Selected Correspondence Peter

People

No 80:  I was recently reading Time and they had an article about meditation and the mind and such. One part of the article talked about how scientist monitored the brain activity of Buddhist monks while they meditated and they found that these people had high activity in the part of the brain where happiness is experienced like nothing they had seen before. The subject title is all in fun, but I wonder if an actualist can produce similar results. Just something I was thinking about.

I recently watched a television show along the same lines as the article you are referring to and what struck me was the inanity of people seeking an ethereal happiness by deliberately cutting themselves off from the world, a pursuit which stands in stark contrast to the utterly down-to-earth aim of an actualist – to become actually free from the human condition of malice and sorrow in the world as-it-is, with people as-they-are. A dissociated happiness is, after all, dissociative.

I remember having a discussion with a spiritualist about this very topic soon after I abandoned spiritualism to become an actualist. He believed that the fact that everyone has a self-centred affective perception of the world meant that the physical world was a self-created illusion. We happened to be standing in front of his car at the time and I reached out and touched the glass of the headlight and asked whether or not the headlight existed in fact given that we could both see it and both touch it. He said that while we could both see it, we saw it from different perspectives, he from one angle, me from another, therefore we perceived it differently. I then realized that pursuing the matter was a waste of both his time and mine because here was a man who refused to talk sense and was determined to live, and remain living, in a world entirely of his own making.

This incident, coming as it did in my early years of investigating the human condition, highlighted the fact that in my spiritual years I had also retreated from the world as-it-is – the world of interactions with fellow flesh and blood human, of tangible palpable things and actually occurring events – into an utterly self-centred world – a world of affective interactions like-feeling souls, of ethereal non-substantial things and supposedly illusionary non-consequential events. It was then that I realized that I had in fact wasted a good many years of my life trying to be anywhere but here and anywhen but now.

But then again, it was hardly a waste of time because I know by experience the seduction of dissociation and lure of dissociative states..

One of the things that never sat well with me in my spiritual years was the sense of superiority that believing in a spiritual teaching or belonging to a spiritual group inevitable engenders. Of course when you are busy being a fervent believer or a loyal group member it is difficult to clearly see that, by holding such beliefs, you are separating yourself from most of your fellow human beings and are cunningly laying the blame for the ills of humankind on those of your fellow human beings who don’t believe what you believe, thereby actively contributing to the divergence and acrimony that typifies the human condition. When I dropped my spiritual beliefs I then discovered a whole lot of secular beliefs that caused me to feel separate from or superior to my fellow human beings.

The other aspect of setting your sights on being happy and harmless with people as-they-are is that one is compelled to stop the habitual and futile exercise of endlessly trying to change other people, or waiting and hoping that other people change, and focus one’s attention exclusively on changing the only person that one can change, and indeed needs to change – me.

From what I saw on the television program, I have no doubt that the Buddhist monk felt happy when he meditated – I didn’t need to see an image of increase in neural activity in one part of his brain to tell me this. I have experienced the very same thing whilst meditating – often I would feel blissful feelings and I presume these feelings resulted in increased neural activity in parts of this brain as well. From what I understand, any feeling that a feeling being has results in increased neural activity in some part or other of the brain, but it is not a subject that interests me at all, quite frankly.

What did however interest me about the program was the fact that here was a fellow human being who felt happy because he was practicing a technique that involved cutting himself off from the world-as-it-is with people-as-they are. It reminded me yet again that the spiritual world and spiritual pursuits are 180 degrees opposite to the actual world and the intent of an actualist.

And just to make it perfectly clear, it is obvious that some people are happy living in the spiritual world pursuing spiritual pursuits, however when I started being interested in being here, my focus of attentiveness, together with my intent, radically changed.

I suppose things get more complicated when dealing with people, how do you xp them?

As I said above, animals are alive in that they are animate animal matter, but the only animal with the capacity to be intelligent is the human animal – albeit that this intelligence is somewhat impaired by the genetically-encoded rudimentary instinctual survival passions that have now well and truly passed their use-by-date.

A practicing actualist commits himself or herself to removing all of ‘my’ values, judgements and demands that ‘I’ unwittingly impose upon other people such that they can be clearly seen, and treated, as being what they actually are – fellow human beings. Or to put it another way, a practicing actualist is someone who has devoted his or her life to actualizing peace on earth.

*

After reading your conversations with various respondents I’ve noticed that there is a constant thread permeating your discussions both ways, something like ‘I am right, you’re wrong and I can prove that to you’, then some of the co-respondents ‘soften’ their stance, yet again beginning to stay firm when approaching core issues.

Yes, this is a common thread of nearly all of the correspondents thus far. Despite the fact that the website is totally up-front that actualism is something brand new in human history, is utterly non-spiritual and totally down-to-earth, correspondents insist on writing to us telling us that we are wrong and that they are right – or to put it more succinctly, that their ancient, spiritual, other-worldly beliefs are the inviolate Truth.

I can understand the cognitive dissonance that happens whenever anything new is encountered – it was a major hurdle I had to overcome in coming to terms with the new technology of the computer age – but I am amazed at the arrogance of those who stubbornly persist in continually insisting that the old ways are right when the old ways have clearly failed to bring anything remotely resembling peace on earth between human beings.

I think you’re sometimes perceived having an attitude like ‘I don’t mind and they don’t matter’ with your correspondents, which might be a little bit troubling and perceived as a lack of consideration.

I find it curious that you should think this.

Since Richard discovered that it is possible to be actually free from the human condition he has devoted most of his waking hours and a good deal of his personal money to not only making the discovery available to others who may be interested but he has also personally answered thousands of objections from hundreds of correspondents, the majority of whom persist in insisting that he is wrong and they are right.

When I came across actualism and found that it worked to the extent that I became virtually happy and harmless, I sat down and wrote a journal explaining the steps I had taken in the process, the beliefs that I encountered on the way, the unliveable morals and unworkable ethics I had to discard and the changes I had to make on the way. I did so on the basis that the information would be both interesting and useful to anyone else who decided to head off down the path to becoming happy and harmless. And both Vineeto and I have gladly taken the time, and made the effort, to answer any correspondents who have written to us so as to pass on any relevant information we have gleaned in using the actualism process.

If you think this constitutes a lack of consideration, I am left wondering why you continue to subscribe to a mailing list that has been established by such people.

I personally was quite irritated by your lack of personal ‘touch’ in our email exchange.

I don’t know who you are addressing as you mention no one by name in this post but many correspondents have been irritated about what has been written to the point of being downright rude and angry. The more polite often resort to criticizing the style that the information is passed on rather than addressing the content of the message, whilst those less polite have no qualms about resorting to ‘shooting the messenger’.

Now, I appreciate this present way of interacting, as opposed to the spiritual one (being as near as possible to the Master) in order to receive his positive energies and original thoughts; it’s relaxing.

Not only is it more relaxing when one ceases being ‘quite irritated’, it then becomes possible to be begin to be able to hear what the others are saying without the whole issue being emotion-swamped.

*

Is there no person who can influence or change you?

There have been many people who had an influence on my life. The three stand-outs that are relevant to this discussion are my father, Richard and Vineeto.

My father, because the only advice he ever offered me was ‘It doesn’t matter what you do in your life, you can be a brain surgeon or a dunny-cart man (the man who used to call and collect the pan of excrement from beneath the toilet at the bottom of our garden), as long as you are happy’. What he didn’t tell me was how to be happy because he, along with everybody else, didn’t know how.

For the ‘how to’, I had to wait some 35 years before I came across Richard who had discovered not only how to be happy but how to be harmless – it is impossible to be happy unless you are harmless. And Vineeto’s influence was that I was able to see first-hand that the actualism method worked not only for myself but for someone else – the proof of the pudding that the actualism process produces happy and harmless people, regardless of gender, nationality or prior belief.

As for the possibility of another person changing me, I gave up this belief by becoming an actualist – becoming an actualist is the practical acknowledgement that no one can change me but myself. Further, becoming an actualist is the practical acknowledgement that I cease wanting to have power or control over the lives of others.

Whether or not an actualist can influence another person is entirely up to the other person and what their interests are. In my case, I was vitally interested in what Richard had to say as well as how he lived his life.

I have a series of questions that go out to all who are interested. I’ve been asking the actualist question now for several months with some success at times – occasional glimpses what it is to be free – but very temporary. What I find as an even more common theme is worries arising about what I might have to ‘give up’ if I continue further and the difficulty of ‘seeing what is on the other side of a ‘problem’’.

What about when they become ill and die? Am I to treat them like strangers? It seems to me that even though I am ‘severing emotional’ connections – isn’t there still a connection with my biological parents more than just biology? I mean they did raise me and provide food and shelter and all. Do I only feel a ‘debt’ toward them? Or can I still maintain relating with them just based on the fact that they are biological parents? Also, I read Richard say once that basically parents are just ‘human beings who happened to be your biological parents.’ (my paraphrase) I wonder though, isn’t there just a little more to it? For example, one of my sons is adopted. My wife and I ‘play the role’ of parents – but I am working at not ‘being’ the role. Aren’t we ‘parents’ in any other way than merely biology?

I thought to respond to this post, even though you have since reported that you have had some insights about these issues.

I like it that you are having your own insights about the issues that are relevant to you in your life, and that you have had your own experience that has apparently shed some light on what is on offer in actualism (see here ). Whilst the writings about actualism and actual freedom are already quite extensive, broad ranging and catalogued, this source is but information to guide and aid your own personal investigations, insights and experiences on your own path to becoming free of the human condition. In other words, actualism is a do-it-yourself process, not a blindly follow-the-leader belief system.

Having said that, however, you are not alone in the process of actualism and much information can be gained from the experience of fellow human beings who have managed to rid themselves of malice and sorrow. I have learnt a good deal from observing Richard’s common sense approach to the business of being a flesh and blood human body in the world as-it-is, so I’ll pass on my experience about the consanguineous issues you have raised since I have been both a son and a father in my life. I’ve also written on this topic in my journal, so I’ll try and keep this brief.

Perhaps the most significant event that gave me cause to think about the whole issue of family happened a few years after my father died. Both my sister and I were at the age where we had left home and were capable of looking after ourselves financially and we then agreed that it would be good for our mother if we released her of her obligations to continue to provide for us. We told her that she had done a good job in looking after us whilst we were growing up but that now her time and money was hers again, to do with as she wished.

I remember at the time thinking what a freeing thing this decision was, both for my mother and for myself. This realization meant that later on, when I became a father, I did exactly the same. Although one of my sons died at an early age, I released the other son of the burden of the expectation that I would continue to provide for him beyond the point where he left the nest and also of the burden that he would have to provide for me in my old age. This simple unilateral action – one that can be taken by either a parent or an offspring – means that one is well on the path to seeing, and treating, one’s parents and children for what they really are – fellow human beings.

The only reason I was willing to take this step as a father was that I had by then set my sights on becoming happy and harmless and this meant that I had to release my son of my continually interfering in his life – of wanting him to do things my way. By setting my sights on becoming happy and harmless, I became aware of the issues around family that made me unhappy and the times when I did something or said something that caused ripples in other family member’s lives. As a practicing actualist, I came to see how both my societal and instinctual programming pervaded every aspect of my interactions with my son and how the combination of both actively conspired to prevent peace and harmony between us.

The first thing I found I needed to do was to become aware of what was going on, to understand the nature of this programming. The second was to see and acknowledge my part in the emotional turmoil that this programming generates, and the third and most important was to have the courage to change. Such radical change inevitably means going against what society regards as ‘normal’, ‘right’ and ‘good’ – the eons-old code of conduct based on the moral codes and ethical standards that have been unquestioningly passed down from generation to generation. This act of ‘breaking free of the mould’ then enabled me to clearly see and experience the underlying instinctual animal programming in action – those very crude, ‘self’-centred genetically-encoded compulsive drives that act to sabotage even the best of intentions of human beings to live together in peace and harmony. By being attentive to this genetic programming in action, I then became progressively less susceptible to the consuming power of both the savage and tender instinctual passions.

My experience is that once you have gone through this process with the major issues that prevent you from being happy and harmless, you then find yourself virtually happy and harmless – happy and harmless 99% of the time. At this stage the changes ‘I’ can instigate tend to be more minimal as ‘I’ have done most of the substantive work that ‘I’ can do and the resultant feelings of redundancy eventually lead to the realization that the extinction of ‘me’ is the next step to be taken.

As you know, this is a report of work in progress on the path to actual freedom, but I have always written on the basis that my experience will be of interest, and may be of use, to those interested in becoming free of the human condition, in toto.

You mentioned at the start of this post that ‘the following can be considered as the end of an investigation I like to call it a ‘peer’ review.’ If you are conducting a ‘peer review’ of actualism, I suggest that the only sensible way to do this on the basis of a ‘find out for myself’ approach and, by doing so, become a practicing actualist. Otherwise you will never be open to the benefits of peer review – that you are not in this business alone, that others are doing it, that you are in no way unique, that there are people with more expertise than you and that we actualists all seek a common goal – peace on earth.

peer review – the evaluation by (other) experts of a research project for which a grant is sought, a paper received for publication in a learned journal, etc.; gen. a review of commercial, professional, or academic efficiency, competence, etc., by others in the same occupation. Oxford Dictionary

In order to be able to review your peers, or be reviewed by your peers, you need to be amongst peers of the same occupation or interests, which in the case of this list is doing something practical about peace on earth or being vitally interested in peace on earth.

However, regarding my ‘social life’, I find that I no longer feel the need to affiliate with other human beings the way I once used to.

In days gone by, I used to think that having ‘friends’ was very important, yet now I cannot really say that I have any ‘friends’ nor do I want any. Because the word ‘friendship’ implies an obligation to stick with another person through thick and thin, and I find that I am not prepared to do that. I would much prefer to go my own way and allow someone else the freedom to do the same, so I cannot say that anyone is my ‘friend’ in that sense. I feel much the same about family relationships (and I am talking about family of origin here, not family of procreation). I keep in touch with members of my family. But compared to other people who I see around me, my sense of a family identity is very weak indeed.

During the first two years of practicing actualism I also experienced that my ‘friendships’ dropped away but lately I have had occasion to meet several of these former ‘friends’ and to do work for several members of the spiritual group I was in before. All of these meetings have been delightful as am now meeting fellow human beings, I am interested in them as fellow human beings and, as such, have enjoyed their company. The difference between now and before is that I now make no emotional demands of people I meet which then frees them of the burden of ‘me’, nor do I have emotional expectations of them which then frees me from the constant need to intuit and imagine what they were thinking and feeling about ‘me’.

There is great significance in the phrase ‘fellow human beings’ because the only way you can begin to treat your fellow human beings as fellow human beings is to firstly demolish your own social identity. The first component that has to go is one’s spiritual identity because a Christian never meets a Buddhist as a fellow human being, a Rajneeshee never meets a Krishnamurti-ite as a fellow human being, and so on, because each have different beliefs, that make for differing identities. The very best that spiritualists can muster up is a feeling of oneness – a feeling that always fails to translate into a practical and tangible peace and harmony between members of a spiritual group, let alone between members of competing groups.

Then there are other aspects of one’s social identity that demand attention if one is to ever get to the stage where one can see and treat one’s fellow human beings as fellow human beings and not continue to think and feel them to be separate ‘beings’. A man never meets a woman and sees her or treats her as a fellow human being because men and women have been instilled with opposing gender identities – identities that are mandated by each side in the battle of the sexes and are rife with mutual feelings of suspicion, fear, ignorance and superstition. Similarly, a father never meets a son and a mother never meets a daughter for each has a socially-imposed identity relative to each other – a complex set of social obligations, emotional demands and needs, expectations and resentments that serve to prevent each from either seeing or treating each other as fellow human beings. Similarly, an American never meets an Australian, a Lithuanian never meets a Nigerian and so on, for each believe they belong to a different culture and each call a particular piece of the planet ‘home’. The list goes on, but I won’t, for you will have got the gist by now.

When I read of your recent job change, I was wondering how you would go working with young children.

I was wondering the same thing. I feel a bit hypocritical at times as I find myself falling back on what I learned and was taught in dealing with situations, and I think what I learned and was taught was based on the same values, morals, ethics, etc., that constitute the ‘Tried and Failed’. So there is this hypocritical feeling often. But I seemingly do not react to emotionally charged situations and I am not intimidated by people whose aim is to push other people’s buttons. That doesn’t mean I stick around to become their punching bag, it just means that I can be level-headed in a situation.

Once I began to get some understanding as to the nature of the human condition I remember passing through some difficult phases in my work and with people I met. Firstly I had to overcome the hurdle of wanting to tell others about my discoveries about how the human condition operates but I soon saw I was falling for that perennial trap of wanting to change others. When this urge subsided, I found myself feeling like an outsider because I no longer believed what everyone else believed and I was increasingly more happy and harmless, in a world awash with sadness, blame, resentment, competition and affront. In hindsight it was really a matter of riding out the storm, keeping my own counsel as to what was going on and accept the fact that actualism means change, that this change requires effort and that change is at times an uncomfortable and disconcerting business.

I am finding this traditional wisdom to not be the case and I am finding that I ‘need’ other people less and less, but then that is considered pathological, according to the wisdom of humanity, and people who don’t need friends, or who don’t need to belong to a group, or a religion, or a social club or something are judged to be oddball loners or disgruntled misanthropes.

When I started to become free of malice and sorrow, I found my emotional bonds or ‘neediness’ with other people became noticeably weaker. The most noticeable effect of this was that I lost my former spiritual ‘friends’ because I was no longer a member of a group of fellow believers. As I progressively became free of malice, I was no longer interested in participating in conversations where the ills of the world were blamed on others. And as I became progressively free of sorrow, I was no longer interested in participating in conversations where being here was regarded as a miserable business and where it was firmly believed that succour or relief could only be found by retreating ‘inside’. There was a period of time where I felt an outsider or a loner but recently I had occasion to meet quite a few old friends at a social event and all feelings of being an outsider and a loner had totally disappeared. I had a pleasurable time with a group of fellow human beings, regardless of their beliefs, gender or cultural conditioning.

My experience is that autonomy leads to neither isolation nor ostracization as I feared it would at some stage, but if it is pursued diligently and persistently it leads to an actual intimacy and ease with all of my fellow human beings – and I, once again, experienced the peace on earth that already, always exists.

When I wrote what I did about fear, I assumed that anyone reading would be interested in the altruistic pursuit of eliminating malice and sorrow from their everyday lives rather than the selfish pursuit of fearlessness. I had no idea at the time the extent to which spiritualists were prepared to deny their own feelings of malice and sorrow in order to hang on to their feelings of superiority and righteousness. But then again, there is no substitute for being outside the spiritual world – as in a pure consciousness experience – to really see the game plan.

I do like it when any anomalies and inaccuracies in my writing come to the surface on this list. I shall amend what I wrote in order to make the distinction more clear. One of the purposes of this mailing list is as a forum to discuss the human condition that we all find ourselves unwittingly trapped in. What we seek to do is discern what are the facts as opposed to what is merely belief, myth, opinion, psittacism, legend and fairy tale.

As such these discussions and investigations on this list are not at all about who is right and who is wrong because we then only fall into the trap that besets all human interactions – what passes for discussion and communication between humans is but a battle of stubborn wills, differing opinions, varying morals, opposing values, contrary attitudes, begrudging compromises, temporary truces, and so on. However for those interested in setting aside their ‘outer layers’ of social conditioning there is a literal goldmine of facts available in the bowels of the AF website.

Just wondering how you are doing with all the shouting and dumping that is happening on the list at the moment? It seems typical of any forum that is open to all, that the loudest voices are those of the protestors. Good thing it is only the net and words on a screen or I could be twice dead by now.

And to think everyone who subscribed to this mailing list received the following introduction –

Welcome to the Actual Freedom Mailing List ... it is most beneficial that you have joined for the sincerity of your participation will bestow immense advancement to both yourself and anyone else who is genuinely concerned about becoming free of the Human Condition and thus effecting peace-on-earth in this life-time. Those who are discussing these matters have before them a vital opportunity to partake in precipitating humankind’s long-awaited emergence from animosity and anguish into benignity and felicity. We fellow human beings writing here today are actively engaged in ensuring that the current ‘Savage Ages’ will eventually become a thing of the dreadful past ... so that they will pass into the waste-bin of history like the ‘Dark Ages’ have.

It is not a little thing we are doing.

I seem to remember someone writing recently querying why no one had become free of the human condition before now. As can be seen from the current most vocal objectors, is there any wonder? Even if someone had managed to break free of the stranglehold of spiritual belief in the past and discovered an actual freedom from the human condition in toto, would they have dared to stick their head above the parapet in order to tell his or her fellow human beings about the discovery? They would have been hauled before a real court and tried as a heretic or attacked with far more than words.

I remember Richard saying all he wanted to do was put his words out into the world and his initial plan was to do it anonymously – after all he knows the human condition – both inside and out. By the time I crossed paths with him he had his journal in draft form in a loose-leaf binder. As my experiments with actualism began to bear fruit and my enthusiasm grew, I suggested to Richard that he put his journal and other writings on the World Wide Web so as to make them widely available to anyone who may be interested in an actual freedom from the human condition.

No. 12: Do you think it would be a good thing for ‘Richard’ to be more widely known?

Richard: It is a good thing for actual freedom to be more widely known ... which is why I first put up my Web Page at Peter’s suggestion. I have only ever wanted the words and writings of the third alternative to exist in the world – I scoured the books for eighteen years to no avail – so that anyone who finds themselves travelling this path will have the assurance that another has successfully traversed the terrain. The words and writings now exist in the world – and are taking on a life of their own beyond my direction – and I have no further wishes in the matter. I value my privacy very highly and have no desire for a public profile. Richard, List AF, No 12, 2.2.1999

After I had written my journal, Vineeto funded the publication of both Journals in paperback form – no publishers would publish such heretical material – so as to make actualism available to all English readers. She also established an actualism website based upon our own experiments and successes with actualism. Some months later Alan, I think it was, suggested we establish an actualism mailing list and at Richard’s invitation we then combined both web sites into one.

And now the actualism mailing list has taken on a life of its own. Who would have ever thought it would come to this?

I was watching a news report the other evening about an anti-globalisation protest and a reporter was interviewing participants as to what exactly they were protesting about. She interviewed one young man who looked a bit nonplussed and then said it’s about companies such as Nike exploiting cheap labour in third world. The reporter then asked ‘How come you’re wearing a pair of Nike shoes then?’ Quick as a wink, and without even blushing, he said ‘But it’s not about that, it’s about what Nike are doing’.

If you want a take on what is happening on the mailing list at the moment you will find article 21 of Richard’s Journal very pertinent.

I find it remarkable that I gave up talking to people I met about actualism because I realized that they would most likely only get offended or misunderstand it as spiritualism. I did so because I was sensitive to other people and I realized that the only way it was possible to communicate anything about actualism was if someone was sufficiently dissatisfied with the spiritual path and was willing to question deeper. So upon setting up an actualist mailing list as a home turf for those who are interested in actualism, what do we have – people deliberately signing on so they can remonstrate that they feel offended and/or so they can tell us that they Know and we don’t.

Being a pioneer in any field of endeavour is not without its risks.

What a grand adventure ...

It seems that our differing viewpoints highlight an essential difference between a spiritual seeker and an actualist.

1. People take everything too seriously (no sense of humour)

Tell that to the woman who has just been seized, held at knife point and raped by a group of soldiers in the Balkans while on an ethnic cleansing patrol

She can just relax and enjoy the experience especially if the soldiers are very handsome. Maybe she will even want more.

*

2. People do not take their experiences and events playfully.

Tell that to the African child who, for the second time in three years, faces starvation because ‘tribal conflicts’ in his country mean there is no food to be had.

You could do him a favour and send him some fried chicken from KFC or a burger from Mcdo. Or you should adopt him.

*

3. People do not trust themselves and existence as a whole.

Tell that to the 16 year old prostitute and heroin addict, who has just been beaten up by her pimp for ‘answering back’.

She should beat the pimp to a pulp. She should answer back with ‘FUCK YOU’ complete with ‘dirty finger’.

*

4. People are brainwashed with teachings, religions, conditionings and lots and lots of words that do not mean anything at all (like the THREE EGGHEADS – Peter, Richard and Vineeto)

Tell that to yourself, over and over, over and over, ... to avoid being brainwashed. Then again there is always the ‘avoid brainwashing’ button.

I wash my brain everyday as much as my body. I also wash me my ass...hahaha

*

5. People do not love themselves first and foremost.

Tell that to the man who, in a fit of jealous rage, has shot the man he found in bed with his wife.

Why did he not shoot his wife also? Better to be free from both of them, right?

*

6. People do not know the value of meditation, awareness and consciousness.

Tell that to the Buddhist monk who entered an isolated monastery at the age of 13 and, after 40 years, is still ‘seeking’ Enlightenment.

Let him ‘seek’ as long as he enjoys the seeking and does not get tired of it. Life is full of adventure and everybody has his own ‘trip’. That is his trip and he can enjoy it.

*

7. MANY MORE ...???

And I’ve got many, many more as well ... There’s the one about the man who stood by the coffin of his 13 year old son, and ...

and ... he laughed at the sight of his son lying there wearing a funny bowtie and funny cowboy hat.

Oh, well – I’ll just get more of those long boring posts about being serious again – It’s called ‘foot in mouth’ disease.

Thanks god you stopped your boring posts ... Hallelujah!! Amen!! By the way, have you washed your mouth lately, it stinks ...
Cheers and Shouts of Glee ...

I am vitally interested in my fellow human beings. Each one of the above people I have met in person or have read about or seen on TV. They are fellow humans – the same species – and their situations or suffering are very real.

And yet the much lauded solution to human lament on this planet that is on offer to date has been to ‘turn away’ and seek an ‘inner’ peace or to become God.

But now there is another alternative...

The true secret of giving advice is, after you have honestly given it, to be perfectly indifferent whether it is taken or not and never persist in trying to set people right. – Hannah Whittle Smith

It is such a useless thing to give advice to others. I had two children and I always saw that it was their life that they were living and for me to advise them how to live it was an imposition on their freedom. I would tell them a few practical things, the way I would do something, what I had found out about being a human being, but that was it, really.

Being in the position of a parent it gradually became obvious to me that I was only passing on what my father had told me and what society expected me to say. It was a useful spur to find out ‘for myself’ about life.

When I found out about Actual Freedom and wrote my journal, I sent my son a copy of it, but what he does with it is his business entirely. I haven’t heard a comment back, nor am I curious.

It is, after all, his life he is living, his own freedom he has to find – his adventure.

You address us individually but you are not able to talk to us individually. You talk to me as if I was a group. Don’t I give a shit about the group! And I am certainly no groupie of yours. :-)

I am not writing to you, the spiritual believer. I am writing to you, the fellow human being and I am reporting – as a fellow human being – what I have found out and the extra-ordinariness of it all. That there is actually a way to become free of malice and sorrow. Many on the list complain that I am not talking to ‘them’ and it is true. I am communicating directly to the fellow human being using common sense and native intelligence – saying don’t believe what everyone has told you – don’t just go on believing what the old fuddy duddies of the past have told you is true.

It is 1999, not 500 BC, and there is now available a way out of the mess we humans have found ourselves in. I don’t expect you to believe me but if you are at all dissatisfied with your life and in following the ‘tried and failed’ methods ... maybe, just maybe, it might be worth considering ... trying something ... mew.?

To get to where I am, I had to demolish ‘Peter, the Christian’, ‘Peter, the father’, ‘Prabhat, the Sannyasin’, ‘Peter, the architect’, ‘Peter, the man’, ‘Peter, the lover’, ‘Peter, the ... and so on ... until finally it was Peter at his instinctual core ...

It is such an adventure to discover ‘what’ you are rather than ‘who’ you think and ‘who’ you feel you are... to free yourself of the ‘shackles’ of the Human Condition.

I am free of the ‘world’ I was born into, I am free of the mutually-agreed scenario ‘that to be a human being is to suffer’ – I am free of sorrow. And as there is no entity in me that can take offence – I am free of malice. I simply met a man who was already free and followed the path, and the method, and I am reporting to whoever wants to listen ... that it works.

Richard, Vineeto and I are laying a trail of words that are a guide map, but the wonderful thing is ... you get to make the journey yourself.

And who would have it any other way?

You are feeling responsible for all the unenlightened people on the planet?

No, I pass on that one. I found that the only person I could change was myself. I tried blaming others, trying or hoping everybody else would change and then it would be all right. I set a realistic goal of changing myself. Now, it is possible to help someone else but only if they are interested. But I limit myself to a few hours a day, a few e-mails seems a good balance.

I wrote my journal as a definitive piece and reading a bit of it the other day it is a good story. I wanted to ‘point the way’ to Richard’s writings, which were the tool by which I became free. So, anything I do beyond that bit of writing is a bonus ... I do like the ‘live’ aspect of typing these words ... not knowing what is coming next ...

I pay you respect and I’m not sarcastic. But tell me what is the real reason for all this?

Why do I write?

To finally put an end to war, rape, torture, famine, suicide, sexual abuse, repression, suicide, slavery. This is happening right now as I write these words to real, actual flesh and blood human beings. It is not an illusion. I live in a relatively safe place, but we have policemen with guns to curb and control the worst of violence, and this country spends a lot of money on maintaining an army to keep other tribes from invading.

If you are in it for yourself then Enlightenment is the thing – self-aggrandizement if ever there was one. If you care about your fellow human beings then to become actually free is the only game to play. I write iconoclastically because we have been fed too much bullshit, lied to, conned, promised the moon, put off asking questions and told to trust, have faith and it will ‘all be right’. It is time for some straight talking ... a dialogue, a discussion about the Human Condition, some intelligent conversation based on facts... rather than what some fairy-tales some guys made up 2 or 3,000 years ago, and what we still regard as Sacred or Wisdom. Or should I be more humble? Am I not bowing low enough to the Divine? The good thing about not believing in the Divine is that I also don’t believe in blasphemy, so I am free to write of facts rather than merely regurgitate beliefs!

Why do I write?

Because there will be another Peter out there who admits to be lost, lonely, frightened and very, cunning ... and desperately wants to be free.

For me, as I was when I first came across Richard ... I just felt I had nothing left to lose ... and what else was I going to do with the rest of my life anyway?

The idea of becoming happy and harmless and of being able to live with a woman in peace and harmony was the best offer I had come across yet.

And what an adventure ...

So, good to chat to you, I enjoyed it.

‘Millions, if not billions’ is a reference to all the devotees of Eastern spirituality (Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Shintoism, Taoism, Zen, etc.) in all the thousands of years, many, many of whom spent their lives secluded in monasteries or ashrams (in Tibet, Japan, Thailand, Cambodia, Korea, India etc.) or devoting hours of their days in meditation, ‘watching’, praying, or the like. The recent influx and western interest in spirituality is but a ‘blimp’ on the vast sweep of history. The point of my statement was that once this became evident to me I was able to put my position in perspective. The failure rate of producing profound individual awakenings (Enlightenment) of the Eastern religions became startlingly evident, as did my arrogance in assuming that I could do any better. The other issue was that despite (or because of) the numbers, sincerity and effort of all these people the countries had appalling levels of poverty, disease, corruption, repression of women, and often downright theocracies. I fail to see this as speculation and projection. A study of history and an open-eyed visit to the East will still confirm this to be the case in many countries.

This response is a example of the twist I said you put on the topics... This is what I said; ‘Millions?Billions? give their lives? for nil?? just speculation and projection. As far as I am concerned... these people devoted what they wished, learned what they learned, and went on to live long productive peaceful loving ordinary lives... maybe some didn’t. So what!

On re-reading my response I see that I clearly made the point of what it meant for me – that in the light of these facts I was able to clearly put my position in perspective rather than merely following what everyone else was and had been doing for millennia. If this is of no concern to you, so be it. It does nothing to alter the facts.

The issue I have with your speculations and projections does not have to do with history but with the judgement that you recolor and edit the history in order to create support for your opinions – that you like to call facts. How you choose to view, edit and interpret history has no bearing on the reality of the history itself.

No, you yourself said ... ‘ as far as I am concerned ’ which, as it turned out, meant that you are ‘not concerned’ – as evidenced by ‘So what!’

I, on the other hand was vitally concerned as to what I was doing with my life and what other human beings had done with their lives. Had it bought them the promised peace of mind and had this whole spiritual pursuit contributed to bringing forth a state of peace on the planet?

My own open-eyed direct observation of Eastern Counties, a common sensical reading of the Ancient texts, and 17 years of intensive search on the spiritual path forced me to the pride-shattering conclusion that I had been sold a dummy and that I had fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

I thought I would pen a letter to you about one of those ethical values that is so instilled in human beings that it not only clouds any common sense operating but also acts to forever lock malice and sorrow into the human psyche.

I often wonder what people make of the simple statement that one has a social identity that consists of all the morals, ethics, values and psittacisms that have been instilled by one’s peers in order to keep one ‘under control’ and to make one a ‘good’ citizen. It seems such a straight forward statement yet there is no discussion or questioning whatsoever regarding morals and ethics and their failure to stop the barbarous human warfare that rages on the planet between various tribal, religious or ethical groups. Despite the fact that countless well-meaning people have been following these pious morals and unliveable ethics there is still no end in sight to the sadness sorrow, depression and suicides. Having to live one’s life bound – as in bondage – to a set of morals and ethics is to be shackled to Humanity.

What twigged me to write was a conversation I had with a man recently about tolerance. It was one of those convivial evenings as we settled back after dinner at his beach-side house. We had bought a whole coral trout and some baste for the sunset barbeque meal, his wife had concocted a wonderful salad and he had provided some delicious soft Merlot wine. Vineeto and I, he and his wife contentedly lazed back after the particularly tasty meal, and their newly born baby slept in the corner after her meal at the breast. We started swapping life stories as one tends to do in good company and his wife began chatting to Vineeto about her upbringing as a Japanese and how she had come to leave Japan and ended up in Australia. She evidently was of mixed Japanese-Korean parents and, as such, was very much regarded as a second-class citizen in Japan – something which she didn’t take too kindly to. I then proceeded to explain to her some of the religious and ethnic divides that are rife below the surface in the country I grew up in at all levels of society.

I soon trotted out one of my favourite stories about the insanity of Humanity – the fact that my father, like many other young Australians during the Second World War, was sent to Europe to help England fight Germany. He ended up in the Middle East fighting the Italians in the desert and then came back to fight the Japanese in the jungles of New Guinea. When I went to university to study architecture two of my best friends were an Italian and a Japanese – of the same tribes that my father had been busy trying to kill only 20 years earlier. What struck me as even stranger was here I was some 30 years on telling this story of muddled madness to a woman of Japanese stock, and a woman of German stock, both now residents in this country.

It was at this point that the man came out with the statement that ‘we are all different’ and that all children need to be taught ‘tolerance’ from the beginning. He said the trouble was that ‘some people’ weren’t tolerant. When I asked him who were these people he looked a bit befuddled as he sensed he would have to trot out his prejudices by coming up with an example. To let him off the hook a bit, I stated that it was only in recent years I had come to see the extent of my own ‘limits of tolerance’ having being born into a largely Christian society. As such I was imbibed with the view that say Muslims, in particular, were ‘evil and intolerant’ people, and I could tell that it was this particular religious group that he had in mind when he talked of those whose children needed to be ‘taught tolerance’.

I backtracked the conversation a bit for his plea for tolerance was based on his preceding psittacism that ‘we are all different’. I looked around at the four of us sitting there and could obviously see that two were males and two were females, so I stated that beyond that physical fact, we were no different in that we were all flesh and blood human beings. We had no differences apart from some physical differences – plus a good deal of social conditioning but I was trying to isolate that fact out for a bit. At core we were all the same passionate beings – German anger is the same as Japanese anger, Australian sorrow the same as English sorrow – yet this man insisted that we are all somehow different and therefore we should be tolerant of each other’s differences.

I was going to pursue the point that we are all the same animal species and that it is a fact that we are only taught to think we are different and unique via our social conditioning – to not only be loyal and good tribal members but to cherish and be proud of our being ‘different from’ and ‘better than’ other tribes and to be ready to fight for and defend our ‘being different’. Oh yes, and then we are further taught that it is good to be ‘tolerant’ of others who happen to be ‘different’ than us.

One needs to be taught that we are different and be prejudiced and intolerant of others first in order to then feel the need to be tolerant. These ethical values are but societal conditioning that sits like a sugared, feel-good layer to cover over our instinctual love of aggression – we love a good fight and the tribe next door, that ‘different’ mob, was always the best target as there was always some old score to settle – some pay-back for a past deed. It has the added advantage of giving us someone to hate and fight that isn’t our own kin or our own tribe.

But I didn’t pursue the point as he was already confused enough, and it was senseless to spoil the evening.

Perhaps the failure of the principle of tolerance is most clearly seen in Europe where, after two horrendous wars fought in the first half of the century that decimated whole generations and lay ruin to the continent, some enterprising politicians decided enough was enough. The idea of a European Union was born, whereby national barriers would be gradually demolished to form a more unified, less tribal and more peaceful European community. Just on the brink of implementing this policy it seems as though the threat of ‘loss of national identity’ is becoming too much for many to contemplate. In fact, it appears, from reports, that there is a ground swell for increased regionalism with even smaller, more nationalistic groupings clamouring for power, independence and autonomy. Identical fears are heard in the raging and anger against ‘globalization’ – people desperately wanting to cling to the past and to their tribal and ethnic groupings – to remain the same and part of a traditional warring group.

This behavioural evidence is in direct contradiction to the spurious argument that ‘we are all different’ for everyone fervently wishes to remain part of the traditional group into which they were born, to hold the same values, morals, ethics, truths and psittacisms – to be the same as everybody else and not different.

I am wondering if what you are talking here about is the investigation of emotions and feelings coming from the social norms by labelling them as sensible or silly? After labelling them, have you experimented by acting against your social norms (Acting against our religious / social conditionings and taboos to investigate the rush of emotions that follows such experiment, for example)? If so, did such action break through the psychological power of the norm and did it give you more encouragement to investigate them more deeply?

I think the first thing to be taken on board about actualism is that it is not about changing the world, it is about changing oneself. The traditional approach of people who see wrong or bad in the world is to join a crusade or revolutionary movement aimed at bringing about some sort of social, political or spiritual change to the world. Hence we have an enormous amount of angst, despair and vitriol generated by well-intentioned groups or movements clashing with other well-intentioned groups or movements, all determined that their way is the best, that they are right, or that theirs is the only way of doing things.

The traditional movements to change the world are passionately fuelled by people’s frustration at not feeling free to do what they want – of having to obey, and feeling straight-jacketed by, society’s morals, ethics and values translated into rules, laws and regulations. Thus one sees on television not only out and out warfare, terrorism, violent protests, etc., but even in so-called peaceful countries, there is a good deal of frustration, aggravation, annoyance and anger directed against the ‘government’ or various organizations for doing wrong thing or not getting it right. In the local community where I live there is an extraordinary amount of conflict, either overt or covert, as to the rights or wrongs of the actions of those with different beliefs or values and at the people employed to uphold the laws of the land.

A bit I wrote at the time of seeing the futility of attempting to rebel against or change the way the world is –

In my life I have been involved in many revolutionary movements and I had many ideals about changing things. In some thirty years of adult life, I have been involved and concerned with movements for peace; for environmental, political, social and spiritual change. And I have come to see all of them as revolutionary – in other words, going around in circles. I remember watching a TV program about the Hungarian uprising and those that fought and died for freedom. Some twenty years later the Russians simply walked out anyway. I participated in a spiritual revolution with a living Guru deriding the past traditions and the idea of religions only to see him eventually form his very own Religion and become part of the traditional religious warring campus. And the so-called ‘New Age’ of today is really nothing but a return to the Dark Age of spirits, omens, divination, witches and shamans. Peter’s Journal, Evolution 

As for solving the world problem I have left the idealist mode, only when living with the facts as they are I can understand my current situation from a social perspective so to speak mainly concerning the question: [what is my relationship to the fellow-being that is closest this moment?] i.e. when coming into a bar, restaurant.

From the perspective of a PCE, the ‘world problem’ is seen as being totally ‘self’-imposed, the result of some 6 billion ‘selfs’ each battling it out with each other in a grim instinctual ‘self’-centred battle for survival. Everyone has had at least one PCE in their lifetime – a brief experience of the utter peacefulness, perfection and purity of the actual world whereupon ‘me’, ‘my’ worries and ‘my’ ‘self’-centred feelings have disappear, as if by magic.

However, most of these pure experiences only serve as fuel to the ‘self’-centredness of the spiritual/religious beliefs that permeate the human condition. Either during a PCE or soon after, there comes the conviction that ‘I’ am a pure, noble and all-knowing being and everyone else is guilty, pitiable and ignorant. As a consequence, feelings of knowing the solutions to the world’s problems or even of being the next Saviour of Mankind are par for the course for those who selfishly claim the pure consciousness experience as their own.

This issue was in my face constantly in my initial explorations into the human condition – in the first few months, the more I discovered about how the human condition operated, the more I was tempted to want to change others. It required constant effort and attentiveness to remind myself that I was in this business solely to change me and not to change others.

Taking in account that in ordinary daily-life, once stepped out of a spiritual ivory tower, the overall political ‘climate’ is playing a fair part and even more the local political climate does so.

Speaking personally, once I got rid of the majority of my feelings of malice and sorrow, I found that the political views and machinations of others rarely impeded my being happy and harmless. I found the first thing to focus on was becoming happy and harmless and then, when any issue stubbornly hung around, I would dig in a little deeper.

That is why I appreciated coming across Lomborg’s book because I was able to read it largely bereft of an emotional ‘self’-centred reaction – I could see that he was simply attempting to compile a fact-based exposé of the political climate and popular belief that surrounds the Environmental battle.

As it is obvious that the one intertwines significantly with the other one may fairly find a starting point for affirmation that we are in the same boat when it comes down to being at the mercy of administrators; i.e. the affection of a lifestyle by government decisions.

Again Vineeto has recently made pertinent comment about the persistent belief that humans are inevitably at the mercy of an authority of some sort – a belief that only breeds resentment, which inevitably leads to aggression, be it overt or covert.

In the real world this belief serves as a convenient excuse for me never being able to be happy nor harmless. I am continually unhappy and upset because the government never does what I would do, never makes the right decisions, never does all the right things, never does enough, should always do more, and so on. Continuously objecting to the current political climate is a bit like objecting to the meteorological climate – a lifelong exercise in frustration, a Tantalus-ian task. Once you come to understand that ‘the government’ is made up of fellow human beings who are invariably inflicted with the human condition, you may find yourself being amazed at how much is accomplished and how well the system works instead of being frustrated that what ‘they’ do is not ‘perfect’.

When I became an actualist I became concerned with the ‘climate’, or psychic vibes, I carried around with me – I became aware of and concerned with how my moods affected others. I started to notice how my being annoyed or frustrated or angry or sad or melancholic affected those around me and I started to notice that I couldn’t be really happy or if my ‘climate’ affected others. In fact, I found that the only way to be genuinely happy was to put being harmless ahead of being happy and the first step in this task was to stop blaming other people or organizations for either making me unhappy or, in some way or other, preventing me from being unhappy.

The below is an excerpt from a CNN’s question of the day. Is Saudi Arabia ‘with us or against us’ in the war on terrorism? I have added some notes (and colorizing) for purpose of clarity and to give some food for thought. Feel free for yourself to establish the degree of in/exclusiveness that the above expression ‘us’ is evoking when reading this question. I think it’s time for us to call the name of the Game not by wielding any power but by thinking of sensible solutions and use that to step forward to our fellow-beings I do not agree with the title of the script and I vote for ‘Actual Freedom today’ and that is the name of the game for me.

I’ll pass on thinking of sensible solutions to national conflicts and religious problems and stepping forward to change the script of others.

Whilst I can relate to your enthusiasm, you may have noticed on this very list that it is impossible to change the script of others unless they have the desire and intent to change their script themselves. If they want to change – if they want to become free from the human condition or even from some particular aspects of it – then it is possible to pass on tips, hints, personal experience and so on, but to expect or demand others to change only leads to battle and frustration.

Perhaps a little of my Journal is relevant as it relates to the struggles I went through with this very issue –

‘About this time I started to come to grips with an undercurrent of feelings that had been welling up in me as I got further along this path to freedom. As I began to increasingly understand the full extent of what Richard had discovered, I had begun quite cunningly to plot my role in the Movement that would sweep the world. Images of money and fame began to subtly occur – and sometimes not so subtly. I would see myself travelling and talking to halls full of people, spreading the message! Yes, it was good old power and authority again – the attraction of the Glamour, Glory and Glitz. No wonder the Enlightened Ones are seduced and then trapped by it! It seemed to me an instinctual grab for power by my psyche, which rightly felt threatened with elimination. I also had to admit to myself that power and authority was a definite attraction in my desire for Enlightenment – a sort of spiritual version of ‘Money for nothing and your chicks for free’.

It was further brought home to me in my situation with Vineeto, as I would try to tell her where she was wrong and ram it down her throat. Finally I saw that it was up to her to do what she wanted to do with her life, and that I had no power over her. Now I would not want it any other way; it would not be perfect otherwise. A similar thing happened with friends when I tried to inspire them; they usually felt attacked and no wonder – this path is anathema to the ‘self’. To see power and authority in myself and to have seen them in the Enlightened Ones was to prove the critical point in the process of eliminating them in me.

No longer would I be seduced down that spiritual path towards power and glory. I had reached the point where the spiritual path and the path to actual freedom radically diverge and go 180 degrees in opposite directions. There is an apparent similarity at first glance in that both identify the ‘self’ as the problem. One, the traditional, goes to God, glory, power and authority; the other goes to actual freedom, which I had glimpsed in peak experiences and which was becoming more and more obvious and apparent in my life. In my experience the other difference is crucial – one works, the other doesn’t. I was becoming increasingly happy and harmless, and therefore different from other people, who remained firmly entrenched in sorrow or were still trying the traditional paths as a remedy. They were still searching while I was busy arriving.

However, what a freedom to see others as fellow human beings who choose to do what they want with their lives, and not as people I had to save. This path to freedom was proving to contain no power or authority. But then again I had only to observe Richard and how he was – and, of course, I did continuously. I could see that the path to actual freedom was eminently sensible, practical, workable yet utterly magical. And that Enlightenment has had its day; it’s finished, redundant, obsolete, archaic, primitive, harmful and silly! Peter’s Journal, God

I’ve snipped the bit you posted about Hamas as, although I found it interesting, I don’t profess to know enough about the facts of the situation in the Middle East to make comment. In a similar vein, I recently followed a local issue about upgrading a sewerage plant but I eventually came to the realization that I would have to research the issue well beyond what was presented by the various political factions and in the press in order to get to the facts of the matter. In the end, I gave up having an opinion one way or another because no matter what option is adopted, the situation will be an improvement on what exists now.

In spite of the divisiveness inherent in the human condition, human beings are remarkably inventive in discovering and, in due course, implementing workable solutions to practical problems.

The first observation I had was about ‘relationships’ – the man-woman, living-together type. I was laying back in bed with Vineeto the other night, enjoying a particular intimate moment, when I realized the intimacy I was enjoying was the result of going into the relationship fully, of not holding back, of not settling for anything less than the very best. This continually ‘leaning forward’ rather than holding back was the only way I came to discover what was preventing me from experiencing the exquisite intimacy of the day to day peaceful living with a fellow human being. I say this because it is only by intrepidly going beyond the much-vaunted idealism and feelings of love that I managed to discover not only the guileful constraints that love inevitably imposes on both lover and loved, but also the dark underbelly of passions that love attempts to repress.

Actual intimacy is not at all like ‘real world’ intimacy that I have experienced before. In Actual intimacy, there is no demand or need placed on the partner to the relationship, so one cannot be ‘vulnerable’, in the ordinary sense of that word.

Yeah. The usual advice is that one needs to be open to the other, ‘open to love’, and that in turn means being more emotionally vulnerable. If one is really emotionally vulnerable then one is not only open to feeling love but also to feeling unloved, to feeling jealousy, to feeling not nurtured, to feeling neglected, to feeling wounded, to feeling resentment, to wanting to wound, and so on.

The traditional reaction when one is flooded by unwanted or undesirable feelings is to want to become invulnerable which usually results in withdrawing, closing down or cutting off – of some sort, to some degree. And, of course, if one feels particularly emotionally wounded then a psychological reaction known as dissociation can result.

Again I’ll post a piece from my Journal which describes how I leapt onto the path of dissociation – a journey that lasted some 17 years as it turned out.

‘Over a period of four tumultuous months my wife left me, taking the kids with her, and joined the local Rajneesh commune! I was devastated. My life was totally shattered. If any warning signs were obvious I had either missed or avoided them. It was gut-wrenchingly agonising, as my whole world fell apart. I remember looking at old men sleeping on park benches and thinking that this was my future now that I was alone in life, with no one to care for me and no-one to love. One dark night I picked up one of Rajneesh’s books, and Bingo, here was hope. There was a ‘flash’ in my heart that I was to experience again and again, particularly when in his presence. I was in love! I had, at last, discovered the meaning of life ... here was a Sage who knew the ‘Grand Scheme’ of things – and I was off, unhesitatingly down the Spiritual Path.’ Peter’s Journal, Living Together

It’s fascinating when you begin to discover that the universally-revered and sacrosanct spiritual teachings are naught but ancient fairy tales based on the ‘wisdom’ of dissociating from the material world. For the spiritualist, these other-worldly tales and other-worldly feelings provide a psychological and psychic haven – the desperate urge to not want to be here triggers an equally desperate urge to be somewhere else, a retreat into fantasy based on denial and dissociation.

For an actualist, the solution to becoming free of the emotional roller coaster is the simple act of being attentive to how you are experiencing this moment of being alive. This attentiveness firstly withers away at any denial or dissociation that is happening resulting in the gradual unveiling of the sensual delights of the actual world, which in turn leads to increasing experiences of an actual intimacy with all of one’s fellow human beings.

There is no exclusivity to a relationship and one can be actually intimate with anyone, not just one’s partner.

Whilst this non-exclusivity can be very threatening to those who seek and demand exclusivity, for an actualist every-other-body is a fellow human being – not a lover, a soul mate, a compatriot or co-conspirator, nor an alien, an enemy, an opponent or a rival. And, as if this were not enough, living with a fellow human being with whom you share the sensual pleasures of innocent sexual play is particularly delightful and especially intimate.

Actualism Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Peter’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust