|
Others ~ Selected Correspondence Altruism
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’. That’s right, it has been an ‘all or nothing’ affair for me. I’ve been striving to get to the stage where I can put ‘my’ head in the guillotine and get it over with. I’ve been trying to get there as quickly as possible, largely by brute force of will, and the results have been less than stunning as you know. That ‘brute force of will’ you write about can be an awesome thing when sincerity and altruism play a role. But without these two, it is mostly governed by ‘No 60’ the arrogant, ‘No 60’ the impatient and ‘No 60’ the put most of my effort into the wrong place and then continue to berate myself -and possibly others- because of unfulfilled affective expectations. Here is a small, down to earth, example (best read when naïve) –
I attribute this partly to some native arrogance, partly to impatience, and partly my failure to recognise that self-sacrificING and self-sacrifice are indeed a difference in degree, not in kind. Consequently I have underestimated ‘virtual freedom’ (both in its potential quality as a way of living, and in its importance as an intermediate step). You have hit the nail on the head! Yet remember that a realization is not an actualization. If actualism is fundamentally sound, the difference between virtual and actual freedom is also a difference in degree, not in kind. Right? A caterpillar has a jolly good time – but can he fly? No 47 to No 60
Who knows – maybe one of these days in the distant future, the human species will develop a drug therapy that progressively weans people off the human condition. Or heck, we might even figure out a surgical way of disarming the amygdala for good! If such a surgical technique were available today (with a 100% success rate, no side-effects, no discomfort, no inconvenience), would you opt for it? Absolutely. Interesting. I take it you are completely satisfied that the permanent loss of all emotion is a net win, not a loss? Yes. I am sick of ‘me’. Time for something radically different. And that the brain’s more recently-acquired hardware can fully compensate for the loss of instinct? Well, you did set the premise as having no side effects. If so, I guess you are well on your way to achieving the goal. My neocortex agrees with both, but my amygdala protests. I remain fascinated and repelled. And calmly interested, on better days. (Hope I can break the deadlock one way or the other, and make a final commitment). Yes, I know the back and forth quite well. I suppose it took getting completely disgusted with the human condition (not humans per se – but the predicament we 98% chimps are in) – along with the stubbornness to see that something MUST be done. I suppose that’s ‘altruism,’ huh? What comes to mind for me is Schopenhauer, Otto Weinenger, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Camus, Freud, Ernest Becker, racism, misogyny, power-plays, manipulations, greed, despair, war, suicide, meaninglessness, the illusions of religion, dysfunctional family dynamics, social taboos, group psychology, and the general malaise that a human being can be subjected to. It has gone on for far too long, and I cannot stand the thought of my kids not having another option. BTW, I recently came across a case reported by Dan Goleman in his book ‘Emotional Intelligence’ where a woman had her amygdala completely or virtually completely destroyed to where he says she experienced ‘no fear.’ I haven’t had a chance to look at the report in detail yet, but I was intrigued to find out that was the way he described her experience. Yeah ... it is intriguing. It suggests that fear is the constant background noise of our emotional life. Switch off the affective faculty altogether and what do we notice? ... Hey, this is great, no fear whatsoever! That’s what I noticed the first time I took Ecstasy. (Mentioned this before I think, but WTF). All of a sudden everything was just fine. It was the first time I became aware of the background of mild anxiety that defines the ‘normal’ state. (And I’m not an especially anxious person – probably more easygoing than most, in fact). For all I can remember, no other emotion was present either (unless relief can be called an emotion?). But the way I’ve remembered it all these years is: no fear. Sounds about right. I like to think of the self as sort of a grey cloud always hanging around. The self makes my body like a stuffed up nose to where I cannot breathe properly. The more ‘I’ get out of the way, the better I can breathe. ‘I’ clog up ‘my’ body with the toxin of emotion. My conclusion is that it is difficult to predict what will become possible as we learn more about brain function – but the amygdala’s role in fear and emotion in general is well known, so I wouldn’t be surprised if that is one of the first areas the human species tries to ‘tweak.’ No 37 to No 38
‘I personally like ‘second-best’ or ‘second-rate.’ It lets you know that it doesn’t measure up to what’s possible, yet it doesn’t polarize into ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ I hadn’t thought of the word ‘fully’ as polarizing into ‘fully’ and ‘empty’ but I suppose one could read it that way. I was rather thinking of actual freedom as being ‘fully’ living and ‘normal’ human life as ‘not so fully,’ living but certainly not ‘empty.’ ‘My concern with polarizing language is not only a hurdle that I have run into personally, but something I think others will run into as well when coming to actualist writings. I do think it’s in the Actual Freedom Trust’s best interest to steer clear from ‘polarizing’ language when entering into dialogue with the rest of the ‘human’ race. The less accurate representation is given of life in the ‘real’ world, the less chance that dialogue will ‘pay off.’ I am not sure I understand your exact concern with polarizing language. While I agree with you about use of the terms ‘good’ and ‘bad’, and even some degree with ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, as they seem to have a strong moral, evaluative component, I do not necessarily agree that language accurately descriptive of the strong contrast between life in the ‘real’ world and life in the ‘actual’ world, language which is bound to be somewhat polarizing, is to be avoided. Incidentally, I think the use of the term ‘pathetic’ is a particularly apt term. But since you addressed those comments directly to Richard in a post-script to him, I will leave that aside for the moment. It will be interesting to see what he has to say about it. I sort of get the impression that you are interested in watering down the differences between an Actual Freedom from the Human Condition (something which I only have first-hand knowledge of through PCEs) and ‘normal’ human life. Given that there is such an enormous, qualitative difference between the ‘self’-less experience of actuality in the PCE and ‘normal’ life with its usual cares and woes, isn’t language describing this contrast bound to be a bit polarizing in any event? Besides, what is ‘wrong’ with polarizing language if it accurately describes the extremity between two radically different states? Perhaps this is just a matter of opinion, but I have always thought that the broad panoramic description of ‘normal’ human life and the Human Condition as exemplified in the Actual Freedom writings and website is an accurate depiction of the perils, pitfalls, and pleasures of being a ‘normal’ human being. Naturally this description is not necessarily going to appeal to everyone who encounters it. The stark reality of murder, torture, rape, and warfare – in other words, the ‘worst’ fruits that humankind produces – and the reminder that periodically crops up on this list that these depravities are all too common for human beings – this is bound to be a turn-off to those who prefer to wear rose-colored glasses whilst going through life. And, at the cost of seeming like I am nit-picking, aren’t you yourself ‘polarizing’ when you say state the following: ‘I do think it’s in the Actual Freedom Trust’s best interest to steer clear from ‘polarizing’ language when entering into dialogue with the rest of the ‘human’ race.’ Aren’t you creating a separation between those who make up the Actual Freedom Trust and ‘the rest of the ‘human’ race’. Given your concern about polarizing language, you certainly seem to be polarizing yourself because there seems to be an embedded assumption that those who make up the Trust are outside of the human race, rather than ‘fellow human beings’. I don’t think that this is quite accurate. Is not everyone who participates on this list, members of the Trust and not, part of the human race? Just a few thoughts... Gary to No 37
What a delight to read Alan’s and Peter’s posts about this subject of ‘seeing the finishing line’ up ahead and what, if anything, can one do to speed up the extinction of a ‘being’ in this human body. What I have gleaned from my recent experience of this aspect of our journey regarding the altruism or self-sacrifice, which is necessary to take the final step – I find the parallel to love and compassion a bit spooky, but understandable – is that I have reached a point where I have severed the ties (beliefs) with the psychic ‘human’ web to such a degree that I am now left with some rather raw instincts to examine into oblivion. In the process of examining these raw instincts of which ‘I’ am made, I too have been reminded, Alan, that yes, ‘I’ am responsible for all the rapes, murder and torture and violence that is our ‘human’ legacy. ‘I’ am the interface through which such abhorrent energy enters the human construct. Out of my recent experience of standing alone, on my own two feet, in the face of such strong fear with no one ‘out there’ to ‘help’ has come a deeper sense of harmlessness and benignity and, of course, I am therefore much more able to be ‘here’ and enjoy life. So I am noticing, as I progress along this road to freedom, this feeling of ‘innocence’(?) (simply not desiring to participate in the mayhem), though it appears to be ‘growing’. What is becoming evident is that this quality is intrinsic to this physical universe and it is simply evident more and more as the self disintegrates. Thus, born of this innocence comes this behaviour that is altruistic, self-sacrificing and actually intelligent. Best outcome for all concerned, the relative-absolute. Irrevocably drawn now, fascinated – what chance does this puny shadow of a former self have against infinite eternal perfection. If I remain fascinated, apperception will simply ‘hound’ what’s left of ‘me’ out of existence. A sort of corporate (or is that corporeal) takeover of this ‘walking brain’ by the physical universe. It is now a couple of days later – I have just reread the above and concluded ... that I must rave on some more. What I’m trying to say here (like, I know!?) is that, as ‘I’ as an identity lose power (over the life of this body, and the direction of will), there is an ambience to life that is of a PCE. There comes a motivation (pure intent) of which we all know, and is not the ‘flavour’ of pure intent altruism, self-sacrifice goodwill and so forth? Now here we have a point. I am no goody-goody and I did not invite or put this in place, this benign feeling, this motivation towards ultimate self-sacrifice. ‘I’ did not generate it and yet it is there, it is just what is here when a bit of self is removed, so ... without being esoteric, one’s body is ‘possessed’ (or re-possessed) by the physical universe. In the end ‘I’ can do nothing, ‘I’ am ‘done’. Mark
Two things were essential for me when the storms of fear seemed to blow me over – one was that there was nothing I wanted to go back to in my previous life and the other was the clear memory of some of my outstanding PCEs. The necessary altruism developed on the way, maybe the passion that had previously been experienced as aggression, love and sorrow becomes simply focussed on one thing only – to do my share for peace on earth. I experience this altruism as a thrilling, uplifting sensation, with the hair curling on the back of my neck, and a sense of being wonderfully alive. One is doing one’s part to bring about the best that is possible for oneself and others. And that is extremely exciting. There is nothing hum-drum about it at all. Thanks for exploring these things with me. Gary to Vineeto
The thrill of peace on earth always triumphs over any feeling of fear that ‘I’ might have at ‘my’ impending extinction. Yes, and the thrill is renewed each moment again unless one wants to perpetuate suffering. Clearly there’s a choice involved. Altruism is the key to the door marked ‘Actual Freedom’ for me and ‘Peace on Earth’ for everyone. Being involved in a supposedly ‘altruistic’ profession, the kind of altruism we are talking about has a very different meaning. Recently I was accused of having no ‘compassion’, and I can hardly argue with that one. I am interested, as you say, in the ‘thrill of peace of earth’ not the constant re-experiencing of sorrow, angst and malice. When one expresses compassion to others, as a feeling, there seems to be a certain doe-eyed look one takes on, as if to say to the other person ‘You poor thing – of course you feel the way you do – anybody would – it’s OK’. Thus one perpetuates a situation where it is OK to feel anger, it is OK to feel sorrow, it is OK to hold malice, it is OK to experience resentment, it is OK to feel sorry for yourself, it is OK to be depressed – of course you ‘can’t help it’ – these feelings are ‘natural’ – everybody has them. Thus, suffering and malice are perpetuated, along with all the ‘wars, murders, rapes, domestic violence, corruption, suicides and despair’. Gary to Peter
I wanted to respond to this passage from a post you wrote a while back. I’ve been taking my time in answering these posts, and I think that instead of trying to respond to each and every point, I shall respond to whatever occurs at the moment to be the most interesting point raised. Rather than getting bogged down in a log-jam of posts to be responded to (I count 3 at the current time), I will write when the urge strikes me, rather than feeling obligated to respond to everything that is said to me. You wrote before: What I came to understand very early on in the process of actualism is that there is no more fruitful contribution that I can make to my fellow human beings than to bring an end to malice and sorrow in this flesh and blood body. ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ is such an engaging activity that it eventually becomes a full-time activity, a complete life-obsession, if you like. There is ample opportunity to run the question in the normal interactions of everyday living and working without indulging in the ‘self’-sustaining and ‘self’-gratifying busy-ness of attempting to change others or save the world by fighting the latest fashionable evil that pops on the scene. As one examines one’s own psyche and passions in action, the more one understands the Human Condition in action and the more one sees the futility of varying impassioned groups or individuals each ‘grabbing for the wheel’, attempting to steer Humanity this way or that – all convinced that they are right, that their way is best, that their truth is truer, that they have the answer. The only person it is possible to change is oneself – blaming others for what I also do or feel or trying to change others according to my wiles and whims is a cop-out. Central to many religious and spiritual belief systems, Christianity in particular, is the necessity of engaging in ‘good works’ and the performance of certain charitable and ‘humane’ acts in order to effect salvation from what is believed to be the misery of an earth-bound existence. Along with other values instilled in me in my upbringing was the unremitting belief in the importance of service to others and charity to those less fortunate. In the Human Condition, this belief is translated into action by the performance of various ‘do-good’ activities, whether they be in the professional realm, by making charitable contributions, or in the finding of some suitable ‘humanitarian’ interest. As you point out, these activities are ‘self’-gratifying and ‘self’-satisfying to the extreme. When I first took on actualism, it seemed to be an extremely self-centred and very ‘uncharitable’ (is the only word I can think of) activity. It was difficult to square what you are saying, particularly in this passage here, with my deep-seated belief that one must do something to ease the suffering of others and contribute materially to building a better world. Hand in hand with this attitude was the resentment of whoever or whatever was the cause of the enormous suffering of humankind. At various times the impetus to serve and the impetus to destroy, oppose, do away with, held equal sway over my imagination. Not surprisingly, in younger years, I was attracted to radical politics of the left. Later I saw that these were merely a convenient way to camouflage my hatred and aggression, and that involvement in these activities only served to fan the flames of hatred within me. Then I swung to the other extreme: identifying with the lily-white beautiful sentiments, passions, and grand emotions of the spiritual life. I became obsessed with the feeling that I was channelling Divine Love and radiating it throughout the world. The fact that I was still prone to resentful outbursts and murderous thoughts/feelings did not concern me much because I was sure that the Son of God was redeeming me according to His plan. So now, while practising actualism, when I am moved by a feeling of wanting to help others through some ‘socially responsible’ activity, that feeling comes under investigation like other feelings and passions that come up. I should say that there is nothing wrong with helping others – I enjoy helping people if I can, that is, if they are asking for help or needing help. But, efforts to ‘steer Humanity’ this way or that are motivated primarily by ideological convictions of the thinker/ feeler, whether they be religious belief, political belief, or ‘humanitarian’ motives. If one is moved by these convictions and beliefs, one is acting out an instinctual agenda: one is moved by suffering to apply humanitarian aid through compassionate relief efforts. Some people make a lifestyle out of being moved by the suffering of others, like the woman mentioned in Richard’s Journal who was moved to tears by the sufferings of Humanity. In actualism, one can actually do something about ending suffering. One begins the fascinating business of investigating and eliminating the root cause of suffering and malice – the genetically endowed instinctual passions – through demolishing the accrued social identity one has build up through learning and conditioning. Then the fascination becomes an obsession when one sees that this method actually yields results – one is incrementally more benevolent, gay, and carefree. Through eliminating what causes suffering – in oneself, by eliminating ‘me’ – a momentum begins that may well carry one to the ultimate: self-immolation. So the understanding that there is no more fruitful contribution that I can make to my fellow human being than ending malice and sorrow in this flesh-and-blood-body is not an intellectual understanding – it is born of the very practical successes and discoveries that one is experiencing along the way by asking oneself again and again ‘How am I experiencing this present moment of being alive?’ Gary to Peter
And I have got no further than the answer I gave some time ago – because ‘I’ want to remain in existence. The question that presses me on to proceed is this – ‘do I have the supreme confidence that ‘I’ will see my job through to the end, the irrevocable dissolution of ‘me’?’ The answer has been gradually changing – from ‘mmhh’ to ‘ah, yes, I think so’ to ‘o.k. let’s do it to get over with it’ to ‘what else is there preventing me’ to ‘ok, ok, I’m almost ready’ to ‘what am I waiting for’ to a more and more beaming, superbly confident ‘of course!’ – and the thrill of it is immensely sparkling and terrifyingly satisfying. I can well identify with these changes, though I think I am a bit stuck on ‘what am I waiting for’, with an occasional foray into ‘of course’. In order to overcome my hesitation and my sometimes alarming fear I had to examine every inkling of my instinctual nurture and its resulting sympathy, compassion and atavistic universal sorrow for a suffering humanity to invoke a clean and non-affective altruism – because without also doing it for others there is no way of ‘me’ ever escaping the grip of my instinctual survival mode. Despite writing about it in my postings earlier this year, I seem to have ‘lost’ altruism, though I can recall a couple of weeks ago, while watching a programme on Northern Ireland, again ‘getting’ (as opposed to intellectually knowing) how unnecessary it all was. I find it very difficult to remember any experiences – I guess because there is almost no affective element contained in them. I can recall what I did yesterday, the day before and last week (sometimes with difficulty!). Not entirely sure what I am getting at here and perhaps it is a non point. But, to take the current example – I cannot remember experiencing altruism. I know that I did, because I wrote about it at the time. Is altruism a feeling? Or, perhaps it is something which can only be experienced during a PCE? * A bit more on altruism. After writing the mail to Peter, I guess I got ‘off my backside’! I was sitting in the garden reflecting on something Richard had written, when suddenly I ‘got it’. The peace and perfection and purity of this actual universe is here all the time – every moment for ever and ever and ever. And, this body is experiencing that purity and perfection for every second of its existence (the body’s existence, that is). Which led to the question – if that purity and perfection is always in existence why am I not aware of it? A few bricks tumbled down – because ‘I’ can never be aware of it. ‘I’ do not actually exist. ‘I’ am all that is standing in the way of that purity and perfection evincing itself each second. For so long as ‘I’ exist the purity and perfection (which is always there) cannot manifest. So, why should ‘I’ get out of the way and allow that to occur? Why should ‘I’ cease to exist? After all, ‘I’ am all that ‘I’ am. And, the only reason for ‘me’ to self immolate is to demonstrate to others that the actual world actually exists. To demonstrate that peace on earth is not only possible but, achievable. Hence, altruism. Of course ‘I’ cannot do it for ‘me’. ‘I’ can only do it for others and for the sake of peace on earth. Facts are such deliciously wonderful things, are they not? Alan to Vineeto Web page designed by The Actual Freedom Trust |
