|
Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List with Correspondent No 23
You wrote in response to my post to No 22 – 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. Pardon for cutting in here. Hi Peter and No 22. Being a member of the actual freedom list I follow these discussions. I like to cut in somewhere (notice I am not a recalcitrant or actual freedom list terrorist who is defending whatever or attacking anyone or thing). Wondering mmh, sounds like not really mmh what (would it not be more correct to say I doubt whether – wonder brings a sense of beauty or at least the sound of eagerness to understand don’t it?) how much sincerity can be recognized. I would call it being on a condition of doubt whether to take this person (is it Peter? hello) as sincere and treat him like a human being with basic respect and care OK) or basically assume that there is no sincerity? I would think that anyone who had read No 22’s extensive correspondence
with Richard Some quotes from No 22’s mailing list correspondence with Richard may help you understand why No 22 finds it impossible to question either his spiritual beliefs and or his current solipsistic state.
Do you now see why it is nye on impossible, for someone who is absolutely convinced he is God on earth to sincerely question his exalted state of Godship. How could someone who thinks and feels they are God ever admit that he was wrong? God is never ever wrong about anything. I say it is nye on impossible for No 22 to question his own altered state of consciousness, for this is exactly what Richard did for 11 years after he became Enlightened. However if No 22 stubbornly dismisses Richard’s reports of his Enlightenment experience, I see no point at all in me indulging in pedantic debates with No 22. Which is why I said to No 22 –
Is he welcome? I heard a very friendly song here. (Peter you ain’t no blissninnie that I can tell) Further in this post you have also said –
Only you yourself are qualified to make up your own mind as to who you think is being sincere or not. I would, however, suggest that this is best done on the basis of conducting at least a bit of research as to the facts of the situation rather than rely on your feelings, as in having gut feeling, intuition, opinion, viewpoint or belief. Maybe actualism is not the only method to so called freedom of the Human condition or could there be something beyond this actual freedom? Maybe God will come down from heaven and make it all okay, or maybe all those people busy ‘raising human consciousness’ will bring peace on earth? I simply stopped waiting for Godot and gave actualism my best shot and write on this list to let my fellow human beings know that it works. What they do with my reports is their business entirely. I wanted to get rid of doubt from my life, for being constantly racked by doubt is such a debilitating feeling. That human condition is ‘Malice and sorrow’ and why would we not include some other candy like horror and torture or is that all included? Are you serious or don’t you watch the news on television. If you do you will see the horror of human beings torturing each other. Haven’t you read any of the Actual Freedom web-site? Do you know anything about the range of passions that make up the human condition? Have you not felt the rage to kill? Have you not experienced the fury of jealousy? Have you not plumbed the depths of despair? Have you not felt the urge to escape into fantasy? Have you not yearned for peace? Where is my pleasure, my fun, my laughter? Have you not noticed that your pleasure, fun and laughter are but fleeting and begun to ask yourself why? Four years ago I found myself with every comfort and pleasure I needed in life and yet I had to acknowledge I was neither happy nor harmless. I also found the traditional escapist fantasy of the spiritual world to be nothing other than an utterly self-centred escapist fantasy of my own making, which was indeed shocking. It was then that I serendipitously met Richard. Serendipity is, after all, what happens when you take the opportunity that comes along. Least thing one might CONSIDER is that actualism is one of the other forms of a methodological approach to this problem of ‘suffering from being human’ Consider away to your heart’s content, but a little investigation will confirm that thus far there have only been two approaches to being a human being on earth – stay normal or become spiritual. Normal means ‘Life’s a bitch and then you die’, spiritual means ‘Let me out of here, there’s a better life ‘somewhere else’’. Unless you have discovered another approach worthy of consideration, that is? And maybe just very, very maybe (right this is meant slightly ironic asking) there are other ways? Yes? Do you have a suggestion or are you just ‘maybe-ing’, as in keeping your options open in the guise of pretending to enquire? It is a good start to doubt from doubt one may arise to trust if something works it works. If you say so, but I find that it does no good at all in trusting whether my computer works properly or not. If it does it does, if it doesn’t it doesn’t. Trust plays no part in whether something works or not. Trust is only needed if you wish or hope something will work that doesn’t work. It still won’t fix the computer, nor will putting your trust in Gurus or God-men do anything at all to fix up the mess we find ourselves born into here on this planet. These guys are so far up themselves they couldn’t give a stuff what happens on earth – they believe and propagate the message that –
From this message it can be seen that the spiritual path is deeply rooted in denial of the innate malice and sorrow that is the current human condition we all find ourselves born into, through no fault of ours. ‘How am I living my life this moment?’ Does this question relate to your earlier question – ‘Where is my pleasure, my fun, my laughter?’ If you stop remodelling the actualist’s essential question to suit yourself and start asking ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’, you may well discover what it is that is preventing you from being happy and harmless now. Only if you want to, that is. Just a hint if you are wont to try it – don’t ignore the harmless part of happy and harmless for it is impossible to be sincerely happy unless you are genuinely harmless. * No 22: In as much as it is likely that ‘Godship’ (it was not found in the dictionary at hand) must needs be part of the vernacular of the world view being called actualism, and in as much as I am, at this point, a newcomer to the world view being called actualism and not familiar with that vernacular, whether or not there is a personal version of ‘Godship’, or whether or not there will be support, justification, or an explanation for that personal version of ‘Godship’ will be revealed in the study you have warmly agreed to assist with. If, however, there is anything offered that qualifies to meet your interest in not indulging in meaningless dialogues with recalcitrant defenders of their own personal version of Godship, I am the understanding of your withdrawal from any conversation we create. Sounds to me respectful, Peter. Whatever comes from persisting human endeavour (however twisted it may become through misunderstanding) has the right to be examined with respect in the way it shows up into the world (this creation of virtually and actual free human beings and considerable amount of study material on the internet). Spiritual and religious belief has had some 3,500 years to come up with the
goods – peace on earth – and has not only failed miserably but the endless procession of popes and priests, Gurus
and God-men, dogma and doctrine, legends and myths, impassioned feelings and escapist fantasies have done nothing but
contribute to the on-going human tragedy that is fondly call Civilization. I have zilch respect for spiritual/ religious
beliefs for it is all puerile. As for No 22 sounding respectful, if you read No 22’s posts to Richard on the other
mailing list,
This is called ‘Self-love’, or even ‘Self loving Self’, as in –
The common term for self-love is narcissism, the common term for Self-Love is Enlightenment. I would say actualism needs to be fairly inquired into as valid or not valid for whatever purpose. In such light there will be a need of a form of Actualogy, hence there will need to be actualogists who test the method. If you are planning to start a study group called ‘Actualogy’, it is already a somewhat crowded market. Thus far 95% of the correspondence on the AF web-site has been devoted to ‘actualogists’ who insist on making a fence sitting academic-only evaluation of actualism. Most correspondence fairly quickly degenerates into either a defence of the human condition or to rabid objections to the possibility, or even the desirability, of becoming happy and harmless themselves. Just to reign in your fantasy about actualogists a touch, an actualist is someone who totally devotes himself or herself to practically testing the method of actualism. The moment a person sincerely makes a contribution to this discussion (or makes a sincere attempt), shouldn’t he not be honoured for his participation rather then he’d been suggested that his contribution is ‘merely unwanted recalcitrant behaviour’. In the interest of accurate use words in quotation marks as though they were the verbatim words of another. I have never used the expression of ‘merely unwanted recalcitrant behaviour’. No 22 has yet to make any contribution to this discussion other than exemplify the extreme position that can result from following Eastern religious practices. There is a way out for No 22, for Richard managed to escape from the clutches of Enlightenment, but it yet remains to be seen if No 22 is willing to listen to what is really being said rather than merely pontificate from on High. Who from the actual freedom trust is going to decide whether a person is sincere or not in his response(s)? Looks as though you are going to take on the position by default. Fair enough, but I do suggest reading up on your subject a bit lest you fall into the trap of shooting yourself in the foot. * To No 22: 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. Except those who are actually free or virtually free so this WE, seems to me is to be confusing here. ‘We’ means everyone, currently every one of the estimated 6 billion or so humans beings that have been born with genetically-encoded instinctual passions and moulded into obedient social identities by their parents and peers. To deny this does not make it any less of a fact. To rebel or rile against it does nothing to change the fact, nor does escaping into an inner fantasy world of your own making. There is at least one person being Richard (the assumption has been made to accept this as a hypothesis). He was born like us, absorbed like us and being identified like us (that’s all the you’s and me) but that is no longer valid for this person. So he is outside that US. Yes, Richard has stepped out of Humanity, which is apparently why so many people get pissed off with him. Not only do his writings affirm that he is free of the human condition but I can also affirm this from over 3 years of close scrutiny and observation. But believing me is of no use at all – it is something you can only do by yourself, for yourself, by reading the website and by remembering your own pure consciousness experiences – the times when, as if by magic, you found yourself in this magical sensual actual world, free of any fear or dread or feelings of grandeur and beauty. Well that is interesting isn’t it? I say I don’t believe that this is true. So much for your ‘the assumption has been made to accept this as a hypothesis’. I say this in sincerity, meaning I don’t know whether this is true or not – it may be true, still I just don’t know how do I find out? Might I suggest ‘reading the instructions’? There is a wealth of information on the web-site, much of it laid out by subject for your convenience. See if it makes sense to you and make up your own mind. Nobody else can do that for you unless you keep up the practice of believing what you have been taught is the truth ... or the Truth ... about the meaning of life. The only way to dispel the need for either doubting or trusting is to unearth the facts of a situation and this is something only you can do ... if you are interested. Who else does not believe that of the actual freedom trust list?? Does that make any difference? Not to me it doesn’t. I gave up believing a long while ago. It is far too shaky a way to live. You never know what to believe or who to believe. Give me a fact any day. * To No 22: 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. I would say to start off with a little more humbleness. You mean like No 22? Is it possible for ME to be free of MY human condition and do I really want that freedom? And why not? You are as admirably qualified as anyone else. You have found your way to a tantalizing opportunity. Serendipity is, after all, what happens when you take the opportunity that comes along. What does it mean, how does it feel to be actual free, be actual free like Richard? Many people ignore the first paragraphs of each chapter in his journal where he describes the everyday, moment to moment experience of being actually free of the human condition – free of the Land of Lament as he calls it. By reading these descriptions you may well recall similar carefree experiences you have had yourself of the sensual delight of being alive on this paradisiacal planet. When an unspoken YES to being here is so evident that you found it incomprehensible that only moments before you felt resentful, confused, driven, frustrated, peeved, angry, despairing, etc. It is as though you have entered another world – which it is – for it is not the psychological and psychic world ‘you’ as an entity normally dwell in. These brief experiences of the sheer delight and utter peace of the actual world we live in are known as pure consciousness experiences and everyone has had them at some time in their life. * To No 22: 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. Who will decide this validity and how can one be sure about one’s responses? Is one clear to recognize a sincere voice to participate in this list unless .... <here I’d like to say we instead of you> ‘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’. I think I have made my position very clear in my response to No 22, namely –
I have also pointed out why No 22 has exempted himself from being able to make a sincere enquiry, namely that he believes in spiritual enquiring and that he is totally convinced that He is the Creator of all that is. And you seem to have already decided the validity of what I wrote in your statement from below –
I always assume other human beings to be sincere unless I they prove by their words or actions to be otherwise. And from this inquiry a worldview like actualism cannot be excluded. I see you are picking up on a bit of No 22’s wordings here. To treat actualism as a worldview beats the grim materialist worldview hands down and is so much better than retreating into a worldview of one’s own making – the spiritual la la land. You simply miss the main event that is on offer by adopting actualism as a philosophy or worldview – life is to be lived, not philosophized away or retreated from. Those who have bothered to read about actualism know full well that actualism is a method and not a worldview. I agree with the suggested inquiry into the below statement as to be a true or untrue statement. I ... we (all<*> find ourselves born into, absorbed by and totally identified with (the human condition). You have lost me here. What I said was –
Are you saying you want to enquire as to whether this is a true or untrue statement as to the purpose of this list? Maybe I can save you a lot of needless enquiry by stating that it is a statement of fact. This is the basic purpose of this list. That the human condition is exemplified by malice and sorrow are in fact true, will be the function of the study, or as you have put it ‘...sincere enquiry into the human condition’, yes? Yes and this is a study only you can make. There are two approaches to this study of the human condition – one is to conduct the study of the human condition as it is evident in one’s fellow human beings. This is seeing violence, anger, aggression, annoyance, resentment as well as sadness, loneliness, desperation, melancholy, etc. in others. This is a relatively easy observation although in many cases tender feelings or your own self-interest can obscure a clear-eyed observation of another’s behaviour. The real difficulty occurs in the second approach – undertaking a clear-eyed observation of these same feelings and behaviour in operation in yourself. All sorts of social conditionings, instilled beliefs, moral judgements and ethical views stand in the way of this action of ‘self’-awareness, so much so that there is great resistance to running the simple question – ‘How am I experiencing this very moment of being alive?’ Is or are there any people excluded from this ‘we’, in other words is this true or not? I find the way that this is put out a bit insinuating or at least suggestive in any case upfront assumptions as a presentation to the reader. As such, it is bypassing the reader’s opinion <viewpoint> and hence a disrespectful approach to him/her with regard to that viewpoint. If you don’t want to bypass your opinion/ viewpoint that is entirely your business, after all it is your own. You seem to be missing the point that there is no one here telling you what you should or shouldn’t do. I make suggestions based on my experience and successes in using the actualism method. If you don’t agree with the statement, then fine. If you have been born outside of the human condition or off the planet then fine. However, if you want to find out whether it is true or not – as in is it factual – then this is something only you can do by your own investigations. If I need to inquire into my beliefs and feel invited to do so or feel encouraged to do so, the least thing that can be done is to respect a viewpoint as being such. Hence you can exclude me also from that above Generic we created by a presumptuous mind. I cannot and will not include myself with that at this point. That investigation was almost as short-lived as your hypothesis that Richard was actually free. You are moving on fast. You will get rid of all your doubts very quickly this way. Now it is clear that you are saying you were not born into, absorbed by or totally identified with the human condition. I can only assume that by denying that you were born into, absorbed by or totally identified with the human condition that you are now free from the human condition. This sounds very similar to No 12’s approach to instant AFF – actual fucking freedom. However, if actual freedom proves to make a contribution to the well being of the rest of humanity in anyway whatsoever, I like to witness this list and keep on enquiring into the validity of the actual freedom method. Well, don’t hold your breath because so far the waiters, waitresses, waverers, witnesses, watchers, wailers, wallies, wanters, wannabes, wasters, wastrels, wearifulls, waxers and waners, weavers and weirdos by far outnumber those who are willing to stick their hand up and say ‘Peace on earth, in this lifetime? – Sounds good to me’. As for ‘enquiring into the validity of the actual freedom method’, I can only suggest leaving a little more time between enquiring, making a hypothesis, asking yourself a question and coming to a conclusion. Sometimes this process can takes weeks, months ... or even years. It is no little thing to become free of the human condition of malice and sorrow. As with becoming free of any affliction, the starting point is acknowledging the human condition in oneself. The instant knee-jerk reaction of denial leaves no time to engage the brain for the essential activity of thinking.
I see you are picking up on a bit of No. 22’s wordings here. To treat actualism as a worldview beats the grim materialist worldview hands down and is so much better than retreating into a worldview of one’s own making – the spiritual la la land. Or Utopia? History is littered with the failed Utopian dreams of Gurus and God-men who have seduced gullible disciples into attempting to put their Messianic megalomania into practice. Thousands of these isolationist, elitist religious/spiritual Utopias have come and gone over thousands of years to no avail whatsoever. To be a follower or disciple of a Guru or God-man is the very antithesis of freedom and autonomy – it is an appalling form of psychic enslavement and emotional dependency. * Those who have bothered to read about actualism know full well that actualism is a method and not a worldview. I am not into nitpicking about whether the Actual freedom trust as an organization, which is open for participation to anyone who can get access to the internet facilities that are required to have this access, supplies a worldview or a method; to me this view provides a way of looking at the human condition. The Actual Freedom Trust is not ‘an organization, which is open for participation to anyone’ – it is simply a statuary legal entity. There are no public meetings, there is no Master or Guru, there are no followers or disciples – no matter how hard some imagine it to be otherwise, or fervently wish it to be otherwise. And finally, a worldview is not a method. Holding a worldview or personal view – as in a philosophy, theory, belief, concept – is only necessary until one discovers the facts of the situation. Actualism is a method of ‘self’-investigation. To treat it as a worldview is to miss the opportunity of discovering peace on earth – bringing an end to your own personal malice and sorrow. * Just to set the record straight ;-). At this point I find it neither necessary nor desirable to respond in a personal way (meaning addressing any members <finding them either supporting or not supporting the worldview currently presented as ACTUALISM>). The basic goal and purpose to establish (becoming happy and harmless while living a life in which there is no denial whatsoever of any bodily functions or qualities attributed to what is generally referred to as the human body) has been agreed upon as to be possible beneficial. If I may point out something both from my own experience of spiritual years, and from observing others, that may be relevant. If you run the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ and come up with the answer ‘I am being angry right now’ or ‘I am feeling sad right now’ then you have something to investigate. If, however, you adopt the spiritual approach of ‘there is anger arising (in my body)’ or dissociate from the anger by asking ‘who is being angry right now?’ – as though it was someone else but you being angry – then you are indulging in the spiritual practice of denial and cultivating a new, holier than thou, dissociated identity. The simplicity of running the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ with sincerity is not an easy exercise, but for someone who dissociates from their feelings it is impossible. Hence my participation in anyway I choose to do for my own responsibility in my own tempo (be it writing on this mailing list or studying pages of the Actual Freedom material). I however will not respond to any pressure that is put out as to express my findings (through reading or experimenting with methods) I have done so far, unless I find that the question are genuine human interest based and not any invitation or provocation to compete with any member. You may not have noticed but there are no rules and regulations on this list, it is unmoderated. Anyone is free to respond in whatever way they see fit, or not. Investigating the human condition is tough stuff – uncomfortable, unnerving and sometimes very daunting or even threatening. It is the threatening aspect that causes the fight or flight reactions to automatically kick in, such that any further investigation is thwarted. Qualities like gentleness or tenderness, which can be revealed by a certain way of expressing in a careful way, I value highly. (These btw can be attributed to the mammal brain). Do you also value highly the expressions of ‘gentleness and tenderness’ revealed in all animals with mammalian brains – until that same animal is threatened, or feels threatened, when fear automatically causes savageness and ruthlessness to kick in? The animal instinctual passions are a complete and inseparable package of both the tender and savage passions. The documented history of human savagery is testimony to the fact that no matter how much vaunted, valued, emphasized or sanctified the tender passions are by human beings, the human condition has always been, and still is, exemplified by the overarching dominance of the savage passions. Highly valuing some passions while ignoring or denying others is the traditional failed approach that can never bring an end to malice and sorrow. * If I need to inquire into my beliefs and feel invited to do so or feel encouraged to do so, the least thing that can be done is to respect a viewpoint as being such. Hence you can exclude me also from that above Generic we created by a presumptuous mind. I cannot and will not include myself with that at this point. That investigation was almost as short-lived as your hypothesis that Richard was actually free. You are moving on fast. You will get rid of all your doubts very quickly this way. Now it is clear that you are saying you were not born into, absorbed by or totally identified with the human condition. I can only assume that by denying that you were born into, absorbed by or totally identified with the human condition that you are now free from the human condition. This sounds very similar to No 12’s approach to instant AFF – actual fucking freedom. Also to insinuate that I would be allied with any member or ex-member (consider member to be a participator in this experimenting with ACTUAL freedom) or be conspiring with any member or ex-member <to purposely undermine or be disruptive to the work of the people from the actual freedom trust I do not like>. The fucking actual freedom approach (a name No 12 has been mentioned) being a different World view has not yet been proved to be either less or more valid than the clear actual freedom approach. However, from personal experiences speaking, there has been some evidence that it cannot completely ruled out to have benefit in certain circumstances. There is nothing here to be a member or ex-member of – either you are experimenting with the method of actualism or you are not. You clearly have already decided not to as you have firmly resisted every opportunity to investigate the human condition thus far – and have even gone so far as to state that you ‘will not include yourself’ as being inflicted by the Human Condition. * As for ‘enquiring into the validity of the actual freedom method’, I can only suggest leaving a little more time between enquiring, making a hypothesis, asking yourself a question and coming to a conclusion. Sometimes this process can takes weeks, months ... or even years. It is no little thing to become free of the human condition of malice and sorrow. As with becoming free of any affliction, the starting point is acknowledging the human condition in oneself. The instant knee-jerk reaction of denial leaves no time to engage the brain for the essential activity of thinking. The so-called knee jerk reflex, which is attributed to a state of denial, may be helpful in certain life threatening situations or even as a way to take position in a situation where one needs to show his/her point of view very clearly for whatever security purpose(s). The instant knee-jerk reaction is not an attribute of a state of denial – it is an attribute of the genetically-encoded instinctual animal survival program. These automatic reflex actions are evident in all animals as a fight or flight response. Human beings are unique amongst the animal species in that these instant knee-jerk reactions are not only evident in life threatening or life taking situations but are evident whenever ‘I’, as a psychological and psychic entity, feel threatened – which is almost always, if you have noticed. Currently 6 billion humans are all busy passionately defending their own point of view and passionately attacking the points of view of others in a grim and instinctual battle for survival. The first attribute needed for anyone wanting to cease being a combatant in this ongoing ‘self’-centred war is to cease denying they are, through no fault of their own, one of these combatants. This is very simple stuff, not complicated at all. Nevertheless I can understand that this reflex which is basically originating from a primitive part of the brain, the Ganglia, from a neo-cortical point of view is being interpreted as primitive instinctual reactive behaviour and therefore undesirable and unwanted or needed. I can only suggest that by running the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ you may come to an experiential understanding of how undesirable and unwanted these primitive instinctual reactive passions and behaviour really are. Hence in the light of actualism there needs to be a disconnection from this part of the brain. The neo-cortex needs to take over, so now the neo-cortex is in a state of denial assuming that this is actually possible. Now I wonder is that actually possible? (There is an intimate physical connection between those parts of the brain the neo-cortex and Ganglia (or reptilian brain). There is an enormous dare in actualism – for the only way to find out if what is on offer is actually possible is to actually try it out on yourself. There is a world of difference between a theorist and a practitioner. So I like to say a word of caution to people who have a firm belief in the way of Actual freedom – maybe the experiment Richard (in which actually happened this disconnection of the two brain parts) is in some other form of denial namely being completely living and responding from the neo-cortex. And hence depriving himself and his fellow beings from ordinary humanness. I see you have already assumed the role of warning others off actualism. Is this what you call being an actualogist? Any new enterprise that has bought progress to human beings has been greeted by fear and trepidation. The first steam trains were preceded by a man walking along waving a red flag to warn people of danger and evil. When the first escalators were installed, a man with a wooden leg was employed for months to go up and down on them, to prove to others that they were safe. From my point of view I know the neo-cortex has tremendous abilities and possibilities to communicate a state of being (among other qualities maybe yet to discover). Yet the other part(s) of the brain require a certain stimulation that cannot be done by merely neo-cortical activity, hence the physical presence of a person is required in order to optimize communication. If you mean it requires a psychological and psychic entity to feel psychological and psychic fear, I agree with you. Fear is a feeling, not a fact. Hence most of what passes for communication between humans is fear based, psychologically expressed as personal viewpoints or psychically experienced as intuitions, or gut feelings. Now Richard as I have found was not willing to acknowledge this as far as I could see (he did not accept a friendly invitation for sharing a drink). In this way he deprived himself and me and a person named No 12 from a possible valuable experience namely an actual meeting, rather then the kind of, however not entirely pointless and at times learnfull, challenging and even entertaining, poor substitute for flesh and blood, of virtual communication. This is where doubt came in for me. And did you find your actual meeting with Vineeto ‘learnfull, challenging and even entertaining’ when she approached you and No 12 for an actual meeting and was told to ‘fuck off’? There does seem to be somewhat of a credibility gap between your highly valuing ‘gentleness and tenderness’ and what occurred in your ‘actual meeting’ with an actualist. Personally, when dealing with such touchy subjects as human malice and sorrow and peace on earth, I find internet communication much more convivial than being subject to the ‘ordinary humanness’ of someone riled by the words of actualism. As far as Actual freedom being a method in which one chooses to have faith because certain benefits have been achieved in following this method (this means it works until otherwise is being proven), I do not see any difference in trusting* (a quality* that seems to be dismissed by Peter) a higher authority like god or intelligence or putting faith in a method that promises to gradually bring about a change into that what is currently perceived or/and experienced as oneself. Firstly having faith in a practical method is useless. A method is something you try out to see if it works or you don’t try, in which case you will never know. Faith has bugger all to do with method.
Faith is what spiritual/religious people have when trusting in a higher authority like God or Intelligence (the supposed intelligence of God) to make their life magically better for them ... or at least no worse. Despite billions of humans over thousands of years trusting God or Intelligence to bring an end to human conflict and misery, the conflict and misery still goes on unabated. An actualist is someone who acknowledges there is no higher authority, let alone a Higher Authority, that is preventing him or her from getting on with the job of becoming happy and harmless. As such, one of the first things to investigate is the whole issue of fervently believing in, or desperately needing to rely on, a higher authority. Therefore I cannot say that I find his remarks bringing about any changes in my original viewpoint and or motives to be present here. Given that you have already exempted yourself from the human condition of malice and sorrow in a previous post you would obviously find Richard’s writings totally inapplicable to you personally, which is why your personal viewpoint will always remain unassailable. Vis:
Given that you have already dodged the question as to your motives of being here on this list, I shall avoid repeating the question. Because I noticed that it is not uncommon on this list to discuss, evaluate, criticize the contribution or participation of ‘members’ with regard to the question whether there is any value or benefit coming from that contribution and/or participation. I have stated my viewpoint here this way. How to bring about peace on earth between human beings is no little thing to discuss and evaluate. To dare to challenge all the truths and Truths, sanctimonious morals, unliveable ethics, dearly held beliefs, cherished feelings, the shame and guilt at having savage feelings – in short, to conduct a thorough investigation of one’s own being, is not for the faint of heart. As such, the discussions on this list are often robust and often tackle subjects and issues that are universally regarded as best not spoken about, too hot to handle or too close to the bone. Personally, I relish the discussion on this list because there is nothing holy, sacred or taboo in this type of sincere inquiry into the human condition. It is apparent that those who are either disinterested or offended by a no-holds barred inquiry into the human condition are those who have not yet suffered enough from the human condition ... and who are not yet appalled enough at inflicting suffering on others.
I find that a discussion (however I prefer to say dialogue) is not entirely impossible because I sense a sense of genuine human interest and care about a fellow human being, yet I still think/ feel/ assume that there are some misunderstandings or misinterpretations (that I mainly attribute to the nature of this medium by which we make and effort to communicate). Given that English is not your first language, you are doing well. I have had little trouble in understanding you. You are not alone in thinking/ feeling/ assuming that you are being misunderstood or misinterpreted. Of the 150 or so correspondents from various mailing lists thus far on the AF web-site this is a common objection, i.e. they complain that it is words that are the problem and not their own unwillingness to make the effort to understand what is being written. What is also common to all these same correspondents is that they don’t realize that what is on offer here is a non-spiritual, actual freedom – 180 degrees opposite to the traditional spiritual path of blindly following a Guru ... or desperately seeking to become a Guru. When I came across actualism I soon realized that I was either not ‘getting’ what was written or was busy trying to fit it into my spiritual perspective. It eventually dawned on me that I had once been a normal identity and then had adopted a new spiritual identity and if I could change course once – why not twice? But getting back to the subject of words – I do understand your confusion,
which is why I put together a glossary ( I just had a nice shower and a few things came to mind (not that I was diverted from the pleasure of that shower). One was a quotation of one of the so-called Head spiritual leaders namely Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (BSR) I know that became later Osho and I respect that also but I like (BSR) better – just a matter of personal viewpoint [which I also would be happy to elaborate on how these different viewpoints one Being <BSR> and the other being <OSHO> on one ‘master/teacher’ have been generated. Yet as for now I assume that this is not interesting or relevant information to this (discussion/ dialogue) ... please be clear if you agree here]. Given that you have yet to start a discussion/dialogue, I can’t comment on whether this is interesting or relevant. Yes, Peter there is still respect for some teachers which I get the impression that you assume that they are to blame for having done what they did (playing the role of Guru) <*> [please be clear if you agree here] You may find Now the following is a quotation of BSR – ‘Don’t believe anything, because I said so’. Does this make any sense to me? Yes it does, hence I conclude that even if <BSR> did not purposely make this statement (just being a victim of the ‘guru-illusion’), would you agree or admit, Peter that {vis ‘To be a follower or disciple of a Guru or God-man is the very antithesis of freedom and autonomy – it is an appalling form of psychic enslavement and emotional dependency.’} this statement has about the same significance? What you regard as significant or not is entirely your business. I stand by my statement as it is a fact, whereas Mr. Rajneesh makes a virtue of never standing by anything he says, as your quote well illustrates. If you are interested in my experiences as a follower of Mr. Rajneesh, I suggest you read the following chapters of my Journal – ‘Spiritual Search’ and ‘God’. When analyzing first ‘Don’t believe anything’ (*a warning to not believe) second ‘because...’ – and here comes the opportunity to misinterpret or interpret conveniently to one’s desire what it might mean ‘I SAID SO’. Do I stop believing just with a snap of the finger (someone tells me not to believe because if I do ... then what...)? Now what kind of authority is involved here? OR do I take the full statement {DBAbiss} now what happens to authority here? (Can you hear an implicit warning to question any authority (that includes the one who is putting out that statement)? IS not authority anything that you accept either as an outward or inward force that is able to somehow exercise power over me (be it beneficial, be it destructive)? So that <BSR> quote contains the invitation to question both belief and authority, are you with me so far? Sort of ... but I am left wondering what relevance this line of questioning has to our previous discussions/dialogues. If I may bring us back to the pertinent issue we had begun to discuss –
Given that you have now introduced Mr. Rajneesh’s views into the discussion, let me quote his views about anger – the human feeling of malice commonly directed towards other human beings –
From this quote it is very obvious that if someone believes Mr. Rajneesh is a fountain of Wisdom and Love, then in no way will they be interested in eliminating their own anger. His legacy to Humanity is an utterly self-centred flock of disciples and believers who relish their own specialness, strut their superiority and are ever-ready to ‘release’ their ‘pure anger’ on others. Rajneesh’s legacy is as sick and perverse as that of any of the other long dead God-men who have strode the earth – proclaiming themselves to be the ultimate goody-two-shoes while preying on the vulnerability of others in order to quench their insatiable lust for adulation. Desperate in their need for people to love them and be grateful to them, they have roamed the planet for millennia, peddling their snake-oil feel-good message and the ‘truth’ of an after-life paradise to any lost, lonely and frightened souls willing to listen. No doubt you will either be offended by what I am saying or dismiss it as Guru-bashing, however the only way to discover the already existing peace on earth is to abandon the ancient belief that peace is only possible by turning away from the world and retreating inwards to find an ‘inner’ peace. Anyone who continues to believe in these spirit-ual fairy tales can never be free of the human condition of malice and sorrow. So that <BSR> quote contains the invitation to question both belief and authority, are you with me so far? Because: here I find that responding any further to your below reply would be rather pointless as I found that you seem to have many assumptions about me and/or my willingness to inquire, my ability for to be contributive to ‘peace on Earth’. I can only suggest that if you are sincerely interested in peace on earth it may well be useful to continue questioning why you revere Mr. Rajneesh and his Wisdom. You may well find the answer to your own question – ‘Is not authority anything that you accept either as an outward or inward force that is able to somehow exercise power over me (be it beneficial, be it destructive)?’ You need to find the answer to this question otherwise you will live your life simply believing or accepting what others tell you is ‘the truth’ or you may end up humbly prostrating yourself before another human being because he/she proclaims he/she knows the Truth, is living the Truth or is the Truth. As I said before –
A sincere question is a question asked in order to get a definitive unequivocal answer. Not a good answer, not a right answer, not the answer I already know, not a feel-good answer, not a commonly accepted truth, not a comfortable answer, but the obvious facts of the matter. As the detective said in the movie – ‘give me the facts ma’am ... nothing but the facts.’
Peter’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust |
