Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List

with Correspondent No 12

6.9.2001

Hi,

Once I came to realize that the straightjacket I felt as though I was wearing and yearned to be free of was of ‘my’ making and was not the fault of anyone, else I simply stopped blaming others for keeping me from becoming free. Then I stopped believing that in order to become free I needed to feel grateful to some mythical God or Existence and after that it was a straightforward and easy decision to get on with the business of being an actualist.

There was also the blow to my pride in having to admit I was wrong, but that was no big deal when I realized that everyone I had met, or read about, also had it wrong. They had it wrong for the simple reason that whatever teaching or ideal they were following or preaching didn’t work in practice. None of them were happy, none of them were living in peace and in harmony with others, all of them complained about how tough it was to be here in the world-as-it-is with people as-they-are, and all of them blamed others for the ills of the world. When I came to understand that this also applied to all the revered spiritual teachers and God-men, the writing was on the wall that everyone has got it wrong.

No problem. You have regularly said to me that actualism is wrong because it is just another spiritual teaching and that I am wrong because I am yet another spiritual disciple –

Some of us got out of the Osho is a guru delusion without replacing him with another delusory guru trip. You obviously did not. Stop laying your shit on those who have already gone where you will go a bit later. No 12 to Peter 29.6.2001

You have even played the ‘actualism is evil’ card so as to make it doubly clear how wrong actualism is –

You are the closest to a nazi I have ever met. More than Richard in fact. At least Richard is original. You are a lieutenant. No 12 to Peter 29.6.2001

Richard and you and Vineeto are 3 of the most malicious people I have ever met. No 12 to Peter 29.6.2001

I won’t go on with other versions but it is very obvious to me that you have been telling me actualism is wrong in whatever way you can think of.

I have heard you before say I have not gone far enough but I have always been mystified as to what it is you are currently advocating as one of the hallmarks of your viewpoint appears to be flexibility.

But then again I have always appreciated quality over quantity.

I have never advocated physically turning around 180 degrees for that is nonsensical. What I am talking about is giving up keeping doing what is plainly not working and never has worked for thousands of years, i.e. the well tried and the well failed, and heading off in a brand new direction that you have never tried before. I always figured I had ‘nothing left to lose’ – which is the subtitle of my journal, by the way.

You may not have noticed but the method of ‘self’-investigation inherent in actualism is founded upon the understanding and experience that every human being has had sometime in their life – a temporary pure consciousness experience whereupon one realizes that the paradise traditionally mythologized as being somewhere else and some time else is in fact here on earth, under our very noses as it where.

Actualism takes awareness to depths never dared before in any spiritual pursuits – investigating not only one’s social identity in operation but also one’s instinctual animal passions as well. And from a real-world perspective actualism takes the study of the human psyche in directions deemed dangerous and reckless – into the realm of a non-‘self’-centred awareness that psychiatry has classified as insanity.

It may have also escaped your notice that there have been a number of empirical studies of brain functioning whose factual findings accord with both Richard’s discovery and the experience of practical actualists – that blind instinctual reactions are genetically programmed to precede and pre-empt intelligent thought. While I certainly make no claim to any in-depth knowledge about the science of neuro-biology, I have attempted to put the findings of these experiments into layman’s terms, particularly in the Introduction to Actual Freedom, in order to demonstrate that modern scientific empirical evidence concurs with the discoveries made in the actualism method of ‘self’-investigation.

I tend to find such lists highly technical in their jargon, narrow in their viewpoint and mostly theoretical in their concepts. That was one of the things that attracted me to actualism – it offered a practical method to fix up a problem I had – after 17 years on the spiritual path I had to admit I was neither happy, nor was I harmless.

Thanks for your advice, but I am already turning a ‘possibility for freedom’ into a fact. Or to put it another way, I am having such an excellent time savouring the delights of being here, in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, to take seriously the fantasies and theories of yet another regurgitated, dusted off and presented as new, already failed, ‘possibility for freedom’.

The so-called new possibility for freedom on offer at www.benares.com is not new at all, it is just a contemporary rehash of a well tried and well failed practice that has been around since humans first discovered hallucinogenic plants. The great ancient myths and legends that form the basis of spiritual belief, religious dogma and human wisdom have all emerged from altered states of consciousness induced by some sort of ‘paradise engineering’ – by imbibing some form of mind-altering substance.

As far as I know, each of the tribal groups and great civilizations had their drug or drugs of choice and the high priests, gurus, shamans and witchdoctors were always amongst the most ardent users. There is a long tradition, particularly in the polytheist religions, of hallucinogenic drug use that continues to this very day. Taoists monks in Japan still ‘retreat’ to the mountains in search of magic mushrooms, Hinduism is awash with ganga smoking out-of-it gurus and the current fad for Eastern spiritualism was initiated by the youth of the 60’s tripping off to the East in search of the permanent drug experience.

Not only have the spiritualists endlessly experimented with paradise engineering, so have the materialists. Alcohol in some form or another has generally been the sop of materialists even to this day. Although one doesn’t ‘get out of it’ in an altered state of consciousness by imbibing alcohol, its effects dulls the senses sufficiently to provide many people with a sense of temporary relief and refuge from the stresses inherent in the rat race world of material pursuit.

In the last century particularly, there has also emerged what are called designer drugs – specifically engineered and targeted at lessening the debilitating effects of undesirable emotional states or at heightening the euphoric effects of desirable emotional states. Many of these drugs have been invaluable in ensuring a better quality of life for many people who suffer from the extremes of the emotional see-saw that characterizes the human condition and no doubt both their use and effectiveness will increase as pharmacists continue to fine tune their effectiveness.

But to prophesise that ‘paradise engineering ... is the only viable method for actual freedom’ is to ignore the fact that paradise engineering has been very much part and parcel of the human condition for thousands of years and stuff all has changed. Why should something that has been tried for thousands of years by millions upon millions of people, and has failed to bring anything remotely resembling peace on earth, all of a sudden work? ‘Paradise engineering’ has been a path trod for millennia – nothing new is offered in the slick presentation of the Hedonistic Imperative other than the futuristic fantasies of what genetic manipulation may or may not do.

No doubt some people in the next generation will give up waiting for Godot and start waiting for Genome.

Having said that, hallucinogenic drugs do undoubtedly cause a physical change in the functioning of the human brain and whilst the most common result is a mild, or even full-blown, altered state of consciousness, there is also the possibility that a pure consciousness experience can eventuate. The first, and most substantial, PCE I can remember was triggered by taking MDA. That I had a PCE and not an ASC was a serendipitous event, for most people I have talked to had Love experiences whilst on MDA and they all felt aggrandized in some form or other.

It is only a speculation on my part but the idea of ‘self’-love and its inherent power never sat well with me and maybe that is why I had a self-less pure consciousness experience and not a self-aggrandizing altered state of consciousness, but I wouldn’t hang my hat on it. After this first experience, repeated usages of the drug failed to produce the same result and I soon after abandoned its use as retaking it only resulted in the usual up and down cycle associated with all drug use.

What is available now is a no-cost, do-it-yourself, drug-free method of firstly being able to provoke the onset of a pure consciousness experience and then being able to remove the impediments that prevent one from being free from the human condition in its entirety. Already in my short stint of practicing actualism, I experience ordinary life as better than a pure consciousness experience simply because it is constantly excellent – there is no experience of being here briefly and then having to go back into the grim reality of the real world. Once the realization set in that I am here anyway, I set about removing the objections and excuses, buts, bitches and blames, ruses and resentments that got in the way of me being happy and harmless, 24 hrs a day, every day. To aim for anything less than this, or settle for anything less than this, is but to continue to waste this moment of being alive.

To miss out on the sensual delight of being here in this earthy physical paradise by being angry at or sad about people as-they-are, or by being resentful or miserable about things as-they-are, clearly makes no sense whatsoever.

After all, actualism is about coming to one’s senses ... literally.

7.9.2001

I know you have always had an issue with right and wrong but I am not talking about right and wrong in an ethical sense. It is a practical matter that if someone is doing something that doesn’t work, or following a teaching that doesn’t work in practice, then what he or she is doing must, by definition, be wrong.

I recently heard John Lithgow on the TV show ‘Third Rock from the Sun’ put it somewhat differently. He plays the character of a visiting alien from another planet sent to observe the human race. He commented that ‘there is no problem with the human brain – it’s just that the mind keeps getting in the way’. This common misconception has led the Eastern religions to embark on sublimating ‘I’ the thinker whilst giving full vent to ‘me’ the feeler to run amuck in an on-going narcissistic orgy of Self-indulgence and Self-centredness.

All of the work I did in actualism was to pay attention to how I was experiencing this moment of being alive. What I discovered was that it was invariably a feeling that was preventing me from being happy now, i.e. I was busy wasting my time feeling sad, lonely, miserable, lacklustre, bored, etc. and I was anything but happy ... and some other ‘place’ but here. Similarly what I discovered was that it was invariably a feeling that was preventing me from being harmless now, i.e. I was busy feeling pissed off, angry, resentful, annoyed, superior, inferior, resentful, etc. and I was anything but harmless ... and some other ‘place’ but here.

Whenever I was sufficiently aware I was able to nip these feelings in the bud and get on with feeling good about being here. Then I raised the stakes to feeling excellent and began looking at the deeper emotions and passions that give substance to one’s very sense of being. And all the while I came to more and more appreciate the wonderful and benign workings of the human brain when freed of the insidious feelings and emotions that are sourced in primitive thoughtless instinctual reactions common to all animate life.

The method of actualism is a radical departure from spiritual awareness because the aim is to come here to the actual world and not go ‘there’ – to retreat ‘inside’ to the false security of an imaginary spirit-ual world that has no actual existence outside of the heads and hearts of human beings. By practicing spiritual methods of awareness one is in fact moving further away from the actual world. When one sees and understands this, it is important to understand that the actual world is the paradise and freedom that one was seeking, lest one ends up back in grim reality of real world despairing.

The ‘problem’ , as you put it, does not ‘lie in the brain’ because there is nothing ‘wrong’ with flesh and blood human beings. It’s just that inside every flesh and blood body is a non-physical psychological and psychic entity. It is ‘he’ or ‘she’ who invariably suffers emotionally and who, despite good intentions, invariably inflicts emotional suffering on others. The problem, as you put it, is this entity in its entirety, both the ‘I’ in the head and ‘me’ in the heart. The problem is not physical per se, but it does have its roots in the program of social conditioning that everyone undergoes from birth and in the genetically inherited crude survival program that results in thoughtless impassioned reactions, mainly those of fear, aggression, nurture and desire.

Richard’s discovery was that neither of these programs are set in concrete as it were – that you can, in fact, change human nature. These programs are software not hardware and as such they can be deleted. And what you discover is that the hardware functions better than ever without the debilitating effects of a software program which has as its centre an illusionary ‘I’ and at its very core a passionate ‘me’. This neurological programming consists of nothing other than socially imbibed millennia-old beliefs, spiritual fantasies, unliveable morals, unworkable ethics, platitudes and psittacisms that have been passed down to us by those who were here before us, layered upon a genetically inherited survival program that cause us to instinctively act like animals, to put it crudely.

The method inherent in actualism is specifically designed to facilitate the incremental deletion of this software programming such that one becomes progressively happier and more harmless in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are.

Goodness knows what it is you imagine we agree on. I can’t remember you ever agreeing with me on anything. Surely it would be totally out of character for an avowed dissenter’s dissenter to agree with anyone? Did I miss something perhaps?

No. It may seem obvious to you because you believe there is something wrong with the actual world we live in but I gave up objecting to being here quite a while ago now. There is no fear in a rock, no love in a coffee cup, no awe in a sunset, no anger in a tree, no sorrow in a rain storm. Similarly, there is no fear in human big toes, no love in human feet, no awe in human kidneys, no anger in human noses and no suffering in human brains. A pure consciousness experience shows plainly that it is only ‘I’ who psychologically and psychically suffers and the aim of a practicing actualist is to eliminate ‘he’ or ‘she’ who feels fearful, miserable, angry, lost, lonely, resentful, etc. so that I, this flesh and blood body only, can experience the unfettered wellbeing of sensate-only ‘self’-less experiencing.

No wonder you are grasping at straws if, as you seem to imply, you experience ‘nothing other than this physical world, no soul, no self, no meaning’ . It is a recipe for experiencing a stark meaningless reality at worst, or the ‘I don’t know where I am and I don’t know how I got here’ spiritual nihilism seemingly experienced by U.G. Krishnamurti at best.

I take it that you don’t read any other mail on this list other than that which is addressed to you because what you are inferring or imagining about actualism is in direct contradiction to what is being currently discussed on this mailing list about the distinction between thinking and affective feeling. Still, as I am apt to say, ‘t’would be a pity to let a few facts stand in the way of a dearly-held belief’.

7.9.2001

Are you saying ‘the method <directly intervening at the cellular level> is beginning to be practiced in research communities’? Could you perhaps provide evidence of this or at least provide relevant link(s) to substantiate your claim that the method ‘is changing the world forever’?

I am curious to know what is in fact going on with this method and what results have been achieved because, thus far, even genetic interventions for simple one-issue physical ailments seem to be in their theoretical infancy and yet these are the subject of considerable moral objections and ethical perplexity. To tackle something so complex as genetically dowsing down or even genetically eliminating the undesirable feelings that arise from the instinctual passions seems the stuff of fairy tales to me. I don’t deny it could well be possible but then again, chemical castration for rapists is now possible but it has yet to gain broad social acceptance as an appropriate punishment ... let alone become a free and fashionable choice amongst men who are tired of being instinctually led around by their dicks.

8.9.2001

The so-called new possibility for freedom on offer at www.benares.com is not new at all, it is just a contemporary rehash of a well tried and well failed practice that has been around since humans first discovered hallucinogenic plants. The great ancient myths and legends that form the basis of spiritual belief, religious dogma and human wisdom have all emerged from altered states of consciousness induced by some sort of ‘paradise engineering’ – by imbibing some form of mind-altering substance. <Snipped>

But to prophesise that ‘paradise engineering ... is the only viable method for actual freedom’ is to ignore the fact that paradise engineering has been very much part and parcel of the human condition for thousands of years and stuff all has changed. Why should something that has been tried for thousands of years by millions upon millions of people, and has failed to bring anything remotely resembling peace on earth, all of a sudden work? ‘Paradise engineering’ has been a path trod for millennia – nothing new is offered in the slick presentation of the Hedonistic Imperative other than the futuristic fantasies of what genetic manipulation may or may not do.

No doubt some people in the next generation will give up waiting for Godot and start waiting for Genome. < Snipped>

Is that it?

You have stated that actualism is ‘part of the problem rather than of the solution’ and proclaimed ‘paradise engineering’ to be ‘the only viable method for actual freedom’ and yet when your theory is challenged by a few facts you reply with a whinge and a whimper rather than continue with your advocacy. Surely if this is what you are advocating on this list as your solution to ending malice and sorrow you should be both willing and capable of standing by it? It’s called putting your money where your mouth is.

16.9.2001

Are you saying ‘the method <directly intervening at the cellular level> is beginning to be practiced in research communities’? Could you perhaps provide evidence of this or at least provide relevant link(s) to substantiate your claim that the method ‘is changing the world forever’? I am curious to know what is in fact going on with this method and what results have been achieved because, thus far, even genetic interventions for simple one-issue physical ailments seem to be in their theoretical infancy and yet these are the subject of considerable moral objections and ethical perplexity. To tackle something so complex as genetically dowsing down or even genetically eliminating the undesirable feelings that arise from the instinctual passions seems the stuff of fairy tales to me. I don’t deny it could well be possible but then again, chemical castration for rapists is now possible but it has yet to gain broad social acceptance as an appropriate punishment ... let alone become a free and fashionable choice amongst men who are tired of being instinctually led around by their dicks.

This ploy could well be described as duck-shoving, whereby, in a vain attempt to conceal your lack of evidence to support your claim that paradise engineering ‘is the only hope left for this species ... this species that has suffering and malice and sorrow and ignorance encoded in the DNA’ , you shift the onus of providing your evidence on to me. This bluff tactic does nothing but highlight the fact that you have yet to reply to the comments I have already made on the content of the website that you yourself offered as proof that paradise engineering is already bringing an irrevocable end to human suffering and misery.

Unless you haven’t yet noticed, the ball is firmly in your court to back up your claims – attempting to somehow make your dilemma into my problem simply will not work on me.

16.9.2001

I know you have always had an issue with right and wrong but I am not talking about right and wrong in an ethical sense. It is a practical matter that if someone is doing something that doesn’t work, or following a teaching that doesn’t work in practice, then what he or she is doing must, by definition, be wrong.

<Snip> The ‘problem’, as you put it, does not ‘lie in the brain’ because there is nothing ‘wrong’ with flesh and blood human beings. It’s just that inside every flesh and blood body is a non-physical psychological and psychic entity. It is ‘he’ or ‘she’ who invariably suffers emotionally and who, despite good intentions, invariably inflicts emotional suffering on others. The problem, as you put it, is this entity in its entirety, both the ‘I’ in the head and ‘me’ in the heart. The problem is not physical per se, but it does have its roots in the program of social conditioning that everyone undergoes from birth and in the genetically inherited crude survival program that results in thoughtless impassioned reactions, mainly those of fear, aggression, nurture and desire.

Richard’s discovery was that neither of these programs are set in concrete as it were – that you can, in fact, change human nature. These programs are software not hardware and as such they can be deleted. And what you discover is that the hardware functions better than ever without the debilitating effects of a software program which has as its centre an illusionary ‘I’ and at its very core a passionate ‘me’. This neurological programming consists of nothing other than socially imbibed millennia-old beliefs, spiritual fantasies, unliveable morals, unworkable ethics, platitudes and psittacisms that have been passed down to us by those who were here before us, layered upon a genetically inherited survival program that cause us to instinctively act like animals, to put it crudely.

The method inherent in actualism is specifically designed to facilitate the incremental deletion of this software programming such that one becomes progressively happier and more harmless in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are.

‘There is nothing ‘wrong’ with flesh and blood human beings.’

This is a classic example of what is known as a red herring. You may well have forgotten by now but this discussion and my comment relates to your proposition that –

We still have war and suffering and bitterness, and it is time to recognise that, and do something about it ... We are approaching a new possibility for freedom from that and a possibility of alignment of us into the present physical paradise that is here already...

A physical method that is built out of an understanding based on physical entities such as neurotransmitters and genetics and biochemical intervention is the only method to create freedom where there was suffering.

The method that is being theorised and concurrently beginning to be practiced in research communities is changing the world forever by changing the human species through directly intervening at the cellular level and this method is the only hope left for this species ... this species that has suffering and malice and sorrow and ignorance encoded in the DNA.

You were clearly not talking about physical disabilities, diseases and accidents at all. You were talking about how to become free of emotional suffering – that which is self-inflicted and that which human beings inflicted upon other human beings either intentionally or unwittingly.

Medical scientists are doing a superb job in alleviating and even eliminating the physical suffering caused by physical disabilities, diseases and afflictions and engineers are busy doing the same in alleviating and even eliminating the risk and effects of the accidents that are so-called acts of God.

Human intelligence and ingenuity has wrought wondrous advances particularly in the last 100 years that has seen both the length and physical quality of life increase exponentially with cures and treatments found for many illnesses and unprecedented physical safety and comfort for an increasing percentage of an increasing population. A mere century ago, life was a grim battle for physical survival for many and even today life is still not without its risks and dangers. But without doubt, the major cause of deaths, injury and suffering in these modern times is the deaths, injury and suffering that human beings inflict upon each other – be it in one-to-one relationships, within family or tribal groups, through millennium-old religious and ethnic conflicts as well as territorial disputes.

Human intelligence and ingenuity is tackling the ‘wrongs’ of your list and in many cases has already made remarkable progress in alleviating them and many may be even eliminated. But when it comes to the problem of bringing an end to the suffering that human beings inflict upon each other, thus far there have only been two solutions to being able to cope – head in sand or head in clouds. It is worthy to note that both of these reactions are rooted in denial.

Actualism is about getting off your bum, sticking your hand up and devoting your life to being happy and harmless – in order to demonstrate that it is possible to be actually free of malice and sorrow. To be actually free of malice is to be incapable of inflicting emotional suffering on others and to be actually free of sorrow is to be incapable of emotionally suffering oneself.

You have already gone down the ‘you are evil track’ before. Your avid objections to actualism over the years are now beginning to follow very familiar cycles.

I noticed you have failed to address my comments about the effectiveness of your latest proposal that chemical or genetic intervention is the means to bring an end to human suffering and have now slid off into red herring territory. It is a fact that many people do suffer physically from disease and accidents but to wilfully indulge in or deliberately heap emotional suffering on top of the physical suffering makes no sense whatsoever. It is a fact that most suffering, be it physical or emotional, is either self-inflicted or inflicted by human beings on other human beings – either intentionally by malicious actions or unintentionally, despite one’s good intentions.

*

Contrary to popular opinion, there is no one to blame for this state of affairs we all have found ourselves born into.

What we find ourselves witness to, and unavoidably involved in, is the inevitable struggle for the ascendancy of benign human intelligence over the crude animal instinctual passions, for it is these passions that are, in fact, the root of all evil. The monumental human suffering and conflict we find ourselves embroiled in, and unwitting contributors to, is not, as is universally believed, a result of us not being Good enough or not being God-fearing enough. Nor is earthly existence a necessary penance or a prelude to some other-worldly existence after physical death. We are not being punished by God, by what ever name, for there is no God, by whatever name.

Rather than bringing an end to human suffering, the traditional meta-physical Wisdoms and Truths of humanity, rooted as they are in ancient ignorance of the fundamental nature of both the universe and the human condition, serve only to perpetuate human misery and mayhem. Currently we are witnesses to yet another round in a millennia-old conflict between the believers of one God fighting the believers of a different God. Yet another saga is being played out in the sad and sorry lineage of religious wars, crusades, pogroms, campaigns, struggles, missions, revenges and retributions ... not to mention pompous finger pointing and pious fence sitting.

When I came to realize that the much vaunted and cherished Eastern spiritualism was nothing other than Eastern religion I saw how gullible I had been in believing it would, or indeed ever could, bring an end to human suffering. I also saw that holding a religious or spiritual belief was simply a convenient way of finger-pointing – as long as I was a true and faithful believer there was always someone else who was to blame, someone else who had a wrong belief, someone else who was being fanatical, someone else who was responsible for human conflict and misery.

As I finally started to shed myself of my religious/spiritual beliefs I was however not content to remain a fence-sitter, a dissociated voyeur of life as it were. I knew very well by my own life experience that I had been endowed with the human condition of malice and sorrow and I serendipitously met someone who had managed to break free from this endowment. So I set about on yet another adventure but this time I made sure that what I was following made sense and also that it worked in practice, thereby completely steering clear of my previous gullible tendencies. For this very reason I find it incredulous that gullible followers of religious and spiritual beliefs who have never bothered to make sense of their God-man’s teachings and have turned a blind eye to his failures and shortcomings should berate a pragmatic actualist for being a Follower or a Teacher.

But I have wandered of track a bit as I am talking about the human condition and my experience as an actualist whereas your post was about red herrings and what you currently imagine about me.

I had imagined all this time that at least you were post-Osho in your thinking and feeling, but more and more I am beginning to think you are about to Burn Witches, or exorcise the demons.

May I suggest you lift your game from imagining what I am saying and imagining what is on offer in actualism ... and start reading, taking the words at face value if at all possible, and start thinking, setting aside your pride, prejudice and pre-conditioning if at all possible. Otherwise these dialogues will only follow the predictable rut of you proposing yet another of your viewpoints and making yet another of your accusations as you merrily tip toe through the fickle and fruitless fields of your own imagination.

18.9.2001

I thought I had made myself clear that I do not subscribe to the theory that ‘paradise engineering’, by whatever name, will ever or can ever actualise a ‘freedom from <war and suffering and bitterness> and a possibility of alignment of us into the present physical paradise that is here already...’ as you are busy proposing. But I am willing to be corrected by any practical evidence to the contrary you may offer.

By your use of the phrase ‘we are looking at’ , I take it that ‘paradise engineering’ by whatever name is still in the theoretical, yet to be put into practice and tangible results produced, stage. In short, I take it that no one has yet become actually free of the human condition by means of ‘paradise engineering’ . Becoming free of the human condition is not even on the ‘paradise engineering’ agenda for they are looking at being better able to cope with the human condition or attaining altered states of consciousness experiences in the spiritual tradition.

In a few generations there will be no other choice available, eh? And in the mean time, the period of time before you are dead and buried, there are only three choices available.

Taking your posts to this list at face value, I take it that you have given up spiritualism and the belief in God and are now busy looking to materialism to provide a solution to a problem that is at its root psychological and psychic in nature. The problem – the human predilection for, and obsession with, malice and sorrow – can be sheeted home to the social and instinctual programming that every human being is unwittingly subject to.

The combination of this social and instinctual programming has produced an illusionary ‘I’ as a thinker in the head and a passionate ‘me’ as a feeler in the heart. This alien non-substantive entity or ‘self’ is however only programming, analogous to an old software program that is now redundant and needs to be deleted if the computer is to now perform at its optimum.

Richard’s discovery was that by progressively deleting this social and instinctual programming, a stage is reached whereby the whole lot comes crashing down, taking with it the illusionary little man or woman in the head and the little man or woman in the heart.

And I can attest to the efficacy of his method of deleting these programs ... it works.

As for my experience, I have never read Carlos Castaneda at all and I didn’t smoke a joint until the mid-eighties. What I did offer was a brief explanation of the ancient traditions of mind-altering substances and their use in spiritualism as well as pointing out a few practical difficulties with your claim. You can bluster all you want but I am still awaiting a sensible response.

It is no wonder you have stopped writing, given up trying to change me and getting me to agree with your viewpoint. Perhaps it has finally dawned on you that there is no chance of raking in a disciple or a convert to No. 12-ism by continuing to write to me. It is not that I don’t listen to your objections, imaginations and viewpoints – it’s just that none of what you say or propose stands up to factual scrutiny.

In three years of almost constant writing you have yet to provide any facts to support your claims. In fact, whenever you have been requested to provide substantiating facts, you have never responded. Given my latest request for you to provide substantiating facts to support your advocacy of ‘paradise engineering’ I am not at all surprised you are ceasing conversing with me – ’tis par for the course.

When I found that my beliefs could not stand factual scrutiny I just threw them out the window because I saw that they were obviously silly ... and my motto became ‘why be stubbornly silly when you can simply be sensible?’ Besides, having no beliefs makes life so much easier – nothing to defend, nothing to attack.

Au contraire ... it is clear your latest advocacy is ‘paradise engineering’ or is it already fading on the horizon?

And how dare the ‘recalcitrant freshman’ ask the Master to provide factual evidence to substantiate His teachings, hey. This sort of thing wouldn’t have happened in the old days. It was definitely not on to dare to question the Master, let alone have the audacity to question his teachings. It may be useful to consider that this is a non-spiritual mailing list and these are post-spiritual times so your spiritual-type teaching style is conspicuously outdated, in other words bluff and bluster can now be clearly seen and acknowledged for what it is.

I fail to see why you post this when you yourself advocate ‘paradise engineering’ , or pill-popping as it is currently known and practiced. Did you deliberately aim at your foot or is this an attempt at Pythonesque satire?

No.

18.9.2001

I am curious to know what is in fact going on with this method and what results have been achieved because, thus far, even genetic interventions for simple one-issue physical ailments seem to be in their theoretical infancy and yet these are the subject of considerable moral objections and ethical perplexity. To tackle something so complex as genetically dowsing down or even genetically eliminating the undesirable feelings that arise from the instinctual passions seems the stuff of fairy tales to me. I don’t deny it could well be possible but then again, chemical castration for rapists is now possible but it has yet to gain broad social acceptance as an appropriate punishment ... let alone become a free and fashionable choice amongst men who are tired of being instinctually led around by their dicks.

What you make of what I write always astounds me.

Ah, a prime example of duck shoving. It is you who claim to be on the cutting edge of understanding the human condition, if not even beyond the cutting edge on some occasions. Given your self-proclaimed advocacy of ‘paradise engineering’, why don’t you yourself challenge my ‘intellectual baboonery’ and reply in detail to the points I raised about the efficacy of ‘paradise engineering’. In other words, I am still waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is.

As a useful rule of thumb, those materialists seeking to cope with the real world are those who have yet to begin to search for freedom from the human condition, whereas spiritual seekers have generally got off their bum and begun to search. This is why actualism will appeal to discontent spiritualists rather than real-world battlers.

Although the motives of spiritual seekers were by and large well meaning in searching for freedom, they were simply seduced and sucked into believing in God or a God-man, and seeking Godliness, Truth and Immortality for themselves. The major problem is that once sucked into a belief system it is tough to get out again because trust, faith, hope and loyalty are demanded of all followers. These impositions are so strong that whenever a spiritualist has a glimpse that their precious spiritual beliefs are nought but olde time religion, or whenever the fact is pointed out by someone else, then massive denial sets in as one is socially programmed to defend one’s beliefs even to the death.

However, provided one doesn’t retreat from massive denial into fanatical denial, one can come to understand that this compulsive trait of blindly defending one’s own beliefs is precisely the same compulsion that fuels all the religious wars, conflicts, crusades, pogroms, ethnic cleansings, campaigns, struggles, missions, revenges and retributions that have plagued humanity for centuries and still do so. Not only that, one can come to see that defending one’s beliefs to the death is lauded within the human condition as a noble and righteous sacrifice for God and/or Country. When one comes to see, understand and acknowledge these facts then the only way out is to get out. If this involves being a traitor to the cause, admitting that you have been conned, feeling more than a little foolish, or whatever, then it is a paltry price to pay, for one can then get on with the business of becoming free of malice and sorrow.

In the simple act of realizing there is no God, there is no other-world, and there is no afterlife, you can then start the business of becoming a happy and harmless, anonymous and autonomous, citizen of the world. This simple act of realization is quick and painless as one simply turns around 180 degrees ... and heads in the opposite direction.

Are you saying that you see these lists as being ‘on the cutting edge of understanding the human condition’ but you never write to them because the discourses are ahead of you rather than behind you? And the other day you wrote in regard to genetic research lists –

‘...and then I will see if I can refine your education somewhat?’

From this I can only conclude that you are not only an advocate of ‘paradise engineering’, by whatever name, but that you also consider yourself an expert in the field. And yet, the more you go on, it becomes apparent that you have read what is written on these lists and automatically believed it to be true without bothering to think about whether it is fact, whether it is workable, whether it is just theory and superstition, whether it is wishful fantasy, let alone who are the authors, what are their qualifications and practical expertise and what is their bent. The problem with just believing what someone else says is that one remains ensnared or beguiled by these beliefs and you never find out the facts for yourself.

By remaining a believer one is, by default, accepting the universal beliefs that ‘life’s a bitch and then you die’ or that ‘who we really are is a spirit-ual being’. Thus one spends one’s life wallowing in the bitter-sweetness feeling of sorrow, forever battling it out for survival or desperately trying to dissociate oneself from being here by pretending one is a Divinely-aligned spiritual being of some sort or other.

An actualist needs to fully understand that beliefs are the very bane of humankind and can never ever bring forth their promised salvation for the clear-cut reason that beliefs, by their very nature, are not facts. Once you fully take on board this understanding you are then free to get on with the essential business of ridding yourself of all of the beliefs one has unwittingly taken on board as being truth or fact or simply taken as given.

For an actualist nothing is too sacred to question. Every belief must be questioned until one comes to question the very act of believing itself. Unless one is willing to make this effort, one will remain forever an impassioned believer, forever clutching at straws or being gullibly seduced and suckered into the next fashionable belief to sweep the planet.

I once half-jokingly said to Richard that he should hang a sign above his door that said ‘abandon hope all ye who enter here’.

I see that you are still pinning your hopes on what you have read about some hope-filled, yet-to-be-realized, theoretical dream – whereas I have completely abandoned all hopes, dreams and beliefs and am busy being amongst the first living proofs that actualism works.

Actualism Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Peter’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust