↩︎ ↩︎(Wikipedia): A very large number of medical conditions can cause psychosis, sometimes called secondary psychosis. Examples include:
. disorders causing delirium (toxic psychosis), in which consciousness is disturbed
. neurodevelopmental disorders and chromosomal abnormalities, including velocardiofacial syndrome
. neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer’s disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, and Parkinson’s disease
. focal neurological disease, such as stroke, brain tumors,multiple sclerosis, and some forms of epilepsy
. malignancy (typically via masses in the brain, paraneoplastic syndromes)
. infectious and postinfectious syndromes, including infections causing delirium, viral encephalitis, HIV/AIDS, malaria, syphilis
. endocrine disease, such as hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, Cushing’s syndrome, hypoparathyroidism and hyperparathyroidism;
. sex hormones also affect psychotic symptoms and sometimes giving birth can provoke psychosis, termed postpartum psychosis
. inborn errors of metabolism, such as Wilson’s disease, porphyria, and homocysteinemia.
. nutritional deficiency, such as vitamin B12 deficiency
. other acquired metabolic disorders, including electrolyte disturbances such as hypocalcemia, hypernatremia, hyponatremia, hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, hypermagnesemia, hypercalcemia, and hypophosphatemia, but also hypoglycemia, hypoxia, and failure of the liver or kidneys
. autoimmune and related disorders, such as systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus, SLE), sarcoidosis, Hashimoto’s encephalopathy, anti-NMDA-receptor encephalitis, and non-celiac gluten sensitivity
. poisoning, by therapeutic drugs (see below), recreational drugs (see below), and a range of plants, fungi, metals, organic compounds, and a few animal toxins
. sleep disorders, such as in narcolepsy (in which REM sleep intrudes into wakefulness)
. parasitic diseases, such as neurocysticercosis
. huntington disease
Psychosis - Wikipedia ↩︎ ↩︎(Oxford Languages): delusional (adj): characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder." ↩︎
(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy): Delusions are generally accepted to be beliefs which (a) are held with great conviction; (b) defy rational counter-argument; (c) and would be dismissed as false or bizarre by members of the same socio-cultural group."
Delusion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) ↩︎Richard (2003): Many years ago, in face-to-face conversations on the topic of being happy and harmless, sometimes, after going round and round the same nonsense to no avail, I would suggest to my fellow human being that we put what is being discussed into the realm of wishful thinking, a fantasy as it were, and suppose a childhood fairy complete with twinkling wand were to drop by, or a genie were to pop out of a bottle, or whatever, and put to them the opportunity to be either happy (never mind being harmless in this exercise as the aim was to make it as uncomplicated as possible) for the remainder of their life or be unhappy – and whichever they were to choose it would be immediately granted with full irrevocable effect – then which would they choose? Not altogether unsurprisingly the other would invariably say they would choose to be happy, of course (whilst looking at me as if I were some kind of idiot), yet when I would then say that very opportunity is just here, right now, each moment again in actuality, for life itself is indeed a magical wonderland granting happiness and harmlessness by the bucket-load, they would look at me as if I were some kind of trickster (for extracting from them what they really wanted by devious means) and could become quite irked.
↩︎
Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 59
[Note: Is it not curious that in this passage that the “irked” response that he received is attributed by him to his tactic for revealing what they truly want, i.e. happiness? Is it not a far more plausible explanation that their irked response stemmed not from any disupute about wanting or not wanting happiness, but rather from Richard’s insistence that all that was needed to attain the fabled “everlasting happiness” was to simply choose for it to be so? It should not come as a surprise then that that sort of “practical” advice garnered a predictable reaction. If not an “irked” reaction than maybe something akin to what is illustrated in this popular internet meme]:
