Others ~ Selected Correspondence

Living Together

• Are relationships important? Why?

Relationships are vitally important for an actualist for they hold the key to becoming aware of, exploring and incrementally removing the obstacles that inhibit an actual intimacy from one’s fellow human beings. Spiritualists always put relationships with their God, or their Self, first and relationships with their fellow human beings second – but for an actualist the exact opposite is the case.

For an actualist, the closer the relationship, the more valuable the relationship for only close relationships are emotive enough and powerful enough to bring to the surface the emotions that are normally suppressed or glossed-over in ‘normal’ stand-offish relating. It is good to remember that if you are avoiding something or denying something, it is impossible to experientially investigate it and this is nowhere more obvious than in discovering precisely what is preventing you from being intimate with another human being – one to one.

Yes, I can see the importance of relationships, particularly very close relationships, for an actualist. In normal, everyday relating to others in society, the rules of fair play as expressed through ordinary morality, values, and ethics often take precedence. But in relating to one’s mate or partner, often one’s instinctual behaviour is laid bare, with the full range of selfishness and greediness occurring. It is not for no reason that in the large majority of marriages, statistically for instance, there is at least one episode of actual physical violence at some point. In normal society, for instance, one can often put one’s best foot forward and be an exemplary citizen, so to speak, yet at home be a perfect beast and a dreadful rogue. One’s mate knows things about one that nobody else knows because they live in close proximity and see the ‘real’ person. I have no doubt that it people wanted to know what I am ‘really’ like, they should ask my intimate partner, for she is the one who spends the most time with me. That is why the closer relationship is the acid test of actualism. The so-called intimate relationship is going to be the test ground of the actualism method – if one cannot live in peace and harmony with one’s intimate partner one is neither happy nor harmless.

*

• Do you and Vineeto have a ‘relationship’ together?

Both I and Vineeto have already written a good deal about our relationship and the explorations we made. I won’t go over this territory again but it may be relevant to note that, thus far, it seems that we are the only man and woman who are living together who have a common interest in practicing actualism. Because of this our relationship could be seen as being unique, but it is important to grasp that the process of actualism is an individual process – i.e. an actualist’s becoming happy and harmless is not in any way dependant on anyone else becoming happy and harmless. Vineeto did her thing, I did mine – we just happened to be serendipitously doing it at the same time, whilst living together.

Your situation does seem quite unique. I should think it would be a good deal more revealing to be in a relationship with someone who is investigating these things because they are ‘raising the bar’ as well as you. While contemplating it a bit, though, it does seem like it would be a lot easier to be happy and harmless with an intimate partner who is happy and harmless, rather than a partner who is peevish and resentful.

I am aware at times that my partner’s negative moods get me down, yet this alone is fertile ground for investigating what is standing in the way of my being happy and harmless, as I agree that becoming happy and harmless should in no way be dependent on someone else’s behaviour or moods. In any ‘normal’ relationship, there seem to be powerful expectations and beliefs at work, as two people have formed a pact and come together, sometimes with the most unrealistic expectations imaginable, and it is no wonder that these relationships do not work out, as love has brought together essentially two strangers who, once loves’ rosy glow wears off, stand confronting each other and wondering ‘what the hell am I doing here?’

Because Vineeto and I share a common interest in actualism, the main focus of our relationship was a mutual agreement that each would investigate what stood in the way of our living together in utter peace and harmony. Once I stopped my habitual program of trying to change others to suit ‘my’ whims, moods, foibles, demands and expectations, I was then able to become aware of, and be fully responsible for, my feelings, passions and behaviour that were causing me to not be able to live with Vineeto in peace and harmony. Just to make it clear – you don’t need another’s agreement to do this work, because it is something only you can do for yourself and for other’s you come in contact with.

It is an enormous step you take when you fully grasp the reality that expecting or demanding that your companion, wife, husband, son, daughter or whoever, should change in order to please ‘you’ is an essentially malicious intrusion – and that wanting to or trying to change them is an utterly futile exercise that can only provoke hostility and resentment. Then and only then, can you can get on with your own business of changing yourself. This does not negate the fact that you, as an actualist, can share your discoveries with a fellow human being – provided they are interested, of course.

I must say that I don’t think I have fully grasped the reality that expecting or demanding that the other change is a malicious intrusion, as I have not completely ceased expecting or demanding. I would like to stop, however, as it is no fun whatsoever expecting or demanding anything of anybody. Thus, my relationship with my ‘significant other’ is precisely the place where these expectations and demands can be examined and uncovered. I know through my own experience that it is possible to live without these expectations and demands, as I have had this happen for brief periods of time, and it is most delicious. During these ‘self’-less interludes, one’s normal petty expectations and demands are nowhere in evidence. It must require extremely pure intent to continue on and demolish all of these so-called ‘normal’ expectations of intimate relationships.

*

• Is there any ‘connection’ at all, or is this entirely absent? Wherein does it consist?

After years of effort, I am virtually free of malice and sorrow, which means I have no reason to get angry with Vineeto or feel resentful of something she may, or may not, have done because feelings of anger and resentment no longer course through my veins, as it were. Likewise, I am no longer subject to bouts of sadness nor am I overcome by a seeping melancholy at having to be here, which means I make no demands nor have any expectations that she should provide emotional support and a feeling of connection in order to fill the aching void of ‘my’ loneliness.

What ‘I’ have also done, by ‘my’ own efforts, is free her of ‘my’ ungracious demands and capricious expectations and I am thus more happy for being more harmless – which in turn makes me more delightful and more fun to live with. Becoming more happy and harmless is a win-win situation – not only do I gain from the effort, but others benefit from the result, and none more so that those closest to me.

It honestly sounds like you are reaping great rewards for all ‘your’ efforts, and it confirms for me that being happy and harmless is not only possible but an inevitable result of all one’s hard work, effort, and painstaking investigation of everything that is standing in the way of being ‘happy and harmless’. A close relationship with a mate or family member is the most excellent place to discover this, as it is custom made to reveal whether one is, in fact, happy and harmless.

I was also reminded at the time of something I had written in the Glossary

Feeling – Physical sensibility other than sight, hearing, taste, touch or smell. The condition of being emotionally affected or committed; an emotion (of fear, hope, etc.). Emotions, susceptibilities, sympathies. A belief not based solely on reason; an attitude, a sentiment. Oxford Dictionary

The three ways a person can experience the world are: 1: cerebral (thoughts); 2: sensate (senses); 3. affective (feelings). The arising of instinctually-sourced feelings within the body automatically produces a hormonal chemical response in the body, which can lead to the false assumption that they are actual. Given that the base feelings are malice and sorrow (resentment, anger, revenge, jealousy, hate, etc. and sadness, depression, melancholy, loneliness, etc.) we desperately seek relief in the ‘good’ feelings (love, trust, compassion, togetherness, friendship, etc.). When the ‘good’ feelings fade or disappear – as they inevitably do after the disappointments of life, some people resort to the imaginary world of Divine Love, Gods and Goddesses to escape from or transcend the bad feelings. To live life as a ‘feeling being’ is to be forever tossed on a raging sea, hoping for an abatement to the storm. Finally, after a particularly fierce storm, one ties up in port to sit life out in safety or putters around in the shallows, so as not to face another storm again. We are but victims of our impassioned feelings – but they can be eliminated. A feeling is nothing more than an emotion backed thought and as such we can free ourselves of their grip upon us. AF Glossary

The ‘tie up in port’ bit particularly seemed appropriate for it is descriptive of what most regard as having a good relationship within the human condition – having found someone to ‘tie up in port’ with so you won’t be alone in old age.

It certainly is nice to have a relationship with someone. And I have been with my present partner now longer than I have ever been with anyone else, so in many ways this is an adventure. Now being firmly middle-aged, and approaching the ‘retirement’ years, it is fascinating (some might say horrifying) to observe the aging process both in myself and in her. And there is this tendency, which you noted, to cling ever more tightly to my partner as the years advance and crave the security that a stable, settled relationship can bring. I am not saying that this is a bad thing, but as I have observed this tendency in myself I have concluded that it is none other than instinctual programming and all-too-human drive for security and stability, reflective of an underlying fear and insecurity. In short, it is ‘me’ again seeking safe harbour and support. Gary to Peter

The first observation I had was about ‘relationships’ – the man-woman, living-together type. I was laying back in bed with Vineeto the other night, enjoying a particular intimate moment, when I realized the intimacy I was enjoying was the result of going into the relationship fully, of not holding back, of not settling for anything less than the very best. This continually ‘leaning forward’ rather than holding back was the only way I came to discover what was preventing me from experiencing the exquisite intimacy of the day to day peaceful living with a fellow human being. I say this because it is only by intrepidly going beyond the much-vaunted idealism and feelings of love that I managed to discover not only the guileful constraints that love inevitably imposes on both lover and loved, but also the dark underbelly of passions that love attempts to repress.

Actual intimacy is not at all like ‘real world’ intimacy that I have experienced before. In Actual intimacy, there is no demand or need placed on the partner to the relationship, so one cannot be ‘vulnerable’, in the ordinary sense of that word. There is no exclusivity to a relationship and one can be actually intimate with anyone, not just one’s partner. What you refer to as the ‘leaning forward’ can really only take place when one has sufficiently examined beliefs and passions to be free from their paralyzing grip.

This ‘holding back’ can take many subtle or not-so subtle forms. Taking ‘space’, remaining aloof, being cool, feeling emotionally, intellectually or spiritually superior, detaching from or suppressing one’s feelings, accepting one’s lot, surrendering, withdrawing, and so on. Whilst the games played are many and varied, the end result is the same – staying as you are, denying the opportunity of change and missing out on the opportunity of investigating what is standing in the way of the changes you know are needed for an authentic intimacy to happen.

Yes, I have played all those games and more. For an authentic actual intimacy to happen, one needs essentially to stop being a ‘self’. A live-in relationship is an excellent place to see ‘me’ in action. ‘I’ like to create an image of myself and put forth only what ‘I’ want others to see of ‘me’. In a close, live-in relationship, those blinders are off, and the image-maker is exposed.

The risk associated with this type of ‘self’-investigation is that the subsequent change it evokes means that one is no longer the same person one was when one entered into the relationship and this could well cause consternation and disquiet in one’s companion. What pushed me on past this point was a genuine caring for my companion in that I did not want to continue to subject her to my graceless demands and my fickle moods – after all, it was I who wanted to live with her in utter peace and harmony and to demand that she aspire to do the same would have been to completely miss the point of the actualism process.

And reading these words it is good to be reminded that moods always create a demand and are always fickle. ‘My’ moods are after all what made it impossible for me to live in peace and harmony with others in the past. Another thing has arisen with the change that I have experienced: a genuine helpfulness and consideration for my partner.

This helpfulness and responsiveness is freed from any demands or need for the helpfulness and responsiveness to be reciprocated. It is not: ‘I am going to do this for you so you can do something for me...’ It is also not a co-dependent type of indiscriminate helpfulness. Rather, I see that my partner needs assistance with something and I am glad to assist her. Another thing about moods is that whilst one is a ‘self’ one will be reacting to other people’s moods all day, ‘til the cows come home. But in a virtual or actual freedom from moods, other people’s moods have no effect, as there is no ‘me’ to react at all. Gary to Peter

It might also be mentioned that as an actualist, one is already committing themselves to living in peace and harmony with every other person on the planet, regardless of where they live. It certainly may add a some extra challenges when one attempts to increase the number of partners, yet once one has gotten the ‘knack’ of what it takes to be peaceful, then it is not at all inconceivable that one can live in peace an harmony with more than one partner.

A more challenging question to ask: Even though one has committed themselves to living in peace and harmony, how will things go between the additional partners if they haven’t committed themselves to living in peace and harmony? There’s the rub.

First of all, they will have to agree for a trilateral relationship... which means that the basis (motives) for a ‘relationship’ in their case will be very different then those usually involved in a monogamous relationship.

Maybe somewhat different, but more like a variation on the same theme than a different theme altogether.

And they will have to know and like each other and be willing to go for this experiment, which is in itself a big step to make. The profile of such persons is not to be find at every corner of the street but I will hazard a guess: they will be independent (both financially and able to think for themselves), intelligent, pleasure oriented (hedonistic) and willing to take a different route then the norm.

I guess, in the end, they’ll have to be actualists :-), after all it wasn’t your wife asking ‘why not’?

Well, it’s not at all impossible for a trilateral relationship to ‘work.’ Whether it works peacefully and harmlessly is another question. It would probably work best if they were all actualists, but that is not to say that it couldn’t function otherwise.

Regarding your statement that ‘it wasn’t my wife asking ‘why not’’...

It is probably a good opportunity to point out that soon after I got involved in actualism, my wife decided to experiment with polyamory. So currently, she is legally married to me, and ‘unofficially’ married to another male partner. This has been our situation for the last couple years, and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future.

As you can guess, this situation has given me ample opportunity to experience the human condition in action, not as theorizing, but as first-hand experience. I might add that if I had not been incrementally committing myself to peace-on-earth, it is highly unlikely that such a situation would ever have developed. So, you might understand a bit better now that my ‘why not?’ wasn’t based on speculation, but rather on first hand experience where the factor that makes it possible is my very commitment to peace-one-earth – except that my situation is that of being one of the partners, rather than the bottom node of the ‘V.’

Now, it’s a challenge yet to be met that one can live in ‘peace and harmony’ with a non-actualist partner 24 h/day (Vineeto, Peter, Richard took the easy route). Should I bet on you No 37?

I’m not sure about Vineeto, Peter, and Richard taking an ‘easy’ route, but I’m sure you are correct by implying that living in peace and harmony with a non-actualist partner has its own challenges.

I already live mostly peacefully and harmoniously with my partner. This is not to say that she doesn’t take shots at me on a daily basis – I sometimes get caught in a snare or two, but am finding it easier and easier to side-step issues that used to get me entangled.

I find it important to keep in mind that what determines success is not whether she lives peacefully and harmoniously with me, but rather that I am doing so with her and our two children.

*

You may not experience them anymore but would you like your partner to pretend he’s likewise? As No 37 said, the actualist challenge is for ‘me’ to be peaceful (happy and harmless), but in a relationship it takes two to tango and if they dance by different melodies, is it harmony between the two in your view? In short, I found the ‘actualist promise’: to live with at least a non-actualist partner in peace and harmony, unliveable in the long-run.

First, I’d like to point out that there is no ‘actualist promise’ – as such would be an oxymoron.

The reason I say that is because the practice of making promises is a practice based upon trust, which in turn is based on the affective faculty. There is no need for trust or making promises if one’s ‘yea is yea’ and ‘nay is nay.’ In other words, if one says what one means and means what one says.

Second, an actualist would have no difficulty whatsoever in living with a non-actualist partner – assuming they are actually practicing actualism. It might be a challenge – but it is definitely doable, otherwise actualism would be no kind of ‘freedom’ at all. The question really is – will the non-actualist partner still be getting what they want or need from the association?

The bottom line is that it really isn’t a question whether an actualist can find a situation living with a non-actualist ‘liveable.’ That question actually is up to the non-actualist partner to answer for themselves.

If an ‘actualist’ finds themselves asking the question of whether they ‘can’ live with a non-actualist partner in peace, I would suggest that either they are not practicing actualism – or they haven’t yet discovered how to stay on track. No 37 to No 32, 12.+16.10.2004

The more difficult part is now coming: practice, and more precisely I can’t find what you call ‘pure intent’ as I don’t want and I’m quite scrupulous not to transform this into another belief system.

To be more exact, let’s take an example: sex drive. I’m in a relationship for 6 months, but there is a constant drive to sleep with other women. Now if I’ll fuck these other women, I’ll cheat on my girlfriend and our relationship will begin to deteriorate. If I don’t, I won’t feel content with myself and hypocrisy, resentment and the ensuring suffering will emerge coupled with some aggressive outbursts within the relationship that will finally contribute to its dissolution.

In the first case, the sex drive rules, in the second the social identity acts as a barrier, yet with no results in terms of happiness or tangible results. The former situation has been the case in my last two relationships where there was a greater degree of involvement from my part. There are many examples as this one, and as ‘me’ begins to fade, these drives become more and more ‘surface-able’. This ‘pure intent’ is supposed to help yet I think that at this stage I have more of a ‘well-meaning intent’.

That’s a good description. From memory, I would say that when I started to become interested in actualism I also had a ‘well-meaning intent’.

I don’t know if that makes sense to you or not, but it did to me when I started to realize that I wanted to become an actualist and it makes even more sense to me now.

Personally speaking, I can’t find a better and a more practical way to test and to begin to practice what actualism is on about than in a relationship. I do have a high regard for experiential, dirty-hands understanding and not merely theory, and the only way to put such an understanding to the test is practice. On the other hand, one can test being happy & harmless on one’s own, but this can easily turn to some form of sweet dreaming. But in a sincere relationship you can’t play hide and seek with yourself anymore, there is always a close mirror to watch your moves. And the results in terms of happiness are readily available and observable, for someone else can easily see ‘my’ old and new and non-spiritual tricks. I’ve also found that it’s not absolutely necessary for the other to be a practicing actualist. Most human beings have a fair degree of common sense and a desire to be happy, and they can discern between theory and facts, between what is sublime but non-existent and that which simply works and brings benefits.

The first obstacle for me to be faced with was my love & loyalty to a former partner we spoke a bit. The deep sorrow, nostalgia and melancholia a Great Love leaves in its wake, the inability you’re left with to satisfactorily and happily live with another person. I think relationship love creates a connection, a separative connection with another human being at the expense of the others, a bubble that when it bursts leaves one very lonely, disillusioned and disoriented. One is left, when love finally and inevitably ends, with a deep sorrow to carry on for the rest of one’s life (love songs are enough evidence for this). That’s because one feels at the bottom of one’s heart that there is nothing that can satisfy him anymore. You can’t find satisfaction in ordinary things any more, like work or reading, watching TV or whatever. Only drugs, violence, alcohol, suicide or even a greater love appeals. And the only greater love is the mystical love.

I think that giving full reign to an instinctual passion creates addiction. I’ve read reports of soldiers coming back home from conflicting areas and being unable to live a normal life. They prefer and some do come back to the war-zone in order to live again the brotherhood and comradeship that united them with others and thus alleviate their loneliness. There is also the power a rifle gives you, the power to take and give life, the lack of the societal norms and control, of shoulds and shouldn’ts. The so-called Gulf-syndrome may fall into this category.  No 32 to Peter

However, in my own ‘self’-investigations perhaps most revealing of all, once I began to unravel my emotional connections with others, was the seemingly bottomless malice and contempt that I discovered buried under layers of appropriate social conduct. This instinctual malice presented itself irregardless of whom I was with and I could well appreciate, given the depth and force of this instinct, the so-called ‘crimes of passion’ that occur when people go ballistic, run amok, and kill or maim their lovers or close, intimate associates, not to speak their own children. The thing about Actualism that differs radically from other approaches, spiritual included, is that one gets a first-hand, up front, down and dirty taste of the inveterate malice at the heart of my existence as an instinctual entity, as well as really doing something about it in a hands-on way.

It strikes me that there must be a ‘seemingly bottomless’ wellspring of altruism that has caused you to doing something hands-on in order to free your fellow human beings from the consequences of your feelings of malice and contempt. Personally, since I started actualism I only remember a few instances of intense malice and aggression surfacing but I discovered ample feelings of resentment at being here accompanied by feelings of contempt, annoyance, irritation and indignation towards others.

I have not usually thought about it this way – a bottomless well of altruism. Given the experience of malice is usually quite self-centred and extremely aversive, it is easy I suppose to overlook one’s deeper reasons.

One that really got my attention recently was an increased sensitivity to my partner’s moods and behaviour and how ‘my’ mood affect her. There was a recent frank discussion of this without the usual mumbled apologies and misgivings that was quite satisfying. ‘My’ feelings always make waves with those around me. Gary to Vineeto

It therefore came as somewhat of a surprise when I recently found an emotional ‘hook’ in my living together with Peter. I was contemplating about what exactly is standing in the way of ‘self’-immolation and found a bit of an affective identity in action – the ‘me’ who cherished the cozy corner I had in living together peacefully and delightfully. ‘I’ as an identity feel noticed and understood with Peter, he knows the happy ‘me’, the quizzing ‘me’, the puzzled ‘me’, the impatient ‘me’, he knows about ‘my’ aims and fears, ‘my’ quirks and wonderings. And this cozy relationship will certainly cease to be when I become free because then ‘I’ who is doing the relating will cease to be.

I had discovered much the same thing a few months ago. I was acutely aware of ‘my’ need to create a cozy nest and cling to my relationship with my partner. My attention seemed to be particularly attracted to the aging process in both she and myself. And I found myself forming a sharp demarcation between being ‘in’ the relationship, and at home, and being ‘out’ there in the ‘Real World’. Connected to this, I discovered morbid fears of growing old and dying, along with anxieties of losing this cozy relationship I was clinging to. I don’t know what triggered all this but it may have been happening around the time that there was so much talk of war with Iraq in the air. I realized that human beings usually all create this comfortable and peaceful corner of reality in their homes as a means of warding off or keeping out the harshness and cruelty of the outside world. This seems to be an instinctive pattern of behaviour, harkening back to the time when our ancestors hunkered in deep caves for protection against predators and other perils of the night.

From my own explorations I know that a relationship with a partner has many layers that are worth examining.

Yes. That is certainly so. A ‘relationship’ involves need, dependency, closeness, nurture, aggression, so on and so forth. Perhaps like yourself, I have been investigating emotional closeness. This involves dependency and the need, indeed, the drive to nurture and be nurtured. An emotionally close relationship is a prolonged type of infancy and childhood in which one seeks the closeness of ‘someone who understands’.

Contained in this emotionally close relationship, which is considered the hallmark of adult maturity and independence, are the contrary states of its absence: abject loneliness, despair, clinging, cloying dependency, fear, and other such negative states. All of humanity’s most lofty ideals and dreams are enacted in one’s primary relationship, whereas as this flesh-and-blood body, apperceptively aware, I am incapable of emotional closeness of any kind.

I explored this particular ‘hook’ on which my identity hung at first tentatively, then more boldly, knowing well that at any time I could discover the core of it and be lost. As part of this investigation I chatted to Peter about my explorations and a few days later to Richard, just to make sure that I would not succumb to the temptation of ‘forgetting’ a topic so close to the bone.

My persistent inquiry triggered a pure consciousness experience and with astounding clarity I experienced myself as completely separate from Peter, two flesh-and-blood human beings not at all affectively or psychically connected in any way. It was utterly amazing and magical that two complete strangers – as in not psychically connected – get to interact with each other in utter intimacy. In such intimacy there is no ‘me’ trying to pull the strings, no ‘me’ thinking or feeling about ‘me’ in relationship to the other, and a fresh, unmediated and direct experiencing happens on its own accord.

It is most striking when determined and ‘persistent inquiry’ of this sort triggers a PCE. Each time this happens, I see with renewed clarity how the affective and psychic entity prevents and precludes the experiencing of the purity and pristineness of the actual world. Gary to Vineeto

Whilst it is true that men overtly ‘rule the roost’ and/or ‘hold the reins of power’ ... yet all the while women covertly ‘define the parameters’ and/or ‘dictate the rules’.

No. 21 : You’ve got it right. Covert leads to overt, and overt get into trouble while covert looks like an angel. Empower women over men and chaos is the result.

Hmm ... the last time I looked chaos already reigned supreme. As for ‘empowering women over men’ (or empowering men over women): as neither women nor men can ever have the upper hand (it is only the overt/covert balance of power interaction that can ever change) you need not be concerned about your scenario coming to fruition (for men would covertly ‘define the parameters’ as women now do to keep excesses in check through holding the high moral ground if or when women ever overtly ‘hold the reins of power’). If you fondly imagine that you are currently ‘empowered’ over women then it is time to go back to your drawing board and redraft your thesis in accord with the facts (I take it that you either did not access the URL provided or did not find it informative if you did). It is the need for power itself that is the problem – not who currently overtly or covertly holds it – which is why I suggested coming out of the ‘sixties and here into the ‘noughties, where equity and parity is the key to success. The cathartic ‘airing one’s dirty linen in public’ of the ‘sixties is over for those who actually looked at the dirt displayed.

You say ‘equity and parity is the key to success’. The notions of equity and parity are seemingly at the core of democratic institutions, with the idea that ‘all men are created equal’ and that there are certain ‘natural’ rights of human beings, stemming from the thinking of philosophers like John Locke.

Equity. Parity. Are these just high-minded ideals, political theories divorced from the reality of everyday life in human societies?

Naturally, there is a dark side of democratic institutions that is well known: the history of oppression and slavery, actual slavery, political and economic slavery, that democratic ideals, cleverly managed, conceal. And there is the actuality that we are quick to the trigger, to pick up a machine gun or a grenade launcher when the music stops and infringe on the ‘rights’ of others in territorial conquests or economic competition. As an aside, the thinking of a Krishnamurti seems strikingly similar to the thinking of a previous philosopher, Hobbes, who maintained that human beings are basically selfish and that governments are a contract between individuals, motivated primarily by self-interest, and the corporate whole.

So, where do equity and parity come into the picture? Are these just hollow ideals? Do they have any actual meaning in our lives? I would appreciate you expanding on these words.

*

You say ‘equity and parity is the key to success’.

Yes, the ‘theory of mind’ signifies both equity and parity to be involuntarily automatic in any social situation. [Dictionary Definition]: equity: even-handed dealing; fairness, impartiality; unbiased. [Dictionary Definition]: parity: on a par; equivalence; similarity; correspondence. The question is: what is preventing this spontaneous recognition of being fellow human beings from flowing-on into all areas in common?

I don’t know what the ‘theory of mind’ is, but it seems to me that we are conditioned to automatically perceive differences and act in certain ways towards others based on that social conditioning. In other words, we are biased.

I don’t know why you say that equity and parity are involuntarily automatic in any social situation. It seems quite the opposite to me. This conditioning is deep: one is trained from an early age to be obedient to authority, to do as one is told, to ‘respect’ one’s betters, etc. At least I was. Recognizing the baleful consequences of this social conditioning (wars, bestiality, oppression) ... one first rebels or resists but then realizes one is a part of this background of conditioning and the harder one fights to resist it, the stronger it gets. In fact, one is this background, one is not separate from it.

*

The notions of equity and parity are seemingly at the core of democratic institutions, with the idea that ‘all men are created equal’ and that there are certain ‘natural’ rights of human beings, stemming from the thinking of philosophers like John Locke.

I questioned whether all humans are born equal ... there are talents one has which leads to an ease in the acquisition of skills that another has to struggle to master and vice versa. The rapid shuffling of the DNA molecules at conception (before the doubling takes place) leads to a disparity betwixt one foetus and another. The same applies to physical stature (muscularity, stamina and so on) which all combine to produce a staggering array of differences ... and none of this I have detailed so far has anything to do with where one is born (climate) or in what era (progress) let alone social inequality such as what class of society one is born into (educational and career opportunities) and so on.

Just because there are differences between people, in strengths, abilities, aptitudes, etc., it doesn’t have to become the basis of a thorough-going inequality and mistreatment of others. I could never understand, for instance, why we want to rule others and have power over others. Sometimes my musing on this question leads to the following question: ‘what gives another the ‘right’ to tell one what to do’? But then, this may be a wrong question, because the concept of ‘right’ is embodied into the question, and as you pointed out, what is given can be taken away. Gary to Richard

My sense is that equity and parity do not come unless one is singularly vigilant to the violence in one’s life and in one’s relationships (of course one’s life is one’s relationships). That would be watching oneself very carefully in every situation and basically seeing every movement as it comes up.

Yes ... one’s aggression is primal and hijacks, subverts and sabotages equity and parity time and time again.

So, you are saying aggression is primal. Would you say aggression is innate, implying in-born in the human species? Or is it acquired? If it can be extinguished, as you seem to claim it has been in you, does that not imply that it has not been hard-wired into the human species, that it may have a largely acquired characteristic?

*

For instance, I became aware of interrupting a new female co-worker in her speech. I noticed this a couple of times and it bothered me. I was trying to dominate the discussion. I thought about why I was doing this, I became really aware of it, and it stopped.

If I may ask? When you became ‘really aware of it’ (through thinking about why) did this awareness reveal the feeling or feelings driving your interaction? If so, was it the discovery (of being run by the affective faculty) that ended the ‘dominating the discussion’ activity through its exposure? Or was it a thought-realization that it is not nice to dominate another (as a social theory)?

Well, I was able to see the fear (fright) driving this outward behaviour. There was fear involved in it for me. It was not that I just suppressed the behaviour because it is not ‘nice’. If that were the case, I believe it would pop up in some other form. Gary to Richard

Thank you for your reply on the topic of aggression. You related a personal anecdote as way of comparing notes on this and I found that helpful. This subject has been on my mind quite a bit this morning and I thought I would reply and try to put some of this together. You wrote:

I have no children of my own. I have often felt I would not make a good parent and would be inclined to be too harsh to any child of my own. One of my partners’ grandchildren is diagnosed ‘hyperactive’ and is on medication, a common occurrence these days. The other, somewhat younger grandson is more mellow and better attuned to relating to adults, thus he is more gratifying to be with and I find myself ‘naturally’ favouring him. However, it pains me to realize that I am treating the ‘hyper’ grandson precisely the way he does not need to be treated and in a way that is going to be detrimental to his development. Growing up for me, my father was quite harsh with me when I misbehaved and really lost it on some notable occasions, and it seems I am following the exact same pattern in my interactions with her grandson. Looking back on the day in question, I remember having a mounting headache on the way home from work, knowing that he would be there and I would be interacting with him. I only realized in hindsight that this headache and growing sense of unease was the result of having to keep all the latent, unpleasant feelings and emotions under wraps.

Yes, I am still investigating the jealousy angle to this. I did identify a feeling of jealousy towards their special relationship and she and I discussed it some. One thing that is even harder for me to own up to is that I am probably angry at her for having this kind of relationship, one that I do not feel I had growing up. So, in spite of my liking to tell myself that I have resolved my childhood hurts, they are apparently still there, rearing their ugly head again and again. I remember one of the things Richard said to me in my correspondence on the other list that hit me like a ton of bricks: he said ‘There are no childhood hurts extant in this flesh and blood body’. I still do not understand how this is possible. I have often thought that this is one of those things one never gets over, if one has been traumatized by abuse or exploitation, or any number of things, one must carry this around for a lifetime, with the best one can expect to be a kind of gradual healing, like the healing of a physical scar, but with the scar nevertheless a visible reminder to oneself and others of a painful past. To hear that these hurts can be expunged completely and totally, to vanish without a trace, is, to put it mildly, a thrilling prospect. Gary to Peter

My partner is a lot more willing to explore these things than I probably give her credit for. I am finding more and more that it is getting easier to talk matter-of-factly about sexual hang-ups and problems. Humour about these matters is also good medicine. I think talking about these things in this forum, with others, is making it easier to talk to her about it. I think we are gradually beginning to tease this thing apart and, though it will probably take considerable time to investigate all this, I am confident that better things are possible for both of us. Gary to Peter

Yes, I see these very patterns causing problems in my relationship with my partner.

Some of this stuff came up recently when there was a discussion about how to deal with Christmas celebrations in the family. I have very weak ties to my own family, and really don’t want to have much to do with them in practical terms other than an occasional friendly visit or a phone call. Candy, on the other hand, is very family oriented and feels a tremendous responsibility to nurture her family members and make things right for the family at the holidays. Our different ways of doing things, and the emotional stuff that comes up around the holidays, is something that has been very difficult for us to deal with. But I’ve determined to wade right in there and investigate the feelings, attitudes and beliefs that come up around the holiday and the issues of family loyalties and ties. I don’t want to be a stick in the mud for her, and I’ve determined to roll my sleeves up and pitch in to help her with the things that are important to her, even though they may not be that significant to me. Any pain that comes up in the process for me is something. Gary to Peter

The difficult bit is as I said:

‘I can’t force her, so I have to give her up. I did at one point get the pain of having to allow people to be what they want to be – even when you desperately want them (and know they would be happier) to do something about it. This is the difference between loving someone and LOVE. Loving someone involves attachment – LOVE means respecting someone absolutely and giving them complete support in whatever they do (This does not include supporting negative habits/games – quite the opposite as, if you LOVE them, you will not support negatives, which is much more difficult to do)’.

(I wrote these words before reading your journal, Richard – substitute ‘actualism’ for ‘LOVE’.) At the present time she is attempting various ploys in an attempt to stop me. I know most of them, but it is still painful to watch (and difficult to deal with). She has had peak experiences and she has read my journal, so she knows more or less what is happening.

I had not realized, until writing this (which just started to come out) that this is the biggest problem for me, at present. If it were reasonably practical I would probably move out. I do not know why I am telling you this, Richard, as I know it is only me who can decide what action to take. Maybe, as you have been through similar problems, some of your experience may be of help to me. Alan to Richard

It is exciting to see that one is becoming harmless to the others around one. My partner reiterated to me recently that she feels I have become much more good natured and easy going lately, much easier to be around. I ascribe this change to my investigations into ‘me’ using the actualism method of becoming happy and harmless.

*

I had a long talk with my partner, explaining that I am no longer attending AA and my reasons for not doing so. It was an opportunity to explain the things that I am doing and the changes that are occurring. I found that she understood exactly why I no longer wish to attend AA and why I feel that to continue to do so is holding me down. She said that she honestly could never see me drinking again. She never knew me when I was drinking and taking drugs, we having met while I was already off drugs and alcohol. AA is an exclusive club, but I never saw that before because I wanted to belong to a club; I felt I needed it. Gary to Peter

Suddenly something has occurred to me in reading this, something about ‘dreams and schemes’, and yes, those are there too. Part of my dream is living with this woman, retiring gracefully from an active work life, living together in our little home set amongst the mountains here, and growing old together. It is nice to fantasize about, but after all, it is a fantasy, it is not the actual. Again, this goes back to having these dreams, these fantasies, which although comforting are not the actual. I am not saying there is anything ‘wrong’ about the human psychic activity of fantasizing or projecting a future out of a desire for security. But safety and security are here and now in this actual world as-it-is with people as-they-are, not off in some imagined blissful future. Gary to Vineeto

Actual intimacy is the quality in which I want to relate to people in my life. Everyone. Not just a select few. Usually when using the word ‘intimacy’ people refer to the special sense of coziness or closeness they reserve for their relation to their spouse or sexual and romantic partner. But I am seeing that one can be ‘intimate’ with everyone one relates to. And this is the quality that I have experienced in PCEs that I have had – there is that magical quality of naiveté and curiosity with others that makes relating to others – people on the street, casual strangers, etc. – so free and easy. As I investigated into the primitive animal instinct of fear, I don’t think I ever realized how frightened I have been of other people all my life. In all my contacts with others – personally and professionally – there has always been a strong undercurrent of fear, experienced as wariness, suspicion, distrust, aloofness, etc. I have always kept my guard up in situations. Now I can bring full attentiveness to investigating this sense of needing to keep my guard up, with the accompanying social identity that needs to be protected, and the underlying primitive instinct of fear that causes these reactions. I can experiment with letting my guard down deliberately and joyfully in situations that used to trigger alarm and defensiveness. This is an exciting adventure and it is a considerable satisfaction to find that Actual Intimacy is possible with everyone, not just one’s sexual or romantic partner.

As I wanted peace and harmony above all, stopping my power games whenever I caught myself became my priority. Of course, repressing my power games would only result in resentment – I had to take apart the feeling and issue at hand, experienced and investigated every nook and corner and dug for the underlying causes.

I recently opened up to my partner about some of the fears and doubts that I was experiencing. I cannot say that I was looking for anything like sympathy or nurturance from her. I wanted to let her know some of the things that are changing for me now and some of the inevitable realignments that are being made as the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. There was not much said by her on her part other than for her to say that she likes it when I talk to her in that way. I realized again how often I keep my guard up and keep my feelings and issues private. The issue of ‘Love’ in our relationship is really not a big issue anymore. I don’t worry about it as I did. I have gone on to other things now. I identify a lot with your writings, Vineeto, about struggles with authority. The whole issue of mentorship that I brought up in a post with Peter triggered off for me investigation into this issue of authority. I have been reading what the website says about authority. For me, the issue of authority has been a big one, a stumbling block to freedom that has to be thoroughly investigated. I was trained and raised to be obedient and not to think for myself. At a certain age, I rebelled totally against this authoritarianism in my upbringing and suffered dire consequences as a young person as a result. For me, there has always been a resentment of the authority of others which leads me to experience fear and the desire to attack or dig my heels in and stubbornly resist their authority. Usually it is the latter quality which is evident but ‘I’ will attack if I feel cornered. Gary to Vineeto

One of the things that I have been questioning is the notion of the importance throughout life of what is referred to as ‘attachment’. Again, it is psychological terminology, to be sure. But it is more or less assumed that attachment to others, first one’s mother or caretakers in the beginning of life, and then later other adults and one’s peers, is important throughout life and that healthy attachments are the hallmark of mental health. One can get attached to so many things as a substitute gratification – one can get attached to one’s job, a religion, a hero, substances, sex, etc, etc. What drives this attachment or ‘need to feel connected to others in order to stay alive’? We are dealing with something fundamental and basic to the experience of being a human being living in this world with other human beings. We are dealing here with the primitive instincts, are we not? The experience of attachment is ubiquitous, but perhaps it needs to be carefully defined. When I use the term I mean this sense of being connected to another. It involves dependency, looking to another to meet certain emotional needs, for affirmation, for praise and reward, for companionship, etc. Attachment may involve the deep experience of romantic ‘love’ but not necessarily. I think it is more or less assumed that when one is emotionally ‘healthy’ one’s attachments to others are carefully modulated and controlled, but nevertheless one is attached so it is only ‘natural’ that one experiences grief and sadness if one’s partner is sick or depressed or, in the extreme, dies. Hardly anyone would question the validity of these ‘normal’ feelings and reactions to extreme events but I do. I have found that, in addition to questioning the feel-good experience of ‘love’ and affection, I have been looking into this sense of being attached, connected to someone else. And there is a sense of identification: that this is ‘my’ partner, or ‘my’ girlfriend or boyfriend, or that I share ‘my’ life with someone.

Recently my partner came down with an inexplicable and rather puzzling disturbance of her hearing and balance and is now going for tests and diagnosis. There is the unpleasant possibility that it may involve a tumour or some sort or other. I found that this development rather threw me for a loop, I began to feel vaguely anxious, rehearsing the possibility that I might lose her or that she would become progressively more and more impaired, etc. All this made me investigate into my attachment to my mate and just what is involved emotionally for me. It made me think of other losses in my life, it kind of dredged some other things up. People get sick, they have ill health, they grow old and die – all these things we have experienced or are going to experience. There should be no dread of these things happening, as happen they surely will one way or another.

Neither should there be a kind of grim resignation and acceptance of life’s bumps and grinds. It gets, I think, to the crux of the matter: one need not be attached to others. One need not suffer pain of any kind due to another’s infirmities. One need not be depressed and sad because one’s partner is depressed and sad. One can be free from all these emotional reactions. But then, that is not ‘normal’, is it? Gary to Vineeto

Yes, I have been aware of this feeling of safety in living together. As you pointed out to Alan lately, reading and writing these posts helps to crystallize and bring these issues to awareness many times. Quite often I read something in a post and then become aware of the operation of that very thing maybe the same day or the next day. I used to sometimes think that this was due to suggestibility, but now I don’t think so. I think it represents an actual facet of human experience.

I did live alone for many years, prior to the onset of my current relationship. I had just about given up on ever finding a suitable mate. My living alone years were filled up with compulsive socializing, perhaps as a means of getting away from the gnawing feeling of aloneness. I was not very aware at that time, as I had myself buried in a spiritual program. I think the difference now when I find myself alone (as this week when I am home alone and my mate is at work) is that I am aware of nothing in particular happening in my head and heart. There is not much going on, which is delightful in itself. There is not that sting of feelings of anxious apartness and loneliness, as before.

I am glad you put the phrase ‘being on my own’ into context. I think the phrase needs to be defined. I can relate to the feeling of being abandoned by parents, friends and partners. Indeed, having had much therapy in preceding years, and I am talking about in the 70’s and 80’s, it was a commonplace understanding that one’s problems as an adult were ultimately traceable to abandonment by one’s parents, or abuse of some sort or other. Some popular therapy gurus, such as John Bradshaw, turned the theme of abandonment, which such a great many people identified with, into a popular cottage industry, selling best-selling books, TV series, etc. Since finding out about Actual Freedom, I am understanding the core experience of abandonment as less of a real experience traceable to childhood abandonment and more of a phenomenon linked to the instinctual entity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body. ‘I’ am cut off from the splendour and magnificence of this inherently infinite and perfect universe, and so feel a great gnawing of abandonment in my gut. Yet I am part and parcel of everything around me, and there is no actual separation between me (as a flesh and blood body) and the trees, rocks, sky, etc, etc.

Also the phrase ‘being on my own’ might mean being independent and self-sufficient, an idea that many people might find objectionable, particularly people with close family connections. I seem to come from a rather disengaged type of family: nobody really seems very close to anybody else, so I have always felt on my own in any event. And I think that I always tried in one way or another to fill that void that aloneness left. More recently, I feel less and less inclined to be with other people, and that is not to say that I don’t take pleasure in being with others – quite the contrary, I enjoy being out socially, although I do not have a very active social life. But there is a line I tend to draw in terms of drawing close to other people – I do not wish to be ‘intimate’ with others, in the way that that term is ordinarily used. It is strange in a way, because in actual intimacy once is not busy keeping one’s guard up all the time, and one is actually seeing the person just as they are, warts and all, without any intervening feelings or emotions such as attraction, affection, revulsion, dislike, etc. In actual intimacy, one is a good deal closer to the person than at any other time, in terms of being able to see the person as they are, and in this state, one is indeed ‘on one’s own’.

It is such good fun living in companionship with another human being that I would not want to pass it up. The enjoyment of mutual interests, the pleasantly quiet evenings spent together, as well as the comforting feelings of growing older together and sharing in the great adventure of being alive at this time and in this place I would not want to trade in for any clinging, romantic type of relationship with its reciprocal loyalties and obligations. I have had enough living alone to know about the shoe that is on the other foot, and I can definitely say that living with my partner has been such good fun and a great learning experience too. There is something about human beings the world over which inclines them to pick a partner to spend their lives with. After all we are animals that pick a mate for sex and procreation, and the biological imperative certainly inclines us to pair off, but the exciting opportunity to learn to live in peace and harmony with another human being is unparalleled.

Interesting that you should have mentioned feminism. Feminist theory was all the rage when I attended graduate Social Work school, and I would interested in your own discoveries of why it ‘failed to provide suitable answers to the ending of the battle of the sexes’. I know that there are various brands of feminism, but I am talking in an overarching way about the feminist movement.

Living in peace and harmony with my partner is indeed a tall order, and it is here, in the microcosm of one’s intimate relationship, where one finds the proving ground for being ‘happy and harmless’. It is a terrific dare to live happily and harmlessly with another. It takes all the pure intent I’ve got and more to stick with the work, and it is very hard work too. Right now I must say that it seems like an uphill slog, as my instincts seem to have come to the fore again. Gary to Vineeto

Although you did not address me specifically, and I have read your account of your partnership with Vineeto, I do not think I have misunderstood that part of your Journal.

Although it has been awhile since I first read about it, I think looking back on it that it is a delightful ‘courtship’ story of sorts ... and I think of it in light of many interesting stories of couples when they first meet and the reasons they form a union to begin with. My own partnership, although not formed for reasons of living in harmony and happiness in so explicit a manner, and to which neither of the participants brought an interest in Actualism, was also a courtship of sorts and perhaps for many of the same reasons.

I too was dissatisfied with my lot of failed and disastrous love life pairings. From a marriage in my twenties in which I kept my then wife a virtual hostage to dazzling and passionate sexual unions which inevitably seemed to suddenly go sour, leaving me in a state of abject misery and abandonment, I too was looking for something different – a whole different type of relationship from those I had known in the past. Into this uncharted territory I bravely sallied forth, and I can say that my present alliance has been much, much more satisfying although lacking the dizzying heights of passion and desire that previous relationships had when I was younger. Not that I regret that fact ... far from it ... I ran awreck on the reefs of passion and desire and so did not want to repeat those mistakes again. You went on to say (and I am snipping freely here) ...

Here your experience is definitely different than mine. The fact that there have been many bickers along the way in my relationship initially produced, when reading this comment, a sheepish feeling of disappointment and failure in me, which I relate to your comment about comparing your experience to others. While having a relationship with nary a bicker I regard as both a theoretical and practical possibility, the simple fact is that there have been bickers in my union with present partner. However, as I recognize that it takes two to bicker...it being impossible for one person to bicker in a relationship unless there another person to bicker back, I regard these times of strife as opportunities to look into precisely what is causing my discomfiture.

I also think that it is important to take on Richard’s statement about relationships as a practical necessity if a man and woman are to live in peace and harmony and not take it on as another failed ideal or as a prescription for ‘how’ things should be. I’ve had it through and through with ideals that I measure my life up against and then inevitably am unable to measure up to these impossible standards. In Actualism, we are not setting up a code of conduct (I think Vineeto used this expression) for behaviour, nor are we holding forth pie-in-the-sky ideals, but a relationship with nary a bicker does seem like the ultimate pipe dream and the acid test of one’s intent in living happily and harmlessly. I find it quite useful to hold this before myself, so to speak, and realize that within the microcosm of the ‘intimate’ relationship or partnership is re-enacted the whole drama of humankind and that if I wish to live in harmony with those about me, what goes on at home is the proving ground. Not to diminish the importance of, say, how I get along with people at work.

I certainly agree with this statement. I think it matters not who or where you are ... right now is the time to start. That my partner is more enamoured of the Human Condition than I am ... matters not so far as what I am doing. We have some interesting conversations about things and I find there are some interesting points of contact, times when we are sharing our experiences and thoughts with one another, wholly without artifice or device.

These conversations are a great satisfaction because we are talking about what it means to be human and what the Human Condition is about (I am apt to frame it broadly in this way, where my partner is not) and feel our way through it. There is a naive quality to these talks of ours, and I think you have to start with a basic naivete (oops, I don’t know how to make those little French accent marks) in order to arrive at that level of dialogue.

When you think about it, what better opportunity is there than living in close proximity with another human being, ‘living together’, to take on the dare of living happy and harmless right now? Gary to Peter

Hello Peter...

I wanted to write a post on the subject of relationships. I have been wondering just what a ‘relationship’ is and what the word means to me.

So, let me pose the question: What is a ‘relationship’ between two human beings? Are relationships important? Why? Do you and Vineeto have a ‘relationship’ together? Wherein does it consist?

I hear many people around me talk about the importance, indeed, the primacy of having relationships in one’s life. The longer I practice actualism, the less and less important ‘relationships’ seem to be to me. This sometimes causes the reflection that I am indeed an outcast and I sometimes experience anxiety to realize that I am no longer part of any particular group, nor do I want to be. However, the anxiety is only occasional, and at other times there is this enormous sense of freedom and ease, a freedom that can only come when one is free from the obligations of being a member of a particular group, a family, a profession, a community, etc, etc. There is a tremendous comfort for me in just being alone, just sitting in my chair, for instance, doing nothing in particular. But again, this statement of mine – about being ‘alone’ communicates the essence of the matter- for there is still this sense of being communicated in these terms. Richard has stated that in an Actual Freedom, even this feeling of being alone, this sense of isolation disappears.

For the interest of other people who may be reading this list, I would like to reproduce a segment of a conversation Richard had with Mark, who used to write to this list. This segment describes most closely what I am trying to convey about my experience.

Mark: I have chosen not to tell acquaintances of this happening as I have no wish to invoke pity, sympathy or such that would only serve to strengthen the ‘giver’ and ‘receiver’ of same. Two ‘selves’ live in totally different worlds so any sharing (of fear, grief, love) is not actually possible anyway! I have never before felt so at ease with aloneness (engendered by the gradual falling away of the shared beliefs of the ‘real’ world).

Richard: Aye, when loneliness ends, and one stands on one’s own two feet, this independence is a relief ... yet there is more. Even aloneness can end. Where you wrote (Part One) that ‘all I can do is proceed, with pure intent, to continue to nibble away at ‘me ’, I can only recommend proceeding with all dispatch. When ‘I’ self-immolate in ‘my’ entirety, the separative entity’s isolation disappears too ... and an actual intimacy emerges that beggars comparison. This is because a person’s isolation is formed by the essence of their ‘being’... and ‘being’ itself is the root-cause of all the ills of humankind. One has ‘been’ in the past, one is ‘being’ in the present, and one will ‘be’ in the future. That ‘being’ is what one calls ‘me’, taking it to be me; me as-I-am. ‘I’ was, ‘I’ am, ‘I’ will be ... this sense of continuity, an instinctual entity called ‘me’ existing over time, is not me as-I-am. I do not exist over time; I exist only as this moment exists, and now has no duration. Therefore I am never alone, for there is no separation; there is only actual intimacy. Whereas ‘I’, out of loneliness, attempt to bridge the separation between ‘myself’ and others similarly afflicted with ‘being’, via emotions – be it affection, love, pity, sympathy, empathy or compassion – to induce an artificial intimacy. The problem with emotion is that it is fickle; one can switch it on and off. A person can be said to be generous with their love ... or parsimonious. Such illusory intimacy is unreliable, dependent upon predilection, mood and receptivity. Actual intimacy – the direct experience of the other – is ever-constant; it is not in the control of a wayward ego or a compliant soul. It cannot be switched on or off, given or withheld. It is not ‘mine’, it is simply here, all of the time.

‘I’ am the sole cause of the tried and failed systems being considered essential if humans are to have peace on earth. ‘I’ am the arch-villain in this world-wide scenario ... ‘me’ and billions of other ‘me’s. Solutions and cures are not necessary when the cause is eradicated. Without ‘me’ there is no problem to be solved. However, what initially stands in the way of implementing these words, translating them into action, is the fear that one will become an outcast. The whole thrust of ‘humanity’ is to foster the sense of belonging ... it is a large part of one’s social identity. One automatically feels that by no longer belonging one will live in isolation. Nothing could be further from the truth, because this is a feeling, not a fact. The fact of being on one’s own is vastly different from the feeling of being isolated ... and when one has found intimacy the need to belong has become absurd. Besides, the sense of belonging is a dangerous illusion. Losing oneself in the crowd renders one susceptible to not only group highs but to mass hysteria ... and mob riots. Just as marital disharmony can lead to domestic violence, so too can neighbourhood disputes lead to civil unrest and communal violence. International riots are called war. So much for belonging!

With apperception, what one discovers, time and again, is that the personal boundaries that one feels so safely protected by, are made up of ‘my’ accrued beliefs as to who ‘I’ am. This is ‘my’ outline, as it were, shaped by other people’s description of ‘me’ ... a construct which gives ‘me’ asylum in each different group into which ‘I’ wish to enter. Yet the outline of this construct creates, simultaneously, an enormous distance between ‘me’ and the world outside. At those times of peak experience, the distance disappears all of a sudden as ‘I’ vanish and this world is right here, so close that there is no distance any more. This is closer than any affective intimacy ‘I’ have ever longed for. This is serendipity indeed. This is a direct experience of actuality ... and I have always been here like this ... so safely here. The outline, the boundary that created the distance, was all in ‘my’ reality. ‘I’ created a substitute security for this original safety ... a safety which has never known any threat, nor ever will. This genuine safety has no need for precautions. Richard to Mark, List AF, 18.2.1999

I seem to fluctuate between a sense of alarm and anxiety at my ‘aloneness’ and the thrill of the realization that I am really getting somewhere by using the actualism method. And where I am getting is to be completely and totally free from being a member of the human club. When I set out upon learning about an Actual Freedom, I had many basic questions, some of which persist. For instance, I wondered: will I be able to work? Will I be able to provide for myself and my partner? Will I have a social life? What will that look like? and other questions such as these.

Regarding my ability to work, I have found that I am able to work, and that my capacity for work has, if anything, increased. I am better able to prioritize tasks, think things through and get done what needs to be done. However, regarding my ‘social life’, I find that I no longer feel the need to affiliate with other human beings the way I once used to. In days gone by, I used to think that having ‘friends’ was very important, yet now I cannot really say that I have any ‘friends’ nor do I want any. Because the word ‘friendship’ implies an obligation to stick with another person through thick and thin, and I find that I am not prepared to do that. I would much prefer to go my own way and allow someone else the freedom to do the same, so I cannot say that anyone is my ‘friend’ in that sense. I feel much the same about family relationships (and I am talking about family of origin here, not family of procreation). I keep in touch with members of my family. But compared to other people who I see around me, my sense of a family identity is very weak indeed.

On the subject of my ‘relationship’ with my partner, the matter gets a bit stickier. Since my need to affiliate with other human beings in groups has greatly lessened, to the point of almost being totally absent, I have wondered at times if I transferred these feelings on to my partner and whether I am clinging to her to get these self-same needs met. I do enjoy our being together, and I look forward to our weekends and holidays together, even our simple presence together in the evening when the day is done is very enjoyable. To be honest: I do find myself clinging to her at times with feelings of ‘love’ and affection. Yet I can say that for every moment in which there is this feeling of love and affection, there are counterpoised moments when the invidious passions are in evidence: resentment, peevishness, annoyance. In short, malice. It increases my feeling that you cannot have the positive, loving emotions without having the whole instinctual package. At least, that’s the way I think of it at this point. In other words, the entire package needs to be deleted.

So, I guess where this leaves me is to say that I think the closest thing I have to a ‘normal relationship’ is my relationship with my partner. It is here that the instinctual passions of nurture and desire occur most clearly and cleanly, compared to my other everyday ‘relationships’. To sum this all up: it seems to me that a ‘relationship’ is about sharing joy and sorrow, sharing the complete pathos and movement of human emotion and human feeling. If one is freeing oneself from the Human Condition, does one need or desire relationships then? In an actual intimacy, is there any ‘relationship’ with the other that one is relating to? Is there any ‘connection’ at all, or is this entirely absent? These are just a couple of the questions that occur. Gary to Peter

Actualism Homepage

 Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Web page designed by The Actual Freedom Trust