|
Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 59
To No 58: At the time I wrote these words I was talking of my own experience only, yet in the short time since then there are now a number of people … Peter, can you put a figure to the ‘number’ you speak of? Ah. If you want to play the numbers game, I readily concede that the figure is infinitesimally small compared to the number of people who are, for example Buddhists, given that you appear to revere some of the wisdom that flows from this religion. * To No 58: …[yet in the short time since then there are now a number of people] who have discovered that the method to become free of malice and sorrow is devastatingly simple once one has unearthed the required ingredients necessary for it to be effective … and a few of these people have even dared to report their successes on this mailing list. So the difficulties that people face are with ‘unearthing the required ingredients’ not the method? Indeed. Unearthing the necessary ingredients to get the method up and running appears to be by far the most difficult part and the main impediments that people seem to struggle with are world-weary cynicism or spiritual-world distain or a combination of both. Why is it daring to report success to the mailing list? If you can’t figure this out for yourself, then you haven’t got a clue as to how radical actualism is … whereas your persistent objection to actualism on this mailing list indicates that you do indeed know. * To No 58: And not only that but nowadays there are also a number of people who have reported tangible successes in becoming free of malice and sorrow in a remarkably short period of time … and a few of these people have even dared to report their successes on this mailing list. That you persist in maintaining a head-in-the-sand attitude to these reports only serves to illustrate your No 58-knows-best (because U.G. Krishnamurti says nothing-can-be-done) stance on this mailing list. No 58: Marketing and advertising terms. To No 58: What a terrible thing to speak openly and enthusiastically about the discovery of a do-it-yourself method to eliminate malice and sorrow, eh? What an effrontery that I should have used such strong words at the time given that they were based on only a handful of successes at the time? How dare I be so naive as to go on to propose that the spreading of actualism will one day mean that war, rape, murder, torture, child abuse, domestic violence, corruption, despotism and so on will be remembered as things of the past? How do you envisage that Actualism will spread? I don’t need to ‘envisage’ anything – it will spread the way that it is already spreading. What critical mass of actually or virtually free people will it take before we see an end to war, rape, murder, torture, child abuse, domestic, violence, corruption, and despotism? Is your reference to a ‘critical mass’ by chance related to that urban
myth about the Hundred Monkey How long do you estimate that this process will take? Contrary to your assumption, the actualism is spreading by means, and not by a ‘process’, the means being –
Having corrected your misconceptions, I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to how long it will be ‘before we see an end to war, rape, murder, torture, child abuse, domestic, violence, corruption, and despotism?’ What I do know is what I wrote in the ‘Introducing Actual Freedom’ –
It was obvious to me when I first met Richard that what he was talking of was revolutionary (revolutionary as in ‘instigating radical change’, not revolutionary as in ‘having a chip on one’s shoulder about certain aspects of the Human Condition’) and for reasons I have written extensively about, I found I could not but accept the challenge of being a pioneer in the business. My reasoning was that is up to those who are fortunate enough to be currently enjoying the benefits of millennia of human endeavour – unprecedented safety, comfort, leisure and pleasure – to lead the way. And this obviously meant me. Will it be remarkably short? Given that the current surviving hominoid species (homo sapiens sapiens) has been around for an estimated 400,000 years according to fossils records, I fully expect that the spread of actualism (as an alternative to spiritualism and materialism) will happen in a remarkable short time in comparison. I do realize that such speculation can only be speculation for you and I will never know, because we will both be long dead, but I do like it that I will die content that I was a pioneer in the business of becoming free of malice and sorrow. As a postscript, I found it curious that as I wrote this post today, I saw a 56-year old Iraqi man very happy that he was able to vote for the first time in his life. It reminded me of the astounding changes that have come about in many of the countries I visited whilst in my twenties. Serge, whom I met in Communist Russia, is nowadays free to travel and free to vote. The veiled women I saw in the Middle East are now beginning to give voice to the fact that they are not chattels but human beings and the bondages of tribalism and theocracy are rapidly being loosened throughout the region. The little Afghani boy I met in Herat may have voted with his feet and may be living in a fully democratic country now or may well have stayed and well be participating in the nascent democracy that is emerging in Afghanistan. The little African boy I saw peeking through the fence of the Whites-only amusement park in Durban is now free to go anywhere in the country he was born in as well as being free to travel abroad. Even the overpopulation and poverty that so appalled me in India is beginning to be reigned in, so much so that India is no longer regarded as a basket case country. I am not philosophizing about changes for the better or of freedoms gained – these are practical down-to-earth changes for the better and pragmatic freedoms gained. The remarkably short period of time in which these changes have occurred (30 years) reminded me yet again that what I wrote in ‘Introducing Actual Freedom’ is even more appropriate today than it was when I wrote it some 6 years ago.
Vineeto to No 60: Given that the whole reason why we
are discussing your interest, or non-interest, in actualism is the fact that you said you have not been intimidated by
naysayers and objectionists – can you now see that the reason why they have not bothered to deter you from committing
to actualism may well be because you have not begun to commit yourself to being an actualist? Good god, Vineeto, you are clutching at straws. Can you ever admit a mistake? Have you ever admitted a mistake on this list? Please provide examples. Get over your martyrhood, Vineeto. It’s not actualism that’s attracting ‘intimidation’ by naysayers and objectionists. No one intimidates anyone on this list unless it is with the full co-operation from the ‘victim’. The ‘victim’ is completely free to filter this list. It’s really that simple! Just say no! If the ‘victim’ does not have the resources to deal with ‘intimidation’ on this list then they really should stop participating in their own suffering. If anything, shouldn’t ‘deterence’ just build strength on this wide and wondrous path? You are not a good advertisement for actualism. In fact, you’re an anti-advertisement. This is perhaps the most perverse argument that anyone has yet come up with to justify the intimidatory ad hominem attacks that sometimes appear on this mailing list. I see you have taken another correspondent’s comment –
and run with it, to the point of bringing in the hoary old spiritual/psychological adage of describing someone as being a ‘victim’. Describing someone as being a victim or of having a victim mentality – as in ‘they asked for it’ or ‘they shouldn’t complain because it happens to everyone’ or ‘they are just weak’ or ‘they should shut up if they can’t stand the heat’ or ‘they haven’t got the stomach for a good fight’ and so on – is a widely used argument within the dog-eat-dog world that is often employed by victimizers to justify their victimization. If I can just cut to the quick here as I have sat back and watched as correspondents on this mailing list have freely discussed a comment I originally made to another correspondent –
Whilst I do appreciate that this comment may on the face of it appear to be extreme, my response is straightforward. If anyone is sincerely interested in actualism – by which I mean bringing an end to their own malice and their own sorrow – it stands to reason that the first step to practically demonstrating their sincerity would be to cease indulging in intimidatory ad hominem attacks on their fellow human beings. It’s called putting one’s money where one’s mouth is. This way one simply cuts through the whole issue of morals, ethics, ‘victims’, ‘intimidators’, policemen, loutishness and so on and comes to the crux of the matter. And then, if you want to, you can sit down and join in a sensible discussion about the pressing issue at hand on this mailing list – actualizing peace on earth, in this life time. The balls in your court, after all it’s your ball and it’s your court. * A practical example of putting one’s money where one’s mouth is … from my journal –
Vineeto to No 60: Given that the whole reason why we
are discussing your interest, or non-interest, in actualism is the fact that you said you have not been intimidated by
naysayers and objectionists – can you now see that the reason why they have not bothered to deter you from committing
to actualism may well be because you have not begun to commit yourself to being an actualist? Good god, Vineeto, you are clutching at straws. Can you ever admit a mistake? Have you ever admitted a mistake on this list? Please provide examples. Get over your martyrhood, Vineeto. It’s not actualism that’s attracting ‘intimidation’ by naysayers and objectionists. No one intimidates anyone on this list unless it is with the full co-operation from the ‘victim’. The ‘victim’ is completely free to filter this list. It’s really that simple! Just say no! If the ‘victim’ does not have the resources to deal with ‘intimidation’ on this list then they really should stop participating in their own suffering. If anything, shouldn’t ‘deterence’ just build strength on this wide and wondrous path? You are not a good advertisement for actualism. In fact, you’re an anti-advertisement. This is perhaps the most perverse argument that anyone has yet come up with to justify the intimidatory ad hominem attacks that sometimes appear on this mailing list. I see you have taken another correspondent’s comment –
and run with it, to the point of bringing in the hoary old spiritual/psychological adage of describing someone as being a ‘victim’. No, Peter, it’s not spiritualists under the bed again. No, not under the bed … but blatantly out in the open, posting unsolicited longwinded Zen teachings to this mailing list. It’s just bloody common sense. Just because it is somewhat common for a victimizer to justify their victimization by labelling someone as being a victim, or of having a victim mentality, this does not make it ‘common sense’, as in sensible. And you have obviously misunderstood No 60. My point in referring to No 60’s post is that it alluded to a de-facto justification for the style and content of some of the correspondents on this mailing list. He has since written saying that this was not his intention and as far as I am concerned that is the end of the matter. The relevant point is that I have clearly understood the nature of your comment about ‘victims’ as you have made it quite clear –
As I said, you have taken something No 60 said and run with it … and this time around I will point out that you did so to the extent of introducing another hoary adage … that deterrence builds strength. * Describing someone as being a victim or of having a victim mentality – as in ‘they asked for it’ or ‘they shouldn’t complain because it happens to everyone’ or ‘they are just weak’ or ‘they should shut up if they can’t stand the heat’ or ‘they haven’t got the stomach for a good fight’ and so on – is a widely used argument within the dog-eat-dog world that is often used by victimizers to justify their victimization. It’s an email list, Peter, not a workplace, bar or public street. Indeed. And unless it has escaped your attention your are currently writing to a mailing list that has been specifically set up ‘to facilitate a sharing of experience and understanding and to assist in elucidating just what is entailed in becoming free of the human condition. This is a public forum for discussion about an end to malice and sorrow forever and an actual freedom for all peoples.’ Given the purpose of this mailing list, I do understand that this mailing list will inevitably attract a disproportionate number of detractors and objectionists. Whilst it is quite ‘natural’, given the human condition, that some correspondents on this list will focus on intimidating those who are willing to discuss the issue of actualizing peace on earth in this lifetime, I do find it a perversity to justify such intimidatory tactics on the basis that they are positively contributing to such discussions. There’s a huge difference and your shrill denunciation would be justified if we were talking about threatening behaviour from bar room bouncers, but we’re not. No. Apparently what we are talking about is Your e-mail software has a blacklist filter that no bully can break through. Once the conversation gets ugly it’s easy to step away. No intimidator can block your run for the door or snatch the phone from your hand as you try to call the cops. There is no physical presence to be intimidated by. Peter, what effect do you think your self-righteous little homilies are going to have on this list? Do you think they will control the behaviour on the list? Dream on. And yet the point of my ‘self-righteous little homilies’, as you call them, is not to control the behaviour on this list but rather to point out the nature and techniques of intimidation that some detractors and objectionists choose to indulge in on this mailing list. It’s called shedding a little light on the matter. The worthwhile question to ask at this point is: if one-sided intimidation on this list is truly possible then what are the stakes? The ‘stakes’, as you call them, are that the human condition is played out in all of its aspects, completely unmoderated and uncensored for all correspondents to see and experience … unlike in ‘a workplace, bar or public street’ where fiscal interests, personal safety, morals, ethics – and ultimately the police – tend to generally keep a lid on such behaviour. Who or what gets hurt? This is such a silly question, it doesn’t even warrant an answer. If you’re feeling something then it’s a fucking opportunity and you should thank the intimidator! I’ll pass on thanking you personally for your staunch defence of the human condition. I long ago realized that it sucked. That’s what this whole project is about, right? Getting to know what makes you tick? Aye, but there is a vast, vast difference between undertaking a personal hands-on unfettered exploration as to what makes ‘me’ tick … and making a mindless knee-jerk justification of how and why ‘I’ tick to others on the basis of some hackneyed spiritual world wisdom and/or real-world cynicism. If you’re quaking because someone gets under your skin then run with it, you’re onto something valuable. What value is there to a list such as this where everyone is calm, centred, polite and nice? The value of everyone being ‘calm, centred, polite and nice’, as you put it, is that – just as in any discussion – the chances of being able to clearly see the facts of the matter under discussion are dramatically increased. But then again, surely this is obvious, non? * If I can just cut to the quick here as I have sat back and watched as correspondents on this mailing list have freely discussed a comment I originally made to another correspondent –
Has anyone stopped you in the street and punched you in the face for being an Actualist, Peter? No But I’ll fill you in on a bit of background as to why I have recently been moved to make comment on the tactics and motives of some of the correspondents on this mailing list. Last year I was having a discussion with a correspondent on this mailing list about the persistent belief that the universe had a beginning event and the discussion became more and more heated to the point that the correspondent reported that he would like to ‘break my front teeth and make me choke on the shards’. He then reported that he had showed the correspondence to someone else who then said that ‘the only way to get through to this guy would be to drill a hole in his forehead, insert a stick of dynamite, light the fuse and stand back’. I remember wondering at the time at the vehemence of such a reaction and as a consequence I decided I would limit my correspondence to conversing with those who were demonstrably interested in being happy and harmless such that we could have at least a civil, harmonious discussion about what are sensitive and controversial matters … after all, it is obviously pointless trying to have a sensible conversation with someone who is busy being angry. In the ensuing months, I began to notice a number of correspondents using this mailing list as a platform to strut their nihilist philosophies and anarchist attitudes to the point of attempting to intimidate any correspondent who wanted to discuss bringing an end to malice and sorrow. Given that I have long experience of being the focus of such ploys and tactics, not to mention having considerable awareness of the full scope of the human condition, I decided to write to a few of these objectionists in order to make their motives, tactics and ploys clear such that people could make up their own minds as to the value of their contributions. One of the benefits of this list being unmoderated is that not only are the defenders of the status quo free to strut their stuff but that actualists are equally free to comment on the ‘games’ some of the defenders choose to indulge in on this list. I very much doubt that because it’s my guess that you keep your Actualist talk pretty much confined to this list. In my early days of being an actualist, I remember discussing the issue of stress with a friend one evening over dinner. In short, I said I had discovered that stress was entirely self-inflicted and that this discovery was the beginning of the end of me feeling stressed. The next morning the woman concerned turned up on my doorstep saying she did not appreciate me talking the way I did and that she took what I was saying as a personal affront. The lesson being that I am nowadays somewhat circumspect as to what topics I talk about with others, outside of the discussions on this mailing list that is. You’re not fighting in the Resistance, Peter. Of course, you would be well aware that from where I sit, it is the anarchists who are spoiling for a fight … and no better place than an unmoderated mailing list, hey?
To No 21: The other experiential evidence I had of the fact that actualism is diametrically opposite to spiritualism is that not only were there psychic warning signs about doing something so radical as devoting my life to becoming happy and harmless but that there were also actual and psychic (as in emotionally-transmitted) warnings from those who had a vested interest in spiritualism telling me not to go down this path under any circumstances. (...) You have quite the penchant for self created drama & imaginative rationalization. Right on cue – direct, first-hand evidence of what I was saying. By far the bulk of the correspondence on the website is from correspondents who are essentially raising objections to the very idea that one should devote one’s life to becoming happy and harmless. Many of these objectors are avid defenders of the status quo of whatever particular spiritual teaching they hold to be the Truth, many raise intellectual objections whilst others resort to personal putdowns, some make brief appearances whilst yet others linger and lurk so as to provide sporadic support to other objectionists from the safety of the grandstand. But, by and large, what they are doing by choosing to take the time and make the effort to write is attempting to warn off others from devoting their lives to becoming happy and harmless by very often by psychic (emotionally-charged) warnings and/or deprecations. Some further examples from your post amply illustrate my point –
… QED. I am sure that you don’t need me to tell you what you are doing on this mailing list – you would be well aware of what you are doing on this mailing list and why you are doing it – but I wonder whether or not you have noticed that whenever you interject to give a newcomer a hearty pat on their back for raising objections to being happy and harmless, more often than not they soon after disappear stage left. Curious that, hey?
Footnote: 1.) … about anarchy in action –
Peter’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust |
