Others ~ Selected Correspondence

People

I find that, at work, it ‘pays’ to be a self. It pays to love and be loved. What I mean is that everyone seems to be the most lenient and beneficent when we are all the most ‘nurturing’ toward one another.

There is a certain kind of ‘group resonance’ in that. And I have the feeling that in order to really pursue this goal of Actual Freedom, I’d be necessary to become irritating to my co-workers – simply because I wouldn’t be going with the loving and super-friendly program that everyone prefers.

In some sense it certainly does ‘pay’ to be and behave as a self.

There is definitely a group dynamic where you are expected to participate like everyone else and there are ‘punishments’ for those that do not. Your co-workers very well may become irritated by your refusal to play the ‘self’ game, but also consider that will likely be balanced by a more genuine benevolence on your part. Remember, that it is not your ‘job’ to correct them or to change them or to point out the error of their ways. Doing so will probably just make matters worse.

I guess a more basic question would be: is it possible to live in the ordinary world (hold a job, be married, raise children, etc.) while pursuing Actual Freedom? And to respond, simply, that it is an individual matter – that it all depends upon me – is a little too vague for application. In what way does it depend upon me? I’m hoping for a more direct answer.

In my case, since being an actualist, I have had several promotions in my current job – now having a great deal of independence and value within the company – with the best paycheque ever. I’m not attributing that solely to actualism – only to demonstrate that not only is it possible to pursue actualism and hold a job – but that it is possible that you will excel at that job.

I have also been married during this pursuit of actualism, though my wife and I are currently ‘separated.’ This I can directly attribute to my practice of actualism since I do everything I can to avoid the games of being a ‘self.’ My current wife is simply not interested in the ‘non-emotionalism’ of actualism – she still thrives on the fight of feeling.

I look after 2 children. Raising children as an actualist has been a pleasant surprise. In the beginning, I was worried about the possible effects of not telling them that I love them and all that goes with that. I have found that I can still let them know that I care about them not only in word, but in deed – and so far it has had a huge payoff. I don’t fight with my kids like my wife does – and we have a lot of fun together. They get the cuddling and consistency they thrive on from me. Overall, I am very pleased at being a much better parent that I might have been otherwise.

My basic concern is that I am going to break up what stability exists in my social relationships in order to become ‘happy and harmless’!

In some cases that may be the case. But in my experience, you can learn to minimize the fallout and begin to notice the benefits and steer towards those. One of the things that I find important to remember is that you have to deal with the circumstances you find yourself in. If that means that occasionally you have to ‘play the game’ in order to avoid serious consequences, then so be it.

What I’m thinking of here is Richard’s comments about lying. There is no reason one would typically need to lie – but there is also no need to have a principle that states ‘never lie.’ So, in those rare instances where it is obvious that someone would be tremendously hurt by the truth, then you always have the option of staying quiet or if necessary – lying. The point is that what you are doing is motivated by genuine benevolence rather than self-interest.

Same goes for the workplace. If things just go better by ‘playing along’ on a rare occasion, then why not?

Actualism is not at all about principles – so you are breaking no principle by doing so if required.

I am looking forward to a reply.

This is all my personal experience, so yours will likely vary. The question I ask myself when I encounter an unwillingness to continue is ‘Do I really want to continue living this way?’ Invariably I find the answer is that I MUST go on – otherwise I will not be able to look at myself in the mirror. No 37 to No 91, 18.12.2005

I have been browsing through a lot of mails and a theme that repeats still about the non-friendliness of Peter/Vineeto’s mails (and possibly Richard’s). Then I wondered about my own mail: if this has been a personal mail from No 60 in my personal inbox, I might have added the sugar coatings: Hi NO 60, Thanks for your mail. ... etc. Which might have been considered friendly. However I thought that this mailing list is a place to waste no such time and get to the heart of the matter and point out the core even it be harsh. If one still demands the sugar coatings here and not able to take the bitter pill, isn’t that something that needs to be looked at?

Also I don’t at all think that the P/V/R are unfriendly – the contrary actually... most the correspondents resort to all kinds of things sooner or later once the initial sugar coated responses don’t work. Whereas R/P/V are consistent from the beginning to the end – they don’t play favourites mostly. Why should I demand friendliness from them? Can’t I take the bare facts? I think I can. If I clearly see that what they are saying is not factual, would it produce so much bitterness in me? etc.

Another gem I have learnt by looking at the volume of my old posts is that – all these conceptualizations and theorizations (that seem to be going on a lot in the list) – paradoxically – have no value in the final experience. It is as if one has oneself in a messy thorny bush and one might need all kinds of tools to get oneself out – but the actual experience has no use for all those modus operandi and to spend one’s life in the process of disentangling engrossed in the process would be a waste, no? One has to do what one must, but to be able to see outside of the box what is one doing to oneself in large spans of time, the repetitiveness, the various avatars of oneself etc. would be a great boon. If one can clearly see that the life outside the suffering of human reality can be much better, one may not waste more time than necessary. All this is obvious at some point and not before [why?]. No 33 to No 60, 20.9.2005

How can you be sure it is the actual world you are headed for? I hear very little mention of this idea of ‘actually caring’ but lots about people trying like hell to get free. I just feel that if all Richard is doing is entertaining people here on the internet he nor any of these people can be very useful in any practical way. What does actually caring mean to you? What is wrong with suffering of your mothers condition, feeling empathy? Richard may claim that the volunteers in New Orleans are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic but the fact is they were moved to do something, did it, and got results. I am just trying to get an understanding of what it means to actually care without feeling.

I don’t claim to be an official spokesperson about what actual caring is. I’m just trying to learn and make my own way. That being said I will try to tell you what actual caring means to me. My 82 yr old mother has Alzheimer’s and has been gradually deteriorating for years. I have suffered a lot over this and didn’t really understand why I had to suffer until recently when I finally realized that I loved her and that it was the love for her that connected me to her and made me suffer. Once I realized that the love disappeared and the suffering disappeared. Now I do what I can for her without suffering about it. I.o.w, I actually care about her now without the love and suffering involved. You asked what’s wrong with feeling empathy for her. What’s wrong with it is I was suffering and my life was not very enjoyable. I was basically ruining my life over her condition. Now I enjoy my life more and I help her as much as I did before.

As far as the New Orleans situation, there is really nothing I can do right now about it so what good does it do me or anyone else to feel sorrow and compassion about it? Sorrow and compassion only causes me to suffer and that’s not helping anyone.

In the meantime, my maid and yard crew need money whether I need them or not so I pay them even when I don’t have much laundry or even when my yard hasn’t grown any.

That being said, I still have the basic makeup of all humans such as greed and desire so I can’t say that I ‘actually care’.

You also asked how can I be sure that it is the actual world I am headed for. All I can say is that I have experienced the actual world and there is no suffering or empathy for others in the actual world because the psyche doesn’t come into play in the actual world. There is just the world itself without the psyche.

*

It wouldn’t seem right to walk out on her when she needs me.

Again I am trying to understand this from the Actualist vantage point.

I don’t claim to know exactly what the Actualist vantage point is because I am not a bonafide Actualist. I have had experiences that matter is not merely passive but that is not my ongoing experience. I’m just looking at my own programming without having a predetermined Actualist answer.

Where do your notions of right and wrong come from if not emotions? If you insist that this is purely a logical arrangement I can understand that, but not that it would be wrong to leave here. That is an emotional response. I know that you have stated that you are not completely free, but if you could explore this without emotion, I think it would help me to understand what actually caring is about. I can’t imagine that actually caring would be a simple matter of convenience.

I think what is meant here by actually caring is to relate to others without an emotional response. I.o.w., if one is free from the human condition they would actually care and not emotionally care. I am not free from the human condition so I do still have emotions involved. For example, with my mother there are still some emotions involved and it is also a logical arrangement. I had to take her to the doctor today so I was closely looking at this. It didn’t seem like it was right or wrong but it was just what needed doing. It was like having a job to do so I did it.

*

I have no other family so maybe there is the familial ties and there may still be love involved and I am in denial about it. I don’t know for sure. I am still looking.

Now we are getting somewhere. How will you ever know that you are not in denial if you are simply extinguishing small fires here and there? I think it was Nietzsche who said that when we are weak those monsters we thought we had destroyed long ago, once again arise and even stronger than before. I am curious if the monsters head cannot be cut off rather then a limb here and a limb there. Of course this is an old question.

I don’t see this as extinguishing small fires because it goes to the root of the human condition. It is the root that must be pulled out. This example with my mother goes to the very heart of the human condition. It is true that these monsters can raise their ugly head again so it takes constant attentiveness.

*

Once again I don’t see how this logically follows. But as you said your emotional attachment to her has not ended completely but has been shall we say modified.

I would rather say that it is reduced. I used to suffer a lot about it and now I don’t suffer much.

*

Yes, the emotional attachment is much less now but it is still there because I see that I still feel better when she is doing better.

But if it is only modification that is taking place how can you be sure that those things that you are sublimating (To modify the natural expression of (a primitive, instinctual impulse) in a socially acceptable manner. To divert the energy associated with (an unacceptable impulse or drive) into a personally and socially acceptable activity) will not as it were unmodify. Perhaps you cannot be sure and this is the risk.

I can’t be sure but I don’t see it as a risk because if and when this ‘instinctive impulse’ rises again I can deal with it then. I know that I am suffering much less now so I am already benefiting from it.

*

Yes, they have the same source in the old brain. What I am saying is that it has to be unravelled. I can’t just see that one connection and disappear all of it. I might have thought that when I was spiritual but it goes deeper than that.

Yes that is the crux of the matter for me I suppose. I don’t see this as a spiritual versus actual problem. I use to be a big J. Krishnamurti reader. I was an atheist and a naturalist long before I ever read him and afterwards this did not change. I tried to read between the lines. It seemed to me that what the man was speaking of was a real state, only a brain state or change what have you and nothing spiritual about it. In simply watching all of my thoughts and emotions non-judgmentally I found myself by necessity going into the thought and or emotion to discover its cause. That is why I see actualism as just a rewording of the old.

Yes, this is the crux of the matter to see the difference between spiritual and actual. I also use to think that K was not spiritual but now I see that he is spiritual to the core. By experiencing the actual world one can see that there is nothing spiritual about it. The spiritual is all in ones psyche in the form of beliefs and feelings which do not exist in the actual world. No 16 to No 87, 6+8.9.2005

I’m curious about your current ‘take’ on actualism – from what I can see (and this is just an educated guess) – it looks like you think there may be at least a grain of truth, fact, or correctness in actualism – yet it is also evident that you think that much of it is corrupt, hypocrisy, etc.

Yep, see separate message in due course...

Do you think that Richard is fooling himself and others – and that what he is doing is merely toying with other people?

I don’t know what Richard is, or what he is doing. My feelings about him change from time to time, as do my non-affective assessments. Bottom line for me at this stage: he’s too much an enigma, too far out of my league for me to be able to judge him fairly.

(But as my desire to find a solution in actualism grew, cognitive dissonance almost – but never entirely—overcame that impression!) Now my assessment of him is more like it was back then. There are just too many things that don’t add up. There is no way I would act the way he does in a PCE. Maybe he just has an exceptionally prick-ly manner inherited from the ‘Richard’ of yore. Or maybe he is invisible to himself as a result of some neurological ... event. I don’t know. For me, when it comes to matters psychological/existential, direct experience and autonomous reasoning is the only thing I will trust now.

I can identify with much of what you’ve said – I also was quite excited when finding actualism – then subsequently dismayed by the lack of compassion displayed by actualists. I don’t think I was much bothered by repetitiveness – or ‘grammatically tortuous intellectually flaky crap.’ I suppose the only things I can relate to that would be that it was a hurdle to get over the claim that Richard purportedly is the ‘first’ to be actually free – also the negation of the Big Bang and Relativity – may have seemed ‘flaky’ at first, yet the more I investigated, I found it not to be ‘flaky’ at all – only at first appearance. Also, I the more I looked at just what was being said – the more I realized that Richard was speaking factually – though the initial appearance was that he was being insensitive. As I looked at my own ability to ‘pussy-foot’ around ‘tough’ issues, I was hooked on the ability to just finally say it like it is – no frills or denial required.

Sure, insensitivity is a minor problem if the underlying certainty is valid. If, OTOH, the underlying certainty is invalid, and if some kind of neural short circuit prevents recognition of same, then what you’ve got is an insensitive, dogmatic arsehole who is 100% certain of what he says, yet also dangerously wrong: people risk losing everything that matters to them, and more besides. It’s not the kind of thing one wants to discover was a mistake ... in hindsight.

OK, but why should this make one bit of difference to you and you wanting to be free of the human condition (if that is the case)? It has been very clear from Richard and other actualists from the get-go that they are not suggesting that you trust them. To be miffed regarding whether or not another person is entitled to their certainty is to put yourself in a position of trusting or not trusting what they say.

But people love to see certainty in another – and when they do, they often misappropriate it for themselves. Uncertainty is painful. We’re so limited; it takes so much energy and time to carefully investigate something, to overcome our own biases and blind spots, to consider an issue from several angles, to weigh up pros and cons, etc. Life is finite. So when somebody comes along who’s been there, knows it all, tells it like ‘it is’, the attraction is very understandable.

Yes, it is – but that is also why ‘actualism’ points out the pitfalls of trust and borrowed certainty.

I think part of the reason why I find Peter and Vineeto’s testimonies valueless (and also part of the reason why I dislike them personally)

Do you want to continue to dislike them personally?

…is that, right from the very beginning, they misappropriated Richard’s certainties. Thereafter it was a case of: we know the truth^H^H^H^H^Hfacts, hereafter we dig in our heels and defend, and repel all potential threats. YMMV, but I personally hate people who do that. The modus operandi is so obviously to reinforce those ‘certainties’ at any cost.

Yes, my mileage varies :o)

Why invest yourself in hating anyone? What relevance does this have to freeing yourself? Who cares whether Peter and Vineeto are forming their own actualist cult or lining themselves up as heirs to the throne? IF that were the case, that would be their blindness – not yours.

When I see Peter in action, I see the very same blind cretin who was once prepared to kill and die for his belief in Mohan Rajneesh. Same person, different set of beliefs – only now he’s utterly impenetrable, an impregnable fortress of certainty. He has ‘stripes’ now, he’s bosom buddies with the General. He’s in the inner sanctum at last. Making progress, getting somewhere. Fame, respect, power, a guru who values him, a fan base. Good, hey?

Nah... those two suck hugely, IMO. The only meaningful interaction I could have with Peter these days is in a boxing ring.

Just as an experiment. Ask yourself whether, if you were practicing actualism [as recommended by Richard alone], whether or not it would make one bit of difference in whether or not you like Vineeto and Peter if they are actually the hypocrites you think they are?

I am suggesting this ‘experiment’ simply because I once found myself wondering about them – but when I realized that it makes no difference to my desire to be free from the human condition whether or not they are hypocrites or not – I realized it was completely irrelevant. I didn’t need to decide whether they walk their talk – since it makes no difference whatsoever. Who cares? It’s their personal business.

*

Also, what is your current take or view (replace with whatever word you wish) of Peter and Vineeto and their practice of actualism?

Not favourable, as you might guess, but I just don’t have it in me to say more tonight. I feel sorry for them.

I have had opportunity to observe their writings for about 3 ½ years now. I certainly had my tangles with both of them in the beginning. Vineeto specifically regarding her ‘style’ and one-liners that often seem to be intended to be cutting – and Peter with his apparent ability to turn almost any inquiry into a lecture to convince the other person that it’s ‘their problem’ they don’t see it like he does. I definitely notice a willingness on both their parts to communicate in such a way as to let the person they are talking to know that they certainly don’t consider them an actualist. There is a consistent reframing of the other’s words into ‘real world’ terms such as ‘position,’ ‘belief,’ etc. such as to give the appearance of distancing what they are saying and put the other down. I don’t think that is their intent, I don’t really know, but it is certainly the effect.

After having observed it for two years, I do think it is their intent. And it hurts a lot of people.

So – are you feeling righteous indignation on behalf of those that are getting hurt? Maybe just hateful because they hurt you? If you were hurt, why?

If you are hating them because they are hurting others, why?

*

At the same time, I think they are both entirely sincere, but it is possible for a sincere person to have blind spots as well. I state these as appearances only – I have given up on trying to exhaustively guess their motives. Personally, I applaud both of them for their willingness to assist in blazing a trail to an actual freedom – I don’t assume that one will always be perfect or not slip up every now and then – so there really is no room for resentment from me regardless of their motives.

Fair enough.

What I find is that in order for someone to become resentful of Peter and Vineeto – they must first place them in the pedestal role of guru or assistant gurus, then when they don’t fit that image they are hated or resented quite strongly.

I did not do that. When I came to the list I naturally treated them as equals, potential friends, people whose interests and experiences were aligned with my own, people I could learn from and share experiences with. They put themselves on a pedestal; made themselves into gurus. I maintain they are know-it-alls who are only interested in bolstering their ‘certainties’, and the pathetic power-tripping fringe benefits that go with it.

Nobody can put themselves on a pedestal. You have to buy into it to be hurt by it. OR – you would have to hate them for others buying into it and subsequently being hurt – which is where righteous indignation would come into the picture.

*

As far as I can see – there is an easy way out of that cycle – don’t venerate or put responsibility on them in the first place, after all, they are fellow human beings.

I never did venerate them, and I don’t think I ever put responsibility on them. What I wanted from them – and all I wanted/expected from them when I was investigating actualism – was simple human decency in sharing ideas and experiences. I felt, and still feel, that they turned every interaction into a dominance game.

And you do see that wanting/expecting something from somebody sets you up for disappointment?

I see other people so frustrated by this double bind: sign says ‘Come in! Great fun here!’. Yet bouncers stand at the door repelling every comer, treating them as unwelcome intruders. (I am not advocating personal bonding here, either).

It is definitely interesting seeing the kinds of interactions that happen – and I do understand where you get the impression that the actualist list starts out with a warm welcome followed by a few metaphorical uppercuts. I can also see why you might be disappointed by all that.

I think it is very easily explained though – people come in the from ‘real’ world with their customary ways of bonding, being chummy, optimistic, or the opposites of those. Actualism is about eliminating all that good and bad – so none of the customary friendliness flies very far, rather it falls flat. So many people resort to the opposite of hatefulness to try and get to the actualists – since the usual ‘support me’ kind of friendliness doesn’t work.

What I’ve learned is that whenever people communicate with each other – much of what is said and how it is said is done in order to establish a relationship.

Since the ‘self’ is about survival – it is constantly trying to determine whether the relationship is one of friend or foe – the reason being that people are generally looking for ‘supportive’ relationships – and it is easier to keep on guard once a traitor has been discovered. When someone doesn’t play the usual ‘supportive’ relationship game – then they are tagged as a traitor and treated that way.

So, it is inevitable that people will feel hurt by actualists simply because they are not supporting the status quo.

Of course, at one point I ran square into the question – ‘If actualism is supposed to be about ‘peace-on-earth’ – then why does it create so much conflict?’ And – ‘isn’t this counter-productive?’ The answer I found is that it is indeed (generally) the actualist who is being peaceful and operating with sincere intent. It is not at all their fault that those who encounter them completely misinterpret their actions.

To take a guess (and you are the judge whether it is correct) – I would say that you quite simply despise hypocrisy. Since encounters with actualists produce predictable and repeated conflict (which contradicts their claim to want peace-on-earth) – they are prime examples of hypocrisy (which again contradicts their claim to want peace-on-earth). An apparent conundrum.

The way I resolved this apparent conundrum was to determine the source of the conflict. No 37 to No 60, 5+6.9.2005

One of the most striking things to happen to me since I started practising Actualism is the diminishment of emotional connections to other human beings. <snip>

A great deal of what happens in day-to-day life consists of instinctual behaviour, which stems from the more primitive areas of the brain. The longer I have been at Actualism, the more pervasive the primitive survival program of the human species, located in the mid-brain regions, appears to be. This holds true I think for all kinds of emotional connections with others, whether they be mutual obligations, hierarchical types of interactions with others such as dominant and subservient behaviour, ingratiating, cow-towing, gossiping, worshipping, etc. – the list goes on and on ... all these types of social behaviour have their root in ‘my’ need to survive as an instinctual entity, find a suitable mate to disseminate my seed, fight off rivals, etc.

Perhaps I am too reductionist in seeing the hand of the instincts in all these myriad forms of behaviour and feelings. I have questioned whether I was getting tunnel vision in that respect. However, be that as it may, in Actualism one applies attentiveness as a discipline to one’s own inner world – the world of the feelings, passions, and calentures – and by extension, with the Human Condition as it exists in each and every human being currently alive. And the conventional wisdom, endlessly repeated ad nauseam, is that human beings ‘need’ one another – that ‘no man is an island’ – and other such sentiments.

To begin to unravel the ‘sticky business’ of one’s affiliation and social needs is to undertake a hazardous enterprise – hazardous chiefly because it spells the beginning of the end of ‘me’, as I am largely a social creature -raised from my inception to have a place in a social hierarchy, be a member of a particular racial, ethnic, and tribal identity, have ‘my’ loves and hates, ‘my’ attractions and repulsions, all of which serve to fix me in a particular niche in society, make me useful to that society as well as expendable.

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.

In the moment of pure sensuousness, when a fascinated attentiveness basks in the wonder of being here in this moment in time, there is no latching onto the feelings of relatedness or belonging. Attentiveness is a clear slate of sensory datum and pure, immediate perception, devoid of affective feeling, as well as the incipient attractions and repulsions to or against others as are operative in one’s ordinary sense of social being.

In attentiveness, I am as apt to be without a feeling of connectedness in dealing with my fellow human beings as I am in not feeling connected to the tree, as were you.

Attentiveness however also notices the psychic tentacles with the same fascination that it notices the exquisite patterns of light and shadow falling across the bark of the tree, and I nevertheless ‘keep hands in pockets’ when examining and noticing these feelings of connectedness without giving into the feelings or being impelled to action by them.

I certainly agree with the part where you say that you have less and less to complain about with your own life. I hardly feel it is a service to my fellow human to gripe about commonplace goings-on, although it is an all-too-human characteristic. I am less inclined to gripe or complain since I investigated into the basis of such commonly held complaints as the Monday morning blues, upsets about the weather, complaints about one’s political leaders, as well as many other commonplace ills too numerous to mention. A welcome change is that since practising Actualism I have a much keener appreciation of the marvel and wonder of human beings – that most intelligent creature in the world, that fabulously sensitive and finely attuned pinnacle of evolutionary creation.

Even the dullest human being is a marvellous creature to behold. And a lot of this sense of wonder and appreciation is directly due to the falling away and demolishment of the deeply conditioned judgements of others owing to their social class, status, background, or perceived worth or valuelessness.

*

However, not to get too far afield and to return again to the theme of emotional ‘connection’, I have sometimes in past months been aghast at my lack of emotional, social connection to others. <snip>

I cannot honestly say that I truly enjoy the company of interacting with people, often feeling disinclined to interact socially. You may notice that I said feeling disinclined, which should be enough of a tip-off that I am dealing with ‘me’ again here. I know what it is like from PCEs that I have had that social interaction is free, easy, a delight, and involves no effort at all, nor anything but delight in simply being in another person’s company. But ordinarily I do not take much pleasure in interacting socially with others.

Your own pleasure is, however, quite clear. By temperament and disposition, I am usually quite happy to be a loner and a hermit. However, these solitary tendencies do not serve one well in the marketplace where there is a premium on acquired social ‘skills’.

I have been taking a renewed pleasure in these simple interactions with others since I have been thinking a lot about my ‘connections’ or lack of connections (I might better say) with others. I had a damn good laugh with the man in the store when I stopped for coffee on the way to work this morning. The unrestrained mirth was a tonic to my system.

Your writings are always as clear as a bell. I have appreciated our acquaintanceship during the time I have participated in this list. Your commitment to the list and to Actualism has not gone unnoticed. I think it is commendable the consistency with which you and Peter have written to the various and sundry people who have frequented the list, both as regulars and ‘drop ins’.

*

As I write these words, I am thinking that these fears are basic atavistic fears related to the demolishment of one’s identity, as well as fears that indicate the presence of the identity in the first place. These fears have largely settled down at the present time. I would welcome any comments either you or other participants have about the topic currently under discussion.

Since being involved in Actualism, I have found going back and visiting old friends and family members has led to very clear perceptions of the depth of change that has taken place. What were once troubled and painful relationships filled with bittersweet memories from the past have taken on a new ease and a surprising conviviality. With the drastic ‘self’-reduction plan I entered into since becoming involved in Actualism, affective extensions have largely dried up, replaced by a common sense, down-to-earth approach. This is not to say that there is no on-going investigation into ‘my’ relationships with others, but as I continue to do so, I notice an increasing confidence with being, as you say... ‘here, as what I am...’. Gary to Vineeto

To begin to unravel the ‘sticky business’ of one’s affiliation and social needs is to undertake a hazardous enterprise – hazardous chiefly because it spells the beginning of the end of ‘me’, as I am largely a social creature – raised from my inception to have a place in a social hierarchy, be a member of a particular racial, ethnic, and tribal identity, have ‘my’ loves and hates, ‘my’ attractions and repulsions, all of which serve to fix me in a particular niche in society, make me useful to that society as well as expendable.

While we are on the subject, I would like to touch on the whole business of being an outcast. I used to feel the greatest anxiety about being labelled or branded an outcast. It is something that I once strenuously resisted and actively feared. I felt that without my emotional entanglements and without the affection and approval of others, I would quickly go right off the rails and be annihilated. Now, at the present time, it is abundantly clear to me that I am, by any definition of the word, an outcast. But I no longer feel the level of dread and angst that I used to. I suppose another meaning to the word ‘expendable’ is ‘not needed’. No longer do I as this flesh-and-blood body need ‘me’, but I am freed from the senseless and endless crazy-making of the Human Condition.

To me, a major part of this crazy-making is the futile attempt to make other people responsible for my own happiness. The longer I have practiced Actualism, the more clearly I have seen the deeply imbedded nature of this tendency to hold others responsible for my moods, feelings, and actions. Naturally, the reason for this is that the affective feelings in and of themselves are essentially ‘self’-centred in this way.

*

One of the things I used to do was compulsively take care of or try to control the people around me. Many years ago, I once underwent a period of unemployment which literally put me into a panic because I had nobody to ‘help’. With the increasing ease that has been ushered in by the dismantlement of my personal, social, and professional roles and identities, I am less and less invested in trying to ‘help’ and change others, less inclined to feel morally superior to others, and more and more satisfied with being where I am and living my life freed from the interference of busy-bodies and missionaries.

While I don’t often have rages against authority, I often regard myself as a moral authority to be reckoned with and am liable to fly into rages when others defy my imagined authority. This pattern, once blatant and destructive of personal and professional relationships, is progressively drying up. But it still takes quite a bit of ferreting out what underlies these difficulties and I do not mean to imply that I am free from these insidious passions. There has been progress but not perfection, as ‘I’ am still in evidence.

*

I know what it is like from PCEs that I have had that social interaction is free, easy, a delight, and involves no effort at all, nor anything but delight in simply being in another person’s company. But ordinarily I do not take much pleasure in interacting socially with others.

Your own pleasure is, however, quite clear. By temperament and disposition, I am usually quite happy to be a loner and a hermit. However, these solitary tendencies do not serve one well in the marketplace where there is a premium on acquired social ‘skills’.

What you say here is something I relate to – where you say you have far less interactions than you used to have. That is the case with me too. I used to compulsively socialize with others and gravitate to groups. All of this behaviour was impelled, of course, by my identity – the lonely ‘me’, the anxious ‘me’, the egotistic ‘me’ who needed an audience, etc. Now I am really quite happy to remain at home alone, or pursue my solitary activities, but I realize that socializing has it’s charms also, and I do genuinely enjoy being in the company of people at certain times.

Yes, I think I realized the unfortunate connotation of these ‘loaded’ terms at about the same time I wrote the words. It is an interesting quirk of human nature that a trait can be pathologized when taking it out of a constructive context.

Having ‘no social identity to maintain’ is really a most delightful situation to be in. I was thinking one morning recently, when I was sitting quietly before leaving for work, that all the battles have already been fought, all the strivings have been striven for ... it really was a sublime sense of being ‘retired’ from all of that, and in no immediate need of changing anything about myself or my life. It was a wonderful sense of completion and coming full-circle to the place where I find myself, with nothing that I would want to improve or anything that I would like to change.

*

I know what it is like from PCEs that I have had that social interaction is free, easy, a delight, and involves no effort at all, nor anything but delight in simply being in another person’s company. But ordinarily I do not take much pleasure in interacting socially with others.

Your own pleasure is, however, quite clear. By temperament and disposition, I am usually quite happy to be a loner and a hermit. However, these solitary tendencies do not serve one well in the marketplace where there is a premium on acquired social ‘skills’.

What you say here is something I relate to – where you say you have far less interactions than you used to have. That is the case with me too. I used to compulsively socialize with others and gravitate to groups. All of this behaviour was impelled, of course, by my identity – the lonely ‘me’, the anxious ‘me’, the egotistic ‘me’ who needed an audience, etc. Now I am really quite happy to remain at home alone, or pursue my solitary activities, but I realize that socializing has it’s charms also, and I do genuinely enjoy being in the company of people at certain times.

Yes, I think I realized the unfortunate connotation of these ‘loaded’ terms at about the same time I wrote the words. It is an interesting quirk of human nature that a trait can be pathologized when taking it out of a constructive context.

With no social identity to maintain and no social ladder to climb I am now free to set my own pace as to how I like to spend my time – except for the time that I sell for a living, in which case the pace is set by those who employ me.

Having ‘no social identity to maintain’ is really a most delightful situation to be in. I was thinking one morning recently, when I was sitting quietly before leaving for work, that all the battles have already been fought, all the strivings have been striven for ... it really was a sublime sense of being ‘retired’ from all of that, and in no immediate need of changing anything about myself or my life. It was a wonderful sense of completion and coming full-circle to the place where I find myself, with nothing that I would want to improve or anything that I would like to change.

*

I was reminded of my successful application of Actualism just today when I read Peter’s most recent post. In it he stated unequivocally that he knows that Actualism works, and I thought ... so do I too. Nothing could be simpler than the hands-on experience gained in using the method to achieve the incremental elimination of the instinctual passions from one’s life. My life has become far simpler and carefree – some would say ‘too’ carefree.

There has been the release from what were once onerous responsibilities and obligations, as I am not compulsively going around trying to ‘help’ others, and no longer do I see myself as on a mission to convert others to worn-out ideals and beliefs. That ‘vast stillness’ that Richard writes about is becoming more and more an ever present fact of life for me. Gary to Vineeto

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

There is a very precise description of the method contained on the Actual Freedom website at the following address. It hardly seems necessary to go into the specifics to a greater extent or to re-invent the wheel. But suffice it to say that the essence of the method is to thoroughly examine and investigate everything that gets in the way of being happy and harmless. This includes every affective experience, emotion, feeling, and belief.

Just to give an example: in the morning I was on the way to work and my partner, in saying ‘goodbye’ to me, stated ‘I love you’ and lightly caressed my hand. In response to this lightly spoken endearment, I experienced a feeling of sadness mingled with regret. The feeling hit me between the eyes, so to speak, and I was interested to look into that feeling and see what I could find out about it, as it would reveal much about ‘me’. One of the things that I came up with was the realization that love in any form is always accompanied by sorrow and sadness, as for instance when love is lost. I think I also experienced a momentary feeling of pity for my partner whose expressions of ‘love’ to me are usually not reciprocated, perhaps in they are in tender expressions of caring but certainly not in word, as I never speak the ‘love’ word anymore. I think there was an irrational belief operating in me at the time that went something like this: ‘What kind of partner are you after all – you should be telling your partner that you love her’. One could easily substitute any number of words in the place of ‘partner’ such as ‘son’, ‘daughter’, ‘friend’, ‘co-worker’, etc. The irrational belief that I ‘should’ be expressing love to these people caused me to feel momentary sadness, regret, and guilt.

I have, since I started using the Actualism method, been most interested in examining my attachments to others. I use the word ‘attachment’ as being somewhat synonymous with ‘relationship’ as it is commonly used. By this I mean an emotional connection of some sort or other. It is always an emotional issue of some sort or other that binds me to another person or group of people. It of course starts in the dependent relationship of the mother and infant, is nurtured during the long period of childhood, and may grow into more stable ‘attachments’ in adolescence and adulthood. I think that one of the effects of practicing the Actualism method has been a great loosening and weakening of emotional attachments of any kind for me. I experience at times feelings of dread and angst that I am not ‘normal’ in the sense of wanting to attach myself to other people emotionally.

I seem to have no drive to form friendships in the conventional sense or to identify with other people on the usual levels. I have found it most interesting and fruitful to examine my emotional attachments to others, which all involve clinging, fear, loneliness, desire, dependency, and domination in one way or another. In short, by examining my attachments to others, I feel I have hit upon something very intrinsic to the Human Condition: those emotional ties that bind me to humanity. Loosening and eventually eliminating those ties completely is my aim but it is a most daunting course. Because in so-doing I am turning my back on those things that once gave me comfort, and am liable to experience pangs of anxious apartness, even the dread occasioned by losing large parts of my identity.

Just a quick note: when I say in the sentence above that I am ‘turning my back on those things that once gave me comfort’ I am referring not so much to deliberate repression or suppression of an experience, but as with this as well a process of finding out experientially what binds me to the Human Condition. For instance, I have found that it is not necessary for me to have ‘friends’ in the usual sense in order to be happy and harmless – quite the opposite – I have found that maintaining this system of alliances and affiliations most definitely gives sustenance to and fuels ‘me’.

Compatibility of breeding stock is often a matter of similar racial, ethnic, and national origin, but certainly is not necessary for people to be compatible in order to procreate.

Marriage and procreation across racial lines is still somewhat of an unusual thing, whereas it is common to marry across ethnic lines. Perhaps you were referring to the fact that humans breed with humans, not non-humans (?)

By the definition you are using of an individual as ‘nothing special’, I may fit the bill.

However, in your original post, I think the controversy was about your statements which made it sound to me like the individual is always stands in opposition to society in which he or she lives. My point was only that even extraordinary geniuses are a product of their society, even if they are way ahead of their times, they still have incorporated often the cherished ideals of whatever society they are living in. The person who has truly eliminated malice and sorrow and is living a happy and harmless life would, I think, not be considered a danger because this person, by any definition, would be totally harmless and written off as a complete lunatic. Gary to No 46

Actualism Homepage

 Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Web page designed by The Actual Freedom Trust