|
Others ~ Selected Correspondence Actualism
On one hand, there is this woman who loves me very much and cannot imagine her life without me (as is typical in such emotive relationships (now that’s a sociopathic cynical statement)), on the other hand I am well on my way to dismantling my self with all its conditioning and emotions... Life is richer when lived with another person but if the other person is dependant on you staying ‘human’ with all the emotions etc., and you can see that it would take a lot of convincing etc. to make the other even begin to question love and affection, do you folks think it is a risk worth taking? I can see very clearly that her sorrow and depression puts pressure on me to decide in favour of marriage, and also that there is a fear if I would ever find a person willing to live with me again, etc. I see clearly that my self and her self are basically the same, struggling to preserve ourselves, me by trying to withdraw and she by holding on to her love and attachment. But does it mean that the only way I can challenge my ‘withdrawal’ and self-preservation is by committing to marriage? What is the third alternative? If one’s understanding of actualism (or anything?) is free of beliefs but based on actual facts, I think one can co-exist harmoniously with one’s fellow human beings as they are, no matter what the believe in (not tolerance, but absence of the disharmony and therefore no need for tolerance). Some days ago (as an effect of No 58’s question ‘you can enter but you can never leave’) I wondered what will happen if the list ended and Richard’s claims were proved to be false. That exposed the ‘conceptual thinker’, the center in (as?) me which divided the world into actualists and nons that forever separated me from the conceptual non-actualist. I experience a collapsing of the world in me. That somewhat ended this imaginary division and I felt the freedom from having to convince the whole world of those who have never heard about actualism about what I have understood/believed... I can co-exist with them as they are and if they are interested, I can share what I have experienced or learnt. And since then, I clearly see that I am able to enjoy other’s company fully without any agenda to change them. It is not my suggestion that you marry her! You are free to do what you really want to do. I am somewhat in a similar position as you are (not so much pressure as you though!). No 75 to No 74, 17.4.2005
To No 73 – Do you not feel an instinctive resistance to actualism? I do. Even if I regard it as both a sensible and fascinating thing to do, a part of ‘me’ still cries out against it and wants to bust loose. (emphasis added) And if one equates actualism, or the end product of actualism, to peace on earth –
* No 66 – …to have emotions and to perpetuate having them is opposing a 100% peace on earth It is not ‘opposing’ 100% peace on earth (unless you mean it prevents 100% peace on earth)? Maybe I can help clarify this issue for you – or you never know, maybe you will end up clarifying it for me. As I understand, only an Actual Freedom from the human condition is what can enable ‘a 100% peace on earth’. When I read that ‘to have emotions and to perpetuate having them’ is ‘opposing’ peace on earth –as well as preventing it – I immediately knew it to be a fact. To give you one example, as I write this, sure I want peace on earth; but I also really want to fornicate with (name of supermodel omitted). While this desire for sexual interaction (with someone whom I don’t even know) may not appear to exclude peace on earth, I (experientially) know that peace on earth would exclude such desire. Having subtly seen this, I cleverly say to myself something that we Mexicans have a reputation for saying… ‘Mañana’. Tomorrow will be another day, tomorrow I’ll try peace on earth, tonight I’ll kill kittens (http://www.hosstyle.com/kittens.htm). I have, right now, consciously decided to oppose peace on earth in order to affectively enjoy some fictitious event (if only for a day, ‘I’ slyly say, and anyways I am not really opposing it; just postponing it, aren’t I?); something that not only prevents, but resists peace on earth. But see, no one is supposed to know this, least of all my ‘self’. So, of course I am not opposing peace on earth as say Hitler did...but as Richard has said, ‘a difference in degree is not a difference in kind’. Now (I hope I haven’t lost you), in my experience, when I am feeling so good as to consider myself in (what is known as) Virtual Freedom I notice that I still have (lessened) emotions, but I no longer perpetuate them; as in I no longer endorse, look forward to, or prefer them to peace on earth. In other words, and in the strictest sense of the word, I am only preventing peace on earth without opposing it... … with the added benefit that the more time I spend in Virtual Freedom, and the closer I get to an Actual Freedom, the less I prevent peace on earth from happening and the closer I am to it. I hope to have been of some assistance. No 47 to No 60 25.1.2005 * To No 73 – Do you not feel an instinctive resistance to actualism? I do. Even if I regard it as both a sensible and fascinating thing to do, a part of ‘me’ still cries out against it and wants to bust loose. (emphasis added) And if one equates actualism, or the end product of actualism, to peace on earth –
Hmmm. The best way I can answer this is to say that I do not feel resistance to the end product of actualism, which is equivalent to peace on earth (for this body), as you point out. I do feel some instinctive resistance to the thought of ‘self’-sacrifice… Yes, that resistance/opposition is natural. If I recall correctly, didn’t you once write that it is an ‘all or nothing’ affair for you in regards to actualism. If that is still the case, then I can see why you are (still) in this psychological dilemma -this psychic knot- because as I wrote to you last time ‘a difference in degree is not a difference in kind’. See, this equally applies to peace on earth (for this body) – I want to be happy and harmless, is frequently upgraded to I am happy and harmless, which in turn has lead (once) to – the temporary actualization of an awareness of perfection- I am completely happy and harmless. This could also be reversed, in my experience – I don’t want to be happy and harmless, was frequently downgraded to I am not happy and harmless, which in turn had lead to a dismal and perverted reality that only a very depressed individual can conceive. So, if your resistance to ‘‘self’-sacrifice’ has also meant a resistance to ‘self’-sacrificing (aspects of your identity) – which is in effect what actualism is all about… then the only self-sacrifice you will have access to, which btw would also lead to oblivion (for the flesh and blood body named No 60), is suicide. Been there, done that, (fortunately) never finished. [I do feel some instinctive resistance to the thought of ‘self’-sacrifice,] but I think I could still go ahead and make that sacrifice if the opportunity arose. This is interesting, especially when you contrast it with what you just recently wrote to No 66 –
As I see it, both are – essentially – the same speculation with two different (speculative) answers. It’s really not that complicated, No 60. As I see it, both are – essentially – the same speculation with two different (speculative) answers. It’s really not that complicated, No 60. When, or if, the day comes and you have the opportunity to ‘self’-sacrifice… I doubt that you will think twice about it. Mostly because all of your thinking on – through to the end of – the subject will have already been had; you will be well prepared for that very important ‘YES!’. Something I clearly saw I was not, in my last PCE (first PCE since practicing actualism). The real resistance I feel is a result of my everyday ‘real world’ (mis-)understanding of a life without passion or feeling. Rather than having a resistance to the actual end product, I have a resistance to my ‘real world’ vision of the end product. Does that make sense? Yes, I’ve been there, completely natural. In my experience, ‘my ‘real world’ vision of the end product’ had more influence on me than what I now know to be ‘the actual end product’. And actualism, per say, had so little (if any) influence on me that I practically stood still for several months without much (if any) progress at all. So it took me quite a significant while to gather enough intent to stop believing in my own creation and start practicing what had been obvious all along. Such a significant while that even after over more than two years I sometimes still use ‘my ‘real world’ vision of the end product’ as an excuse to temporarily disregard my actual understanding of the end product and hence permit myself to engage in non-sensible real world actions. I can relate to many of the things you write, No 60; however, I was never as rational as you appear to be (I was as feminine as could be without being gay). I’ve seen that rationality under the influence of instinctual passions can be a major inhibitor to understanding actualism, and this may very well be the case with you. Will try to continue the rest of your email another time, I got much work to do at the moment, but I will say that it has been a real pleasure. No 47 to No 60 25.1.2005a
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] 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. Now, Peter’s statement is either true or false. If I ask, in light of the above facts, ‘which is it?’, and if someone who calls him/ herself an actualist gives me a straight acknowledgement, sans qualifications or excuses, that another actualist’s statement is false, it will be a first, in my experience. OK, here goes: Is Peter’s statement a fact or is it not? Step up, someone. One syllable will do it. Yes. Now, if you are interested in more syllables, this is how I see it:
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. No 47 to No 60, 25.1.2005 * I was just going to write to No 60 again about something*) I suddenly realized – which I think, if I recall correctly, he had already realized before (no mystery, it’s at the bottom of the page) – when I suddenly saw you had posted to me. I am glad that what I have written caught your attention, but I’m even more pleased to know that actualism is working for you. Not too many people can say that; well, not too many people give it a shot either. And I know that these are trying times for you; so I do appreciate your overall good humour and the extra effort you make when writing. And while you find it interesting to be reading of someone who has (tried to) practice AF almost since their teens (I was 20 when I started, 22 now, next month 23), I probably find it equally interesting to read of someone with your own background. It is fascinating how different we all seem to be yet how alike we all are; but, more importantly, how different I am from ‘me’. That understanding actualism can be very difficult indeed – from a real world perspective; but actualism in itself will always be so incredibly simple. The complications that ‘I’ project upon actualism are really just ‘my’ own projections and the side effects of coming to terms with something so entirely different. So No 60, if you’re reading: simple yes, easy … not necessarily. I write this because I know how hard you can be on yourself. No 47 to No 66 and No 60, 25.1.2005
Right, it is this dark underbelly of the ego that we are trying to expose which is not easy to do. Correct... but not that difficult really. just that it can be unpleasant in the beginning, appalling during and surprising and delightful at the end. No 33 to No 16, 14.7.2005
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. Why has it taken me so long to see this or for it to sink in? I’ve been seeing this fact written all over the AF website for more than a year – it must be that thinking about the believer and philosophizing about the believer and believing about the believer is not the same as seeing the believer in action. No 37
I’ve been pondering a good while over your last post and on how and what to respond ... after some time it hit me that I haven’t yet the experience to answer most of your questions. However, I am overly experienced in a particular area; in fact, I am far, far more experienced than Peter, Vineeto and (yes) even Richard, on probably your favourite subject: Actualist Calenture. I think it necessary to outline and expose some of what is entailed in being subject to this most curious event. Of course, and please, feel free to correct and/or expand on my observations if need to.
A continuous sequence of emotion-backed thoughts which give rise to yet another version of who I am and what I identify with – or who I want to be (or not be) and what I want to identify (or un-identify) with; as in a bunch of ‘my’ ideas, images, feelings and thoughts (influenced by feelings) on what Actualism seems to be all about and living according to them. When is somebody in danger of acquiring Actualist Calenture? When one is not scrupulously honest with oneself and has a vested interest, other than being happy and harmless, in regards to pursuing Actualism; or, in other words, no pure intent.
Even though it was very difficult to admit that I was only kidding myself, every time I did an ‘ego’ check it was obviously still present and even more sophisticated (no naivety to be found) and identified with my most recently acquired philosophy; and when I did a ‘Soul’ check it would be all blown out of proportion (aka aggrandizement) and identified with my most recently acquired set of emotion-backed thoughts. I started observing how most of my day was neither spent being happy nor harmless and so I felt cocksure of having enough evidence to claim that Actualism ‘doesn’t work’. I had spent a good deal of time gathering all my truthful facts about Actualism, and its failure to deliver the goods that it promised, but in the end my whole case shattered before me. I had an insight and saw the extent I was going to in order to avoid change … it is so difficult to break from the past. Since that day I actually started to care to read with both eyes what was being offered by The Actual Freedom ‘promoters’; and I started reading, even the things I had already read several times, in a completely different light … and what a difference it made. No 54, something in me still wants you or somebody else – for I was unable – to find an actual contradiction in Actualism, for the past still has a strong hold on me as does the future, but I have already lost faith in that too … not that it can’t happen but it’s just impossible for me to conceive as my understanding becomes more and more experiential. I can’t say I worry too much about it either for I am having so much fun. But here’s hoping … One possible mistake being made by Mr. Richard and his promoters is in thinking that just because Mr. Richard’s tech works for them to a fair degree, it can be as effective for anyone equally committed. In my observation and experience that isn’t necessarily so. As ego-structures, people are not all the same ... science and common sense observation shows that to be so: left-brained vs right brained, introverted vs extroverted, etc. Some folks may have a helluva hard time moving from the tech question ‘how am I experiencing...’ to the causal reasons for their unhappy experience of the moment. Watch this list, and particularly the responses of the teaching students, for signs of impatience and lack of understanding for the ‘slow kids’ in the class ... for whom this tech may be woefully inadequate to peel the many layers of the ego-self onion Almost any human being can be conditioned, or acquire ‘the layers of the ego-self onion’, so why couldn’t almost any human being be un-conditioned too? I hope to have assisted you in furthering your investigation. No 47 to No 54
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. No 47 to No 45
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.’ 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. Gary to No 16
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. As I was familiar with this spiritual ‘take over’ from other conversations, her claiming my descriptions of the actual world as being the same as her spiritual experience came as no surprise to me. What somehow surprised me, however, was that I was completely unruffled by this closing of the door to the possibility of something new as I had sometimes been in the past. In fact I enjoyed our discussion immensely. Not only did I know it was not my choice of words that caused her ‘misunderstanding’ but I was also certain about the fact that, despite all her assertions that our differences were only a matter of semantics, we were talking about two diametrically opposite worlds. I was talking about the experience of being what I am, this flesh-and-blood body devoid of ‘me’ as experienced in a PCE, while she was talking about who she felt herself to truly be – a passionate Being, feeling blissful Unity and Oneness. As you have experienced yourself in a PCE, once one knows the actual world by direct experience, the lovey-dovey bliss of spiritual Unity with an imaginary Source holds no attraction at all. This conversation also confirmed that unless someone is sufficiently discontent with their life as it is, their interpretation of what is on offer in actualism will always be inhibited by the framework of their familiar spiritual teachings. 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. Gary to 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 16 – 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. 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? ’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. Gary to Vineeto
Richard wrote to No 29 recently: No 29: 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. 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. Gary
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’? 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. 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. 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. Gary to Peter
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. Also, if at any point you do decide to stop and go no further, your life will be better for having replaced at least some of your instilled morals and ethics with down-to-earth common sense and consideration for others. This is diametrically opposite to stopping on the spiritual path – one encumbers oneself with an additional, spiritual, set of morals and ethics and also feels guilty for having failed to fulfil the expectations and desires of one’s Master(s). What do you have to look forward to? At some point in the journey I experienced a notable shift from pursuing Actual Freedom for my own peace and happiness to doing it because it is the best thing to do with my life and doing it because it is the only sensible contribution for peace on earth. My self-immolation is freeing my body and everybody from the ‘self’-centred burden of my identity and, as we are all fellow human beings, everybody will benefit from it – if they want to. But it does look crazy from the viewpoint of a sanity that includes wars and rapes and murders and suicides and starvation and corruption. 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. Gary to Vineeto
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 47 on 8.4.2003. 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. 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 38 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...
Bottom line: You took the wrong take on Peter’s comment and No 38 condolences. Also, if you want to take No 38 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 38, 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) 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)...
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’. No 37 to No 54
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. 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. There have already been many objections of the petty put-down of ‘isms’ type usually based on the chronic human obsession with either blindly following authority or angrily rebelling against authority.
So from this definition, actualism is a form of practice having a distinctive character – as in being neither materialism nor spiritualism but something new in human experience. It is neither doctrine nor theory but a practice, as in utilizing a method or undertaking a process. I find it most useful to use the label actualist as a reminder that what I am practicing has a distinctive character – it is unusual, not common, different, extraordinary, rare. This is not a chest-puffing, identity-bloating exercise but a simple statement of fact. I am not a materialist, I am not a spiritualist, I am neither a believer nor am I a disbeliever – I am an actualist, should I ever be asked for a label, which is not very often. 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. Gary to 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. 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. 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. 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. Gary to Peter
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:
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 –
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. Here something is being announced of the utmost portent for changing the course of the entire world. 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. 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. 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. Now, quoting from Vineeto’s recent letter to No 16 –
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. 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. From the same letter, Vineeto quotes an earlier letter to Gary (could that be you, I wonder?): One and the same.
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: 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.
There’s the big picture vision (and it’s not a bad one ... btw.). I’m not JUDGING it, Gary ... simply pointing it out. 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 37 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. Anyway, Vineeto continues by adding yet more explanation, incorporating both the specialism motif and the ‘affecting the planet as nothing before’ motif:
That surely speaks for itself, in explaining to any with ears to hear where I got the idea. 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. Finally, the quote I began with in my ‘Conversations Continuing’ email to No 47:
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’. 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. 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. What does Actualism promise, No 54? 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 54 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. 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...’ 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. 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). In particular, I am ruthlessly (albeit harmlessly, I’d say) deconstructing anything that smells to me of rotten meat: calenture, actualist or otherwise. Vineeto’s reification of Richard as the only atheist on the planet seems to me a good example of such rotten meat ... actualist calenture, no different than the spiritualist calenture one finds in any one of a zillion venues. And ... speaking honestly and directly to you ... your inability to connect the dots between my own summarization and Richard’s bold statements, and the statements of his disciples, calling me misinformed on the matter when some of that correspondence even involves you (or some other Gary, perhaps?) strikes me as yet more actualist calenture. Your judgements here strike me as those of a true believer ... and the paradox is that true believism needs to be ABANDONED in order to actually get back to a pure PCE. And I don’t take a bit of it personally. It is to be expected, when dealing with people stuck in true believism. I’m having a discussion with you about it because I believe it is important enough to see deeply into it, and look at your irrationality in what you are defending here, and why. Ask yourself the deconstructive question as you contemplate what I am writing in response here. How ARE you experiencing this moment of being alive? Is there ego-defence mechanism in play? Is there territory, ideas, beliefs to defend that would require you to spin as you are spinning around what is patently my clear reading of what is being said? Which leads me to what I am hearing, both on the list and in private unsolicited emails, about people who have been trying, without much success apparently, to point out this actualist calenture to those who have committed to the actualist path. These people are not ‘enemies’, with an agenda to tear down, from what I can see. They are (again my judgment) trying, as I am, to determine what is valuable, and what may not be valuable, in what is ‘on offer’. How you, or others, frame that attempt, is not under my control ... or anyone else’s either. The best I personally can do is continue dialoguing, continue exploring, continue poking and prodding and deconstructing, in order to see what the value is of this particular value proposition ... and where the ‘gotcha’s’ might be, too. If you or anyone else has a problem with that, I’d be happy to discuss it further, on list, or off. Meanwhile, it is my true and honest intention to examine closely the PROCESS, the claims about the PRODUCT (actual freedom from the human condition), and the words of the PROMOTERS ... as I have mentioned already. 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. 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 54, 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 54 the ruthless, No 54 the fearless, No 54 the tire-kicker, No 54 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. Gary to No 54
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. 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. * I’m starting to suspect that most of the participants in this list are of a certain age. <snip> 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. Gary to No 38
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. 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? Gary to Vineeto Web page designed by The Actual Freedom Trust |
