|
Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List with Correspondent No 22
You wrote to Richard – As stated previously, it is preferable to have the inevitable questions that must arise when pursuing the opportunity and right to follow the injunction to study actualism answered by someone less capricious, Welcome to the AF mailing list. When I first saw your post I thought you had wandered on to the wrong list, given your unwavering defence of spiritualism in your previous voluminous correspondence with Richard. You certainly have an opportunity and right to study actualism – this is the very reason that the AF trust has set up the web-site – to allow the unrestricted opportunity for anyone to read about actualism and make up their own mind whether what is on offer makes sense. This reading has lead some people to come to a prima facie conclusion that actualism is worthy of further investigation and some have begun to utilize the method in their daily lives. Some have even begun the difficult and painstaking work of actively investigating their own cherished beliefs, indoctrinated morals and ethics in order that they may become aware of both their repressed or sublimated savage feelings as well as their precious dearly-held tender feelings. However, to get to the stage of applying actualism in daily life it is essential that the person has a burning discontent with their life as it is – both their normal worldly life and their spiritual other-worldly life. Having ‘nothing left to lose’ was the expression I used in my journal. In your extensive previous correspondence with Richard you have shown not a skerrick of being discontent with either your life or your exalted state of Godship. This does leave me wondering if you have come to this list to enquire and discover or whether you have come merely to attack actualism and defend the spiritual status quo. The purpose of this mailing list is to question beliefs, investigate feelings and uncover the facts appertaining to the human condition we all find ourselves born into, absorbed by and totally identified with. Given that the human condition is exemplified by malice and sorrow, the function of this enquiry and investigation is to become free of malice and sorrow – to become free of the human condition in total. This list is for sincere enquiry into the human condition in total – both the real world and the spiritual world. As such, it is meaningless to participate in this list unless you are eager and willing to enquire into the psychic nature of the spiritual world and the narcissistic nature of your spiritual beliefs and feelings. In spite of the reservations I have about your inflexible track record of being either unwilling or unable to participate in this type of enquiry, I repeat my invitation – Should you have any questions regarding the process of actualism I would be only too pleased to share my expertise but I have zilch interest in indulging in meaningless dialogues with recalcitrant defenders of their own personal version of Godship.
May I please have your attention? There is readiness to begin the study that you warmly offered to assist with. To repeat, for the third time, the offer I made to you –
Nowhere in this offer have I offered to assist with your study of ‘the world view being called actualism’. To indulge in an academic/ semantic only type study of your own invented ‘world view called actualism’ is to remain aloof from, separate from, outside of, or in your case ‘above and beyond’ what is on offer in actualism – the get-down and get-dirty business of investigating one’s own psyche in action. In order to best understand what I encounter on the second page of the introduction recommended to all newcomers, I would like to ask some preliminary questions that may not be found in the content of that same second page. In the understanding you are of the world view being called actualism, what is the best definition of ‘matter’ as it is used in:
In the understanding you are of the world view being called actualism, what is the best definition of the word ‘universe’ as it used in:
For ‘this astonishing universe’, see http://www.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/index.html. I recently watched a television program documenting the first Voyageur spacecraft flyby of the planets in our solar system. It was intriguing to watch the scientists’ reactions as the first photos and data streamed in from the first planet. They were stunned at what they saw as the pictures began coming in – what was actual was indeed beyond their wildest imaginations and theories. As each successive flyby happened the scientists’ astonishment only increased to the point that by the last flyby of the outermost planet they had already abandoned their theories and concepts and were utterly fascinated by what they were seeing with their eyes. In a similar vein, I heard an entomologist say that the insects that exist in the average rubbish bin are far more astonishing than any imagined creature from another planet thus far dreamt up by any science fiction afflictionados. In the understanding you are of the world view being called actualism, would it be correct to understand the posit:
to be factually equal with the posit:
If the posits are found not to be factually equal, could you please provide the differences observed between the facts described by the former posit and the later? As for the quote – ‘this astonishing universe has manifested an event of no little significance...’ – have you ever simply sat down and looked at your hand and contemplated upon the amazing physicality of it? Wave it through the air and you will notice that the whole of the surface is a sensate receptor, touch one finger with another and you will notice that not only can the hand feel the texture of the skin of the hand but that you can be aware of the texture. And not only the texture, but the temperature, the moistness and the softness as well. I find animate life an event of no little significance and that I am it, that I can think about it, that I can be aware of knowing it and that I can write about is extraordinary to say the least. I know that in your current state you regard all that is physical, palpable, tangible, touchable, seeable, smellable, tasteable and audible as so insignificant as to be illusionary, so writing this to you is as meaningful as trying to sell coloured pencils to a blind man. As for your own posit – ‘through the utterly chance arrangement of random material substance, a resulting circumstance of the same significance as every other resulting circumstance that appeared’ – this does sound a bit like that dismal materialist-nihilist view that human beings are but randomly produced scum infecting a randomly produced planet in a random event called the universe ... or something like that. In the understanding you are of the world view being called actualism, would the tenets of that world view include the following posits:
You could try ‘inevitable’ as in – it has obviously happened and it exists in fact. According to one estimate –
I would say that the inevitability has blossomed into a copious cornucopia of bewildering diversity. As for randomness it does seem that quite specific and, as far as we know, quite unique circumstances existed on this planet for matter to become animate matter.
Physical evidence such as fossils and skeletal remains does indeed support this statement. It is certainly the only explanation that is supported by tangible substantiated evidence. There are many other theories as to the origins of human existence – about as many as there are religions or philosophies on the planet. The only proviso I would have is that ‘advancement’, as you put it, appears to have occurred as the result of spontaneous genetic mutations and not as some gradual process, as is commonly believed. In other words, the ‘missing link’ from animal to human is still a missing link.
‘Simple to more complex’ is not a description I would use to describe the manifestation of both consciousness and intelligence in the human animal. It is only humans who see these attributes as increased complexity, for humans have a predisposition to always make what is simple into something complex. You do seem to be fixated on randomness as being the only alternative to being premeditated, as in deliberately created, controlled or ordered by Someone or Something.
When you refer to consciousness being separate from matter you are referring to ‘I’, as a disembodied consciousness, looking out through the eyes at the physical world and feeling separate from it? A pure consciousness experience is an experience where this separation simply does not exist for it is evident that ‘I’ am an illusion and my consciousness is a none other than this physical body’s consciousness. Or, to put it succinctly for you, this flesh and blood body is conscious animate life. However if you really go with this feeling of ‘you’ being a separate disembodied entity and practice dissociation from the physical world, ‘you’ can feel as though you are Real and the outer world can appear unreal or illusionary. I have had a few of these experiences myself but when a God-man confirmed I was ‘on the right track’ I started to seriously doubt the sensibility of my glorious, ‘I am the centre of all existence’, experience. I began to see that becoming a God-man was a poor career choice because I had seen enough of the God-men up close to know that I did not like how they were with their women, I didn’t like their lifestyle, and I didn’t like how they were with their disciples and with each other.
Has this got something to do with that solipsistic nonsense that goes something like ‘if nobody sees a tree falling in the forest, does it really fall?’ I remember walking around the house once and turning around very quickly to see if I could catch some object that was a little slow in appearing to my senses. I gave up pretty quickly as I realized how foolish I was and how totally ‘self’-centred my neurosis was.
As I said, humans have a predisposition to always make what is simple into something complex. In a normal person consciousness is what is happening when one is alive and awake. Unconsciousness is what is happening when alive and in deep sleep, concussed or anaesthetized and is epitomized by oblivion. But I do understand your particular problem. The common interpretation of consciousness is self-consciousness or self-awareness and is epitomized by three faculties – the sensate awareness of what appears to be a separate ‘outer’ world and the cerebral awareness and affective awareness of one’s inner ‘self’. Thus in a normal person, consciousness usually refers to the consciousness of the psychological and psychic entity only. Thus ‘I’ am conscious of ‘me’ only – the normal ‘self’-centredness of normal people. It is only in a Pure Consciousness Experience when the psychological and psychic entity’s affective and cerebral dominance is temporarily absent that the extraordinary perfection and purity of the actual is directly and sensately experienced. Whereas, as you well know, in an Altered State of Consciousness the psychological and psychic entity’s affective and cerebral dominance becomes total and ‘I’ think and feel ‘I’ am absolutely Real and totally disembodied, and what is actual as in physical, tangible and palpable is experienced by ‘me’ as being unreal, dreamlike or illusionary. The sharing of explanations you believe would add clarification to either actualism’s agreement or disagreement with the above posits is greatly appreciated. Also, I am deep appreciation of the attention you have offered to provide. In truth, there are several more preliminary enquiries I would like to share with you, but being the awareness of the complexity that may arise from what has been asked here above, will wait until these basic matters are addressed and distilled before adding to them. I can assure you the complexity is all yours. There are approximately 10,000 words in the Introduction to Actualism and thus far you are busy studying the meaning of 17 of them. You are certainly not joking when you talk about ‘preliminary enquiries’. But given that both the words on this screen and the screen itself are but illusionary matter to ‘you’, as a disembodied Consciousness only, answering any of your posits is as useful as ringing the doorbell of a deaf man’s house.
May I please have your attention? There is readiness to begin the study that you warmly offered to assist with. To repeat, for the third time, the offer I made to you –
To indulge in an academic/semantic only type study of your own invented ‘world view called actualism’ is to remain aloof from, separate from, outside of, or in your case ‘above and beyond’ what is on offer in actualism – the get-down and get-dirty business of investigating one’s own psyche in action. Please forgive if I have over estimated your willingness to assist, and please be assured that regardless of the specifics of your offer, and your ability to stick to it, the assistance offered below is very helpful in completing Richard’s advice to study actualism (a doctrine; theory; system of principles of what is actual). I know you are a relative newcomer to this list but the fact is you underestimate my willingness to assist anyone who is interested in the process of actualism – thus far I have written over half a million words on the subject of how to become free from the Human Condition. There is no interest in either academics or semantics. The only interest is in completing the advice ‘I thoroughly recommend the study of actualism’, and therewith determine the truth of the worldview (a comprehensive view of the world and human life) being called actualism. I guess you think by repeating the phrase ‘the worldview called actualism’ you will somehow change a practical process of ‘self’-investigation into something much less threatening – a theory, a doctrine, a system of principles, a worldview. It is you who insists on making a pragmatic process aimed at eliminating one’s own malice and sorrow into a head-banging philosophy. In regards to being aloof from, separate from, outside of, or, as is erroneously speculated to be ‘my’ case, above and beyond, the get-down and get-dirty business of investigating one’s own psyche in action; respectfully, if a psyche in action and ‘one’ who ‘owns’ that psyche, and there by can be aloof from it, separate from it, outside of it, or above and beyond it, and thus able to ‘study’ it can be demonstrated, please do so. Until the time such a demonstration is made, I will prefer to remain as peace and not bother with what must be the immensely stressful, frustrating, and quite dirty business of digging out of a hole. You are obviously perfectly at peace as your Self, being one of the fathomless all-mighty God-men within the human condition. As such, you do not even recognize, let alone ‘own’, your fear, anger, doubt, sorrow, frustration, aloofness or ‘above and beyond’ sanctimony. Which is why you prefer to remain within a delusion of your own creation and prefer to ‘not bother with what must be the immensely stressful, frustrating, and quite dirty business of digging out of a hole’. As for ‘until the time such a demonstration is made’ – I am not here to demonstrate anything to you – what you make of what is on offer is entirely your business. Given we are still discussing the meaning of 17 words of the Introduction to Actual Freedom, I shan’t be holding my breath that anything could dent your Divine armour. * In order to best understand what I encounter on the second page of the introduction recommended to all newcomers, I would like to ask some preliminary questions that may not be found in the content of that same second page. In the understanding you are of the world view being called actualism, what is the best definition of ‘matter’ as it is used in:
In the understanding you are of the worldview being called actualism, what is the best definition of the word ‘universe’ as it used in:
For ‘this astonishing universe’, see http://www.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/index.html. Thank you. No further comment, No 22? Do you not find this physical universe astonishing? * I recently watched a television program documenting the first Voyageur spacecraft flyby of the planets in our solar system. It was intriguing to watch the scientists’ reactions as the first photos and data streamed in from the first planet. They were stunned at what they saw as the pictures began coming in – what was actual was indeed beyond their wildest imaginations and theories. As each successive flyby happened the scientists’ astonishment only increased to the point that by the last flyby of the outermost planet they had already abandoned their theories and concepts and were utterly fascinated by what they were seeing with their eyes. In a similar vein, I heard an entomologist say that the insects that exist in the average rubbish bin are far more astonishing than any imagined creature from another planet thus far dreamt up by any science fiction afflictionados. *deep bow* Yes, observing the loosening of the clinging to wrong, though cherished, theories and worldviews is a most satisfying activity. Pointing out wrong thinking and watching the awakening that accompanies realization is great sport also. Ah, No 22. You are copping out again. You have already dismissed the actualism process of ‘loosening of the clinging to wrong, though cherished, theories and worldviews’ by saying you prefer not to ‘bother with what must be the immensely stressful, frustrating, and quite dirty business of digging out of a hole’. And yet here you say that observing it in others is a most satisfying activity. My experience of God-men is that they like to ensnare others into loosening their clinging to so-called wrong thinking and twist them into adopting Right thinking solely in order that they can strut their own humble Self-Righteousness in return for admiration, gratitude, love and veneration. As for ‘pointing out wrong thinking and watching the awakening that accompanies realization’ – what I was relating was an event that threw light on the fact that what is actual is far more astounding than any imagination, belief or theory cooked up by human beings. In the case I mentioned there was not an ‘awakening that accompanies realization’ as occurs in spiritual practice, but a fascination that accompanies the discovery of what is actually happening this very moment in this infinite and eternal universe. You seem to have a tendency to dismiss astounding actual events and amazing actual matter as amusing irrelevant side issues to your ‘study of actualism’. You are missing the point of what actualism is about, exactly as you did in all of your previous correspondence with Richard. Now, with the mutual enjoyment of the above established, and if you will, the question remains: In the understanding you are of the worldview being called actualism, what is the best definition of ‘matter’ as it is used in:
Oops, I see I missed this question first time round. Okay, this one is very easy to explain. With your finger, touch the frame of your computer keyboard. You may notice it feels solid to the touch, i.e. the soft flesh of the bottom of your finger squashes in a bit. This is matter, as is the monitor in front of you, as is the stuff of the walls of the room you are sitting in, as is the chair you are sitting on, as is the stuff photographed on the NASA web-site or that you can see as points of light in the night sky. And what touched the solid bit of matter that is your keyboard frame is a bit of animate matter – your finger. Do you have a problem with this? I know you are searching for a definition or a concept of matter, but I thought a more pragmatic approach might save a bit of time. * In the understanding you are of the world view being called actualism, would it be correct to understand the posit:
to be factually equal with the posit:
If the posits are found not to be factually equal, could you please provide the differences observed between the facts described by the former posit and the later? As for the quote – ‘this astonishing universe has manifested an event of no little significance...’ – have you ever simply sat down and looked at your hand and contemplated upon the amazing physicality of it? No, moreover, the fact is, neither have you. Despite your nonsensical dismissal, the fact is I have and was able to describe the experience to you. With your permission, we can discuss the mistake in category included in the offering above when we encounter a similar error in the text under study. No 22, this is your study of actualism, I merely offered to answer any questions you may have about the process of actualism. You don’t need my permission to dismiss my offerings as ‘mistakes in category’ or ‘errors in text’. If you have never contemplated the amazing physicality of your hand, it is you who is stubbornly refusing to study what is actual, not me. * As for the quote – ‘this astonishing universe has manifested an event of no little significance...’ – have you ever simply sat down and looked at your hand and contemplated upon the amazing physicality of it? Wave it through the air and you will notice that the whole of the surface is a sensate receptor, touch one finger with another and you will notice that not only can the hand feel the texture of the skin of the hand but that you can be aware of the texture. And not only the texture, but the temperature, the moistness and the softness as well. I find animate life an event of no little significance ... and that I am it, that I can think about it, that I can be aware of knowing that this is so and that I can write about it is extraordinary to say the least. Thank you, this is helpful. Helpful for what? You just said above that you have not ‘sat down and looked at your hand and contemplated upon the amazing physicality of it’. You seem to have no interest at all in a practical matter-of-fact observation – the very core of the method of actualism. Why do you offhandedly, or no-handedly in this case, dismiss and scorn practical matter-of-fact observation? You have previously said you have ‘no interest in either academics or semantics’ and yet the only comments you made were about a ‘mistake in category’ and an ‘error in text’ – both clear signs of the academic and semantic bent of your study. * I know that in your current state you regard all that is physical, palpable, tangible, touchable, seeable, smellable, tasteable and audible as so insignificant as to be illusionary, so writing this to you is as meaningful as trying to sell coloured pencils to a blind man. As for your own posit – ‘through the utterly chance arrangement of random material substance, a resulting circumstance of the same significance as every other resulting circumstance that appeared’ – this does sound a bit like that dismal materialist-nihilist view that human beings are but randomly produced scum infecting a randomly produced planet in a random event called the universe ... or something like that. This is wrong thinking. There has never been, is not now, nor will there ever be insignificance. Pardon me No 22. Of course it has significance to you for you are ‘it’, as in your declared position –
It was definitely wrong thinking on my part. The problem I have is that I don’t believe in Gods, let alone creator Gods, and therefore I find it difficult to think rightly in the solipsistic ‘I am all that exists and all that exists is me’ terms. * I know that in your current state you regard all that is physical, palpable, tangible, touchable, seeable, smellable, tasteable and audible as so insignificant as to be illusionary, so writing this to you is as meaningful as trying to sell coloured pencils to a blind man. You will be better able to assist, and more honest in your answers, if you will make an effort to avoid drawing imagined conclusions about me. Thank you. Could you perhaps point out where you think I am being dishonest in my answers, as I have done nothing other than rely on your own words in these discussions? In this case your quoted position is –
Have you been wrongly misquoted perhaps? I have already acknowledged that my thinking was ‘wrong’ in your terms but that does nothing to alter the fact that you regard all that is physical as being illusionary – i.e. spirit-ual or ethereal in nature. If you have specific questions about ‘my state’ I will be happy to assist you, however, if I may, I would appreciate not straying too far from the business at hand, namely, completing the advice ‘I thoroughly recommend the study of actualism’, and therewith determine the truth of the world view being called actualism. I have no questions at all about your stated view of the world. You have been unambiguous, forthright and unwavering in your views over several years of correspondence with Richard. Given that I have already said that actualism is ‘the get-down and get-dirty business of investigating one’s own psyche in action’, any questioning of your beliefs, morals, ethics or exalted state is entirely your business. As for straying too far from the business at hand I do note that you have ardently, consistently and repeatedly rejected conducting any ‘self’-questioning of this type, so I fail to see how you can stray from a course you have yet to even consider beginning to undertake.
Peter’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust |
