Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List

with Correspondent No 38

16.4.2002

Hi,

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’.

There aren’t any individuals within the human condition, there are just team players or those who think and feel they are individuals. Amongst the latter, the common groupings are those who adopt an intellectual superiority via detachment from their feelings and spiritualists who adopt a moral or ethical superiority via dissociation from their feelings.

I remember No 4 some time ago realizing that it is impossible to be unique, as in ‘individual’, while remaining trapped within the human condition, i.e. despite what we may think and feel, all human beings are socially and instinctually programmed to believe the same beliefs.

Indeed. History is littered with the bodies of those who were foolish enough to question the belief of others.

Whereas actualism is utterly safe, because the only beliefs you need to question to become free of the human condition are your own.

Speaking from experience, I was hardly capable of any sustained clear thinking before I learnt to distinguish and separate thinking from my feelings and beliefs. It took an enormous amount of effort to get rid of the programming that prevents clear thinking from happening.

The first hurdle is the problem of cognitive dissonance – the total inability of a pre-programmed brain to even consider, let alone understand, that there might be an experience of freedom that is actual and sensual and not spiritual and affective. It was only because I remembered that I had had such an experience, that I knew that actual freedom lay completely outside of my spiritual beliefs and preconceptions.

Again speaking personally, I was desperately driven to start changing myself because I saw that the real-world sucked and the spiritual world was a wank. I’ve written about my motivations for taking up actualism before, so I won’t go into them here, but my urge to be free was, and is, a passionate one, not a ‘may as well’.

I recently watched a TV documentary about the last days of John Lennon. At the end of the program they showed a section of Central Park that had been set aside as a John Lennon ‘peace park’. The central focus of the park was a big plaque with the word ‘Imagine’ written on it. Presumably people go to the park, look at the plaque and imagine peace on earth. If there was an actualist peace park, it would have a plaque which said ‘are you ready to do something practical about peace on earth?’

*

It is no little thing to question such ideals as pacifism – to not only understand that they fail but to also understand why they fail. It is only by thinking about why conflict is the norm within the human condition that you start to become aware of your own genetically-encoded contributions to the well-spring of malice and sorrow in the world.

This way you move from having an ideal about peace on earth to being interested in actually doing something about peace on earth – in other words, you resurrect your naiveté and take unilateral action.

What I discovered was that the monotheistic religions tend to be more concerned with morality, with good and bad. The Eastern religions, particularly Buddhism, tend to be more concerned with ethics, with right and wrong thinking. Maybe that’s why spirituality has such a strong appeal to men and intellectuals. It has certainly dominated much of the 20^th Century literature, philosophy, theoretical science and thinking to an extent that is amazingly wide-ranging.

What I discovered was that the Eastern religions were even more insidious than the monotheist religions because their adherents are encouraged not to think about the human condition, not to think about the world as-it-is – not to be at all interested about what goes on ‘outside’, as it were. The followers of Eastern religions are encouraged to ‘accept’ that the physical world is a grim reality and that the only escape is to dissociate from the inherent evil of a grim reality and go ‘inside’, where peace, tranquillity and meaning is to be found.

Over the past few years I have had occasion to have some discussions with a Buddhist and I am continuously amazed at how quickly he can assimilate anything I may happen to say about actualism into his own religious beliefs. He does not even blink an eyelid, let alone stop to think or contemplate. These interactions continue to remind me of the overwhelming power that the sense-numbing combination of belief and passion has over human thinking – so much so that this disability has been recognized in psychiatry and given the label of cognitive dissonance. The other aspect that always stands out in these discussions is that he is so totally self-centred that he has no interest whatsoever in what is happening in the world, i.e. he is so much is he concerned with maintaining his own ‘inner peace’ he doesn’t give a fig about peace on earth.

But what is most fascinating is that I can recognize myself in him, he is exactly how I was when I was trapped within the spiritual world – so convinced I was right that I was completely closed to even considering that there could be a third alternative.

I remember as a kid thinking that religion was silly, the very idea of a white-bearded God sitting on a cloud in heaven seemed really weird. What really shocked me one day was when I realized that the Eastern spiritual group I was in was nought but ‘olde time religion’ cunningly dressed up as something different. A classic example of cognitive dissonance on my part.

From that very first glimpse it took me years to painstakingly extract myself from the spiritual world and in doing so I eventually lost all my friends, all of my clients, and two relationships. To take the step from realizing to action does take both sincerity and effort and the subsequent changes always come at a cost. Needless to say, the tangible rewards for this effort – a virtual freedom from malice and sorrow in my case – far exceed whatever the ‘peace-parkers’ could imagine.

That ‘religion is the greatest obstacle’ is a spiritual-world psittacism often trotted out by spiritualists in order to separate their own spiritual-religious practices from that of the herd. And perhaps the most devious of all of the Eastern religions is Buddhism, despite the fact that Buddhists have been forced into adopting a pre-emptive defence by declaring that ‘Buddhism is not a religion’. Spiritual beliefs are a far greater obstacle than religion for those who are genuinely interested in peace on earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body.

What does separate spiritual people from materialists is that at least some of those from the West took up Eastern religious belief because they questioned the veracity and sensibility of their first religious conditioning – monotheistic religions. Having done so they have unwittingly landed themselves in an even more insidious belief system, one that scorns the worship of One God and yet encourages the followers to feel themselves to be God. However, if a spiritualist has been able to question at least some of their own childhood beliefs, then he or she may be better equipped to question his or her own new beliefs than someone who has yet bothered to question any of their beliefs.

21.4.2002

You could call politeness the outcome of felicitous feelings.

*

There aren’t any individuals within the human condition, there are just team players or those who think and feel they are individuals. Amongst the latter, the common groupings are those who adopt an intellectual superiority via detachment from their feelings and spiritualists who adopt a moral or ethical superiority via dissociation from their feelings.

I remember No 4 some time ago realizing that it is impossible to be unique, as in ‘individual’, while remaining trapped within the human condition, i.e. despite what we may think and feel, all human beings are socially and instinctually programmed to believe the same beliefs.

Even the famed rebels and revolutionaries of history, be they real-world or spiritual, remained trapped within the human condition. As a social identity the only options available are to comply, shift alliances, swap sides, rebel against the current fashionable beliefs or opt for following spiritual beliefs but all of this is but huff and puff within the confines of what can be seen and felt as a cage of beliefs. While you may find this to be a subtle point, it is not one that the famed spiritual teachers can even conceive of because they remain firmly trapped within the human condition.

What I didn’t find at all subtle, and what really got me off my bum, is the fact that each and every human being is not only socially programmed to remain faithful to Humanity but that each and every human being is genetically encoded with the instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire. Understanding this was of such significance to me that I put it this way on the very first page of my journal –

Indeed, that has been the innate drive in my life: to make sense of this mad world that I found myself living in. The insanities of endless wars, conflict, arguments, sadness, despair, failed hopes and dreams seems endemic. And worse still, as I gradually forced myself to admit, I was as mad, and as bad, as everyone else. Peter’s Journal Introduction

*

Indeed. History is littered with the bodies of those who were foolish enough to question the belief of others.

Whereas actualism is utterly safe, because the only beliefs you need to question to become free of the human condition are your own.

It sounds as though you have got the gist of what is on offer in the process of actualism.

It is impossible to remain an identity within the human condition and expect to become free from the human condition.

*

The first hurdle is the problem of cognitive dissonance – the total inability of a pre-programmed brain to even consider, let alone understand, that there might be an experience of freedom that is actual and sensual and not spiritual and affective. It was only because I remembered that I had had such an experience, that I knew that actual freedom lay completely outside of my spiritual beliefs and preconceptions.

What I was talking about was a pure consciousness experience, but I can well relate to what you are saying. It’s essential for an actualist to be able to feel a fool and freely admit it. When I first came across actualism I had to admit that I knew nothing about the human condition and that I had to throw out everything I learnt and start over again. Whilst I realized I really knew nothing – the spiritual ‘not knowing’ is a fact, not a virtue – I did have a lot of life experience of what didn’t work and this was definitely a plus.

It is so refreshing to be able to be naive without being gullible – it’s one of the many benefits of lived experience not squandered by giving up in acceptance, or giving in to cynicism.

You can never be sure about a belief, simply because a belief requires that you have to believe it to be true or factual. But once you have ascertained the facticity and actuality of something for your self, then you have the certainty to proceed. You may find the bit of writing about fact in the glossary to be good food for thought.

*

Again speaking personally, I was desperately driven to start changing myself because I saw that the real-world sucked and the spiritual world was a wank. I’ve written about my motivations for taking up actualism before, so I won’t go into them here, but my urge to be free was, and is, a passionate one, not a ‘may as well’.

I have seen quite a few people baulk at actualism when they realized what was involved in fully taking on the challenge. While I never understand their choice to turn away, let alone waste time by dithering wondering whether to start, the decision to take on actualism has to be a personal choice.

*

Over the past few years I have had occasion to have some discussions with a Buddhist and I am continuously amazed at how quickly he can assimilate anything I may happen to say about actualism into his own religious beliefs. He does not even blink an eyelid, let alone stop to think or contemplate. These interactions continue to remind me of the overwhelming power that the sense-numbing combination of belief and passion has over human thinking – so much so that this disability has been recognized in psychiatry and given the label of cognitive dissonance. The other aspect that always stands out in these discussions is that he is so totally self-centred that he has no interest whatsoever in what is happening in the world, i.e. he is so much is he concerned with maintaining his own ‘inner peace’ he doesn’t give a fig about peace on earth.

There have been some examples of spiritualists who even manage to absorb some of actualism into their spiritual beliefs and some have even started to teach their own personal hodgepodge version of actualism to others. What they don’t realize is that they stand out like dog’s balls because they come across in the vein of spiritual teachers – seeking power and authority by questioning and probing the beliefs of others while blithely never daring to question their own beliefs. The reason they don’t dare question their own beliefs, as you put it so well, is that 

‘Once one questions beliefs to this sort of extent, it’s a one way street’.

*

That ‘religion is the greatest obstacle’ is a spiritual-world psittacism often trotted out by spiritualists in order to separate their own spiritual-religious practices from that of the herd.

It takes a good nose to sniff out spiritualism precisely because of its chameleon like character. As your investigations proceed you may well be surprised at the extent of its almost complete infiltration into every aspect of Western society. I know I was.

28.4.2002

Even the famed rebels and revolutionaries of history, be they real-world or spiritual, remained trapped within the human condition. As a social identity, the only options available are to comply, shift alliances, swap sides, rebel against the current fashionable beliefs or opt for following spiritual beliefs but all of this is but huff and puff within the confines of what can be seen and felt as a cage of beliefs. While you may find this to be a subtle point, it is not one that the famed spiritual teachers can even conceive of because they remain firmly trapped within the human condition.

What I didn’t find at all subtle, and what really got me off my bum, is the fact that each and every human being is not only socially programmed to remain faithful to Humanity but that each and every human being is genetically encoded with the instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire. Understanding this was of such significance to me that I put it this way on the very first page of my journal –

Indeed, that has been the innate drive in my life: to make sense of this mad world that I found myself living in. The insanities of endless wars, conflict, arguments, sadness, despair, failed hopes and dreams seems endemic. And worse still, as I gradually forced myself to admit, I was as mad, and as bad, as everyone else. Peter’s Journal Introduction.

There is ample evidence that all of the revered other-worldly spiritual experiences have their roots in mind-altering psychotropic substances. As far as I have ascertained, every ancient culture had shamans or Godmen who imbibed magical potions in order to access the world of the spirits and Gods. In the East many Buddhists and Hindus seeking an experience of Nirvana still openly practice this tradition. I have seen many a Hindu Holy-man high on ganja in India and saw a Buddhist monk in Japan following in the tradition of searching for magic mushrooms to aid his meditation.

In the West, mind-altering substances have gradually been phased out of religious practice over the centuries, but their use by the youth of the 60’s spawned an exodus to the East in search of the permanent drug experience. Thus the search for the peace-on-earth experience that is sometimes induced by the use of psychotropic drugs eventually devolved and dissipated into the traditional Eastern search for the Nirvana experience, the ‘I am God’ experience. Those who didn’t pursue the Eastern spiritual tradition soon found that the effectiveness of mind-altering drugs in producing peak experiences wore off over repeated usage, leaving many of them dependant on the drugs as a temporary way of getting out of ‘normal’ grim reality.

Personally, I only had a pure consciousness experience the first time I used the drug ecstasy and because subsequent usage failed to produce a similar experience, I soon gave up using it. In speaking to other people, this decline in effect over time seems common, whilst many reported that psychotropic drug use resulted in altered state of consciousness experiences or other psychotic experiences rather than pure consciousness experiences.

The confusion over the differences between a pure consciousness experience and an altered state of consciousness exists because both experiences are of an ‘other-than-normal-world’ – one being a direct sensuous experience of actuality and the actual world, the other being an affective experience of a culturally-sustained imaginary spirit-ual world. An actualist needs to be very attentive as to the nature of any other-than-normal-world experiences so as to be able to ascertain for himself or herself whether the experience is imaginary or actual, affective or sensate, fantastical or down-to-earth, ‘self’-enhancing or pure. (You can find some background information on the website).

Nowadays, we know that the magical potions used by the ancient shamans and Godmen are not magic potions but substances containing chemicals that have an effect on the functioning of the brain – commonly they increase the flow of dopamine within the brain, as I understand it. The human body sometimes produces an excess of dopamine naturally, in times of great shock, in pain or in life threatening or near-death situations, which would also account for the reports of altered states of consciousness experiences and pure consciousness experiences that sometimes occur in these situations.

Whilst I have no moral objections to the use of mind-altering psychotropic drugs, they are generally illegal, their effectiveness diminishes with repeated use, many have possible harmful side effects and they commonly produce an array of psychotic experiences such as dread, bliss, paranoia and assorted delusionary states. Whilst psychotropic drugs can temporarily cause the ‘door’ to actuality to open, allowing a pure consciousness experience to happen, they cannot by themselves make one permanently free from the human condition.

What I have personally experienced, and seen in others, however, is that the persistent use of the actualism method – a sensuous attentiveness to being here – does produce the conditions whereby a drug-free pure consciousness experience can happen. As a working hypothesis, I would tentatively speculate that a sensuous attentiveness can lead to realizations – or ‘radical shifts in perception’ as you have termed them further on in this post – that have a shock effect which causes the brain to flood with dopamine, which in turn can cause a temporary interruption to the entire affective system. It is this affective system that both sustains and gives credence to one’s very ‘self’.

Whatever the neurological explanation, it is clear that a committed actualist can, by the intensity of his or her investigations and purity of his or her intent, produce the circumstances where pure consciousness experiences naturally happen as a result of the process.

But to get back to your point about being able to live the ‘clear, direct experience’ that mind-altering drugs sometimes produce as a permanent on-going down-to-earth experience. My experience is that the process of actualism works in that it progressively removes the impediments that form the gulf between ‘normal’ ‘self’-centred affective experiencing and ‘self’-less pure consciousness experiencing. This allows one to get to a stage of being virtually free of malice and sorrow, living in a state where feeling excellent is normal and where drug-free pure consciousness experiences are common.

Just as an aside, it is interesting that actualism also produces results that far exceed the other traditional aspect of Eastern religion – the practice of meditation. The intense practice of meditation can also produce other-than-normal-world experiences. Because meditation involves the gradual and deliberate shutting down of one’s sensate experiencing of the physical world and the intentional enhancing imaginary-affective experiencing, it most often results in altered state of consciousness experiences, especially those of the consciousness-aggrandizing type. I have also had pure consciousness experiences from meditative practice but it is clear from talking to others that these are rare exceptions and by no means the norm. Again from experience, a virtual freedom from the human condition is so stress-free, enjoyable and peaceful that there is no need to seek relief in quiet periods of ‘getting out of it’ – a practice which does nought but heighten the traditional dichotomy between an ‘inner’ peace and a stress-full ‘outer’ life in the marketplace.

*

Indeed. History is littered with the bodies of those who were foolish enough to question the belief of others. Whereas actualism is utterly safe, because the only beliefs you need to question to become free of the human condition are your own.

It sounds as though you have got the gist of what is on offer in the process of actualism.

Actualism involves much more than a ‘shift in perception’, it involves the deliberate dismantling of one’s social and instinctual identity, a process which will not only bring about a change in your thoughts and feelings but also your actions. Whilst questioning and challenging the beliefs of others is by no means a safe and sensible thing to do, questioning your own beliefs is safe in that the only thing you are doing is diminishing your own miserable and malicious ‘self’. This process is utterly safe because ‘you’ are in control of the extent and pace of the process of your own ‘self’-investigation – only ‘you’ can challenge your own beliefs, no one else can.

You can escape your fate and become the master of your own destiny – the experience of actualism is that no one is standing in the way of you becoming free of the human condition.

*

It is so refreshing to be able to be naive without being gullible – it’s one of the many benefits of lived experience not squandered by giving up in acceptance, or giving in to cynicism.

Because thus far there were only two alternatives, being normal or being spiritual, there was no other choice because you are born with instinctual passions and conditioned to be a social identity. Whilst being an identity can be experienced as wearing a mask, I experience it more as ‘I’ am a fraud – particularly so because I have experienced that purity and perfection is possible.

*

There have been some examples of spiritualists who even manage to absorb some of actualism into their spiritual beliefs and some have even started to teach their own personal hodgepodge version of actualism to others. What they don’t realize is that they stand out like dog’s balls because they come across in the vein of spiritual teachers – seeking power and authority by questioning and probing the beliefs of others while blithely never daring to question their own beliefs. The reason they don’t dare question their own beliefs, as you put it so well, is that ‘Once one questions beliefs to this sort of extent, it’s a one way street’.

I do recommend spending some time dipping into the spiritual teachings that have lead you up the garden path in past years. I found by deliberately doing this, I learnt a good deal about what makes ‘me’ tick and came to understand exactly what is seductive about spiritual teachings. I also learnt how deeply rooted spirit-ridden beliefs are within the human psyche and how they fit hand in glove with both our social identity and our instinctual identity. Dismissing beliefs or swapping beliefs is not the same as investigating and demolishing beliefs.

Exactly as in my building work, it was not enough to know that something failed – I needed to also know why it failed so I wouldn’t repeat the same mistake again.

*

That ‘religion is the greatest obstacle’ is a spiritual-world psittacism often trotted out by spiritualists in order to separate their own spiritual-religious practices from that of the herd.

It takes a good nose to sniff out spiritualism precisely because of its chameleon-like character. As your investigations proceed you may well be surprised at the extent of its almost complete infiltration into every aspect of Western society. I know I was.

I certainly discriminated between spirituality and religion for some 17 years. I gave up both real-world materialism and religion for spiritual communes and Eastern spirituality. For me at the time, there was a world of difference between religion and spirituality, they were chalk and cheese. For 17 years I experienced that there were only two alternatives until I happened upon actualism. What I discovered was that I could not just throw away a lifetime of conditioning overnight but that it took a great deal of meticulous effort and a constant attentiveness to become aware of how insidious this programming was such that I could weed it out.

I would assume as more is written and published debunking the myths of spirituality that it may be easier for future generations to see through the myths and legends of spirituality, but at the moment spirituality is the predominant influence in all human social programming. Human beings have come to accept that their instinctual ‘self’ or ‘being’ is a soul or spirit that has a life independent of the physical body and can even survive the death of the corporeal body. Because of this all-consuming belief the only way out of spirituality is the extinction of the soul – the ending of ‘being’ and the becoming of what you are – a mortal flesh and blood body.

It is one thing to read about other people’s discoveries and other people’s debunking of spiritualism and to agree with them, it is another to deliberately set off on a path that leads to ‘self’-immolation. Because of this, an actualist has to make their own investigations into the insidious nature of spiritual teachings and the influence of spiritualism on their own thinking and feeling so as to incrementally free themselves of all spiritual beliefs, concepts and feelings.

4.5.2002

Actualism involves much more than a ‘shift in perception’, it involves the deliberate dismantling of one’s social and instinctual identity, a process which will not only bring about a change in your thoughts and feelings but also your actions. Whilst questioning and challenging the beliefs of others is by no means a safe and sensible thing to do, questioning your own beliefs is safe in that the only thing you are doing is diminishing your own miserable and malicious ‘self’. This process is utterly safe because ‘you’ are in control of the extent and pace of the process of your own ‘self’-investigation – only ‘you’ can challenge your own beliefs, no one else can.

You can escape your fate and become the master of your own destiny – the experience of actualism is that no one is standing in the way of you becoming free of the human condition.

I have just written to No 39 on this very subject –

Devoting your life to becoming happy and harmless cannot be seen as prudent action as it is common wisdom that life on earth is essentially a suffering business – that one needs to fight to survive and that one learns and grows through suffering. Devoting your life to becoming happy and harmless is by no means an easy business because it goes against all of your social programming and it goes against your own survival instincts, which is why ‘self’-immolation is the only way to become actually free of malice and sorrow. Consequently, if you want to devote your life to becoming happy and harmless, you have to want it like nothing you have wanted before. Peter, List AF, No 39, 4.5.2002

We have recently had a History channel added to our satellite Pay-TV channels. As I have tuned into it over the past few days, I am reminded yet again as to what a tragedy the human condition really is. Apart from some programs that document the amazing history of the advances wrought by human ingenuity and common sense in the face of ancient ignorance and superstition, human history has been a on-going litany of cunning savagery and horrific acts of cruelty and torture, the likes of which is seen in no other animal species.

And if this isn’t enough, this pathos-ridden tragedy is fondly imagined to be a noble struggle between copious cosmic forces of good and evil and it is never acknowledged for what it is – an impassioned instinctual battle for survival that has now well and truly reached its use-by date. Rather than some clear thinking and clear-eyed seeing of the current human situation as-it-is, what is proffered as ‘solutions’ is yet more passion, yet more confrontation, yet more self-pity and more self-love … and yet more re-runs of eons-old beliefs and concepts that have not only failed to bring an end to human malice and sorrow but have only added fuel to the tragic saga.

And if this isn’t enough to fill one with despair, to top it all off, overarching all of this is that daddy of all beliefs – that ‘you can’t change human nature’. This belief not only ensures that human beings will remain forever entrapped within the human condition, but it also serves to perpetuate the fictitious battle between good and evil thus enshrining the ultimate power and moral authority of the goody-two shoes spirit-ual believers. And history shows that they have often wielded this power with ruthless efficiency to quell any who would dare to question their Divine authority.

From this perspective, the human condition can clearly be seen – and on occasions be actually experienced – to be a closed-loop, ‘self’-perpetuating psychic and psychic nightmare.

However, it is never too late to start on the adventure of becoming free of the human condition of malice and sorrow and the way out is both simple and direct – you devote your life to becoming both happy and harmless, because nothing less than a 100% commitment will do in order to break free of the nightmare. Nothing less than a 100% commitment will suffice to propel an actualist to step out of the impassioned illusionary real world and to leave his or her impassioned illusionary ‘self’ behind, where it belongs.

As you said, … ‘it’s a matter of pure resolve/intent’.

16.6.2002

I find it always useful to remember why spiritual belief and superstition have thus far cornered the market in the human search for freedom, peace and happiness. Once someone has had ‘the Truth’ personally revealed to them in an altered state of consciousness – or as appears to have happened in Goodall’s case, misinterpreted a PCE as an altered state of consciousness – they are bound by a combination of gratitude and their own inflated sense of self-worth to spread the word that, while earthly life is a bitch, there is really truly a God who loves you. Peter to Gary, 7.6.2002

Just to keep the record straight, I have only assumed that Jane Goodall had a PCE, an assumption based solely on her description of the experience. Also many people who have an altered state of consciousness have had a very good dose of spiritual conditioning and, as such, are well schooled in the religious ‘God really loves me’ or the spiritual ‘I am God-realized’ experience. The essential point in discussing these matters on this list is three-fold.

The first is to make clear the distinction between the ‘self’-less pure consciousness experience of the actual world and the ‘self’-aggrandizing altered states of consciousness experiences that give an apparent feeling-only credence to the fantasy of spiritual other-worldly beliefs. The second reason is to encourage those who are interested in actualism to forsake the fantasy of spiritual beliefs and to progressively eliminate the time-honoured malice and sorrow implicit within the human condition.

The third, and most significant, is to encourage the practice of a sensuous awareness of the cornucopian delights of this eternal and infinite physical universe we mortal flesh and blood human bodies actually live in. By doing so, an actualist relieves others of the burden of his or her own feelings of malice and sorrow and also actively cultivates the circumstances for pure consciousness experiences to occur.

The first pre-requisite for someone to be interested in actualism is that he or she have a burning discontent with their life as-it-is. The second is an passionate curiosity to discover why both the relentless pursuit of materialism and the senseless pursuit of spiritualism have failed to deliver the goods for nowhere on earth is to be found autonomous magnanimous human beings living together in peace and harmony – and nor has there ever been.

One needs this combination of a personal motive and an altruistic motive in order to be even interested in devoting one’s life to the pioneering revolutionary business of evincing an actual freedom from the human condition.

As actualism is at present in its infancy, first-hand experience of the failure of the materialism and spiritualism to bring peace and happiness would appear essential, but even more important is a willingness to acknowledge this failure and a curiosity to discover why. A child has neither of these attributes.

As the song goes, ‘life’s a bowl of cherries’?

*

Speaking of which, someone asked me the other day what I would do about the war in Palestine. I replied that if I lived in the area, the first thing I would do was stop being a Jew or Muslim because it is obvious that religious fervour fuels much of the hatred on both sides. The second thing I would do was stop being an Israelii or a Palestinian, because nationalistic fervour and territorial instincts fuel much of the hatred on both sides. And finally, I would leave the area, vote with my feet, abandon ship, get out, be a traitor to the cause.

The person who asked seemed to think I was somehow cheating by not offering a solution, not taking sides, not apportioning blame and so on, but he completely missed the point of my answer. He asked me what I would do and what I would do is make the only practical contribution I could – take unilateral action by stop being a believer, stop being a passionate combatant, stop looking for someone to blame and stop seeking retribution in the name of justice and fair play. It is quite extraordinary to see – as well as personally experience – the grip that the combination of ancient beliefs and instinctual passions has over Humanity, so much so that no-where is common sense to be seen. Common sense reveals that the only thing that can be done about peace on earth is personally doing whatever needs to be done to become actually free of malice and sorrow.

Or, it could be said that the only responsible and practical contribution one can make towards bringing an end to the on-going wars between human beings is to rid oneself of every skerrick of malice and sorrow. In other words, if you feel responsible, be responsible and act responsibly. Use whatever passion and motivation you have – don’t stifle it because the process of actualism cannot be a dispassionate business.

Democracy, for all its faults, has thus far proven a better way of organizing societies than the alternatives, be they monarchy, dictatorship, theocracy, communism or whatever. The major faults in democracy, apart from the inherent adversarial nature of party politics, can be sheeted home to the deceit, corruption, malice and sorrow inherent in human nature.

In war, the societal facades of decency, fairness, civil liberty, human rights and so on, rapidly fly out the window. War is never fair and never just. I remember being shocked when I started to take a clear-eyed look at the horrific wars that have been fought between human beings. I came to see that all wars are seen as moral or ethical crusades – as battles between good and evil – and yet, in every case, morals and ethics are the first casualties of war. Or to put it another way, I came to see that the good is a myth. I’ve written about war in the Peace chapter of my journal, which you might like to peruse and the bit about ‘the armies of the Gods’ in the God chapter is also relevant.

As I said, I find the democratic system to be the best so far devised, mainly because the bulk of the administration and organization of a country’s services is in the hands of civil servants. I am amazed at the ingenuity of human beings and their ability to organize and nowhere is this more apparent than in modern democratic societies. They have organized the distribution of water, electricity supply, postal services, telecommunication and information networks, the transport of food, goods and people by road, rail, sea and air, the provision of health services, hospitals, fire fighting and emergency services, rubbish and sewerage disposal, police, law courts and jails and so on – all on a scale and with an efficiency that is breathtaking to contemplate upon.

Contrary to popular universal belief, and passionate conviction – it is not the systems that human beings have developed that are rotten to the core, it is human beings themselves. And contrary to popular universal belief, and passionate conviction – the rottenness that is evident in the human species is not due to an evil force or spirit that requires the ever-vigilance of a good force or spirit to keep evil from running amok. The ‘rottenness’ of human beings is, in fact, an inevitable result of the evolutionary development of the human species – from its roots in a grim, constant and brutally instinctive battle for survival where the passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire were a genetic necessity in order for the species to survive.

Richard’s discovery that these instinctual passions can now be safely deleted means that eventually the archaic, pathetic and utterly senseless battle betwixt good and evil will be confined to the dustbin of history and a genuine outbreak of peace and harmony will be spread like a chain-letter within the species.

Good hey …

28.7.2002

Some comments on your reply to Gary’s query, given that I was mentioned by implication –

I found it cute upon a pit-stop to the Krishnamurti Listening-L list to find a reference to myself having left that list and joined the Actual Freedom list, which according to the poster is ‘the ultimate cult’. According to this poster, supposedly I am too blind to see that I am in a cult with other cult-members, and several names were mentioned (No 13, Richard, Vineeto, No 21, Peter, etc.). Also, supposedly, there is no ‘communication’ or interaction among members of this list, according to said poster. The cult business has been visited time and again on this list, yet I find it behoves me to ask current participants to this list what they think: is Actual Freedom a ‘cult’? How would one know it is a cult or not a cult? Since some on this list have belonged to *actual* cults (Sannyasins, Krishnamurtians, etc), how is one to know that one is not just getting involved in a cult again, since one has been duped before?

To anticipate a possible answer to this question, something was written recently, I think by Richard, about not trusting in another person (thereby inviting betrayal), but evaluating the validity of a claim through reference to one’s experience, thus enabling one to separate fact from fancy, the actual from the imagined or hoped for. I have never felt that this is a cult. But of course those who believe it is a cult would think that I cannot see the forest for the trees because I am in ‘denial’ of this being a cult, and me being a ‘follower’ of Richard.

Since there are other people participating in the list now, I would like to know what others think. Gary to AF List, 25.7.2002

Excellent query as it may lead to some discussion about the recent heated list activity. The common interpretation of the word cult has as a primary characteristic the wielding of power by one or several over a group of others. This power can only exist with the mutual agreement (at some conscious or unconscious level) of both parties to honour the hierarchal arrangement.

This deduction does not account for the fact that there are many, many cults founded upon dead people, in fact the deader the person the stronger the cult in many cases. Such cults, ‘with (its) primary characteristic the wielding of power’ ‘only exist(ing) with the mutual agreement of both parties’, can hardly exist by mutual agreement in these cases since a dead person is incapable of either agreement or disagreement. The power of any cult-leader, be they a living person, a dead person or a purely mythical figure, is entirely dependant on his or her followers believing in, and surrendering to a leader, thereby making him or her into a higher authority or Big Daddy/Big Mommy figure.

The fact that the power of a cult leader comes from the followers, and is entirely reliant on the followers, can also be seen by looking at a few examples from recent times. Mr. Hitler was revered as a Messiah-like figure in Germany by his followers who believed in the message of Nazism, whereas most of the rest of the world regarded him as a pathological megalomaniac. The loving followers of Mohan Rajneesh regarded J. Krishnamurti as a second-rate, too-intellectual, Guru, whereas the followers of J. Krishnamurti were generally scornful and dismissive of Rajneesh and his followers.

There are currently hundreds upon hundreds of self-declared Gurus on the planet, all of whose fame, power, influence and wealth is totally dependant upon the fervour and numbers of their followers. I am not denying that many of these Gurus have the capacity to wield considerable psychic power over their followers but the follower has to be fully compliant and blindly loyal in order for this power to operate. When I was a loyal follower of Mohan Rajneesh his word was God to me, yet when I stopped believing that what he said was the Truth he no longer held any power over me – in other words, I gave him power over me, it was not a matter of mutual agreement.

Nowadays I know that no one can exercise psychic or psychological power over me, which also means that no one is standing in the way of me being free.

If the players in this game do genuinely follow Richard’s edict about ‘not trusting in another person (thereby inviting betrayal), but evaluating the validity of a claim through reference to one’s experience’, then the argument ends there. I detect no indication of the attempt by the AF veterans to establish a controlling influence over the participants.

Given the human propensity to need someone to be an authority, a Big Daddy figure, the argument about actualism being a cult will no doubt continue long after the supposed cult-leader is dead and burnt.

Speaking personally, as one of the ‘AF veterans’, I look forward to the time when the mailing list has sufficient practicing actualists that the discussions can remain lively, interesting, down-to-earth and on-topic and not be dominated or overwhelmed by objectors or flamers. At this stage retirement is a definitive option.

What I do see is:

• One person who has passed through the fires and discovered something of interest. He has benevolently decided to present it to the rest of humanity, who may pick and choose as they like. Perhaps this person has lost any tendency or interest in exerting authority over others... It’s moot if the students are not interested in establishing that sort of relationship.

Speaking personally, I became interested in actualism because I had begun to be suss of the hypocrisy of the spiritual path, yet I had not given up on my search for a genuine freedom. As a consequence of my spiritual indoctrination, in the beginning I naturally regarded Richard as a Guru, an all-wise, all-knowing, omnipotent and omnipresent figure. What I rapidly discovered was that any attempts at fawning or worshipping washed off him like water off a duck’s back and I came to see that these feelings were simply feelings that I projected on to him. Not only that, but I soon discovered that these feelings prevented me from seeing him as a fellow human being – exactly like you and me – who had managed by his own efforts to free himself of the human condition.

I eventually came to understand that my making Richard a Guru – putting him on a pedestal – was a safe way of avoiding the fact that becoming free of the human condition was equally possible for me. So I assume making Richard a Guru is a stage that most who are interested in actualism will experience, many will pass through, and some will remain stuck on.

Actualism, whilst freely available for everyone, will clearly not be everyone’s cup of tea, particularly in this early pioneering stage.

• A small group of others who have determined that the method on offer by this person has meaning to them, and they make a conscious choice to lead their lives in a similar fashion. They emulate his ‘philosophy’ and practice his techniques, likely with varying degrees of success. However, they are leading a simulation of the originator’s way (that’s what the word ‘virtual’ means after all), so it is possible that they have suspended some measure of their common sense in order to ‘be like Richard’. I can’t really ascertain that, but if that were the case, then they are dancing around the edges of cult-ness.

Your supposition depends upon your definition of the term ‘common sense’. The common-to-all sense would have it that human beings need to be aggressive in order to survive in the world and that suffering is not only essential but is good for you. On the other hand, to me it is common sense to do all I can to become both happy and harmless.

Perhaps a better way of putting my desire to emulate Richard is that I have abandoned the usual common-to-all-sense and relied on the uncommon-to-all-sense of devoting my life to becoming both happy and harmless. Thus far this sense is indeed uncommon, for I only know of less than a handful of people who have openly declared themselves to be similarly motivated, and I have the good fortune to live with one of them.

What I do get from this group at times is a tendency to formulate fairly broad responses in quite black and white terms, at times sounding like a party line. Yes, the basic AF tenet is black and white, but I am suspicious of any system that attempts to fit the entire universe into one of two bins. Elemental particles may be black/white, but when you mix a lot of them together, it sure starts to look grey. YMMV.

So, the basic actualism tenet is black and white but ‘this group’ tends to formulate fairly broad responses in quite black and white terms. As part of this group, I have no trouble at all with making things black and white, bringing issues and beliefs out of the shadows into the light, understanding what were formerly grey areas, calling a spade a spade when appropriate. This is the whole point of actualism – to clearly understand the human condition and how it operates in black and white terms in order to be free of it. If you want murkiness and greyness, not-knowingness and uncertainty, obscuration and ambiguity, then there are a multitude of other forums on the Net whose discussions would better meet your criteria.

I remember once pricking up my ears at something Richard said. He said something like ‘Do you really believe that human beings will never find a way to live together in genuine peace and harmony – that there will never be an end to all the wars, rapes, murders, child abuse, domestic violence and corruption that human beings inflict upon each other?’ It sure made me understand how cynical the universal conviction is that there can never be a workable straightforward down-to-earth solution to ending human malice and sorrow.

So, AF is clearly not a cult per se. However, there is a ravenous horde out there who are determined to plug into a cult, and occasionally one of them is going to drift this way and project their needs onto an external group. That is nothing new, and is the source of great misery.

I spent 17 years fully immersed in an Eastern spiritual cult, and I do mean full-on. I renounced the real-world, left my job, gave away my money and possessions and wore the robes and mala of a spiritual devotee. By being fully committed, I learnt a great deal from the experience and I would not be where I am today had I not taken the risk and found out for myself whether spiritualism delivered what it promised. I know of many who were more cautious in that they kept a foot in both worlds – ‘tethering your camel’ was an expression they used. This meant they sat on the fence, neither here nor there, did neither this nor that, were for it or against it as it suited. They learnt nothing by experience as to the inner workings of the spiritual world and what happens when the revered teachings are put into practice, but remained outside the ashram gates, looking in, commentating and speculating on the goings-on within.

Because I got so much life experience and hands-on direct knowledge out of my years on the spiritual path, I knew the only way to make the same assessment of whether actualism worked was to jump in boots and all. I remember when I made the decision, a great feeling of having nothing left to lose because I knew by experience that the other common-to-all approaches to being a human being were less than perfect and produced less than perfect results, to say the least.

Nowadays it is not necessary for seekers to spend years on the spiritual path because so much of the spiritual teachings are available on the Net to be read at leisure without the need to become involved in a group or embroiled in a cult. It is also possible to join any one of many spiritual mailing lists in order to assess the effectiveness – or ineffectiveness – of the teachings in producing harmonious and peaceful communities. There are ample opportunities for a present-day seeker to check out for themselves the followers of almost any spiritual teaching, to assess the quality, range and tone of discussions and by doing so make your own assessment as to whether or not the followers are living the teachings and if they are, what effect it has on their daily lives.

Given the doubts you have raised in this post about actualism being a cult, I can only suggest that you take a clear-eyed look at spiritualism as it works in practice in order that you can move on from doubt to making an assessment one way or the other. The important thing about asking questions and having doubts is to find definitive workable answers and nowadays the Net makes it much easier than having to troop off to the East as was needed in the old days. As I remember it, living in doubt and not-knowing is the pits.

There is such a joy to be had in devoting yourself to something one hundred percent.

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Peter’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust