|
Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List with Correspondent No 23
Hi No 23, Have you ever contemplated upon the fact that this list is the only place on the planet where people are having a conversation about how to become actually harmless and happy? It is quite extraordinary when you pause to think about it. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the topic. I have contemplated your words as to the uniqueness of this list and the environmental issues global warming and species extinction a bit. As to my posting of the Lomborg-vs-Schneider topic: I’m the first one to admit that this issue can be easily applied to ‘transcribe’ the good old ‘bad’ expectations ie. that humanity is ‘doomed’ in anyway, thus environmentalism can be easy become or perhaps has already started to become some sort of new religious believing, where the ‘experts’ can become the high-priest ‘cast’ and twig their followers to support their way of seeing as to what kind of actions should be taken with regard in participation on Saving this Planet, thus ‘Saving the Planet’ may be well lead to a redefinition of the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ guys: those who are actively participating in saving likely will call themselves the ‘correct’ interpreters of ‘facts’ that are presented. Of course then there also will be the ones who are ‘incorrect’ Only genuine ‘experts’ will be able to act on the facts in such a way that the workout can be called beneficial, iow. that’s where actualism comes in – an environmental team will at least need to be able to acknowledge the sensibility of the ‘HAIETMOBA’ sequence and willingness to test the vitality of it. I can’t say whether that will require subscription to the AF list. Currently I lack the expertise to arbiter in the ‘Lomborg-vs-Schneider case’. As I see it this discussion among scholars I’ll leave up to them. And yet you didn’t hesitate to write to the list taking sides in the Lomborg vs. Schneider case. This is what you said about Lomborg and his book –
That’s a reasonable clear and unequivocal statement as to your position and yet in this post you now seem to see some merit in taking a contrary position, even to the point of paraphrasing what I wrote. And then you propose to wait for some imaginary genuine ‘actualist environmental team’ who then would presumably tell you what is appropriate for an ‘actualist’ to think and feel about the matter. So much for doing the work of finding out for yourself what is mere belief and what is substantive fact. I am rather confident though yet not overly optimistic that there are people in, so to say, the environmentalist field who may be able to defeat the so called ‘bad’ prognosis for this planet but there is a big ‘if’ as far as I can see this if is not to be underestimated yet also not overestimated. Having just said you will leave it to the genuine ‘experts’, you then come back with your affective opinions on the subject, i.e. feeling confident and optimistic rather than insecure and pessimistic. It was exactly because I found myself swaying back and forth between these feelings whenever I listened to the environmental debate that I took the time and made the effort to find out for myself. Or to put it another way, I discovered it is impossible to be happy and harmless in the world as-it-is if I continuously waxed and waned between feeling good about the world as-it-is and feeling depressed about the world as-it-is. Living in a country like Holland it is very obvious to me that what is interpreted, as a Democratic Voice globally is considerable different. Holland is a rather relatively peaceful country and it would be dishonest to say that so far ‘my’ country has not served me well and still does. Though I know that even among the Dutch Government there is some disagreement as to what level Holland is to support the US policies. [Btw, Government was the solution for the quiz (guess the snip) There where no correct answers offered] As Holland is part of Europe, its influence is limited. Very interestingly I noticed a change in awareness as European currency is almost entirely upon agreed with the Introduction of the ‘Euro’ that’s the standard European currency. end intro] As you seem to be sliding off the topic somewhat here, I will take the opportunity to say something on the matter of ‘experts’ – something that is relevant to the whole issue of investigating beliefs and making the effort to determine the facts for yourself. I had a formal education in the field of architecture, a job that supposedly straddles art and science. As such, I was taught various principles, beliefs and information in both science and art, all based on various expertise garnered over generations of writings and teachings. It was only after many years of practice that I came to understand that the hallowed principles I was taught were no more than a hotch-potch of fashionable beliefs and personal convictions, that the impassioned beliefs were idealistic, impractical and unworkable and that sensible action was very often either ignored in practice because matters of principle or personal belief were always given far more credence. I also began to gather some first hand knowledge of the so-called experts in the field by reading, observation and direct evaluation of some of their work. I came to understand that those who garnered the most fame and trumpeted the most wisdom were not those who were expert in their fields, i.e. who were best at what they were doing. Many of the famous architects repeatedly built buildings with serious design and construction faults. Many were scornful of clients and peers who dared to point to the contradictions between their self-proclaimed genius and the flaws in the results of their genius when put into practice. Because of this life experience I developed a scepticism about automatically believing in experts – scepticism as in ‘doubt as to the truth of some assertion or apparent fact’ as opposed to cynicism as in ‘ostentatious contempt’ (Oxford Dictionary). Another observation about experts is that they usually have gained name and fame in one particular field of endeavour only and this limited focus very often results in what can best be described as a fervent myopia. The acclaim and inflated sense of self-worth that their expertise brings is often accompanied by games of bluff and bluster amongst experts themselves as well as a supercilious attitude should their expertise be questioned, especially by mere lay people. The myths surrounding expertise are not only apparent in the real-world but are also glaringly evident in the spiritual world. When I started to become aware of the shortcomings and foibles of experts, I began to see that a layperson could very often make better sense of something than a so-called expert who had a passionate personal investment in the issue. In a similar vein, by my own experience in my own work, I came to understand that the hands-on pragmatist almost always knew far more about the workings of something than an ivory tower teacher. As an example of this, I once watched a reporter interviewing a scientist who was doing field tests of pollution levels around cotton fields. He was asked by the interviewer what he had found and he said that it was important to realize that the levels he was measuring were in the order of 1 part suspected-pollutant per 1,000,000 parts of soil and that at these microscopic levels it was nigh on impossible to distinguish between naturally occurring conditions or cotton farming influenced conditions. Now while this incident can be dismissed as anecdotal, it served to make me sceptical about the strident claims of environmentalists, wary about the gap between theoretical science and empirical science and more alert to the media’s role in spreading doom and gloom. I do acknowledge that it takes a bit of gall to question the revered and famed experts of humanity, but if you want to become actually free of human condition this is what needs to be done. To jump to another subject;
To bypass any kind of objections. I know for a fact that you where there and Vineeto was also there to even be more specific: [Richard: ‘my colleague has misconstrued his statement about ‘having to do some work’ and asks, sincerely, just what he meant by this. That he referred to my colleague, I’m positive that this ‘colleague’ was Vineeto] Tell you how’ I flipped a coin three times and the third time it landed on ‘Peter does not speak the truth’, that’s what we call in Holland ‘Dutch justice’. It comes from an old Dutch popular ‘belief’ [Drie keer is Scheepsrecht]. It basically means three shots give it try if it doesn’t work the first time do it again if the third time doesn’t work ... just forget it. I recognize the approach. It’s the very same one you used in your Lomborg vs. Schneider debate. First flip, go with the status quo, believe Schneider. Second throw, consider status quo view might be wrong. Third throw ... ‘just forget it’ and wait for the ‘actualism experts’ to decide what you should think and feel about the world as-it-is. But then again: [not that it is very important] I think it may be good to get that ‘Lomborg-Schneider thing’ a bit going but so to say ‘slow motion’. Could you provide a passage for so to speak a ‘preliminary’ investment as to whether I find it worthy to purchase and hence would participate in ‘supporting’ Lomborg financially and possibly come to share conclusions with him as to the ‘Weight’ of the information available about Global Warming and/or Species extinction. I can do better than that. If you go to http://uk.cambridge.org/economics/lomborg/sample.htm you will find a sample chapter available for free online and if you use your browser search engine you will no doubt find a good many more reactions and attitudes to the book, both positive and negative. The only reason I found issues such as this important was when I found myself stirred to anger or overcome by gloom by what the so-called experts were saying. Then it became obvious that I needed to dig into the matter a bit, not to become an expert per se but to make sense of the issue – to sort out belief from fact, myth from reality, learning from experience and passion from sensibility. The reason I posted the recommendation is that the book is an excellent primer for anyone who finds themselves wasting this moment of being alive by being angry or sad about what the environmentalists are saying ... and wants to become free of these feelings.
As to my posting of the Lomborg-vs-Schneider topic: I’m the first one to admit that this issue can be easily applied to ‘transcribe’ the good old ‘bad’ expectations ie. that humanity is ‘doomed’ in anyway, thus environmentalism can be easy become or perhaps has already started to become some sort of new religious believing, where the ‘experts’ can become the high-priest ‘cast’ and twig their followers to support their way of seeing as to what kind of actions should be taken with regard in participation on Saving this Planet, thus ‘Saving the Planet’ may be well lead to a redefinition of the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ guys: those who are actively participating in saving likely will call them selves the ‘correct’ interpreters of ‘facts’ that are presented. Of course then there also will be the ones who are ‘incorrect’. Only genuine ‘experts’ will be able to act on the facts in such a way that the workout can be called beneficial, iow, that’s where actualism comes in – an environmental team will at least need to be able to acknowledge the sensibility of the ‘HAIETMOBA’ sequence and willingness to test the vitality of it. I can’t say whether that will require subscription to the AF list. Currently I lack the expertise to arbiter in the ‘Lomborg-vs-Schneider case’. As I see it this discussion among scholars I’ll leave up to them. And yet you didn’t hesitate to write to the list taking sides in the Lomborg vs. Schneider case. This is what you said about Lomborg and his book – To me it looks like pseudo science is likely to become now the alternative for new Age Babble. This kind of stuff seems to be all geared to keep people having faith in their future and comfortably allow themselves to distort/ ignore/ deny any facts that are counterproductive as to sustain in their fantasy that a better world is coming soon or at least it is not as bad as they thought it were, thus food for the social identity to vigorously grow. Authors the like Mr Lomborg are suspected of making profit of the gullible believing wishful thinking crowd. His followers are likely, rather then investigating the facts for themselves, to hold their faith in ‘would be experts’ the like ie. the pseudo spiritual crap of ‘Mr Redfields (the celestial promise)’. That’s a reasonable clear and unequivocal statement as to your position and yet in this post you now seem to see some merit in taking a contrary position, even to the point of paraphrasing what I wrote. And then you propose to wait for some imaginary genuine ‘actualist environmental team’ who then would presumably tell you what is appropriate for an ‘actualist’ to think and feel about the matter. So much for doing the work of finding out for yourself what is mere belief and what is substantive fact. As to [To me it looks like pseudo science] After having done some investigation as to the quality of the issued book, I find myself not capable of evaluating the validity of it as a genuine work of sound scientific exploration as I lack the ‘expertise’ that is required to compare it to other articles/books that provide data that are presented as factual evidence as to prove what state the planet is in from an environmentalist viewpoint. Furthermore I find it not correct to call the ‘sceptical environmentalist’ a pseudo scientific work as it has been published by Cambridge university thus: I withdraw my opinion which was in many ways biased: One of the main thrusts of Lomborg’s book is that there are no two sets of data, one good and one bad, but rather that there is only one set of global data available – that which has been gathered by the relevant national and international organizations. It’s not a question of which of the conflicting data to believe, it’s a question of making a sensible interpretation of the data available and Lomborg makes a compelling case that the Environmentalists are either misinterpreting or ignoring this data for their own agenda. You don’t need to be an expert in any of the environmental sciences to be able to follow Lomborg’s presentation of data, you only need to be interested in what the state of the planet is and be willing to put aside your own beliefs in order to be able to assess what makes sense and what doesn’t. And again, just to make the point that I am not taking sides in this matter. My sole interest in investigating the doom and gloom environmentalist stance was to find out how much was belief and misinformation and how much was fact. I know it is fashionable nowadays to make a virtue out of ‘not knowing’ but when I became an actualist I made it my business to find out for myself rather than go on believing or disbelieving what others said. As in the context of the evaluation of the value of the mentioned book, this opinion is neither contributing to a sensible discussion, nor does it do justice to the undoubtedly hard work Mr Lomborg has done. It is indeed refreshing to hear a voice that is although not sounding overly optimistic yet indeed less pessimistic then what often the media are trying to present as the ‘truth’ about the condition the planet is in. Your further investigations into the matter don’t seem to have got you any further than where you were before. I’ll just remind you what you said in your last post –
Thus my reply to this latest comment is exactly the same as it was before– Having just said you will leave it to the genuine ‘experts’, you then come back with your affective opinions on the subject, i.e. feeling confident and optimistic rather than insecure and pessimistic. It was exactly because I found myself swaying back and forth between these feelings whenever I listened to the environmental debate that I took the time and made the effort to find out for myself. Or to put it another way, I discovered it is impossible to be happy and harmless in the world as-it-is if I continuously waxed and waned between feeling good about the world as-it-is and feeling depressed about the world as-it-is. Swings of mood from optimism to pessimism are typical within the human condition. All human beings spend their lives in a self-centred passionate struggle for survival, a senseless struggle that is rooted in fear, feelings of despair and pessimism, relieved only by shows of bravado and feelings of hope and optimism. This seesawing of moods and emotions is what people fondly call living a rich life or, when things are going badly, learning a lot from suffering. As Mr. Lomborg puts it: [There is some overall improvement, nevertheless it is not yet ‘good enough’]. Also he mentions that the ‘outcome’ of his predictions have a fair dependency on political decisions as to priorities that need to be agreed upon globally. Having the advantage of having read the whole of Lomborg’s book, I cannot recall that he ever makes any predictions of his own in the book. Making such predictions is not his business because he is not an expert in any of the environmental sciences, nor does he claim to be. As a statistician, he has researched the source material of the empirical information that is available as to the current state of the planet and compiled it so as to expose the gulf between fashionable myths and the facts of the matter. In many examples, issued in the chapter I have read there is a presentation of percentages as facts. This is for a layman like myself hardly a source for optimism as I know from my own experience that on a political level a deviation of a few percents can bring about massive disagreement among groups with vested interest in a certain matter and hence stalling or even completely impeding a process whereas there is an urge to make a decision to act on a matter. It is clear that Lomborg aims at presenting the trends that are evident in the empirical global-wide data available as to the state of the world – and specifically he is interested in whether the trends of the data shows that the world is getting worse, as the Environmentalists claim. While he may sometimes use percentages to show trends in the data relating to global pollution, population, resources, climate, wealth, health, safety, wellbeing and such like, to confuse this with percentages of public political opinion is to slide off the topic. This discussion is about facts, not about political opinions or leanings – otherwise it would only lead to ‘massive disagreement among groups with vested interest in a certain matter and hence stalling or even completely impeding a process whereas there is an urge to make a decision to act on a matter’. To get back on track, if you believe the world is a rotten place and only getting worse, despite the empirical evidence to the contrary, this belief will only make you feel sad and from these feelings of sadness inevitably comes feelings of anger. If you choose to hold on to the belief in spite of the facts, you are also choosing to hold on to the sadness and anger that comes with the belief. As already mentioned that I lack the expertise to verify the presented facts I give him the benefit of the doubt in this matter and I choose to be optimistic yet not overly. Choosing to feel optimistic does nothing to eliminate the underlying feeling of pessimism. This is like choosing to feel hopeful because you really feel despairing. This is how normal people function and how humanity functions – forever lurching between optimism and pessimism, hope and despair, fantasy and reality, feeling good and feeling bad, feeling sad and feeling angry. If you are content to live your life this way, then that is your choice but living trapped in this nightmare was not good enough for me – I desperately wanted out because, despite the occasional good times, I knew I was trapped in a nightmare. I went for living in the fantasy of a spiritual world for a while but this was like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire, from one form of hypocrisy to another, from one form of power battle to another. And then I discovered actualism. As to [Only genuine ‘experts’ will be able to act on the facts in such a way that the workout can be called beneficial, iow, that’s where actualism comes in – an environmental team will at least need to be able to acknowledge the sensibility of the ‘HAIETMOBA’ sequence and willingness to test the vitality of it.] I rephrase: [Only genuine ‘experts’ will be able to act on the facts in such a way that the workout can be called beneficial] leaving it up to anyone for him/herself as to decide what is to be called ‘genuine experts’. <snip> Deciding whom to believe still leaves you believing one side or another. Some people do choose to change their beliefs by swapping sides and then merrily proceed to do battle for the other side in the conflict. Human beings are conditioned from birth to take a side in a conflict – it is an inevitability of being a social identity. You have to be either on the male side or the female side in the battle of the sexes. You are conditioned to be rich or poor in the battle for wealth. You are conditioned to have a political preference in the conflict of political views. You are conditioned to be loyal to the country you were born in the battle of nations. And so on, ad nausea. If you are genuinely interested in becoming free of these never-ending battles the only way is to demolish your own social identity. The only way to do this is by taking the time and making the effort to investigate the emotional investments you have in being a paid-up member of one side or other in these conflicts. * I do acknowledge that it takes a bit of gall to question the revered and famed experts of humanity, but if you want to become actually free of human condition this is what needs to be done. It appears to me that you may mistake expertise for specialism. (Atomica def) ‘Specialism: Concentration of one’s efforts in a given occupation or field of study. A field of specialization’. When I use the term expert I mean someone who has the expertise ‘Expert A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject. The highest grade that can be achieved in marksmanship. Having, involving, or demonstrating great skill, dexterity, or knowledge as the result of experience or training.’ Iow, one can study a lifelong in a certain field without ever becoming an expert yet one hardly can be denied to be a specialist. As to [Only genuine ‘experts’ will be able to act on the facts in such a way that the workout can be called beneficial, iow, that’s where actualism comes in – an environmental team will at least need to be able to acknowledge the sensibility of the ‘HAIETMOBA’ sequence and willingness to test the vitality of it.] I rephrase: [Only genuine ‘experts’ will be able to act on the facts in such a way that the workout can be called beneficial] leaving it up to anyone for him/herself as to decide what is to be called ‘genuine’ experts with regard to environmental issues. Which only means that you not only need to decide who to believe but you also have to determine whether the person you believe is merely a specialist in the field or is a ‘genuine’ expert in the field. The way most people do this is to believe he or she who is most famous or he or she who has the most letters after their name, i.e. the most book learning. Which means you are back to following the herd, flipping a coin or following your gut feelings – back taking sides in one of the many conflicts that rage within the human condition. I recognize that it is hard work to investigate your beliefs and that it is much easier to stay who you think and feel you are. It may not be satisfactory but at least it is familiar. It certainly is not freedom but then you can always take up a cause and blame someone else for keeping you from being free. The other traditional alternative is to dissociate from the battles in the world by feeling self-righteous as in ‘above it all’ but this hypocrisy didn’t sit at all well with me. I remember the first time I really ‘got it’ about the role that beliefs play in making ‘me’ as a social identity. The following is an excerpt from my journal describing the event –
As a child we are taught to believe what our parents, teachers and peers tell us – there is no other way to learn. In order to become free of these beliefs it is essential to learn how to think for yourself because this is something we have not been taught to do – we have been taught to believe, we haven’t been taught to think. * To jump to another subject;
To bypass any kind of objections. I know for a fact that you where there and Vineeto was also there to even be more specific: [Richard: ‘my colleague has misconstrued his statement about ‘having to do some work’ and asks, sincerely, just what he meant by this. That he referred to my colleague, I’m positive that this ‘colleague’ was Vineeto] Tell you how’ I flipped a coin three times and the third time it landed on ‘Peter does not speak the truth’, that’s what we call in Holland ‘Dutch justice’. It comes from an old Dutch popular ‘belief’ [Drie keer is Scheepsrecht]. It basically means three shots give it try if it doesn’t work the first time do it again if the third time doesn’t work ... just forget it. I recognize the approach. It’s the very same one you used in your Lomborg vs. Schneider debate. First flip, go with the status quo, believe Schneider. Second throw, consider status quo view might be wrong. Third throw ... ‘just forget it’ and wait for the ‘actualism experts’ to decide what you should think and feel about the world as-it-is. And yet there was no flipping of coins being done with regard to that subject. And even more so the way you describe it is not the correct procedure. Let me explain. The goal of flipping the coin is to decide that one is right in a certain matter where there is some doubt. Ie. In the L-vs-S case I now have flipped a coin three times the first and second time it landed on Schneider yet the third it landed on Lomborg thus I have taken sides for Lomborg. Whether you decide by hunch, intuition, instincts, gut feeling, speculation, sixth sense or flipping a coin, you are still left with no more than a 50/50 chance of knowing whether something is true or false, fact or fiction, silly or sensible and so on. Heads one side of the battle, tails the other, heads the other ... * The only reason I found issues such as this important was when I found myself stirred to anger or overcome by gloom by what the so-called experts were saying. Then it became obvious that I needed to dig into the matter a bit, not to become an expert per se but to make sense of the issue – to sort out belief from fact, myth from reality, learning from experience and passion from sensibility. The reason I posted the recommendation is that the book is an excellent primer for anyone who finds themselves wasting this moment of being alive by being angry or sad about what the environmentalists are saying ... and wants to become free of these feelings. Yep indeed. Global warming and species extinction are simply facts we all have to live with, yet it is not sensible to put oneself at the mercy of specialists or media opinions as to how one is to feel while living with these facts ... worrying is just wasting this moment of being alive. I am left wondering whether you bother to read and think about anything I write. Not that it matters of course Settling for believing what everyone else believes and settling for accepting that the world is a grim place and only getting grimmer can only leave you disassociated and disconnected from the world-as-it-is and people as-they-are – or to use your words, back in La-La land. If you worry about global warming and species extinction, then trying not to worry about them is only trying – trying to cope with a grim reality that is founded on nothing more than beliefs. My suggestion is to investigate why you are worrying in the first place – are you wasting your time worrying about or trying not to worry about a belief. This is the way you dismantle your ‘self’ – by investigating and becoming aware of what makes you tick, by discovering why you get angry, pissed off, annoyed, anxious, worried, melancholic, sad, lonely, depressed, resentful and so on. It’s a thrilling business to throw yourself into the adventure of discovering how you tick and why. It is, quite literally, the adventure of a lifetime.
To No 38: Most people are taught to love themselves, to stand up and fight for their rights, to be proud of their human-ness. In other words, every human being is taught to make the best of their programming and is taught that it is not possible to question the fundamentals of this programming. By dutifully following this ‘self’-centred and socially-condoned path everyone is oblivious to his or her own programming because ‘I’ am this programming and this programming is ‘me’. Now considering [people are taught to love themselves] [Most people...] iow. [every human being...] [everyone...]? [is taught to make the best of their programming] Are you saying that you were taught to love yourself and that you experience that as being programmed? In the real-world, the programming one gets is more usually to ‘stand up for oneself’ and take ‘pride in one’s achievements’. It’s a necessary form of indoctrination undertaken by parents and peers so as to prepare the child for the grim battle ahead. In the spiritual world, the programming is a preparation for retreating from the world and going ‘inside’ and it is usually based on some form of ‘love your self’. There is also the narcissism that is rooted in the instinctual passions of all human beings, but this is a layer deeper than the social programming that I was talking about. Could (one of) you give one/some clear example(s) as to what exactly you have detected to be a ‘program’, iow, what kind of program was that and how was it (explain explicitly please) implemented? In my case, programming via genetics, parents, school, peers, Christianity and Rajneeshism. In your case, programming via genetics, parents, school, peers, Christianity and Rajneeshism, as I understand. Personally I cannot detect a program that instructs me to love myself, yet I have tried to ‘implement’ certain instructions to do so ie. ‘I’m a loveable, capable, beautiful human being’ – however as I lack the so called ‘affective data’ these mainly remain ‘hollow phrases’. I found that it was one thing to think about these things and quite another to be attentive to the feelings that arose in the course of everyday life of people, things and events. I was very often astounded at what feelings and passions were constantly going on beneath the surface, as it were. As to [to be proud of their human-ness] as to experience those feelings as in fact recognizable I am as to now not able to detect any such feelings as feeling ie. ‘loveability’ or ‘pride’ so ... How did you become aware of ie. pride what were/are the physical parameters of it as to [question fundamentals of this programming]. What are those fundamentals iyo? I did nothing more than ask myself ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ until it became a wordless constant attentiveness. Trying to think about what makes ‘you’ tick never works, you have to experience it for yourself.
Could (one of) you give one/some clear example(s) as to what exactly you have detected to be a ‘program’, iow, what kind of program was that and how was it (explain explicitly please) implemented? In my case, programming via genetics, parents, school, peers, Christianity and Rajneeshism. In your case, programming via genetics, parents, school, peers, Christianity and Rajneeshism, as I understand. As to [Christianity and Rajneeshism.] Roman Catholic in fact but it’s being considered as an offspring of Christianity. In the past I indeed would use the expression ‘Rajneeshism’ yet not anymore so... I prefer to say Oshoism you might say that I’m personally honestly hypocritical here yet considerate (though not overly.) Same I said to Richard goes here for U too I respect your privacy as I respect my own. Given that Rajneesh’s original name was Chandra Mohan Jain, you could also call his religion Jainism or when he became Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (in Hindi, Bhagwan literally means god) the choice could also be Bhagwanism or Rajneeshism and he was even Maitreya for a while which would have made it Maitreyaism. That he reinvented himself as Osho in the last year of his life is seen by many as an attempt to distance his image from that of ‘The God who failed’. Whatever name you prefer to call his religion, Rajneesh, like his nemesis J. Krishnamurti, was but a passing particle in the vast cesspool of Eastern spirituality. My point in replying as I did is that you and I have almost identical programming – that this genetic/instinctual programming and social/ spiritual indoctrination applies to all human beings with only very slight variations. That’s why Richard’s discovery of an actual freedom is applicable to all human beings and that’s why my experiences in undoing this programming is also applicable to all human beings. So ... the following can be considered as the end of an investigation I like to call it a ‘peer’ review. If you insist on refusing to make your own investigations, you can only end up thinking this mailing list is about ‘peer’ review – a situation which can only result in you being a follower or a rejector, a believer or a doubter. Speaking personally, when I came across actualism I never believed anything Richard said or wrote without checking it out for myself. As you’ve been upfront and honest with the revelations through your diary I think the atmosphere has been created to politely (gentlemen like so to speak) revaluate this list history we now share. This happens from the condition of absolute ‘doubt’, which means to me ‘ZERO tolerance’ yet that is a stretchable concept as we have agreed about ‘time’ as an actuality – 22.4.02 3:02:17 (in Holland) 24.4.02 / 2:02:20 and it’s a wonderful early autumn day here in Byron Bay. It’s a delight to be here in this moment, the only moment I can experience of being alive. Rather than agree with me that this is the only moment you can actually experience being alive, you can play a game for a while and try to be here in this moment of time. Initially you will find that you can only keep the game up for a very short time period as eventually something will pull you away from being here – some past emotional memory, some worry or anxiety about a future event, some consuming emotion or feeling will overtake you. The whole point of actualism is not to waste this moment, the only moment you can experience being alive, by being angry, frustrated, sad, bored or such, let alone by wallowing in memories of the past or fantasizing or worrying about the future. The whole point of actualism is to develop an on-going attentiveness to being here, hence the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ * I decided to ‘cut some mustard’ here and have made a ‘thread-mix’ of a former conversation you and I where recently having yet the header Self-Awareness is ‘respectfully’ kept^
(decloaking) Also speaking personally: In stating that vis: [Any negative attribution as to the use of ‘hypocrite/hypocrisy’ has as such now been rendered ‘neutral’.] It has only been meant to say that the attribution to the expression ‘hypocrite/hypocrisy’ has been rendered neutral. To make it perfectly clear: when using that expression, I do neither attribute a negative meaning nor a positive meaning to that word. Iow, it is absolute ‘clean’ of judgement as to being right or wrong thus it may be interpreted by a reader as to his own need to be hypocritical or not to be hypocritical thus dismissing him/her (and myself) from the obligation to be absolutely honest or sincere and choose his/her own level that suits with his/her needs/ demands/ desires with regard to survival/ comfort at large. It goes without saying that everyone is free to make their own judgement as to what level of hypocrisy suits them, but to call such a judgement ‘absolutely honest or sincere’ is to blithely ignore that such a judgement is utterly self-centred. Actualism is about raising the bar far beyond the level of ‘normal’ self-centredness, for what we are talking about on this list is what has been sought after by countless human beings for millennia – a genuine and actual peace on earth. To even put it more clearly, I ‘respect’ the lost, fearful and lonely very cunning alien identity that resides in the body as ‘I’ in its desperate need to hide away from the light of exposal. Because either when it’s being spiritually shelled or socially, it will always feel to be ‘imprisoned’, in fact disowned, ‘less it comes to be facilitated and respected for what it is.’ This list is an opportunity to come to that (that is for me it has been) and I’m really happy that I took it. And yet this list is about ‘self’-immolation, not ‘self’-respect. Now ... Given that a child’s playfulness is the very essence of his/her existence/ awareness, any distortion/ discouragement/ violation of that quality means his ‘game’ becomes disturbed/ distorted or even ruined; that is ‘death’ for a child and that’s a fundamental shock in narcissism the brain has to cope with. Iow, its innate ability to reflect upon itself as being playfulness is being hampered. The playfulness of a child also includes the innate instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire, which means a child’s play is anything but innocent. Contrary to popular belief, children are not born innocent. It is because of this that a child has to be taught right and wrong, good and bad so as to make the child a fit member of society. Only when a child becomes an adult and becomes vitally concerned about peace on earth, is there an opportunity to be able to cultivate an ability to reflect upon itself and begin to undo this programming. This [ability to reflect upon itself] is what actually is ‘me’ so this me is not a matter of identity but a feature that goes pack and parcel with the flesh-body. While the ability of reflection is an innate ability of the human brain, this function is completely taken over by a ‘self’, the psychological and psychic entity that is formed by one’s social and instinctual programming. Both aspects of this programming are experienced as discordant identities – ‘me’ as a thinking identity can be experienced as a little man in the head constantly trying to be in control, whilst ‘me’ as a feeling identity is usually felt in the heart to be ‘me’ at the core of my being. Yet the Death experience needed to become accepted and so it does became ‘integrated’, as being wounded/ hurt/ abused aso, (that’s the way it goes) and recorded as memory and thus these memories becomes part of the shielding and the brain settles for this as an alternative ‘me’ and starts to disown/ deny and eventually reject the condition on which playfulness freely was flowing as it assigns this condition as too dangerous; iow, I become identified with being this is how a fragmentation process is initiated. As far as I can make out you are talking of two fragmented ‘me’s’, an innate playful ‘me’ and a ‘wounded/ hurt/ abused’ ‘me’. This aligns with the traditional views of the human psyche whether it be psychological view or spiritual view. Psychology sees the illnesses of an excess of malice and sorrow as a failure to integrate these two ‘me’s’ into a more or less coherent whole that is better able to cope and fit into a malice and sorrowful society. Whilst spirituality aims to ‘disown/ deny and eventually reject the wounded/ hurt/ abused’ ‘me’ and realize that who you are is the real ‘me’, felt deep down inside as ‘me’, a spirit-only Being. Actualism is about eliminating both of the parasitical non-actual identities that stand in the way of experiencing the already always existing peace on earth. A Sequence of ‘Death shocks’ make the brain more and more ‘curb’ some instinctual inclinations/functions (which currently we now conveniently label as being malicious and sorrowful) toward what is regarded as ‘secure’ behaviour for the organism. Is this your experience or is this what you make of actualism or is this based on your spiritual beliefs and experiences? I only ask because it does seem to be somewhat of a potpourri theory. All my inflated assertions as to why or how the body comes to an end, all my assumptions as to why peaceful coexistence with fellow beings is such a difficult thing to realize, all my considerations about being an animal at heart (from a Darwinian perspective) was yet hypocrisy in action. If you are saying that all of the assertions, assumptions and considerations you have taken on board as being truths have come to nothing, I can relate to that. When I came across actualism, I took my spiritual ‘not knowing’ to be a fact. This meant I could start over again the business of finding out, all the time being wary of how much my spiritual conditioning had infiltrated my thinking and feeling. The path to actual freedom is littered with spiritual and real-world beliefs and as they become exposed by attentiveness, these beliefs need to be investigated and replaced with fact – not merely disowned, denied, liked or disliked, accepted or rejected as is common in ‘normal’ life. As Vineeto said recently, ‘your entry ticket to the actual world – question everything, particularly your own beliefs and passions, the human condition in action as yourself.’ *
No ... It’s honesty that needs to be cranked up (that is as I see it), sincerity is what is left when you live in Actual Freedom on the ‘net’ I think it is appropriate to refer to that as ‘Virtual Freedom’. The problem with the word ‘honest’ is that it has a connotation that is tainted in the spiritual world. As I wrote in my journal about my investigations into malice and sorrow –
Because of this I much prefer to use the word sincerity, which has a connotation of being honest with oneself, rather than demanding honesty from others. Given that actualism is solely concerned with changing oneself, it would be extremely foolish to not be honest with oneself, which is why sincerity is both the starting point of actualism, the driving force on the path and the end of the process of actualism. As regards to ‘sincerity is what is left when you live in Actual Freedom’ – from my own experience of living in virtual freedom, from many pure consciousness experiences and from a fine-tooth observation of Richard, I found that when you no longer nurture malice and sorrow in your bosom, an actual innocence negates the need to crank up sincerity in order to counter the natural human tendency for duplicity. Iow, strange as it may seem after all those years, Actual Freedom appears to be only the beginning, the first step so to say. For me HAIETMOBA? has turned out to be the answer to the Impossible question which was: ‘can you change without time?’ That ‘Actual Freedom appears to be only the beginning’ does
sound somewhat similar to No 12 when he spat the dummy on this list and claimed to have moved beyond actual
freedom into a state he called AFF – Actual Fucking Freedom ( Now ... Peter, I considered the name you have gotten from BSR and then I considered how you came in touch with Richard and how I came on this list as I see it: an Actual Freedom is in fact the Masters Dream (the dawn of love) and to ACTUAL see that in all your fellow beings, Wow! That’s quite something. But then again ‘imaginary poetry’ was really not your cup of tea. Yet I’d feel honoured (if I were you) and proud (not self aggrandized) to have been an architect of Osho. Now ... as I have the Ace of diamonds and the ace of spades I suspect that you have the Ace of hearts and the ace of clubs. So I say lets call it even here. As for Richard, he’s first, me second – indeed a whole different Ball game, yep, but as already admitted. I am only a beginner at snooker. Regards No. 23 (silence) I happened to meet someone the other day who mentioned that they remembered having met me some 6 years ago. It turned out that he had been in the Andrew Cohen commune in Sydney when I was planning to sell up, leave the real-world behind yet again and join the commune. As it turned out the taste of the commune I had was enough to convince me that I didn’t need to go down that path again as I had been there before – I had done spiritual communes and found them sadly lacking in peace and harmony, I had found sitting with eyes closed in meditation to be the antithesis of being here and the idea of a self-imposed celibacy smacked of a moral perversity akin to Catholic priesthood. The meeting reminded me of the value I got from finding out for myself what this particular Guru’s teachings produced as practice. By doing so I was able to tick yet another spiritual teacher off my list of ‘tried and failed in practice’. Soon after I met Richard and I applied the same ‘find out for myself’ approach and now I find myself writing to others saying ‘I tried actualism and it works in practice’. It seems such an obvious thing to say, but unless you are willing to make the effort to find out for yourself, you will never know if actualism works or not – you will never know if it is possible to become actually free of the human condition of malice and sorrow. You mentioned at the start of this post that ‘the following can be considered as the end of an investigation I like to call it a ‘peer’ review.’ If you are conducting a ‘peer review’ of actualism, I suggest that the only sensible way to do this on the basis of a ‘find out for myself’ approach and, by doing so, become a practicing actualist. Otherwise you will never be open to the benefits of peer review – that you are not in this business alone, that others are doing it, that you are in no way unique, that there are people with more expertise than you and that we actualists all seek a common goal – peace on earth.
In order to be able to review your peers, or be reviewed by your peers, you need to be amongst peers of the same occupation or interests, which in the case of this list is doing something practical about peace on earth or being vitally interested in peace on earth.
Peter’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust |
