VINEETO: What I found so convincing in Actual Freedom was that after years and years of dabbling in meditation and therapy, I had finally found something that has tangible, demonstrable and repeatable results right from the start. In actualism I have a method that lets me eradicate the problem instead of pasting it over with positive feelings and sweet fantasies, which need constant adaptation, reconstruction and renewal.

GARY: What we are doing and discussing here is so radically different from anything I have encountered before that it keeps pulling me in for more. When I read Richard’s Journal, the intelligence and fundamental grasp of people and of life just pours from the pages. Since the fears about work have settled down, with the attendant sense of dread, I am so free and loose. It was my experience today, when I attended a conference in our largest city. Life used to be such a struggle, with complications and conundrums abounding in every direction. Now life seems so easy, so natural, with scarcely any disturbance. And if a disturbance occurs, I know that it is just more ‘grist for the mill’ of finding out who I am and bringing my intent to bear on my eventual demise. I want to be happy and harmless more than anything else. It has become my overall goal and aim. Oftentimes, I am as light as a feather, held down by no loyalties, burdened by no group memberships, overwhelmed by no sense of duty or obligation, unconstrained by any ‘self-image’ that needs constant preening and pruning. Life can be a breeze and very sweet indeed. 23.8.2000

PETER: Well it’s been quite a while since I’ve written. I have been full-on into learning an architectural CAD program for the last 2 weeks. I had a bit of experience drawing with a simple CAD program recently but I was tempted into purchasing a wiz bang purpose-designed program capable of producing 3D images as well as the full architectural range of drawings, schedules and documentation. So I am now involved in a radical re-training – throwing away all of my old drawing skills and experience and learning new cutting edge computer skills. I found myself often asking ‘what have I done’, ‘why am I doing this’, ‘why not stay with my old skills’, ‘why’?

GARY: I’m glad to hear that you are progressing in the CAD program, although it must be daunting to throw away the old and learn cutting edge computer skills. But I would think that learning these computer programs would be almost compulsory working in the architectural field which must have undergone a revolution in methods and techniques with the advent of sophisticated computer programs. Still, I am sure there is a lot to learn. Myself, I work in a decidedly low-tech field, ie. social work, and there is not much need for computer technology, except on the managerial-administrative end of things, and that is not my role.

PETER: The only answer that came was ... ‘because I am’. I am not being cute, but in thinking over the many changes that have happened in my lifetime – this was the only answer I ever managed to come up with. Whatever the change, the choice was always towards betterment – away from the old and familiar, the safe and secure, and towards the fresh and unknown, the adventurous and risky. Not that I ever sat down and calmly weighed up the pros and cons, for if I did I would never have done half the things I did. It was always the adventure and challenge that appealed in whatever serendipitous opportunity that arose and the fears and doubts often only occurred afterwards. But by then I found I was committed, involved in the doing of whatever new adventure it was. And here I am, yet again, on another adventure, cutting another familiar tie with the past.

GARY: You sound like more of a risk-taker than I in many ways. However, I also have a tendency to go on to new things, new people, new ideas, etc. away from the safe and secure. My partner was commenting on that about me recently, saying that she could not keep up with my interests, that I take up new things and work with them for a while and then go on to something else. I suppose this would indicate an underlying restlessness, but I think of it as a good thing. I would think that anyone who seriously takes up actualism would have to be a bit of a risk-taker, or gravitate towards new and novel experiences. Yet, with the people who are seriously following this method, there does not seem to be a common denominator, does there? Perhaps the only ‘common denominator’, and the only one that I can see, for these people, is a burning discontent with their life as it is presently. Also, discontent and disillusionment with the religious/spiritual world would seem to be the case for you, Vineeto, and Richard. I would be curious to know if there was anything in your background which impelled you to be a daring adventurer, you know, something you could point to, perhaps in your childhood or early adult years which, in a formative sense, led you to where you are now? What you have taken on is quite unconventional to say the least. Do you ever wonder ‘why me’? So many people seem to settle for the comfortable and the familiar, and to some extent, so do I. But deep down there is always this restless quality, this discontent with the way things are, with the way they have been taught to one and represented to be, that I don’t think I’ll ever settle for the complacency of the familiar and stable. Sometimes I think it was the instability in my early life, the rupture of ordinary family relations due to illness and disability, that causes me to be this way. This is probably getting a bit analytical about it, and I am no armchair analyst, but there must be an explanation. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that one has an intense desire for the best that life can offer and is not willing to settle for second best, to settle for a life of driven by blind instincts. 5.11.2000

GARY: This is sort of the same conundrum that I have with actualism. If one takes it up as a sort of banner or identity to hide behind, then one is not eliminating the identity and discovering the actual, one is adopting it as a ‘clip-on’ to one’s belief system, as you have said.

PETER: I noticed that I started to bring the terms actualism and actualist to the forefront of my writings recently and this coincided with realizing that actualism is now firmly launched in the world as a third alternative and is spread by word of mouth, it has already developed a life of its own as interest, controversy and debate is growing exponentially.

GARY: I have encountered too the aversion to the ‘ism’. I have been told that ‘actualism is just another ‘ism’‘. I’m not much on labels myself so I think I see the point of those whose object to them. And there have been many ‘isms’ promising but failing to deliver, so I think some healthy scepticism is in order. But the practice of actualism is not about conforming to the tenets of a belief system or adhering to some new religion. Rather, it is the experiencing of the present moment of being alive. It is being here now unreservedly. 7.12.2000

RESPONDENT No. 23: Hi Gary, Long time no talk. In one of your recent posts you stated that you had looked into it and that this is not a cult. Everything you said above could have Richard’s, Peter’s, Vineeto’s or Alan’s name on it and I could not tell the difference. This is a sure sign of a cult to me. Here is one example: ‘And the pioneering discovery of Actual Freedom is that the sense of being can be eliminated, extirpated in toto.’

GARY: It has taken me awhile to respond to your post. It seems that everything I thought of saying to you has already been said by others. Interesting how on Internet mailing lists the correspondence blooms and builds on itself.

I assure you nobody on the Actual Freedom list is giving me diction lessons or correcting my copy for conformity to certain linguistic standards. That my post could have come from someone else is not in itself proof positive of a cult being in existence.

Sometimes while in the process of writing a post to this list, I may check the actualism Glossary to see if I am communicating about certain things in a way that facilitates dialogue. That does not mean that I pattern my speech or behaviour on what others do. It only means that having a common understanding of terms and definitions sometimes makes it easier to communicate about certain phenomenon.

Dictionary definitions of terms aside, I have always thought of a cult as being a sort of control thing -that one’s thoughts and behaviours are being controlled by the group or by the cultic leaders. This is not a precise definition of the term because by this definition any corporate setting would be considered a cult. I do not feel I am being controlled by anybody on this list, including Richard, Peter, Vineeto, or Alan. Nobody has told me how to speak or what to say. I exercise extreme latitude in my choice of topics to respond to as well as what I choose to say about them. I give careful thought to everything that I write.

I would like to repeat that I have given a lot of thought to the matter of this list being a cult. I was afraid when I approached this list that I was getting into some sort of cult, and I think I expressed that, if not at the precise time that I entered the list, some bit later. I have never really had any qualms about the use of a actualism vocabulary and shared understandings of what certain words mean – words like ‘ego’ ‘soul’ ‘Enlightenment’ ‘feelings’ ‘instincts’ etc etc. The Glossary is full of explanations of these terms and I freely use it to double-check what I am talking about, not because I want to bring it into some sort of strict conformity with what others are saying but because I am interested in how these terms are being used and to see if that is the way I am using them. Anybody that writes to this list is free to agree or disagree with how these terms are being used. 12.7.2001

RESPONDENT No. 19: Why try to systematize life, why try to reduce it to a few ‘essential’ principles?

RICHARD: There are no ‘principles’ ... actualism is the experiential living of what the words refer to.

GARY: Yes! This is exactly what we are talking about on this list ... a living experience of actuality. This is why actualism is not a ‘point of view’ or a ‘perspective’, a ‘worldview’ or a ‘philosophy’. This is not something to which one applies ‘understanding’... it is something one can actually experience.

Usually it is said that something must be experienced to be believed.

In this case, what is on offer is not another belief or set of beliefs but an actual experience. 13.7.2001

VINEETO: In this context I am curious as to what made you overcome your initial fear of actualism being a cult, as you described it to No. 23 –

GARY: I would like to repeat that I have given a lot of thought to the matter of this list being a cult. I was afraid when I approached this list that I was getting into some sort of cult, and I think I expressed that, if not at the precise time that I entered the list, some bit later. I have never really had any qualms about the use of an actualism vocabulary and shared understandings of what certain words mean – words like ‘ego’ ‘soul’ ‘Enlightenment’ ‘feelings’ ‘instincts’ etc, etc. The Glossary is full of explanations of these terms and I freely use it to double-check what I am talking about, not because I want to bring it into some sort of strict conformity with what others are saying but because I am interested in how these terms are being used and to see if that is the way I am using them. Anybody that writes to this list is free to agree or disagree with how these terms are being used.

VINEETO: What was it that fuelled your intent to move on beyond the common aversion to cults that most human beings have and investigate into the content of what was being said rather than the framework it seemed to be presented in?

GARY: ’Tis hard to remember, but I think I just took what was being said at ‘face value’ and evaluated it for myself so as to see whether it made sense or not. It seems to me looking back at it that there were plenty of assurances that whoever was writing to me was not telling me what to think or what to do. For instance, in early correspondence with Peter I remember explicitly his assurances that he was not telling me what to do or what to think but rather that I would have to find these things out for myself. I found this also with you and with Richard.

That is not to say that I have not had plenty of objections to actualism myself. No, wait a minute, ‘objections’ is too strong a word. I have had... questions. I have had confusions. That might be a better way of putting it. How can one object to being happy and harmless? I suppose one always can, but to what point?

One of the things that fuelled my intent to move on ‘beyond the common aversion to cults that most human beings have’, as you put it, was the frank recognition that I had myself fallen into the trap of cultism with Krishnamurtiism. In fact, I think I had recognized this well in advance of my break from Krishnamurti. I had been taken in, suckered as it were, into a deep adoration for the man that I finally recognized to be a sign of religious devotion. I was to a large extent blind to the obvious faults of Krishnamurti the man and I was quite oblivious to the charge of Krishnamurti being a spiritualist to the core levelled by Richard. But I did see a kind of devotional fervour on my part towards Krishnamurti, even though he is dead, and it is a fortunate thing that I could see this as it hastened my departure from Listening-L.

I also saw the same thing with Quakerism. My involvement with the Quakers predated my involvement with Krishnamurti. I jumped ship from the Quakers with the conviction that their way was not ‘the Truth’ and found Krishnamurti, whom I believed had found the Truth. Eventually and predictably, I became disenchanted with Krishnamurti.

One might well ask how do I know I didn’t just jump from the frying pan right into the fire, so to speak – in other words, since I had fallen for cultic behaviour myself, first with the Quakers and then on the Krishnamurti list, how do I know that I am just not repeating that pattern on the Actual Freedom list? The answer to that lies, I think, in my awareness of the issue of cultism. Since I had been aware of the feelings and passions involved in my own cultic behaviour (albeit a mild example of cultism), I was the more prepared to inquire and investigate into this issue when I first approached the Actual Freedom mailing list. I didn’t and still don’t want to end up in a cult. And I don’t think this is a cult. Uniformity of language, terms, and definitions concerning actualism. Yes, that does occur. But I do not think that is prima facie evidence of cultism. Were uniformity or similarity of linguistic expression a sign of a cult, you might just as well say that social work is a cult, or that teachers are a cult.

Another thing that fuelled my intent to move ahead with the study of actualism was that here was something new and fresh. To begin with, something about Richard’s writing struck me as being entirely original and able to stand completely on its own. In Richard’s writings to others, there appears to be a complete absence of guile, deception, and rascality.

For some reason, the framework in which actualism is presented has never bothered me. If someone has found something and wants to share it with others and wants to have a website detailing these discoveries, what the heck – then go for it. If I don’t agree with the information on the website or it doesn’t suit me, I don’t have to stick around. I can take it or leave it as I so choose. 17.7.2001

RESPONDENT No. 28: Well, the wordsmithery does get a bit wearisome. I’m not conveying what I’m thinking, at least in the measure of your feedback. All I can say is that most of the words I’ve read ring true with me, based on my experience to date. In fact, I don’t have much to quibble with, at least at this point.

Dry analysis isn’t always the best means of communication, so we need to resort to story-telling a bit.

GARY: Actualism is about becoming free and autonomous for the first time in one’s life.

It is the exciting adventure of delighting in the present moment of being alive, each moment and every moment, again and again. Actualism is about extinguishing the ‘believer’ located in the head and the ‘feeler’ located in the heart. The ‘believer’ and the ‘feeler’ are rooted in the rudimentary animal instinctual passions that emanate from the primitive part of our brains. There is much more to this than quibbling about semantics, and if you think that this list is about ‘wordsmithery’ and quibbling then I’m afraid you’ve missed the entire point of it.

*

RESPONDENT No. 28: I’m starting to suspect that most of the participants in this list are of a certain age. <snip>

GARY: I’m 51 years old, having been born in 1950. My parents were married during my father’s service in the US Army in WWII and I was their only child. I grew up during the ‘baby-boom’ era of the 1950s. I dropped acid and went to school stoned during the 1960s and almost drank myself into an early grave in my thirties. The pain and suffering were unbearable and I had to keep myself permanently stoned to be able to even cope with it all. I stopped the booze and the drugs in 1985 and became interested in picking up with my life where I left off with it all.

What was on offer was a spiritual solution to the problem of addiction that I readily lapped up. This then led to exploration in other forms of spiritualities and with my ending up in a cell of liberal Quakers. I then got interested in the teachings of Krishnamurti (Jiddu, not U.G.) and it was during this time that I encountered Richard’s writings on the K list. I don’t really know what happened but common sense prevailed and I came to this list to find out more about an Actual Freedom and met Peter and Vineeto and a host of others. I came here to learn and I am here still to learn as much as I can about an Actual Freedom. I appreciate all these discourses and the various threads that are happening. They all make me think but naturally some are of greater interest than others. I often find myself thinking about some issue, coming home and looking on the list and someone is writing about the identical issue at the same time I’ve been thinking about it. I enjoy writing to people and I seem to enjoying it more than usual lately. The new computer system I have makes it more enjoyable, I think. 13.1. 2002

PETER: I am often aware that what I write is often repetitious but I know, for me, that repeated little incremental understandings would begin to prise a ‘crack in the door’ such that it would eventually swing open and I was able to have a realization about some fact or another. Often it was a different phrasing, a different way of putting something that would all of a sudden make something clear that before had been obtuse or unclear – or hidden by ‘my’ emotional reactions. This type of conversation is such a pleasure and such an adventure, yet to others it is often boring and apparently even offensive in the extreme. The only alternative that would satisfy some would be to shut up, which would only mean that the chance to spread peace on earth would be stifled by the spiritual-ists. This is not an alternative that makes sense to me.

GARY: Repetition has its place. Perhaps some repetition is needed once in awhile to repeatedly hammer home the essentials of actualism and how Actual Freedom is different from traditional mainstream spirituality, philosophy, psychology, etc. What I find to be ‘repetitious’ is some of the nonsensical objections to being actually free, and I find that it is easy for me to skip over those in favour of carefully worded explications of the essentials of AF. Also too, this list is not a chat list nor is it a support group. People, if they are looking for it, are not going to find ‘support’ here. But what they are going to find are clear-headed explanations of terms, tons of information, and personal exchange with people who are taking on actualism, perhaps for the first time.

PETER: Whenever I wrote on mailing lists I always liked to be up-front about what I am writing about. I wanted to make it clear that what I was writing was both iconoclastic and brand new – not that many really listened or took the time to try and comprehend what was being said. I was, however, initially very taken aback that so many people took what I was saying personally, or Impersonally, and those who wrote to me became progressively desperate and silly in their denial and, if they persisted, ended up offended and often downright angry. It was then that I remembered that once upon a time I too was so passionate about ‘my’ beliefs that I was even willing to kill, or be killed, in order to defend them.

GARY: It is satisfying when one can converse reasonably and intelligently with another, even though they may be getting quite worked up about it, without getting one’s buttons pushed. Side-stepping the emotions, by ‘nipping them in the bud’ is a very satisfying feeling and confirmation that one can bring one’s emotional and instinctual reactions into the light of awareness. Eventually, as I have found, one will run up against something that does push one’s buttons, but it is then just more grist for the mill in one’s ongoing self-investigations. 24.2.2001

VINEETO: I consider this stage of virtual freedom to be a time when I get used to the experience that ‘I’ am indeed non-essential and redundant, needed neither for corporeal survival nor for the capability of sensuous reflective enjoyment. Things are so much easier when no feelings or ‘self’-centred thoughts disturb the experience of the exquisiteness of this moment and the delight of simply being here, whatever happens or doesn’t happen. As you say, it then does not diminish the delight if I am alone in the house, the only difference being that I don’t share my thoughts whenever one worth sharing comes to mind. Since Peter works from home, it happens very rarely that I am alone in the house – I am the one who is leaving more often – and the first few times I checked if I wanted to do something I normally don’t do, but then I couldn’t think of anything. It confirmed that I am indeed simply myself, all the time.

GARY: It is an incredibly simple and straightforward matter to enjoy being here, to revel in the present moment. However, one’s habitual and instinctual ‘self’ does not take this all lying down easily. I have found the instincts to be very deeply entrenched and resistant to change. Lately I have been having a good deal of trouble, which I am trying presently to sort out. I’m not sure really what it is all about, but the ‘nerves of steel’ part is definitely needed. I feel like I am going through an emotional roller-coaster – all my emotions are right on the surface. There is also a depressed state of mind at work, which makes enjoying the present moment to be very difficult. I know that it is probably silly to think this – but I despair of ever freeing myself from the stranglehold of the Human Condition, which causes me to become discouraged and despondent. I can see easily where one might turn back at this point, but I do not want to. It has indeed seemed a lot lately that ‘I’ am on a very perilous course. There have been alarm warnings going off, telling me there is danger up ahead, that if I keep on the path that I am on right now, I will surely be ruined. What does one do in a situation like this? Have you had these fears yourself? 18.3. 2002

VINEETO: The second event that shed some light on how I relate to other people happened when I met a former acquaintance from my spiritual era. In the course of our conversation she asked what I have been doing with my life and, knowing she was a fervent spiritual believer, I first attempted to warn her by saying that because I have become a heretic and a traitor I am very cautious nowadays about telling my story so as to not disturb other people’s dearly held beliefs. Nevertheless she insisted, so I told a bit of my story of how I got involved with actualism. As I began to describe my first major PCE, the woman quickly said she knew what I was talking about – this was enlightenment. When I tried to explain the difference between a spiritual experience and a pure consciousness experience I was soon at a loss for words because whatever words I used to describe the quality of a PCE, she insisted that this was exactly how she experienced the world in her outstanding moments of being at one with the Whole, filled with Emptiness and experiencing the Consciousness that connects everything.

GARY: I think people will interpret and translate new information into their customary cognitive or experiential framework, much as your spiritual acquaintance did. Recently I had mentioned to someone at work something about not wanting to dwell in emotion about something or preferring not to make a fuss of something or other, and the person stated that I was being ‘philosophical’ about it all. I did not think I was being ‘philosophical’ at all, but I merely made a mental note of what the person said and mulled it all over afterward. I think if one is clinging passionately to one’s identity, and nursing malice and sorrow, the only way to approach living in peace and harmony with other humans is to be ‘philosophical’, in other words live one’s life in accordance to some type of philosophy and religious or moral system by which one creates compartments between how one actually feels and how one conducts oneself in society.

This is not what actualism is about at all. 19.1.2003

RESPONDENT No. 27: Okay, this is for everyone one the list...

After contemplating why I’ve gotten off the ‘wide and wondrous’ path to Actual Freedom – I see that objecting to anything another has written or said is due to my investment in believing one way or another – treating a statement as a philosophy or belief. If I were not trying to believe or disbelieve – then I would merely state that something is incorrect or ask for clarification if it disagrees with my results. Then I can compare notes with what I’ve discovered. The activity of believing is painful and self-defeating. The very action of objecting (to anything) is motivated by the need to believe.

Without the need to believe what happens is merely discussion, comparing notes, mutual exploration, etc.

Actualism can never be refuted or effectively objected to – it’s something to do, not something to believe. The words can be used as a guide – an estimation, but no more. All that could be objected to is a formulation, yet that does nothing to damage actualism, since there’s no thesis, philosophy, system, or whatever to damage. The ‘philosophy of actualism’ only exists in the imagination.

Having said that, my intention is (and has been since my last post) to get back to the doing – which is neither daunting nor difficult. It’s only ‘me’ and my ‘objections’ that want to make it difficult. Rather, it’s the easiest thing in the world to know what to explore and discover as the human condition is constantly bubbling up in my consciousness if only ‘I’ allow myself to be attentive.

I realize the statement ‘actualism is not a philosophy’ is often repeated on this list – but if one doesn’t understand exactly what ‘a philosophy’ is – as in rooted in belief – then that statement alone isn’t enough for it to sink in.

Why am I writing this? Well, because I want to withdraw any and all objections I’ve ever made to actualism. There can be no objection to performing the task ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ – since it’s an activity – not a theory.

RESPONDENT No. 59 to No. 44: The agoraphobia I experienced was controlling my life about four years ago, and at that time I could not have cared as I do now for actualism. My mind was just too murky for me to even think about life, the universe, what it means to be a human being… The agoraphobia was reduced, in great part, because I adopted a belief system, which claimed to be a cure-all for mental illnesses. I started practicing Dianetics for a while. Such was my faith in this system that I started to feel so much better and virtually freed myself of agoraphobia. However, it did not take long for me to see how false the whole organization was and I soon parted my way…only to be back experiencing life as I had done so before this enthusiastic belief.

Freeing myself from this particular belief had a negative effect; the agoraphobia came back. So then I decided to adopt a different kind of belief; I took in eastern spiritualism, especially Krishnamurti, and the agoraphobia, as well as a bunch of other depressing stuff, again seemed to have magically disappeared (but of course they didn’t). Then two years later I serendipitously came across Alan, Gary, Peter, Richard, Vineeto…and they completely rocked my boat.

I had no idea the influence actualism would turn out to have on me, but I knew I would have to start from scrap, so what I read hit me like a ton of bricks. And so once again I was back with my fear of public places, although it had somehow lost intensity along the way (maybe because while practicing Dianetics, or being spiritual, I had interacted with a lot of people and in different places)… but this time most of my fears did not disappear as fast as when I had adopted different beliefs; instead of neglecting this time I was actually looking at/into and being fear (and not in the romantic Krishnamurtian way).

That’s why actualism was so hard for me to begin with, especially the first couple of months … I would even try to make it into a belief system, but this never lasted, and so it seemed that actualism was worsening my condition instead of making me free of it.

Most of the things I read sounded very true, however, this would not make me feel any better … I tried the first months applying as much of actualism as I could ... but it wouldn’t seem to work. I would then read more and more carefully, and try to apply it again, but still I could not make anything radically new happen.

Until it finally ‘clicked’ that I was not really applying actualism, to be happy and harmless, but rather applying what I felt, or wanted, actualism to be (what it seemed to be) and this had nothing to do with actualism.

I wanted a quick relief, like with my previous getaway beliefs, and I did not want to work for it nor did I want to be subjective about it … because it hurts. I know for a fact now that becoming free of the human condition does not occur by just reading what others have to say, then wishing for it to be true, and then feeding off this faith; or thinking that some energy will eventuate because of the knowledge I accumulate. It really has been, and sometimes still is, very hard work, and very personal … but it is paying off.

To use my experience with agoraphobia as an example, when I first started applying actualism I could not go to the supermarket without feeling anxious, nervously sweating, and so I always tried to convince someone to go with me (people would look funny when I asked them to accompany me as they did not know how hard it was for me to interact in public places). Then, just a few months ago, I would be very indecisive about going to the supermarket but I would reluctantly do it, and by myself; afterwards I would say ‘it wasn’t so bad after all’. Now it is a joy for me to go to the groceries (I even did a friends’ the other day). I still feel fear, sometimes more than others, but it does almost nothing to me. I get the same adrenaline rush as if I were on a roller coaster, except much more exciting, and challenging as well. 4.6.2003

RESPONDENT No. 27: First, you’ve said that you don’t accept the ‘now for the first time’ kind of deal that actualist are presenting.

Here’s your quote from your email ‘Conversation continuing with No. 59 on 8.4.2003.

RESPONDENT No. 46: I don’t yet accept that this is a ‘now for the first time’ kind of a deal. We’ve got some people exiting Plato’s Cave here, and claiming that ‘now for the first time’ the sun in shining. They haven’t yet made an exhaustive investigation of all the other places it might have been shining up until now (though they might THINK they have). I mentioned some places to look above, for starters.

RESPONDENT No. 27: I have looked high and low and have never found anything like what Richard is offering. I’ve spent years trying to understand people like Suzanne Segal, Bernadette Roberts, Meher Baba, UG Krishnamurti, Da Free John, Douglas Harding, Ramana Maharshi, Ken Wilber, and various traditions around the world and have NEVER run into ANYTHING resembling actualism. The closest would be UG Krishnamurti, yet even he is miles away.

The following may look like an intellectual indulgence to you, but I tell it to make a point.

Bertrand Russell used to try to get his student Wittgenstein to admit that there was no elephant in the room – when there was no elephant in the room – and Wittgenstein wouldn’t admit it. His problem is that he couldn’t definitively PROVE there was no elephant in the room. In other words, he couldn’t rule out EVERY possibility – so he couldn’t state the fact that there was no elephant in the room. He also had a problem with physical laws – Wittgenstein’s problem was equivalent to the problem of induction.

How do you prove that a physical law holds in ALL cases? A corollary is how do you prove something does NOT exist? The answer is you can’t. At some point you take something as fact, and at what point that happens has to do with your personal judgement and warrant you have. So, in the same way there is no elephant in my room right now, actualism is new to human experience. Maybe there was another culture somewhere, maybe someone has discovered in another time and place or whatever – but that is all irrelevant – the point is that Richard and others have made a thorough investigation of mystical traditions, contemplative, altered states, etc and have come up empty.

You will see if you continue on that Richard’s knowledge of the mystical traditions of the world and writings of people like J Krishnamurti is extensive – this is not to put him up on an unquestionable pedestal, only to state a fact. Besides, Richard has stated repeatedly that he would be happy to find another person in actual freedom – to compare notes. The point in making the claim that actualism is entirely new is not (in this case) ‘actualist calenture,’ but a statement of fact as we know it. If another person in actual freedom showed up somewhere, that would then contradict that claim and it would have to be modified. I don’t see that anyone would have a problem with that – and it would indeed be welcomed.

I do think you are discovering as well that many of those who seem to be going out of the cave into something like actualism or pure consciousness are something entirely different and one begins to anticipate that they will also be ‘thrown on the bone pile’ along with the rest. How many times does one have to turn up negative results before the ability to make a positive claim about the uniqueness of one’s own experience?

So, the gist of what I’m saying here is that Richard has a good case for actualism being ‘entirely new to human experience’ and I’m sure he would only be too happy to modify that claim should evidence turn up otherwise.

One further question here – why would one want to make such a claim? When I first encountered it – it seemed absurd – a piece of calenture if there ever was one. It also smelled rotten – of pomposity and ego – as if Richard is a ‘hero’ and is wanting recognition for being the first! Well, if that’s what it’s about – then throw it on the bone pile too! Anyway, I think there is a better explanation – as I read and understood more of what was on offer, I saw that it is a correct statement of fact (as far as we know) – but the value in stating it is that people know that this isn’t the same old stuff. It’s important to an actualist that this is set apart from everything else – since it isn’t like anything else out there. That explanation suffices for me – though I’d like to hear your feedback.

The second issue you raise is whether the actualist method is a proven method. This one I’m on the fence. The issue of what it takes to prove something can be a complex one. There are many scientists for example, that claim that science never PROVES anything, that it can only approximate. Where one stands on the issue of what constitutes a PROOF has to do with one’s own proclivities and understanding of method, evidence, etc. Personally, I’ve done some time reading various things in philosophy of science, like Kuhn, Popper, Feyerabend, etc. and will read more further down the line – but things like ‘proof’ can be hairy, so I incline to take a naive (not gullible) perspective on this idea of proof.

That said, how many does it take to prove something? It worked for one person, does that prove that it’s possible? You could take either side. Now, it’s worked for some handful of people to reach virtual freedom – do you take into account their ‘testimony?’

If you limit a success to actual freedom alone, then you might toss out all but Richard – as you seem to do. But, if you include partial successes along with the one success, then you have various people from different backgrounds and genders coming together to say that the method has worked UP TO A POINT – that is, Virtual Freedom. I do think your point that it’s actual freedom on offer here and not virtual freedom is an interesting one – but to some degree it depends who you ask. Certainly many people are going for the Big one – AF, but why not consider VF to be a success and count it as part of the evidence? It appears that Richard is using this fact that others have succeeded in VF to count towards a proven method. I don’t fault him for doing so – the evidence is scant so far, I agree, but it’s not an entirely unreasonable claim being made – and there is some warrant for it.

Third, you attacked Peter’s comment about dipping into the ‘dog eat dog’ world as running away from the world. I think that was amply (though indirectly) addressed in his response to No. 28 where he made it clear that he was happy and harmless (arbitrary number) 99.9 percent of the time. Also, please consider that the actualists have made it clear that to be an actualist is to be ‘with life as it is and people as they are.’

Here’s a quote from Vineeto, lest you think I’m making it up...

Vineeto: Actualism is about becoming happy and harmless in everyday life, here on earth and now in this moment, with life as it is and people as they are. Actualism is utterly non-spiritual in that it does not seek solace or solution in retreat, fantasy, belief, life after death, meditation, imagination, dissociation or philosophical argumentation. Vineeto, The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, No. 21

Bottom line: You took the wrong take on Peter’s comment and No. 28 condolences. Also, if you want to take No. 28 to task on this point, he has a good out – he doesn’t claim (as far as I know) that he’s reached a virtual freedom. No. 28, like myself, is still sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

Fourth issue, you talk about ‘actualist’ metaphysics.

Here’s the quote I’m looking at now... (from the same email as above)

Respondent No. 46: First of all, this seems to me to be a strange (yet familiar) bit of actualist metaphysics I’m hearing here. There simply aren’t THREE WORLDS...a REAL world, a SPIRITUAL world and an ACTUAL world. There’s only ONE world ... the world we all live in whether we like it or not , and experience from our various vantage points.

If you can show me any actualist writings where they state there are ACTUALLY three worlds, I would appreciate having a look for myself. There are three I’s, but only one is actual. There are three worlds, but only one is actual. In other words, the ‘real’ world is a veneer placed over the actual world in the same way that the ‘spiritual’ world is a veneer placed over the actual world. The ‘real’ world and the ‘spiritual’ world are not actually worlds at all – they are imaginary worlds – there is only one actual world. Right now, I want to make clear that I am not personally making these claims – I am no apologist for actualism, I merely want what is actually said to be made plain and clear.

View the following from the actualist library (‘I’ and Being)...

Peter: In fact there are three I’s and only one is actual – normal I – A psychological and psychic entity residing within the flesh and blood body comprising both the ego (who you think you are) and the soul (who you feel you are).

spiritual I – A Grand identity wherein the ego is not eliminated, but escapes into a massive delusion (ego-trip) of grandeur and Divine Splendour, Oneness and Immortality, while the soul is given free reign to indulge in psychic powers and blissful imagination.

actual I – What I am is this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. AF Glossary

The various ‘worlds’ Peter is referring to each correspond to these three I’s explained here. There is much more there that I didn’t reproduce here and may be of benefit for you to read. So, you see this is not ‘actualist metaphysics’ at all. You will be hard pressed to find anything metaphysical whatsoever in actualist writings – since actualism tosses anything metaphysical on the ‘bone pile’. 6.8.2003

Re: Carrie Nation has found her match

RESPONDENT No. 46: Let me give you some quotes, both from the site(s), and from this list, that will show you where I got that very idea.

First, from the Introduction to AF on the AF site:

Richard: ‘It is possible to live in this modern era, freed from out-dated Philosophy and Psychiatry, challenging every Spiritual and Metaphysical tenet and surpassing any of the Altered States of Consciousness.

Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for eons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the very first time, a fully free and autonomous individual, living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one...’ AF Homepage

GARY: I see nothing here which states that it is the intended aim of Actualism to alter world history. I find in interesting that you lead off your post by quoting the very pages I referred to in my original post. Quite clearly, we are looking at this differently.

You quote –

Richard: ‘Actual freedom is a tried and tested way of being happy and harmless in the world as it actually is ... stripped of the veneer of reality or Greater Reality that is super-imposed by the psychological or psychic entity within the body. This entity is that sense of identity that inhibits any freedom and sabotages every well-meant endeavour. Thus far one has had only two choices: being normal or being spiritual. Now there is a third alternative ... and it supersedes any mystical Altered State Of Consciousness.’ AF Homepage

GARY: Again, my original point regarded any direct statements that it is intended aim or goal of Actualism to change world history. I see nothing in your proffered quotation to suggest that.

RESPONDENT No. 46: Here something is being announced of the utmost portent for changing the course of the entire world.

GARY: All along, I have focused on changing myself, not changing other people, not that that could be done anyway. I have little doubt that were everyone to become happy and harmless, it would change the course of the entire world. It remains but a tantalizing possibility. I for myself do not wish to wait until other people change to suit me.

RESPONDENT No. 46: Reading it with neither malice nor bias, I am reminded of the mythos concerning the coming of both Jesus and the Buddha (and probably Mohammed as well, though I’m pretty spotty on Islam). ‘A entirely new paradigm, alternative, way ... never before available’, etc.

GARY: The introduction, although grandiloquent, made me sit up and take notice as well.

However, I had to read further to see that what is on offer has nothing whatsoever to do with spirituality. It is interesting that you are reminded of the aforementioned messianic figures, when the paragraphs in quotation make no specific reference whatsoever to messiahs, gurus, or personal saviours.

RESPONDENT No. 46: Now, quoting from Vineeto’s recent letter to No. 23 –

Peter: ‘Well, for a start there is no evidence to the contrary.

Richard himself has done a good deal of trolling through the writings of others and all he has ever found is evidence of people who have experienced a spiritual freedom of the soul and not an actual freedom from the soul. I have also satisfied myself that this is so by my own investigations – I remember at one stage realizing that not only was Richard the only one who was actually free of the human condition, he was also the only genuine atheist on the planet’. Peter to No. 47, 2.8.2003

Vineeto’s reification of Richard here is, for me as someone who is suspending both belief and disbelief in actualism, absurd on the face of it. I can assure you that there are a passle of atheists who would have a lot to say about her idea that Richard is the only atheist on the planet. One can’t even argue with such declamation, really. I simply note it as a particularly outlandish example of the kind of ‘specialism’ that I am sniffing out in some of the communication here.

GARY: Was ‘reification’ the word you meant to use here? If so, and because I had to do a look-up, the definition of the word I obtained was: ‘to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing’. So, I am wondering about your use of that word. As for Vineeto’s commentary about Richard being the ‘only genuine atheist on the planet’, I can only guess what she meant in that connection. It looks to me like she meant something specific when she stated the word ‘genuine’. Obviously Richard is not the only atheist in the world, but he may be the only one who has articulated his experience to the degree that he has.

As I regard myself as an atheist, I have not gathered the impression that there are genuine as opposed to ersatz atheists, but it may well be that there are degrees of atheism, with some types of atheism being more radical than others. Given that Richard has apparently self-immolated, and his brain has undergone some type of radical transformation, his atheism is rooted in his ongoing 24/7 experience of being happy and harmless. This would be far different from atheists who adopt atheism as a philosophical position, but continue to suffer from the Human Condition. But then, that is only my guess.

RESPONDENT No. 46: From the same letter, Vineeto quotes an earlier letter to Gary (could that be you, I wonder?):

GARY: One and the same.

Vineeto: ‘It is wonderful to read of your successful escape from being in the ‘trenches’ of humanity to walking the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom – and it also heralds the impending fact that actual freedom is going to be spread like a chain-letter in the centuries to come. Vineeto to Gary, Connections, 24.7.2003

RESPONDENT No. 46: Here we go! Spreading like a chain-letter in the centuries to come ... and next up are the outcomes we can expect from such a spreading, as Vineeto continues by quoting from Richard’s journal, to contextualize her remarks:

GARY: Well, you have pointed out a specific comment from Vineeto to me which went unnoticed until you brought my attention to it. Speaking personally, the chain-letter spread of Actualism in centuries to come is neither an ‘impending fact’ to me, nor would I hold my breath waiting for it. I would re-word that passage to say that Actualism may spread. From what I can see from the participation of people on this mailing list, there are only an exceedingly small handful of people that seem committed to being happy and harmless.

Richard: It is, of course, a bold step to forsake lofty thoughts, profound feelings and psychic adumbrations and enter into the actuality of life as a sensate experience. It requires a startling audacity to devote oneself to the task of causing a mutation of consciousness to occur. To have the requisite determination to apply oneself, with the diligence and perseverance born out of pure intent, to start off with the patient dismantling of one’s accrued social identity preparatory to evoking the mutation, indicates a strength of purpose unequalled in the annals of history. It is no little thing that one does ... and it has enormous consequences, not only for one’s own well-being, but for humankind as a whole. With freedom from the Human Condition spreading like a chain-letter, in the due course of time, global freedom would revolutionize the concept of ‘humanity’.

It would be a free association of peoples world-wide; a utopian-like loose-knit affiliation of like-minded individuals. One would be a citizen of the world, not of a sovereign state. Countries, with their artificial borders would vanish along with the need for the military. As nationalism would expire, so too would patriotism with all its heroic evils. No police force would be needed anywhere on earth; no locks on the doors, no bars on the windows. Gaols, judges and juries would become a thing of the dreadful past. People would live together in peace and harmony, happiness and delight. Pollution and its cause – over-population – would be set to rights without effort, as competition would be replaced by cooperation. It would be the stuff of all the pipe-dreams come true. Richard’s Journal, Foreword, A Brief Personal Explanation, pg. 14

RESPONDENT No. 46: There’s the big picture vision (and it’s not a bad one ... btw.). I’m not JUDGING it, Gary ... simply pointing it out.

GARY: Well, it is still a big leap in my mind from you saying that there is a ‘big picture vision’ of might happen were Actual Freedom to one day spread like a chain-letter and saying, as you did earlier, that Actualism maintains that it will change the course of human history. While a vision is a tantalizing possibility, it is not a prediction nor a prognosis. I think No. 27 hit on this same point when he pointed out to you in a separate post that there is a big difference between saying that something might happen, and saying that something will happen.

And just a word about JUDGING, as you seem to be fairly shouting the word at me. I do not care one iota if you judge Actual Freedom or not. Judge all you wish. I know personally that the Actualism method works, and I think I have shared both my successes with the method and my difficulties on this mailing list. As Actual Freedom is not a belief system, even if you were condemnatory towards it and in the rudest of terms, I have no defensiveness of any sort.

RESPONDENT No. 46: Anyway, Vineeto continues by adding yet more explanation, incorporating both the specialism motif and the ‘affecting the planet as nothing before’ motif:

‘What you call ‘religious fervour’ is my passion for peace-on-earth, the very passion that propelled me to set out on a journey to become free from the human condition so as to enable peace-on-earth in one other person but Richard.

The reason why Richard described ‘global freedom’ as a possibility of ‘the stuff of all the pipe-dreams come true’ is because when wrote his journal he was the only person who knew about an actual freedom while today there are other practicing actualists – and in case you haven’t noticed, the ‘chain-letter’ that will enable peace-on-earth is already happening via this very mailing list. The fact that actualism is already beginning to spread across the planet caused me to call actual freedom an ‘impending fact’ ‘in the centuries to come’.’ Vineeto to No. 23, 3.8.2003

That surely speaks for itself, in explaining to any with ears to hear where I got the idea.

GARY: Yes, I can indeed see where you got the idea, but it is not consistent with your previous statement that Actualism advertises that it will change the course of human history. Do you see what I am saying here? There is a big difference between a possibility and a prediction. To give an example, I may drop dead tomorrow of a heart attack – not likely given that my cholesterol level is very good and I do not have any of the major risk factors associated with heart disease (ie. obese, family history, smoker, drinker, etc.) Now that is quite different from saying that I will drop dead from heart disease.

RESPONDENT No. 46: Finally, the quote I began with in my ‘Conversations Continuing’ email to No. 59:

Richard: ‘I have no problem at all about being quizzed anyway as anybody stating that they have the solution to all the ills of humankind can expect to be examined rigorously. And, given all the snake-oil salespeople throughout human history, rightfully so’. Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, No. 44, 11.6.2003

Anything I happen to have said above keys off the basic position held and articulated by Richard himself. He knows darn well that he is making these TREMENDOUS claims about actualism, the third alternative, the new thing, the ‘solution to all the ills of mankind’.

GARY: When a person lives an Actual Freedom from the Human Condition, as apparently Richard does, then that is a solution to the ‘ills of humanity’, is it not? If other people choose to remain firmly embedded in the cares and woes of the Human Condition, then there is nothing to be done about that in a sense, is there? I have no doubt, from what Richard has written, that he does not hold any expectation that his writings on Actual Freedom will change anybody else. Actualism is not about changing other people. It is about changing yourself – fundamentally, radically, and unequivocally.

I would like to add a word about the question: ‘How can one know that Richard is Actually Free?’ In other words, how do I really know that Richard is the ‘genuine item’?

The answer to that question, for me, is: I don’t really know it. All I know is that from all the reading that I have done about this transformation called Actual Freedom, everything is consistent and makes sense to me. The only way I could only really know if Richard is what he says he is – in other words, a human being sans identity, is if I were to take up residence with him and observe him intimately for 24/7.

I mean, I think you can only really know another human being until you live with them for awhile. One frame of reference that I have for this is Richard’s book, his voluminous writings, and the testimonials of people who have been intimately acquainted with him. As I live continents apart, I have never met the man. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so, but I took seriously his warning not to do so. Additionally however, what we are talking about on this mailing list is a verifiable experience – the Pure Consciousness Experience. I need not meet or talk to Richard personally to know exactly what he is talking about, because it is a verifiable experience. It is verifiable by one’s personal experience. One can readily confirm (verify) that an Actual Freedom from the Human Condition is not only possible but a living reality by one’s own PCEs.

RESPONDENT No. 46: I’m not misinformed, Gary ... not right here, at any rate. I am ACCURATELY informed about the ACTUAL FACTS of Richard’s communication, and the communication of two of his chief disciples/senior students about the claims and promises of actualism.

GARY: What does Actualism promise, No. 46? Can you tell me? Can you show me ‘the promises’? Because from where I sit, I do not see that anything is promised. Just in this one passage here, you reveal the axe that you have to grind when you dub Peter and Vineeto ‘chief disciples’ and ‘senior students’. Levelling your ‘chief disciples’ criticism is particularly revealing, as it is obvious from what you say that you No. 46 have an agenda, and your agenda is to expose Actualism as a cult. So, I do not think you are the fearless, intrepid deconstructor that you like to pose as. You have an agenda. And it is very obvious what that is.

RESPONDENT No. 46: Having said THAT, Gary, please hear me when I tell you that I have NO PROBLEM with Richard’s bold and sweeping claims. They are challenging, and are calling forth from me a seriously focused response, as well as my own doing of the work, asking the deconstructive question ‘How am I experiencing...’

GARY: What exactly do you mean by the phrase ‘my own doing of the work’? What ‘work’ are you doing? I have yet to hear of your experiences, if any, in applying what you so glibly describe as the ‘deconstructive question’. So I would be interested in hearing just what ‘work’ you are doing.

RESPONDENT No. 46: They are also leading me to kick the tires on this AF buggy ... HARD ... to separate the wheat from the chaff, the baby from the bathwater, the chicken from the bone (the burger from the bun? – only if you’re doing the low carb thing).

If that seems a misinformed hachet job to you, then we are framing my actions differently: it seems a thorough and NECESSARY deconstructive investigation to me ... one that Richard approves of (or at least anticipates ... or so he said, at least once) in inviting others to quiz away.

GARY: My goodness, you do go on, don’t you?

Now that you have lumped me in the category of ‘true believer’ it appears you can go on your merry way self-righteously proclaiming that only you, No. 46, the ruthless and fearless deconstructor is interested in exposing the lie of Actualism. This sounds to me like the cult-buster’s credo if ever I heard it. But really, what is this need of yours to deconstruct everything? Why present yourself in this way? Haven’t you taken on an identity – No. 46 the ruthless, No. 46 the fearless, No. 46 the tire-kicker, No. 46 the hatchet wielder?

If you have questions, why not simply ask them? If you have comments, why not simply make them? If you have criticisms, then go on and make them. 8.8. 2003

RESPONDENT No. 42: There’s not much practical actualism action going on this list right now, hmm? well, I’ve had a few experiences I’ll put out there.

I recently remembered a PCE, which was helpful because before this I could only go on how much practical sense actualism made, and take other’s word for it that this grand experience was possible. Thus I was unable to connect with ‘pure intent’ and unable to have a marker to compare various other experiences by. The distinct quality in the experience for me was not having to look into my surroundings – no piercing awareness of it was necessary, because, as I have heard described before, there was absolutely no distance between what I saw and my eyes. The experience occurred during a boring lecture, in a bland, almost empty lecture-hall, and it all made no difference because all I saw was fascinating. I have no recollection of other sensory experiences, hearing, feeling, and such though, and I do not have a distinct memory of what type of thoughts were occurring, or whether ‘I’ was there. But nevertheless, it was good enough for me.

An item I noticed in practicing the method was how long it’s taken me to get a hold of how the method actually works. I recently heard someone on the list describe the method as incredibly simple, and I do agree the more I find out how it works. My experience is that I interpreted the words and descriptions of the method in as many possible ways as I could without comprehending the simplicity of the method. I came up with all these explanations and method ‘add-ons’ that would help me- it seems all they did was postpone discoveries. For example I would try to tackle entire instincts at a time- either aggression, nurture, desire, or fear. or I would try to tack-on other psychology bits and pieces and such. and try to uproot the conditioning that way. A lot of it was me thinking the method was too simple, and not enough, and that I needed to find my own way through it all.

I recently noticed that sometimes, I have even turned actualism into another layer of my identity – all it did in these cases was keep me from investigating. I would notice a particular problem and before I could go into it I would say ‘I’ve gone over this before, I’m an actualist, and thus it should be gone’ and go on feeling bad about failure, or ignore the feeling, or whatever traditional escape I came up with.

However, I don’t that if I had just stuck to the words in the presentation of the method from the very beginning if it would have helped. The words apparently just did not click with practicality as they do now – but I needed the experiences of taking the method the wrong way, and the ensuing frustration, to understand bit by bit what the method was about. It requires that I be able to experientially know what the words are talking about, and as they made sense at the first read, I didn’t ‘understand’ them in this necessary sense.

Just recently I have been able to identify what was going on in with my identity and then I saw the particular bit of social conditioning around the issue and was able to say ‘that is ridiculous’. before I could examine the whole thing, but was unable to let go of it, for whatever reason.

It all ends up being remarkably similar to how it is described on the website on Peter’s ‘advance guide.’ I suppose I should have expected that from the beginning though... 14.9.2003

RESPONDENT No. 59 to Richard: When I first came across Actualism I promised myself I would find a reasonable objection to which you would unreasonably reply. All I needed was a fact that would contradict your description of the Actual so I could continue on my way to either pursuing unrequited love – among other addictions – and/or all sorts of therapy. Reading U.G Krishnamurti even cheered me up for a while, as he reinforced my belief that I wasn’t missing out on much. My life sucked and I knew where I was heading to, where it might have ended, yet I would rather continue suffering – sweet sorrow – than admit to the possibility of change; although I welcomed hope, and that is where the cycle of believing and doubting Actualism began.

I recall at one point I had the option to feel and be convinced that my objections were worthy and sensible and so continue hanging on to my beliefs, completely closing the possibility of a third alternative, and go back to living a normal or spiritual life. I remember how uncomfortable it was for me at the beginning not being able to find something that would contradict your words, I sooo wanted you to be wrong, however my common sense would not allow me to make silly objections; and it was the altruism I felt, my regard for others, which finally made me stick around. I am more than pleased to have taken the time and effort to see what you’re all about… and it has turned out to be the most important and fruitful decision of my life. 28.10.2003

RESPONDENT No. 30: It is no armchair philosophy. A great deal of work is getting done. Only that is such a work, that the payoff is immediate. What was so confusing all these days is getting more and more light.

I should admit that it would have been impossible to have done this by myself. Firstly, I wasn’t even going in this direction. Secondly, the innumerable entanglements – it is so easy to give up and resort to the real world wisdom – you can’t change human nature – one must be insane to be going the way no one has gone – if not for the luck to have some great precedents here. Thirdly, the lure of enlightenment and the ASCs and the ‘Tried and True’ solutions abound – I would not have even had the slightest idea that all this could be wrong. It is a monumental discovery indeed.

In interacting with some friends recently, I could see how the various beliefs were such impediments to investigation (‘Advaita Shuffle’ being one) and learning and change. And I myself had been subscribing to them all these years – simply because they came from the masters, they were beautiful, their hoariness, peer-group-conditioning (Am I learning some wonderful words here?). And I said – I could have gone on, and would have never even imagined the actual freedom, because as it has been said here – common sense and naiveté are not fashionable in real or spiritual speaks.

Actualism is simply amazing. The goods that it delivers (which has been subject to inquiry by the fellow participants): common sense, intelligent thinking free of emotions, well-being, wonder, enjoyment of the moment, etc. are invaluable. Since there are so many goods there is no reason for blame and malice!

Let me borrow the phrase: Ain’t life grand! 29.10.2003

RESPONDENT No. 23: I have always come here with the shared purpose that is stated here.

RESPONDENT No. 30: Sorry for the delayed response No 23 ... let me just say what I think here frankly and see if it makes sense:

It seems to me that whatever is said in the website, though in so much detail (4 million words to be made fun of :), are the experiences of the actualists and though they seem to be simple, it starts making sense only when one goes deep into this mess (my experience). As it is said, it is highly iconoclastic and challenges one’s beliefs so much. So without practising, let us say one starts discussing about it. I claim that one will get upset with something that is being said at one point or another (repetition of 180 degree opposite direction seems to make sense to me now). What do you do with that upset?

You can blame Richard, Peter, Vineeto for being adamant, dogmatic, incorrect etc. (That’s where looking for exact evidence at least in one case to support one’s feelings is worthwhile. Then one realizes, however strongly felt, the nature of feelings. This itself would be in some sense applying actualism.); or you can see why you are upset... even if they are so... what is that preventing you from being happy and harmless with the situation as it is... (again you have started applying actualism already if you do this) and my guess would be that there is a belief (principle, moral, ethical rule, value...) or deeply enough an instinct (it takes a while to get a knack of this.... this is really crazy… it is almost like an egg hatching to a chicken process... things are not clear in the beginning but facts and repeated application and contemplation are extremely important).

So that is why to understand actualism/the nature of human condition/the nature of actual freedom, I think you have to practice actualism (or any of the self observation, watching etc. but I think there will come a point where the feelings that are exonerated in other methods will be challenged in some of the writings and upset... there you go. This is a kind of question everything approach, but tailored to work).

I am not trying to produce a bullet-proof mathematical intellectual argument for practising actualism (as I might have made some cognitive oversight); just trying to present the case for actualism as I understand it from my experience and open a discussion.... and why anything less (dilution, variation) may not work etc.

See if this makes sense and if not, as always, let us discuss this stuff thoroughly (there is no objection for discussing things thoroughly, right? though it takes a lot of thought, time and energy). 22.2.2004

PETER: And as you can see, [the naysayers] will literally stop at nothing in their efforts to intimidate anyone who shows any interest whatsoever in actualism. [emphasis No. 60’s]

RESPONDENT No. 60: Firstly, if anyone on Earth spent more time discussing actualism in 2004 than me, they could surely be counted on one hand, probably even one finger, and maybe no fingers at all. It would be most Stalinesque if, in order to keep Peter’s statement correct, I were to be refused classification as ‘anyone who shows any interest whatsoever in actualism’? [Emphasis mine] Secondly, during this time I was not once ‘intimidated’ in any way, by anyone at all, whether critic or naysayer or anyone else.

OK, here goes: Is Peter’s statement a fact or is it not? Step up, someone. One syllable will do it.

RESPONDENT No. 59: Yes.

Now, if you are interested in more syllables, this is how I see it:

1. It is a fact that you show interest in actualism.

2. It is a fact that [the naysayers] –excluding the one time or two time posters, there are exceptions of course (indifferent naysayer, compassionate naysayers, naysayers who naysay naysayers), but Peter never said ‘all of [the naysayers] ‘– will literally stop at nothing in their efforts to intimidate anyone who shows any interest whatsoever in actualism – provided that only the efforts to intimidate put into action on this mailing list are taken into account; and not the hiring of a sniper to go hunt down actualists (which is highly improbable…but possible). [emphasis added]

3. It is a fact that you have not once been intimidated in any way, by anyone at all, whether critic or naysayer or anyone else – going by what you write.

4. It is a fact that the previous statement does not exclude statement number 2.

In other words, you are above and beyond their efforts.

It took me a while to get to where you currently are at, in regards to this. Just a couple of years ago I was still a teenager suffering the pangs of unrequited love; with the dishonourable side effects of compulsive masturbation, radical mood swings, total insecurity and acne.

When I had just recently started with actualism I did see the (non-existent) dichotomy that virtually everyone sees: actualists against non-actualists. At first, I really wanted to become an actualist because I saw how coherent and consistent they were…so I said to myself, ‘I want these guys on my side; they’ll protect me’. I was very, very (are two ‘very’s’ enough?), insecure; and as a consequence, I believed in actualism. However, I still really cared about what other people thought of me, so I shielded myself behind an imaginary (not to efficient) actualist shield of my creation; which, to my dismay, didn’t work all that well. So I also doubted actualism.

Soon after I felt cheated, and in a bizarre ‘what the heck’ way, felt I wanted to belong to the non-actualist group … which, in hindsight, is humanity writ large. Because non-actualist, humanity, more often than not speak up for one another and (as I had felt) look after each other…but if you’re an actualist, you are all on your own (until your first PCE that is). Not once has Richard, Peter, Vineeto or any other actualist ever defended me… ‘Those fuckers!’ I remember once thinking.

But, gradually, my desire for peace on earth, happiness and just plain well being started to replace my instinctual need to feel protected and belong.

The naysayers succeeded in intimidating me (consciously and/or unconsciously) more than once, and it was a good experience because virtual naysayers prepared me for interactions with actual flesh and blood body naysayers; which surprisingly enough are, in my experience, more lenient – but then again, I am rarely as frank while talking to them as I am while writing to them.

But you seem to be brave; you appear to write with confidence, so I don’t know if you’ll relate to what I’ve written. See, I was always a coward (didn’t necessarily feel like one as I was so well protected…e.g., popular in high school), and this is probably why I needed and depended on other people more than you do – I always cared what they thought and felt about me, even more than the norm- so this subject I consider to be my forte. Good old ‘me’ has a first class, unforgettable, top of the notch experience with this. So, again, hope I’ve helped. 25.1.2005

RESPONDENT No. 16: One of the things I have found most fascinating recently is to go back to the web pages and re-read some things which I now have an experiential understanding of. The difference in understanding is vast, and words can barely begin to convey the meaning.

RESPONDENT No. 30: The words in the site always meant the same... only that I didn’t see before and was busy in my world distorting/ interpreting/ doubting/ objecting based on general principles and various other devices. The problem is not with the words, but with ‘me’.

But I get what you are saying.

RESPONDENT No. 16: I think this contributes to why I find actualism to be such hard work. No one else can do it for you – or at least, I haven’t discovered how they can yet.

RESPONDENT No. 30: It is a very curious business... yes ‘I’ have to do it all by myself... but everything is there around me if ‘I’ be willing. Something I am working on:

‘I’ am built with so many layers that ‘I’ didn’t even know of. ‘I’ am like the onion that hides so much inside. The actualism process is like willingly peeling one’s own layers... or rather investigating the layer after another. Initially, it appeared ridiculous that ‘I’ am malice and sorrow... because I was dealing with nice outer covers and blind to most of the stuff. Each layer was there for a reason... and finding out the reason and soothingly replacing the layer with intelligence and common sense... seeing what is obsolete and what is appropriate... seeing that there is nothing more to desire or fear when one is completely here.

This constant attention to the layer that is in action and resolution of it then and there is the process that can take one deeper and deeper into oneself. Nothing less than the intelligence one is capable of can do this job... the survival mechanisms that the layers are formed of would not drop if not completely convinced of the presence of superior intelligence that can serve the function better. How much ‘I’ am not here at all... ‘I’ live somewhere else... how can ‘I’ find the meaning of life at all... as the meaning has to be here...here and now is the place of action and ‘I’ live somewhere else. When ‘I’ feel bad: it is like sitting in a nice breezy place and complaining that it is hell...

The hellish realm is one’s own making and the ‘now’ is perfect. Nothing that ‘I’ think and feel is applicable to the ‘now’: ‘I’ is made of something past, old and unreal. ‘I’ am not reporting about actuality but ‘I’ am creating reality. ‘I’ have to quit blaming about the other and see that ‘I’ am the root cause of misery. All this constitute the journey inside the deep layers that one is made of. 2.7.2005

RESPONDENT No. 30 to No. 60: Another gem I have learnt by looking at the volume of my old posts is that – all these conceptualizations and theorizations (that seem to be going on a lot in the list) – paradoxically – have no value in the final experience. It is as if one has oneself in a messy thorny bush and one might need all kinds of tools to get oneself out – but the actual experience has no use for all those modus operandi and to spend one’s life in the process of disentangling engrossed in the process would be a waste, no? One has to do what one must, but to be able to see outside of the box what is one doing to oneself in large spans of time, the repetitiveness, the various avatars of oneself etc. would be a great boon. If one can clearly see that the life outside the suffering of human reality can be much better, one may not waste more time than necessary. All this is obvious at some point and not before [why?]. 20.9.2005

RESPONDENT No. 30: Dedicated to: No. 60, the uncertain dissident.

My first correspondence starts August 30, 2001 as a personal mail to Richard. I was quite excited to find a way out of the paradoxes I found myself in for over 10 years. Had been thoroughly confused by reading a lot of Zen, Krishnamurti and Richard offered open discussions about those topics.

During those days my main focus was to understand what feelings were. I wasn’t sure about the term, about the stuff that it denotes. I must have been too lost in conceptual world, particularly using the word thought as it is done – for everything mental. I was struggling a lot to understand the stuff.

I distinctly remember having located my blind defence for science when I communicated with Richard. My inbox still has a lot of incomplete drafts filled with anger at the actualist’s simplistic critique of modern science. I had decided to suspend this for sometime to go for matters closer to the everyday experience.

I don’t think I can ever say that I had put the method into practise sincerely. Half the time I was struggling with fighting the notion of a method, as Krishnamurti reading had prepared me. I had made a lot of intellectual sense of the contents of the web site and started sending mails and that gave me a good pass time. Most of my mails then, and to date are filled with hypocrisy, and when they are sincere, they are off the mark.

And then I had some psychotic experience that made me lose almost a year. Looking back, the single error that led me to the experience – if there can be an explanation to the whole thing – was trying to read between the lines – trying to decipher the real time events as an answer to my mental contents. That is, a belief that my questions are answered by the universe in an encoded form – height of self-centeredness I guess.

Recently I decided to give a total commitment a go. And though it wasn’t total, it was a good deal compared to my previous efforts. I keep uncovering a lot of strange stuff, real or imagined. I realize that in spite of a lot of progress, still I have a part in me that is a believer and defender of Richard’s words, contrary to my denials. It is like no matter what I do, I am dirty – how much ever I produce evidence to the contrary. Everything I do seems to be a cover-up – I take the words and defend it; I master the techniques of breaking the opponent while fearing the same. So the deep core of me is still a fearful and cunning entity viewing everything as a warfare which is antagonistic.

However, the above paragraph if totally true – can give this flesh and blood body’s experience no merit. My life is not without merit. I have done some good deeds, experience happiness a hundred times more than last year etc. I just don’t know the proportion of the good and bad. I am generally more understanding, less demanding and more considerate of my fellow human beings. It is as if I lead two lives – very complexly intertwined.

I realized that whenever somebody criticizes me of something, I become angry and defend and try to prove that the other is wrong. But I get angry not because they are wrong, but because they are possibly right. I beg to the world to agree with me in my denial of my own dark nature, and I call somebody a friend if they do so. I am constantly trying to run away from my dark nature. Even my admittance of it is to hide the bigger chunks. The dark nature is due to the inherent selfishness and callousness that exists. The hypocrisy, the denials, the sloppiness, the viciousness, the cunningness – all spring from my deep nature.

Has actualism worked for me? No. 60 should be delighted – I have been fooling myself and others all this time that it has been a straight line, a wide and wondrous path. I am very, very unclear as to how to summarize the experience, but I will say this: I am very glad to have found actualism, and I am very happy today, and the future looks really great. 29.9.2005

RESPONDENT No. 82: Richard,

I continue to be super-glad to read your writing. Through the continuing interaction of this mailing list, it seems to me that you are putting more and more of what actual freedom is, and how to enable it to become apparent, into words – which are filling in gaps in my understanding, and helping me hugely.

I thought I’d tell you the way things look to me right now:

Lately, I am glimpsing the possibility more clearly that I am passional-instinct. Before, when I was trying to move toward virtual freedom, I think I was unwittingly, in large part, moving in an instinctual direction – and therefore heading away from virtual freedom and increasing myself.

So far, it’s as if I’m seeing the tip of an iceberg.

I came to this when I realized that I wasn’t steering directly for felicity a lot of the time; and that when I was steering for it, there was a limit to how much I could find. While looking for more of it, I became increasingly aware that seriousness and aching seemed to characterize a good deal of my experience. I had read many of your statements about being serious, such as how seriousness ‘actively works against peace-on-earth’ – and thought I was applying them, but I didn’t realize how much seriousness was there.

Looking closer, it seemed that the very thing that I’d been looking-for-felicity-with was that seriousness, aching, and desperateness. At that point, for the first time it looked to me as if I was those feelings (among others yet unseen). It was as if a big burden was lifted – I wasn’t being those feelings, and I was more felicitous than I could ever remember being. It seemed I was in a little bit deeper place in myself – that I had been unaware of. It started out as being filled with sadness that wasn’t about anything specific. Then it felt like sorrow (maybe universal).

Again, it seemed clearly to be me rather than ‘my’ feelings. It was a wonderful experience because it wasn’t a new sorrow, but rather seemed to be the revealing of something big that had been there all along. I got excited and grasping, and the experience ended. It seemed clear that there is also more beneath sorrow.

After that, I ended up being seriousness, etc. again to some degree, and am easing (backing?) out of being it as I notice it. I’m enjoying things more than ever! Apparently there is only so much felicity you can have in desperateness! Go figure! 31.12.2005

RESPONDENT No. 59 to No. 60: So here is a little something from someone who has been a believer, a disbeliever and an unbeliever of the actualism process.

With regards to the reason/s for your (impending) departure, that you have shared with us, I am sure you are being sincere to the best of your knowledge and experience; but I also think it’s quite possible that you are inadvertently limiting that same knowledge and experience, particularly with the actualism method, to the limited and frustrating results you have obtained so far. Results, or lacks thereof, that are shockingly similar to those ‘I’ had, or didn’t have, when ‘I’ was solely ‘me’ figuring it all out. Of course, ‘I’ am still ‘me’ – a more benign and cooperative ‘me’ –  but ‘I’ am nowhere to be found when a major breakthrough comes.

I get the impression that, in practice, you decided to do this all by yourself – not that you should have done it with somebody else. I mean, frustration trying to end frustration on the one hand; and (affective) happiness trying to increase happiness on the other (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). So the motivating factor in both these cases is solely ‘me’. And I know that you’re a big guy No. 60, but no one is big enough to take ‘me’ on. So where is that force which is far beyond ‘me’ – pure intent – for am ‘I’ enough to free myself from ‘me’? Will ‘I’ ever succeed with little or no help? Has anyone ever succeeded this way? My experience: ‘I’ neither could nor ever would.

Ring any bells or am I way off?

My conflict with actualism for some time now, completely different from my past conflict with it, has been not that it doesn’t work but that it works too well. So much so that ‘I’ no longer just feel that ‘I’ am being a hypocrite, and then realize it is only an emotional thought, and then get back to feeling good… I now see the fact of ‘my’ hypocrisy, ‘an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction’, and remain feeling good despite it.

Usually, every moment ‘I’ have two options: to do something about this, or not. There is no longer any guilt if I decide not to do anything about it and this can sometimes lead to a reverse incentive with regards to the actualism method – as there is no longer any ‘stick’ to punish ‘me’. The only consequence of not doing something is a loss of dignity, which can easily be replaced by pride, which in turn leads to a procrastination wherein attentiveness ends; this pretty much wipes out happiness and harmlessness, the infamous actualist question thus becomes useless, and of course futility begets frustration.

Once frustrated, ‘I’ am left option-less but with a seemingly effective reaction to end and further avoid frustration of this type by temporarily abandoning the actualism method. This does work; however, I have yet to have an emotional ‘reaction’ ultimately worth having… but if you have a different take on this, then you very well maybe better off not trying to practice actualism.

Back to ‘my’ hypocrisy, it’s not just any hypocrisy, it’s of the most perverted type wherein I factually know of a solution to end suffering yet capriciously forsake it for egocentric/ soul-centric trips. Or, the naysayer may better understand me if I rephrase it as: wherein I factually think I know of a solution to end suffering yet capriciously forsake it for egocentric/ soul-centric trips. Either way, not much dignity is there?

It used to be that ‘I’ was afraid of hypocrisy getting the better of ‘me’; now I see that ‘I’ am no different from it. Who would willingly perpetuate unnecessary suffering? Who could care less about radical change but spend most of their time, and effort, rearranging the furniture on the titanic to a spectacular degree... ‘me’, of course.

So even if I wanted to I could not lay the blame, of ‘my’ failure, on the method. For it is, as I previously wrote above, entirely of my choice to be where ‘I’ am now at. And this is not the same as when I used to believe in Religion/Spirituality and lay the blame on anything but Religion/Spirituality… for then ‘I’ knew no better. ‘I’ had no choice on the matter and could not compete with a 2000+ year old knowledge, improved and refined to fit modern day thinking, born and kept alive by a 1,000,000+ old feeling.

The friction ‘I’ now have with actualism is:

• I am so comfy where ‘I’ am now at that I am finally enjoying life in a way I thought I never could.

• This joy can no longer increase, nor stabilize, without ‘me’ leaving the scene… except affectively.

So ‘I’ am hanging by a thread (connection) here and if I don’t turn my back on actualism soon (in any way or form) I don’t know how much longer ‘I’ can remain a normal feeling ‘being’ (and a significant part of ‘me’ still wants this); or, if ‘I’ and ‘my’ passions get the last word in, plunge into a full time job of ‘Being’ feelings. Will I ultimately abandon a ‘Virtual/Actual Freedom’ for a Freedom ‘I’ can keep enjoying? For a Freedom from trying to be free? Absolute Freedom?

If the horror ‘I’ sometimes experience these days is anything to go by… it is tempting. I don’t know if ‘I’ will use this fear as a means to end it, surrender to its opposite, or ignore it – like most people do–  with something/s special to keep it at bay (family, in ‘my’ case). I don’t know if ‘I’ will be able, because of a lack of wanting, to completely eradicate this seemingly new fear, which actually feels very very old.

I, as of yet, have no solid intentions of abandoning actualism… but if I do one day, since sincerity and intelligence are now currently in operation, I am exposing exactly why I would do such a thing. And if ever the day comes when I start objecting to actualism, I expect someone to quote this against me (not kidding). Even though I know that the chances of regaining common sense, once it’s gone, are very slim… but possible.

*

This post is getting quite long and I do hope you don’t become bored by it. So if you start reading: ‘blah blah… success blah …’me’ and ‘you’ wrong actualism right…[yaaaaaaawn]… blah blah…’ then I would recommend you nip this post in the bud. As I know all this would be awfully boring to someone no longer interested in actualism.

But I’m having my fun, so here goes anyways  ‘I’ almost don’t know/feel who ‘I’ am anymore; ‘almost’ because ‘I’ can still relate to a couple of people and they to ‘me’ (‘I’ verify them and they verify ‘me’). But, for example, habits and manners of ‘being’ (‘speaking/reacting/relating’) that used to be so common place in ‘me’ are no longer present. In a way, this sensation is similar to my years while in depression (when ‘I’ was completely lost) but without the negative feelings/passions or the apathetic/ nihilistic view on life.

One of the principal reasons why I know ‘I’ remain as strong as an Ox, but as thin as a pin, is because of ‘my’ relating to others. Even though ‘I’ve lost most of ‘my’ friends and acquaintances, a relatively new and satisfying relationship has developed with ‘my’ family (which, in Mexico, is everything). For the past year, as a result of practicing actualism, I’ve had a unique type of harmony with them that was near to impossible when I was normal and/or spiritual… way easier going and mostly conflict free (very different from how it used to be).

However, ‘I’ have somewhat unenthusiastically discovered that this mutual relationship ‘I’ have with ‘my’ family, however pleasing, is directly the cause of ‘my’ procrastination and ‘my’ silent panic of leaving *everything* behind. This is why ‘I’ have (subtly but voluntarily) been avoiding a ‘Virtual Freedom’.

‘I’, like you, have also blamed the actualism method before for not working; all the while subconsciously staying as far away from it as ‘I’ could. Obviously, it’s up to you to find out (unless you already have) if you are doing the same as ‘I’ was, or not – or if you want the task at all (I can understand your reluctance if you don’t/or tried, failed and gave up).

Honestly, ‘I’ am not ready to go any further, as ‘I’ don’t yet want to be ready, as ‘I’ am all ‘I’ have left and all ‘I’ have left is ‘my’ family. In other words, ‘I’ am ‘my’ family, my family is valuable to ‘me’, hence ‘I’ am valuable and therefore (as with all other things important) ‘I’ am serious about ‘me’ and even more so about ending ‘me’; and seriousness, as you must know, precludes happiness. Shucks… see what I mean?

[Initiating tongue in cheek mode] What do you think my chances are of talking Richard into allowing my family to be a part of Actuality? If you help me do this I promise to help you convince him to let you keep, and use, your imagination too. [Finalizing tongue in cheek mode] The main questions that now haunt me everyday are:

• Why am ‘I’ able to deceive myself, and others, when ‘family’ is ‘my’ motivating factor?

• Why am ‘I’ unable to deceive myself, and others, when ‘Pure Intent’ is ‘my’ motivating factor?

• If ‘I’ had no family *what* would be of ‘me’?

• What am ‘I’ in relation to these people?

• Could ‘I’ really exist without them?

• Is ‘my’ family more important to ‘me’ than other families?

The thought out answers which I continually get everyday, which I sometimes think are so carefully thought out so as to avoid an experiential answer, go something like this (notice that after the ‘-but’ is ‘hard core’ sincerity in action) :

• Fact 1: Actualism is by far the most important thing in my life – but there is still room in ‘my’ life for a few other things.

which leads to –

• Fact 2: I want to (psychologically/psychically) not exist as I know that is where the big enchilada is – but ‘I’ obviously still want to remain in existence.

and taking into account the previous two facts– 

• Fact 3: I have rather incredibly benefited from actualism without achieving a stable ‘Virtual Freedom’– but ‘I’ have yet to actually practice all of actualism without modifying or leaving out a thing or two.

So why have I yet to reach a ‘Virtual Freedom’?

• Fact 4: Well, ahem, the answer is now quite obvious to me… it’s because of that ‘thing or two’ you see.

And ‘I’ used to think others had contradictions! ‘I’ am like a living breathing contradiction, a contra-‘being’, but ‘my’ discrepancies have been identified and will be dealt with due diligence… ohm, someday ;-)

Going back to one of ‘my’ favourite inconsistencies … ‘I’ also know that ‘my’ family doesn’t belong to ‘me’… it belongs to humanity, as do ‘I’. War also belongs to humanity, it is a part of it, so ‘I’ can relate to war; and when push comes to a much uncivilized shove, ‘I’ can and will create war. Where there is just ‘pushing’, ‘I’ just create normal conflict, but where there is shoving and that shoving is relevant or in someway related to you, ‘I’ have the potential to cause havoc/physical death on you and your loved ones.

This fact was made all the more obvious to me at a time when I was socializing with the not so economically fortunate people of this country… more than a few times I heard about, and experienced second hand, how very nice, loving and affectionate people would do the unthinkable (to other very nice, loving and affectionate people) when emotional conflicts became passionate ones. And I see that ‘me’ and ‘my’ family have this same potential for harm, if it comes down to it.

I am also writing all of this because I have decided to further expose my frequent loss of dignity and the reason that the actualism method hasn’t virtually freed me or, by other/other’s standards, worked for me.

The more ‘I’ procrastinate the more I will, at best, have no potential to be of use to others in regards to freedom and, at worst, cause them harm.

I well understand why Richard wrote that he could not look at himself in the mirror when he had done less than he could to free himself from the human condition; and I well understand why I have also sometimes chosen to ignore this particular statement of his. That is why I have decided to blow the whistle (I hope this is the correct expression) on why the actualism method hasn’t completely worked for me. This unsophisticated method is doing exactly what it is purported to do… and ‘I’ am just acting or reacting accordingly).

Farewell dear No. 60 if you decide to leave… ‘Ahoy!’ if you decide to stay. 18.5.2005

RICHARD: The universe experiences itself as this flesh and blood body (and the distinction is not trivial).

RESPONDENT No. 90: What is the difference between ‘through’ and ‘as’?

RESPONDENT No. 84: It’s like the difference between –

1. I live in this body.

2. I live as this body.

The first statement implies that there is an entity/ actor of some sort (me) which uses something else (this body) as its intermediary. The second does not.

Now take another look at the difference between –

1. I am the universe experiencing itself through a human being.

2. I am the universe experiencing itself as a human being.

Again, the first statement implies that there is a separate entity/actor of some sort (universe), which uses something else (a human being) as its intermediary. In the second statement there is no separation.

Experientially, there is a big difference between experiencing life through the senses (‘me’ gazing out at the world), and experiencing life as the senses (no ‘me’, no separation, just pure sensate/ reflective experience of actuality). 17.6.2005

RESPONDENT No. 84: On a more practical and personal note, throughout this winter I’ve been applying your method with encouraging results. Mainly –

1) I’m no longer blindly bouncing back and forth between the ‘bad’ feelings and their ‘good’ pacifiers. At first I found it hard to sit with the ‘bad’ feelings without immediately running into the waiting, welcoming arms of the ‘good’, but now I can understand how vitally important this is if one wants to cure the underlying condition instead of just treating the symptoms. I look for the ‘third alternative’ all the time now.

2) I’ve given up blaming other people for my feelings, no matter what the situation. Looking back it seems such a simple and obvious thing to do but it had escaped me. On the flipside I decline to make myself responsible for other people’s emotional hurts [unless I’m hurting them intentionally].

3) I’ve become very conscious of how people are enslaved by the need to belong, and how it is impossible to be unconditionally happy and harmless while we harbour this need. Consequently, I’ve begun to withdraw my psychic/social/emotional tentacles, replacing emotional demands/dependencies with a friendly, commonsense, ‘live and let live’ attitude most of the time. There is a long way to go along this path, and there are some daunting prospects ahead, but I am emboldened by the results of the first steps.

4) I’m learning how to be friends with myself. The very idea once struck me as corny and wishy-washy on a superficial level, and on a deeper level quite impossible because of my intimate familiarity with all the filth and scum in ‘me’. But after overcoming those initial reactions I’ve found out just how much and how often I persecute myself, and how self-defeating it is. There is only ‘me’ in here, and whatever is done to ‘me’ is ‘me’ doing it to myself. 14.8.2005

RESPONDENT No. 27 to No. 60: Early on in my encounter with actualism it became apparent that it’s all or nothing. If Richard’s ‘style’ seems aggressive to you, or you have a problem with it, then you have something to investigate. It had gradually dawned on me that Richard’s very relentlessness had something to do with the fact that he is currently the only human being on the planet that is actually free.

Is the ‘aggressiveness’ really coming from Richard or not? In every case I’ve looked into, Richard has simply not been the aggressor. It’s really quite simple – a normal human being ducks and shoves. When Richard refuses to let you of the hook, ‘you’ (those that interpret it as an aggressive style) duck the perceived dart and shove the blame on him for being ‘aggressive.’

Blaming others, trying to change or manipulate others, having a problem with someone’s ‘style,’ etc simply has no place in actualism – it really is all or nothing. Early on in my encounter with actualism it became apparent that it’s all or nothing. 3.2.2006

RESPONDENT No. 59 to No. 60: Not too long ago in the past, ‘I’ wanted acceptance by as many as would accept ‘me’ – so I used to be very fluent in ‘identity talk’, speaking/ writing/ listening in a style that was very much approved by other identities; and, as a consequence, ‘I’ was usually liked by nearly everyone in ‘my’ life.

One of the reasons I enjoy seeing Richard correspond is because he writes things that can be so challenging, to one’s socialized ‘being’, as to be perceived as aggressive (thus making him out to be a very unlikeable identity) – which is the main reason why ‘I’ would always remain silent when seeing another’s fundamental contradictions; and therefore maintain a friend/an ally who would most likely also remain silent when seeing one of my own. Consequently keeping each other in the dark – that’s how much we cared.

I have seen Richard lose countless potential friends/ allies by refusing to play this game. And this game was therefore more important to them than whatever is on offer on the Actual Freedom website and list. 3.2.2006

*

RESPONDENT No. 60: I don’t criticise Richard for being persistent, challenging, unrelenting, refusing to let people off the hook when they’re doing something dodgy, pointing out their fundamental contradictions etc.

RESPONDENT No. 59: How exactly would you go about doing this, No. 60? How could you explain to somebody that their most treasured feelings/ noble ideologies/ optimistic dreams (those very things that give meaning to their life) are fundamentally flawed in that they have never and will never bring about peace-on-earth, without the possibility of coming across as ‘aggressive’, ‘arrogant’, ‘hostile’ and ‘unfriendly’?

As an example, the first girl who I fell in love with was nothing less than perfect to me; she gave meaning to my life. But when someone informed me, in a very kind and considerate way, that this girl was actually only interested in older guys (despite her telling me otherwise)… I resented this person and denied the evidence put forth.

After several months of digesting what had been presented to me, and seeing the facts of the matter for myself, I realized I had thoughtlessly shot the (friendly) messenger of a very factual but unpleasant message – and the style of the message was flawless, it was the substance I had a problem with.

Now, here is the thing, even if actualism was all substance and no style I would have still been interested enough upon first approaching it to get to where I am now. As the style, which I personally find a lot of fun by the way, is only very partial – it is the content, the substance of the words, that interests me. 3.2.2006a

Actualism Homepage

 Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Design ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions