Selected Correspondence Peter

The postulation of a creator as separate from its creation gets us into unsurmountable epistemological problems, while the postulation of blind (‘random’) evolutionary ‘forces’ is even not worth a thought.

A few years ago I happened to be browsing through the Amazon library and came across a book written by someone who did give some thought to the ‘blind (random) evolutionary forces’ that you so haughtily dismiss as ‘even not worth a thought’.

The author was a primatologist who had not only spent a good deal of time studying the behaviour of our closest genetic cousins, the chimpanzees, but had been shocked by the similarities between their instinctual behaviour and the instinctual behaviour of humans – he was evidently one of the few primatologists able to take a clear-eyed look at the full range of instinctual behaviour as opposed to those who earn kudos by focussing on nurture whilst seemingly turning a blind eye to fear and aggression.

What particularly struck me at the time was that the book was not an intellectual thesis in that it offered many down to earth examples of these same instinctual passions in operation in human animals, the main passion being the human passion for violence. Whilst the solutions offered in the book fell into the more-of-the-same-category – an appeal to morality and ethicality based on the Christian religion – I appreciated both his enquiry and his sincerity in that he had some made clear-eyed observation about, then thought a good deal about, and then dared to publicly write about, the fact that humans are instinctually driven beings.

Perhaps upon reflection you might consider that the fact that you regard such matters as ‘even not worth a thought’ may well be the very reason why you are at loggerheads with the content of what is written on the AF website.

First of all, it is not a fact that I regard such matters as ‘even no worth a thought’. What you talk about is something completely different from what I don’t consider as ‘even not worth a thought’. I consider ‘even not worth a thought’ the idea that some ‘blind’ (in the sense of ‘random’ or ‘mechanical’) forces are the cause for life in general and human life in particular.

I do realize that you have done some thinking about the nature of these forces yet what you have concluded along with countless others who have come to the same conclusion, is that these ‘forces’ must in some way be other-than-physical forces – the notion of noumenon and phenomena.

Here is the statement I commented on in context and where you define this non-physical noumenon in spiritual terms, whilst disingenuously blurring the distinction between spirit and matter, whereas elsewhere you have attempted to explain it in pseudo-scientific terms –

‘If we rephrased Richard’s statement ‘matter is not merely passive’ into ‘matter (that which is passive) is not different from spirit (that which is active)’, then we become able to acknowledge that matter is able to self-organise, that it is inately intelligent, that it is creative. We are used to think of matter as passive, hence, we have to postulate either a creator or blind evolution. The postulation of a creator as separate from its creation gets us into unsurmountable epistemological problems, while the postulation of blind (‘random’) evolutionary ‘forces’ is even not worth a thought. From where would these ‘forces’ come to act upon matter if not out of matter itself? So, in fact, matter creates the creation out of itself. In the Christian mythos Maria (matter) creates Christ (nature) out of herself. The logical conclusion: The Holy Spirit which impregnates Maria must be two aspects of the same, that is, Maria and the Holy Spirit are the two aspects of the Father, which together create the Son, that is, Nature.’ [emphasis added] Re: To No 71, Sat 10.9.2005

What I was pointing to was the fact that some people are beginning to do some down-to-earth thinking about the nature of these ‘evolutionary ‘forces’’ as opposed to the traditional notion that they must have an underlying non-physical (spiritual or metaphysical) nature, as you succinctly stated in another of your posts –

‘Hopefully people would eventually understand that their true nature is some factor X, noumenon, something that cannot be known phenomenally’. Re: Human Comedy – Goodbye, List! Sat 10.9.2005

Obviously, instinctual behaviour is not ‘blind’ (in the sense of ‘random’ or ‘mechanical’) but fulfils ‘purpose’. As soon as there is a purpose guiding behaviour it is not ‘random’ anymore.

If this is so obvious to you, may I ask what ‘purpose guiding behaviour’ do you see in the phenomena of the instinctual passions (to use your terminology)? And further, is this purpose not also the purpose of the ‘factor X, noumenon’, (given that your latest thinking apparently proposes that noumenon and phenomena are one and the same as in inseparable)?

You might condone the fact that apes rape but if you think about their behaviour without sentimental attachment you will have to notice that it is, indeed, the best they can do to assure their long-term survival. In this sense, and this sense only, their behaviour is ‘intelligent’.

Firstly, nowhere have I ever mentioned, let alone implied, that I condone the fact that apes rape – what I have said is that I found it very interesting indeed that our closest genetic cousins exhibit remarkably similar instinctual behaviour and emotions as is evident in the human animal.

It is also clear that apes lack the intelligence to be able to do something about their passions and their behaviour whereas we, as intelligent humans, should be able to do far better than what we have been trying to do for thousands upon thousands of years – that which obviously ain’t working.

That humans are instinctually driven beings I can verify myself every day by watching the news for 5 minutes.

I didn’t need to watch the news in order to know that I was an instinctually driven being – a little self-awareness revealed this to be so.

The particular problem of the human beings is that they are not apes anymore but have the ability to reflect about their behaviour.

Indeed. Don’t you find it curious that human beings spend so much of their time and energy reflecting upon the behaviour (and feelings and passions) of others and yet spend so little time reflecting about their own behaviour, their own feelings and their own passions?

Human beings have the ability to reflect and take appropriate action based on their reflections and not be guided by passionate instincts. While an ape cannot self-regulate its behaviour, a human being can. We would never talk about animals, only about humans beings, being ‘responsible’ for a rape or having committed a crime.

I don’t know where you live but self-regulation doesn’t work around here – the town where I live has armed police, a courthouse and a host of lawyers fully occupied in dealing with the on-going failures of self-regulation.

Be that as it may, I personally found self-regulation necessitated the constant presence of an ‘I’, a socially conditioned guardian, a constant moderator, an inner policemen, a voice of conscience in my head continuously judging myself as to whether my feelings and my behaviour was justified or unjustified, right or wrong, fair or unfair, good or bad and so on.

In short I found that the constant stress of the need for continual self-regulation, or should I say self-flagellation, is a bummer, hence my search for freedom from this conditioned ‘self’-imposed neurosis.

Besides, the existence or non-existence of passionate instincts and their effects on animal and human behaviour is completely irrelevant for the postulation of a noumenon.

I for one was not musing about the existence or non-existence of the passionate instincts, I was simply pointing out the fact that some primatologists are starting to dare to publicize the readily observable fact that human malice and sorrow are the direct result of the animal instinctual passions, a fact that makes any and all postulations of noumenon/phenomena completely irrelevant.

So, in fact, I have no problem at all with the facts that are written on the AF website. I have only a problem with your conclusions what these facts mean regards the ‘ultimate questions’.

I do realize that some people spend a good deal of time wondering about such questions as ‘why are we here’, ‘where did we come from’ and ‘where are we going’ … but I have always been far more concerned with the down-to-earth questions such as why can’t we, as intelligent human beings, live together in peace and harmony, or more to the point, why can’t I live with people in peace and harmony. The parallel question was how could I not only become free of the feelings of bondage that the continuous need for ‘I’ as conscience inevitably results in but also the very instinctual passions that necessitate having a conscience in the first place.

If these prosaic questions are of interest to you, then you might possibly find that the conclusions I came to, together with the practical steps I have already taken towards actualizing the answers – reported both in my journal and on the Actualism part of the AF website – to be of use to you in your own search for freedom.

Obviously, instinctual behaviour is not ‘blind’ (in the sense of ‘random’ or ‘mechanical’) but fulfils ‘purpose’. As soon as there is a purpose guiding behaviour it is not ‘random’ anymore.

If this is so obvious to you, may I ask what ‘purpose guiding behaviour’ do you see in the phenomena of the instinctual passions (to use your terminology)?

Survival. A defence mechanism against the threat of extinction. I am well aware that the instinctual passions are ‘blind’ in the sense that their logic is not the result of a conscious thinking effort to what may be the best course of action in a given situation. In this sense their logic can cause conflicts with ‘your’ logic, that is, with your conscious thinking effort to what may be the best course of action in a given situation. If your instinctual passions hinder you in certain situations a ‘retraining’ is necessary. For example, a goal keeper has to train himself to jump before the approaching ball ALTHOUGH the approaching ball threatens his well being, which – instinctively – makes him want to avoid the approaching ball.

Whilst retraining is useful in enhancing or negating instinctive reactions as can be seen by apparent success of cognitive therapy, what we are talking of here is the instinctual passions most particularly those of fear, aggression nurture and desire. Whilst instinctual reactions are often necessary for survival – stepping out of the way of an oncoming car even before thinking kicks in for example – self-awareness reveals the instinctual passions to be senseless in that they are concerned with ‘my’ survival and not this body’s survival – hence they are not only ‘blind’, they are both senseless and debilitating.

*

And further, is this purpose not also the purpose of the ‘factor X, noumenon’, (given that your latest thinking apparently proposes that noumenon and phenomena are one and the same as in inseparable)?

We cannot ascribe ‘purpose’ to the unknown factor X (noumenon), as long as it is unobservable; as soon as noumenon becomes observable it is not noumenon anymore but phenomenon; we can discover purpose, intelligence, meaning all over the place in the phenomenal world (‘nature’).

It sounds to me as a layman that this ‘factor X’ is totally useless as it has no purpose at all and not only that, when it does become observable it ceases to exist!

I can only conclude that your treasured ‘factor X’ (which presumably has something to do with your answer to your ‘ultimate questions’) has by its very metaphysical, non-purposeful, nature blindsided itself from being able to do anything at all about bringing an end to the phenomena of human malice and human sorrow.

*

You might condone the fact that apes rape but if you think about their behaviour without sentimental attachment you will have to notice that it is, indeed, the best they can do to assure their long-term survival. In this sense, and this sense only, their behaviour is ‘intelligent’.

Firstly, nowhere have I ever mentioned, let alone implied, that I condone the fact that apes rape – what I have said is that I found it very interesting indeed that our closest genetic cousins exhibit remarkably similar instinctual behaviour and emotions as is evident in the human animal.

Ok. It is indeed interesting. And now?

What you now do with your interest is up to you of course. I was simply reporting that I found something very interesting indeed in the phenomenal world – down-to-earth evidence as to the fact that, despite the eons-old beliefs of the spiritualists to the contrary, or mendacious denials that it is so, human malice and sorrow has its roots solely in the animal instinctual passions.

*

That humans are instinctually driven beings I can verify myself every day by watching the news for 5 minutes.

I didn’t need to watch the news in order to know that I was an instinctually driven being – a little self – awareness revealed this to be so.

Self – awareness only teaches you that you are an instinctually driven being but not that ‘humans’ are instinctually driven beings.

When I got off my spiritual high-horse and stopped feeling superior to other human beings, I became aware that I too suffered from the same general malaise, and the same inclination to indulge in escapist fantasies, as did all other feeling beings – the difference only being a matter of degree and not one of substance.

If you want to verify that ‘humans’ (and not only you) are instinctually driven beings you might want to watch the news for 5 minutes every day. Or do you seriously think self – awareness is sufficient to make generalisations about ‘humans’?

When I became an actualist I went out and purchased a TV along with a satellite service so as to be able to study the human condition in action irregardless of nationality, race, religion, gender, culture and so on. When studying the human condition it is important to not be so myopic as to miss the fact that ‘I’ am humanity and humanity is ‘me’.

*

The particular problem of the human beings is that they are not apes anymore but have the ability to reflect about their behaviour.

Indeed. Don’t you find it curious that human beings spend so much of their time and energy reflecting upon the behaviour (and feelings and passions) of others and yet spend so little time reflecting about their own behaviour, their own feelings and their own passions?

‘Self – awareness’ is a conscious effort, and takes a lot of energy which not many people are able or willing to raise. And, yes, I find it curious.

Yep. As I discovered, ‘I’ have an innate resistance to being put under the microscope as it were – in fact ‘I’ will concoct all sorts of diversions and make up all sorts of excuses rather than roll my sleeves up and knuckle down to doing what obviously needs to be done if ever I am to become free of the human condition.

One needs no further proof than to become aware of one’s own feelings to experientially understand the tenacious hold that the instinctual survival passions have over we human flesh-and-blood bodies.

*

Human beings have the ability to reflect and take appropriate action based on their reflections and not be guided by passionate instincts. While an ape cannot self – regulate its behaviour, a human being can. We would never talk about animals, only about humans beings, being ‘responsible’ for a rape or having committed a crime.

I don’t know where you live but self-regulation doesn’t work around here – the town where I live has armed police, a courthouse and a host of lawyers fully occupied in dealing with the on-going failures of self-regulation.

Self-regulation is not easy, it must be trained. When you were a child and craved for ice-cream and coke you got punished with belly – ache until you were able to self-regulate your behavior and to resist the temptation to indiscriminately put sweets into your mouth. What you call the ongoing failure of self-regulation is the fact that newborns have not learned yet to self-regulate while the one’s that have developed the ability to self-regulate (which takes time and effort) are usually old people who soon die. One’s ability to self-regulate is not transferable. What you learned must be relearned by any other human being to achieve the same kind of mastery in self-regulation. I am currently living in Switzerland and curiously nobody here throws litter out of train windows ALTHOUGH it is not explicitly forbidden and threatened with expensive sanctions like in the USA where it says on the train windows littering is prohibited and punished with a fine of 1000 USD. It obviously shows that the majority of the Swiss people has learned something which the majority of the US population has not.

I was referring to the failure of self-regulation in what are referred to as law-abiding societies in that they still need armed police, courthouses, lawyers and prisons in order to maintain law and order … not preventing littering.

*

Be that as it may, I personally found self-regulation necessitated the constant presence of an ‘I’, a socially conditioned guardian, a constant moderator, an inner policemen, a voice of conscience in my head continuously judging myself as to whether my feelings and my behaviour was justified or unjustified, right or wrong, fair or unfair, good or bad and so on.

Why that? You can train your behaviour until no conscious effort is necessary. No conscious ‘I’ or police officer has to be present in order to greet your neighbours and not throw stones on them.

Are you speaking personally of your own experience? Are you saying in effect that your feelings are always effortlessly felicitous, that you are effortlessly carefree, that you are effortlessly magnanimous towards your fellow human beings, that you effortlessly delight in being here on this planet, and so on? If so, it certainly wasn’t the case with me when I came across actualism – in fact I was fed up with the whole wearying business of being an ‘I’ who needed to be in control.

But then again there are a lot of people who obviously don’t feel this way and there are many people who spend their lives busily strengthening their egos and feeding their souls in order that they don’t ever have to allow themselves to feel, let alone acknowledge, how stressful the whole business of being ‘me’ really is at core.

*

In short I found that the constant stress of the need for continual self-regulation, or should I say self-flagellation, is a bummer, hence my search for freedom from this conditioned ‘self’-imposed neurosis.

It is only stress if you got addicted or continuously expose yourself to new and uncertain situations where you have no means to assess their potential danger to your well-being.

For whatever reason I never adopted the play-it-safe attitude because I increasingly found that joie de vivre comes from the fact that every moment is new and every situation is uncertain and the only thing that stands in the way of this as an ongoing experience is ‘I’ as ego and, more significantly, ‘me’ as soul.

What the actualism process is specifically designed to do is dis-empower the entity who thinks and feels ‘he’ or ‘she’ is in control to the point where ‘he’ or ‘she’ voluntarily lets go of the controls – so as to allow a sensual joie de vivre to happen, all of its own accord.

*

Besides, the existence or non-existence of passionate instincts and their effects on animal and human behavior is completely irrelevant for the postulation of a noumenon.

I for one was not musing about the existence or non-existence of the passionate instincts, I was simply pointing out the fact that some primatologists are starting to dare to publicize the readily observable fact that human malice and sorrow are the direct result of the animal instinctual passions,

Yes, I see that as well.

… a fact that makes any and all postulations of noumenon/phenomena completely irrelevant.

I don’t see why that would be the case.

Perhaps I can put it this way – when one takes on board the fact that human malice and sorrow are the direct result of the animal instinctual passions – and only the animal instinctual passions – then any musings or postulations about a ‘noumenon’ incarnating the instinctual passions, about an underlying metaphysical reality, a greater reality, a lesser reality, an intelligent design or an intelligent designer and so on become not only irrelevant but are clearly seen as puerility writ large.

*

So, in fact, I have no problem at all with the facts that are written on the AF website. I have only a problem with your conclusions what these facts mean regards the ‘ultimate questions’.

I do realize that some people spend a good deal of time wondering about such questions as ‘why are we here’, ‘where did we come from’ and ‘where are we going’ … but I have always been far more concerned with the down-to-earth questions such as why can’t we, as intelligent human beings, live together in peace and harmony, or more to the point, why can’t I live with people in peace and harmony.?

Yes, yes, I ask that myself.

Are you saying ‘yes, yes’ to the first set of questions or the latter two questions? The reason I ask is that in the hundreds of posts you have sent to this mailing list I can’t recall you expressing any interest in the latter questions – ‘why can’t we, as intelligent human beings, live together in peace and harmony, or more to the point, why can’t I live with people in peace and harmony?

*

The parallel question was how could I not only become free of the feelings of bondage that the continuous need for ‘I’ as conscience inevitably results in but also the very instinctual passions that necessitate having a conscience in the first place.

Although I don’t see yet how it can be possible to get rid of them in their entirety I see it as desirable to reduce their effects on my behaviour.

My experience is that behaviour is something that is relatively easy to control – it’s what goes on under the surface so to speak (or unconsciously, as some people are wont to say) where the real source of human malice and sorrow and the subsequent angst and denial really takes place.

*

If these prosaic questions are of interest to you, then you might possibly find that the conclusions I came to, together with the practical steps I have already taken towards actualizing the answers – reported both in my journal and on the Actualism part of the AF website – to be of use to you in your own search for freedom.

Yes, thanks.

It’s a pleasure. The other writing that may also help you is the ‘Introduction to Actual Freedom’ as I attempted to lay out what actualism is about in as straightforward a manner as possible.

I do understand that this is tough stuff to come to grips with solely because it is so new and is so radically opposite to what humans believe to be the truth about the existence of we intelligent animals on this particular planet. And yet it is not impossible to grasp because, despite these difficulties, there are people on this mailing list who appear to have done so and who report having success in becoming more happy in doing whatever they do in their daily life and in becoming less antagonistic towards their fellow human beings – all based on a preliminary understanding gleaned solely from the written words of actualists and given credence by their own hands-on experiences and successes.

Actualism Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Peter’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust