|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 23
Hi, I have been with the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ for quite awhile now. Apparently the AF-method is a matter of ‘copying’ a ’program’ that has been generated by one specific brain that belongs to the flesh-blood-body Richard. So now there are some other brains that have ‘downloaded’ the self-destruction program: smoothly running the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ and I just wonder: Is not the questioner the very synthesis of the both ‘I’’s being worldly or spiritual identities? – in other words – the fundamental relationship between the questioner and this question. It seems to me that in my brain the question has morphed/evolved into: what will happen when the questioner would disappear? As we are fellow beings I thought I might give notice. Yes, to realize the implications of applying the method of actualism is indeed thrilling. ‘I’ willingly set out to sacrifice what ‘I’ value most – my very identity. The reason why ‘I’ willingly set out on a path to ‘self’-immolation is because in a PCE it is clearly experienced that the very best ‘I’, as an identity, can do for this flesh-and-blood body and for my fellow human beings is to actively pursue ‘my’ demise so that the splendour and perfection of the actual world can become apparent. The questioner will disappear when he/she has done his/her job – when all of ‘me’ has disappeared. Asking the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ is designed to awaken and continuously sharpen my awareness, to focus my attention both on how I sensuously experience this moment and what beliefs, feelings and imagination is preventing me from being happy and harmless now. The more I am happy and harmless, the less substance ‘I’ have as an identity because identity can only thrive in feelings and imagination. The longer I apply the method of asking myself the question, the more the questioner becomes redundant and is replaced by an ever increasing sensuous awareness of being alive right here in this moment. What happens when the questioner has disappeared completely you can read in
Richard’s Journal, the parts where he describes everyday life like making a cup of tea or riding his bicycle into town
or going shopping in the local supermarket. Some excerpts you can also find in
The feelings you describe remind me of Only this: I checked the links they seem not to work so maybe you could please fix that. Thank you for letting me know. The addresses for the links are all right, so I suspect that the web site was temporarily down. I checked it today and it works now. Given that you said you have downloaded the whole web site, in a similar
situation you can also find these pages off-line. The easiest way to find a link, I think, is to go to the
First of all Thanks for the hint Vineeto. Having been a ‘window user’ for many years yet the benefit of that search facility for files that contain a certain line of text had escaped my attention; it’s great fun to learn something new eh? A short flashback to the BI.: On this list I once called you Yoko Ono I understand that I may have suggested that I had pictured you and Peter as an example of a romantic couple yet, That name is now taken by my sister (just for fun) and to be honest I’m pretty glad she took it that way, as she usually is a rather serious hard labouring women. Well that was just a bit of chit-chat as a side track. I’m pleased to read that you have now changed your picture of Peter and I
as ‘an example of a romantic couple’ to ‘experts in the field of gender conditioning’ as you said
further below. If you haven’t read it already, in You may well have noticed (as I did) that the expression [polarizing language (as used by No 37)] and his expression of his concern as to the use of that kind of language on this list from the point of view of a citizen of the US or a citizen of Europe (as I am) I find understandable when taken at large considering the load of alone the term ‘polarizing’, let alone the use of language of that kind. Nevertheless I think the language on this list must not be watered down when it comes down to fundamental aspects of the AF process. Also I have understood that politics is not really your concern as neither it is mine; however on some levels in this game I think each one of is affected by decisions that are made by the top so to speak. I follow with interest many reports and stories as to how human beings live their lives, how they relate with each other, how they solve problems and face challenges. I am continuously amazed at the ingenuity of human intelligence and human practicality and how well many functions of society are organized despite the sabotaging effects of the human condition. Western societies in particular have managed an astounding amount of administrative tasks like hospitals, police, courts, emergency services, traffic control, road and rail service, electricity and water, telephone and post, social security and education. I have also come to see that there is no ‘top so to speak’ because the decisions that affect my everyday life are primarily made by public administrators in response to public demand, be they the road authority, the electricity company, the local council, the police, telephone and postal administration, and so on. Other decisions are made by industry in response to public demand, be they agriculture and trade, manufacturing, service industry and so on. Medical progress is influenced by many factors, among them public demand for better health, research funding, the ingenuity of scientific researchers, economic and practical issues as well as moral and ethical restrictions. The same holds for almost every other aspect of social administration. Politicians are only one spoke in the wheel of the organizational network, they are but the front men and women for the underlying administrative system. Despite popular opinion, politicians are not in control of everything that happens in their particular country, region or town. Far from it in fact, as most practical decisions are made at the administrative and executive level and most political decisions are made according to an ever-swaying popular opinion. Recently it occurred to me that the emotional issue with authority – either worshipping and following a chosen authority figure or rebelling against adverse authority figures – is related to an instinctual reluctance to admit that nobody is in charge of running the world – neither an almighty God nor a Mother Nature, neither a collusion of corporations nor a conspiracy of politicians. Despite common belief and social inculcation, we are all fellow human beings doing this business of being alive for the very first time. And though I’m moderately optimistic as to the possibilities of an actual global peace considering the stunning possibilities to focus our energy creatively rather than destructive, to become mutual supportive rather then taking advantage of each other and to cooperate rather then to compete. This also may very well be the last opportunity for humanity to dance not that I vote for a script like that. But the message is clear, only I can choose to move into the direction of a virtual freedom – live like a Zombie or become actual free. I don’t want to dampen your enthusiasm but ‘an actual global peace’ is not something that is likely to happen in the next two or three generations. Although everyone can become free from the human condition, thus far only very few people are interested in exploring that possibility. Peace on earth is not a communal enterprise, not even a group event. History is littered with the failed attempts of countless groups to impose their particular social, political or religious-spiritual agenda on others or with groups who stand aloof from others by piously declaring that they are the Chosen Ones or that they are the sole Guardians of the Truth. The expression ‘peace on earth’ points to the fact that peace can be experienced for you here on earth, in this lifetime, as opposed to the spiritual pursuit of an imaginary peace in heaven, epitomized by the inscription on Christian tombstones – R.I.P., rest in peace. So... at this point I’d rather acknowledged you and Peter as experts in the field of gender conditioning for starters. As I find this issue all over the place wherever I move my ass so to speak. So with this I give a hint into the direction that I have some understanding of the urge that the so-called social female and male identity become dismantled. Being a man I have taken full responsibility to take the male part as far as it concerns this flesh-blood-body named No 23/ No 23(Sannyas name). Talking about that in previous posts you have explained the reason why you have kept your name Vineeto for practical purpose. Yes, gender conditioning is indeed one of the outstanding features of everyone’s identity. Broadly speaking, a woman considers herself first as a woman and then as a human being. Similarly, a man considers himself first as a man and then as a human being. So, to see and treat others as one’s fellow human beings, one needs to investigate all the beliefs, feelings and instinctual passions that form one’s gender conditioning. But what a delight it is to be free from being a woman and to be free from having to play all the silly games of the male-female role-play! You wrote some more on this topic in your letter to No 38 –
You have described very well the common belief of the post-women’s-lib-era – the belief that women are the ‘better’ gender and that ‘sensitive’ men should accommodate women by becoming SNAGs (sensitive new-age guys) in order to fit into this new world order. Quite a few men have adopted the female-generated belief that women are naturally more caring whilst men are instinctually more aggressive and that if women ran the world everything would be hunky-dory. I am presently revisiting the early writings on the AF mailing list and in
several correspondences Richard and Peter have discussed these issues with Irene. I could recognize many of my own
former gender beliefs in her points of view. So just out of curiosity what was your German maiden name? ^note as I have made it perfectly clear in previous writings to Richard that I have no intentions nor do I have any interest to invade in private matters so if you consider this as to be an irrelevant question it will be fully respected as entirely your own business whether to disclose it or not , yet as Peter has disclosed his former sannyas name and even explained the silly poetic meaning of it, so just to poke a bit of fun of Spirituality I wonder what it is that Vineeto meant, mine was silence and I was very proud of it. ^ I do consider these issues as irrelevant to this list and nothing to do with the business of becoming free from the human condition and, as such, I prefer to leave it at that. Whatever meaning Rajneesh gave to the name Vineeto is of no concern to me today. I simply decided that it was easier to keep using the name by which everyone has come to know me rather than revert to a name that my parents gave me which is more difficult to pronounce in English. Btw: When searching through yahoo on Actual freedom there is another Site called Actual Freedom I have taken notice of that. Well I guess that’s it for now cheers I’m off to the Jazz Festival in Haarlem. I looked up the site (http://www.actualfreedomproject.com/vision.html) and it is a group of artists united under the performing name of ‘actual freedom project’ who advertise an event called ‘soul archaeology’ in the ‘at 7th Heaven Body Awareness Center’ in Berkeley, USA. I wish you fun in Haarlem.
A while ago I received some questions <snip>
Yes the way I see it now is that with any religion one holds dear essentially is a failure of the magical child to stand on his own feet and intently move into enquiry/discovery as to the real meaning of life. When I investigated my spiritual beliefs and ideas that I had taken on over the years, I also found that ‘the magical child’ was an invention of the spiritual teachings. What was useful, however, was to abandon my adult world-weary cynicism and intractable beliefs and get in touch with my naiveté and curiosity – qualities that are often seen as childlike – and I take it from your reference that this is what you may be indicating. * Did it [your version of the actualism method] enable you to become free from any aspects of your social identity – as a Dutchman, as a white man, as a son, brother, as a male, etc.? The social identity I see basically as a collective belief as to what is appropriate and/or necessary behaviour as for protection of what is agreed upon to be a private space. Basically it comes down to a more or less strict definition as to what is criminal and non-criminal behaviour implies as a Dutchman that differs from ie. a German or a Japanese and so on … depending on the country’s beliefs, as to what law and order is and how it is to be maintained. On the other hand what is funny and/or tragic is also rather much depended on how one’s conditioning in the nationalistic shell has been brought about. Clearly within this shell is a rather fundamental belief as to what part money plays in daily life and hence my way of going about this issue which is still under investigation as it only seems to become evident as a major aspect in social interaction most interesting btw. I have learnt to differentiate between the practical value of money as a trading tool for different goods and the emotions surrounding money such as greed, jealousy, envy, competition desire and resentment. The feelings and passions associated with money are not – as many like to believe – the fault of money per se or of the capitalist trading system itself but are caused by natural forces – the instinctual survival passions instilled in every human being. Money is an immensely useful invention that simplifies the comparison and exchange of services and goods. Only by introducing a commonly agreed upon monetary system was it possible to expand the trading from swapping goods and gossip with one’s immediate neighbour to a world-wide market of goods, services and technology. Clearly I acknowledge the trigger-aspect of seeing a different coloured man/woman other than a white. There is still a subtle thrill to the process of racial discrimination and it’s an issue that I’m slowly begin to enjoy to explore especially as in my case (possibly others as well) it is tightly interwoven with the gender conditioning aspect. The common panacea to racial, cultural, religious and gender discrimination is held to be tolerance of differences. And yet these differences between human beings are largely concocted of socially instilled beliefs, values, attitudes and opinions. Holding on to one’s racial, cultural, religious or gender identity means always feeling different from, and separate from, one’s fellow human beings. * Did it [your version of the actualism method] enable you to trace your emotions as they occur and find out exactly which of your beliefs or aspect of your identity triggered them? Yes it is a most fascinating process. The other day I was walking together with a man and a woman and somehow the question [what is friendship?] popped up. I found myself ready to jump in with actualism yet I withheld my response. And then the woman said: friendship has a different meaning for everybody? It’s how you experience the feeling of friendship. I found that most people associate an emotional value with friendship and I certainly had strong emotional ties with the men and women I called my friends. Within a friendship there is usually a list of unspoken rules, demands and expectations that need to be observed if one is to maintain the friendship … and loyalty is generally at the very top of this list. * Did it [your version of the actualism method] work in that it increasingly enables you to live with your fellow human beings in peace and harmony? Yes indeed, harmony is the keyword; more and more I find myself at ease with fellow human beings. And also they seem to be rather at ease with me. As I investigated my instinctually-based attitude towards people I discovered that my ‘self’-centredness caused me to relate to people either with the hope that they will satisfy my needs and desires – be my friends – or with the fear that they might take advantage of me for their own needs and desires – be my enemies. Isn’t it wonderful to increasingly discover and remove the myopic veil of hope and fear and become able to relate to people as one’s fellow human beings! Last night I watched a report about a British submarine crew – their submarine was used as a strategic training target for Canadian ships in the Second World War. The men in the submarine were under immense and ongoing stress, being the assigned practice target for several warships and it was certainly one of the toughest situations one can be in. But while I appreciated their situation with direct understanding I also realized that I am not ‘one’ with them nor am I ‘alien’ to them – I am a fellow human being. That means that while I may closely appreciate the sailors’ physical and emotional situation it does not necessarily imply imagining and feeling their affective experiencing. In that moment of pristine awareness I did not belong to the feeling-based and psychically connected human race – I was what I am, this flesh and blood body in a flat in a little Australian town. * Did it [your version of the actualism method] work to dissolve the issue of belonging – to a nation, a religion, a social group, a spiritual group, a cultural group, etc.? The aspect of belonging to a group in the sense that I feel associated with any belief or ideal has ceased, yet I would be in denial that I can be put or could put myself in a certain category like ie. people who live on a simple pension, or an artist, yet this is merely a matter of choosing to have a certain lifestyle. I must admit that indeed fitting in the first category I had a long-standing guilt issue. It is indeed a fascinating issue to investigate the moral that insists everyone has to earn their right to be here or to prove their worth to society in general or to certain people in particular. Apart from the fact that I am already here (so what’s the point of proving my right to be here?), contributing to peace on earth by changing myself radically is the most worthwhile thing I can do for myself and for my fellow human beings. * Did it [your version of the actualism method] work in that you are now standing on your own two feet and not relying on others for approval? Well approval is a stretch though I recognize the difference between appreciation for performance and also disapproval of it. I must say basically I prefer to be appreciated yet not non-critically I have a rather fair view as to about how my actual performance is (be it social, technical skills on whatever level). Also I always encourage people who evaluate the part I play, to be as specific as possible and I like to hear the ‘ratings’ so to speak. I found that if I wanted to be independent of, and unmoved by, other’s blame, I also had to disregard their praise. * The original actualism method works perfectly to tackle these and many other issues of the Human Condition and if you want to know if your method works equally well then you will have to find out for yourself. In actualism you are on your own, as is everyone else. Well as to [It is up to you to prove that your new method works and that it works better than the original method.] The method as I have devised it perfectly works for me; at this point I could not think of a better one. The reason why that is so for me I think is that I have given it blood and bones so to speak. A mental reminder to activate the neocortex is something yet when it can be materialized it works differently and one gets in control of one’s own brain so to speak. As I have not (yet) left the ‘belief’ in the theory of morphic resonance, my ‘aspiration’ to create peace on a global level is still alive and with that my sense of being responsible for that. Whilst I can relate to your ‘‘aspiration’ to create peace on a global level’ you might just have a tiny bit of a problem preventing other people from fighting each other. Personally I think that to accomplish actual peace for this flesh and blood body is enough of a challenge and is, in fact, all that I can do to contribute to an actual peace on earth. Given that I think that intelligent social interaction is the key to actual freedom, also given that the ‘alternate’ method has been devised largely as a result of my discovering and exploring of the AF-site and list-interaction, I’ll describe the applied method briefly; The alternate sequence is: How am I experiencing Myself here alive. It has been implemented in the following way but I invite anyone who is willing to experiment with it. It’s a seven-steps-sequence starting with How (while touching the tip of the left thumb with the right index finger.) I’m curious as to any comments/suggestions as to how they have experienced (especially in a social setting) the result of applying the alternate method, but then again if the old one works well, why would one experiment with a different one. I assume that by asking ‘How am I experiencing Myself here alive’ you want to focus on yourself rather than on what other people might think and feel. You might find, however, that focussing the attention on ‘Myself’ rather than on ‘this moment’ might eventually serve to aggrandize or at least overemphasize one’s ‘self’ instead of increasing one’s sensuous attentiveness to this moment of being alive. When I ask the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’, either verbally or as a wordless awareness, I am paying attention to what is happening this moment, which includes all sensory perception, any thinking or reflective processes that are happening and any non-felicitous feelings that need further investigation. And the outcome is less and less disturbance to the overall sensual enjoyment of being alive. Groetjes Groetjes to you too.
Some time ago you commented to No 38 about something I wrote to him –
I for one get the impression that Vineeto is underestimating the (invisible) part that money plays in human interaction. … This sounds to me like a statement made in idealist modus. Yes, it is a fact that one could say we all are in the business of surviving in anyway at any cost, however to say that this is the name of the game, is to blur the line between business and privacy which is as far as I can observe rather sharply drawn by most people when doing business, that is when push comes to shove. To explain; business for making a livelihood, is strictly speaking for most of the ‘players’ far from a game, hence those who actually ‘play’ with and/or for money are very few most call this game working. It is a fact that [money is used in the exchange of goods and services] is basically ‘an exchange’ with my fellow human beings. And also it is a fact that [human beings are instinctually occupied in a ruthlessly-competitive impassioned battle for survival against each other] hence whenever money plays a part one enters either the field of this [ruthlessly-competitive impassioned battle] while making deals. Or one is making compromises accepting money as a basically not fair and/or adequate (as it is now) belief-system based on reward and punishment accordingly to legal aspects and/ or ethical aspects of the local (national) situation. I question that money is actual, in fact I think that it is a collective belief-system that apart from its being a collectively upon agreed tool, it also is a very personalized belief closely related to lifestyle and that’s where the friction part in human interaction is likely to occur as in essence money is a rather spiritual concept. I think that Vineeto may overlook, that though money cannot buy love, it seems to have become in many cases a more dearly held value then the belief in love thus a tougher to deal with aspect of the social identity at large. When I began to examine the reasons why I was tense and serious whenever I was dealing with money and working for money, I quickly discovered that it was ‘me’, as a passionate identity, who was responsible for all of the ‘bad vibes’ around money. I discovered my anxiety of not being a success, my greed to acquire as much as possible combined with my resentment at having to work for it, my fear of being cheated, my competitiveness to get the best deal come what may and my general reluctance to relate to people in a straightforward manner and fair service-for-money contracts. The issue of money is an excellent field for investigation for an actualist because it brings a whole range of morals and ethics to the surface for close inspection, not to mention the basic survival instincts that are activated when one is dependant upon money for sustenance and shelter. As you mention, one can also have a particular spiritual slant on one’s assessment of money such as – money is dirty, it’s the work of the devil, it’s lead weight for the soul, money corrupts, money stinks, etc, etc. But money itself is neither dirty nor evil – it is only made to be so by the fervent beliefs and passionate survival instincts of human beings. Money – notes and coins – is unquestionably actual stuff and there is a common usage of money as an exchange medium for goods and services. When one begins to remove one’s rose-coloured and grey-coloured glasses – the good and evil spirits concerning money – one can experience that money is a simple straightforward tool. I also found I didn’t have to solve the problems that other people have with money in order to be able to use it sensibly rather than passionately – I only had to investigate my own emotions and beliefs in order to get rid of the aversion, tension and greed that money used to trigger. Today my dealing with money is indeed a game – an utterly non-serious play, which in no way denies the necessity of having or earning sufficient for my shelter and sustenance. I delight in my paid work of putting order in people’s financial records – which is the adult version of ‘playing shop’ that I enjoyed as a girl. Peter recently pointed out that his work is playing the adult version of his favourite childhood game called ‘builder bricks’ – drawing houses and gardens for people in order to pay for his living and his toys. As for assessing how to spend my money, I found it useful to consider the time I need to work in order to pay for my necessities and then make a judgement as to how much more time I want to work in order to buy luxury items such as technical toys. This way common sense prevails over greed because time is my most valuable asset – time to do nothing really well. I can highly recommend looking into all one’s beliefs and passions concerning money because, when they are uprooted and exposed, then dealing with money is but a trading game, utterly easy and delightful.
You wrote a post to me quoting Kofi Annan, the current Secretary General of the U.N. – World Peace Secr. Annan – ‘Unilateral actions challenge world peace’. Some progress seems to have been made after all. What a game huh. I take it from your comment that you see the fact that Mr. Annan made this
comment as being ‘progress’ towards world peace. What he is doing is nothing more than condemning a particular group
of countries for taking military action to oust a ruthless dictator who for twenty years took unilateral Whether the good guys or the bad guys – and who are the good guys and who are the bad guys is entirely dependant on the morals and ethics of the beholder – take unilateral action, or whether they join with others to take multilateral action, the end result is the same – no peace on earth. It would seem that the progress that you are referring to is that the current Secretary General of the U.N. is expressing a moral and ethical stance that accords with your own. In actualism I take unilateral action of a totally different kind, Vis –
I got tired of waiting, and fighting, for someone else to change the world according to my morals and my ideals – I decided to bring about actual peace by changing myself.
Thanks for your plaintext copy (I get still blanks when it is sent in rich text). I have explored every alley I could think of to have Peter’s and my posts show up in the Topica archives but no luck. I still prefer the html to plain text for easier reading, so I will post them in both formats in future. * World Peace Secr. Annan – ‘Unilateral actions challenge world peace’. Some progress seems to have been made after all. What a game huh. I take it from your comment that you see the fact that Mr. Annan made this
comment as being ‘progress’ towards world peace. What he is doing is nothing more than condemning a particular group
of countries for taking military action to oust a ruthless dictator who for twenty years took unilateral As to: [I take it from your comment that you see the fact that Mr. Annan made this comment as being ‘progress’ towards world peace.] If Mr. Annan would have used the expression ‘unilateral actions’ in combination with the expression ‘challenge world peace’ and these expressions would have been used with their meanings as they have on the AF-site, he could have figured as an actualist merely stating a fact. I’m pretty sure though that he meant to sound a serious warning, hence my quoting of him was meant as a tongue in cheek ponderer, but face value taken I well can understand you took it differently. When looking at the phrase ‘Unilateral actions challenge world peace’. I’m not too sure as to whether or not in this context he did intent to euphemistically refer with ‘Unilateral actions’ to ‘stupidity in matters of cooperation at large’ Hence as such: The current Secretary General of the U.N. might be expressing a stance (not moral or ethical) that accords my own provided that [‘Unilateral actions challenge world peace’] is rephrased as [independent actions by nations or collectives that are not based on UN consensus, well may be severely obstructing progress in creating possibilities for cooperation or sensible dialogue(s) ] So… by no means it is to say that I would support a stance like i.e. [multilateral actions are the only alternative to bring about world peace] I’m not even sure if it where correct to say [By Mr. Annan’s logic, multilateral actions should aid in bringing about world peace] where all he has said was that unilateral actions challenge world peace. I mean strictly speaking he did not say: [multilateral actions should aid in bringing about world peace] Perhaps as a diplomat he did not use the word multilateral as using this it might be interpreted as an invitation to come to solve ‘problems’ through multilateral action rather then intensive dialogue within the UN. But then again that is merely speculation. Thus I’m not sure whether Mr. Annan is condemning a ‘particular group of countries (the so called coalition of the willing) for taking military action. I since read the speech of Kofi Annan 23rd Sept. to the UN General Assembly and although he never used the phrase you quoted in that speech he did say of the recent so-called unilateral military action that deposed Saddam Hussein –
This seems to be a clear condemnation to me, especially as it was said by a diplomat. But to get back to the topic of world peace Annan also said in his speech –
Whilst he uses the term ‘the unique legitimacy’ one has to understand that the UN doesn’t function democratically. The UN has neither legislative nor executive power over any of its member nations and matters of ‘international peace and security’ are the exclusive province of the Security Council. This Security Council consists of five permanent non-elected members – mainly the victorious nations of World War II. Hence Richard’s description of –
And further any one of the five nations that make up the Security Council has the right to veto any resolution that the council passes. Hence at any one time any one single nation of the big five has it in its power to prevent the others from passing a resolution that the others deem appropriate. Or to put it into the currently fashionable jargon – any one of the big five can take unilateral action to foil multilateral action and thus prevent ‘legitimacy’. Those who set up the UN and drafted its Charter never meant the UN to be a democratic institution, particularly in matters of security where the big five rule the roost. Any one of them can foil a democratic vote and every nation in the world retains the inherent right to act in self-defence. Those who set up the UN after WW2 were war-weary realists who understood from experience that ultimately what passes for peace on earth between disparate nations, ethnic and religious groups and ideological factions can only be maintained by the threat of force and if threat fails, by the use of force. For me the crux of the matter is that this sentence [‘Unilateral actions challenge world peace’] hints at the fact that this ‘peace-operation’ was taken in disagreement with UN. Given that this was not a General Assembly matter but a Security Council matter, the military ousting of Saddam Hussein was only opposed by two countries of the five Council members as I recall – France and Russia. It is good to be wary of the ‘facts’ presented by either side involved in a moral or ideological dispute since those on both sides in any argument are equally prone to latch at straws in order to justify their beliefs or uphold their convictions. As I see it what happened is if for instance one would compare it with a game of football. While this game is in progress suddenly one of the players decides it is no longer football that the teams will be playing but from now on in stead it will be rugby. So… then the cheer leaders of this particular one player jump in to support him and as the arena where the game is happening now is occupied the game football is over. Now he most determinedly starts his advertisement and campaign to find support to play a different game and he gets some people ‘enthusiastic’ to play, however the majority of other players have second thoughts as to the changing of the game – would it be more fun to play rugby and of course would they benefit from it financially? So… they are not sure and all they ask is some time to consider, take counsel with their sponsors and so on. But no time is allowed, the ones in favour move out and start on a different location and the game has changed. Former players now become spectators and a few of the oldies go playing and promoting the new game as the best. That is as I see the current situation now as having become the result as a consequence of what happened, when Mr. Hans Blix was bluntly ignored in his request for more inspections in Iraq. Now what happens next? Rugby after all seems to become quickly less fun and most importantly appears not so profitable as was expected Perhaps this is a bit overly naïve way of putting it and perhaps I give not full credit to the seriousness of the matter but then again that is my opinion so far. Okay. If you want to run a fair play analogy, the question still remains – fair or unfair, according to whom? Many of those who live in the U.S. see it as only fair that they have the right to defend themselves after the financial, military and executive centre of the country were attacked, and not only defend themselves but actively seek out those responsible for the attack in order to stop them from doing it again. Many people around the world seem to think it was fair that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to hunt for the perpetrators of the attacks on the U.S. whilst others thought it unfair. Similarly many people think that it was fair that the U.S. and its coalition members invaded Iraq in order to depose Saddam Hussein and install a democratic system of government whilst others think it unfair. And whilst it is apparent that you think that the manner in which Saddam Hussein was deposed was unfair, a recent poll in Iraq revealed a majority in favour of his regime ending and in favour of the way it ended – military intervention by foreign troops. The only point you seem to be making and have done for some time on this list is that you personally don’t approve of what some country did. Why do you think that this is relevant information to post to a mailing list, which has as its central proposition that the only way human beings can ever bring an end to malice and sorrow is by doing it themselves? Continuing to blame others as being malevolent is but to continue to completely miss the whole point of what is on offer in actualism. * What he is doing is nothing more than condemning a particular group of countries for taking military action to oust a ruthless dictator who for twenty years took unilateral democidal action against his own people. By Mr. Annan’s logic, multilateral actions should aid in bringing about world peace yet it was the multilateral action of a group of countries – mainly Germany, Italy and Japan – who instigated the carnage that was World War Two and it was only ended by the multilateral actions of another group of countries. As to: [a ruthless dictator who for twenty years took unilateral democidal action against his own people.] I’m now well aware that the decision to remove Mr. Saddam Hussein from power was not taken lightly and far from an easy one. George Bush Snr. certainly stopped short of deposing Saddam Hussein when the U.S. and its allies cleared his troops out of Kuwait, the official line being a lack of a mandate to go further than freeing Kuwait. It seems that a combination of Hussein’s continued snubbing of the terms of the ceasefire agreement from that war over a decade or more and the fact that the U.S. itself was attacked meant that the circumstances were rife for the decision to be made to militarily depose him and his regime. Yet I’m sure that also business’ interests fairly have been intertwining with altruistic motives in coming upon the taken decision Before you take on the popular anti-war, anti-American, anti-capitalist and anti-globalization stance, have you inquired into your own feelings of fear and desire that could well have interfered with a clear perception? What the press and the ubiquitous political propaganda sell as facts is more often than not opinion, distortion and fiction – one needs to consider that everyone who is making the effort and taking the expense of publishing their opinion has a vested interest of their own. … (to liberate the poor oppressed inhabitants of Iraq who were suffering from a harsh regime that could be compared with i.e. a Hitlerian regime; was after all AH not applying democidal action against his own people when taken in account that some of the people he took action against where German and hence those were strictly speaking his own people.) Yet, I don’t think it makes much sense to compare this present situation with WWII though of course one will find similarities when looking for them. One of the comparisons that can be drawn between the former situation in Iraq
and Adolf Hitler’s Germany is that the surrounding countries knew in both cases of the extent of atrocities that were
going on, yet great resistance to do something about it was mounted by pacifist movements both in 1940 and in 2001. It
is one thing to march for the ideals of peace and freedom, it is quite another to take pragmatic action about ending one’s
own antagonism and facilitating one’s own freedom. It might well be worth following up the links on The present situation in the Middle East as is, is far more complex and the efficiency potential and impact of even ‘ordinary’ conventional weapons is far and far greater then at the time of WWII. Nevertheless no use to cry over spilt milk and if at least I want to have some understanding of what is happening in my backyard so to speak any resentment as to what has happened I had to do away with and look afresh to this new situation. And this situation is still as far as I’m concerned far from clear. To name a few things; the alleged BL /Alquida connection with SH, the assumed existence of WMD (be they nuclear or chemical based.) and of course the Israel/Palestinian case. The factors Korea, Iran, not be underestimated the situation in Africa to name a few aspects. As a youth I demonstrated against the oppressed, I marched against capitalism and for socialism and I instinctively took a stand for a supposedly oppressed minority, against the rich and for the poor. To back up my passionate opinion I relied solely on the propaganda given by the rally leaders, a propaganda that had nothing to do with a clear-eyed seeing of the facts but was purely intended to add fuel to the fires of righteous anger and rebellion against ‘the establishment’. It wasn’t long until I realized that those infused with righteous anger and inspired to rebellion weren’t necessarily better people in their personal lives than those they riled against and I then turned to spiritualism to find a global solution in creating the New Man via spiritual liberation. After living and working in various spiritual communes for more than a decade I discovered that the same class and power battles were fought out within the ranks of the disciples as are fought out in the real world of politics. Eventually I had to acknowledge that the drive for power and superiority – and the consequential feelings of anger and resentment if one is not powerful and superior – is something that is inherent to each individual, i.e. it is universal within the human condition regardless of the arena in which it is played out. This understanding was a major component for giving actualism a go. In short, when you understand your own inherent drive for power and superiority – and the consequential feelings of anger and resentment if you are not powerful and superior – as part and parcel of the survival instincts, you have a much better chance to understand why there can never be a political solution to bringing an end to the malice and sorrow of the human condition. * Whether the good guys or the bad guys – and who are the good guys and who are the bad guys is entirely dependant on the morals and ethics of the beholder – take unilateral action, or whether they join with others to take multilateral action, the end result is the same – no peace on earth. It would seem that the progress that you are referring to is that the current Secretary General of the U.N. is expressing a moral and ethical stance that accords with your own. As to: [Whether the good guys or the bad guys – and who are the good guys and who are the bad guys is entirely dependant on the morals and ethics of the beholder – take unilateral action, or whether they join with others to take multilateral action, the end result is the same – no peace on earth.] There’s no arguing about that as to that result when considering the word Peace as used in the AF-process. What passes as peace between countries can always only be a shifting of alliances and this so-called peace does not put a stop to domestic violence, murder, rape, child abuse or the ongoing often acrimonious disputes between people of all ages, gender, race or class with each other. Even within countries that are not overtly at war with others, peace is nowhere to be found. I remember a discussion where you stated that ‘democracy’ still is the best system we have come up with so far, thus I must take it that you consider a decision democratically taken is being more sensible then a non democratically taken one. Considering that UN was designated to be functioning as democratic body I am a bit puzzled as to how you come to say: [By Mr. Annan’s logic, multilateral actions should aid in bringing about world peace] {snip} Vineeto:
As I explained above, the UN is not a democratic institution but a conglomeration of representatives of states who can neither pass laws nor implement any of their resolutions. Further, the content of their resolutions is governed – or rather stifled – by the veto power of the Security Council, which is composed of non-elected permanent members. If you wait for the UN to bring peace to the world you will be waiting in vain. As it is now I (as the remains of an identity) am my opinion. And frankly speaking I do not see how I can dismantle this identity without having a fair understanding, of where I am positioned as a fleshbloodbody while exploring the Stygian depths of the human psyche for what I understand that to be entailing. In order to understand the bigger picture as to how nations interact with each other I had to first learn to stop taking sides. And in order to stop taking sides I had to take a clear-eyed look at the programming that is the very substance of my own social identity – where I was raised, how I was raised, what values and opinions I have acquired in the course of my life, who I liked and disliked, who I identified with or felt separate from and so on. Because I aspired to dismantle my social identity, I needed to find out why I had a passionate reaction to the events I watched on the news in order to stop my habitual reaction of taking sides as to who is right and who is wrong, who is bad and who is good. Our satellite TV program provides a history channel where I can watch detailed historical reports about many countries and many times in history. I began to learn about, and observe, the swings and roundabouts of nations over time, the shifting of alliances and the sustaining of grievances that go back over centuries, the incessant fight for military, economic and moral superiority by whatever means is available to them. Just as the instinctual survival passions operate in me as an individual, they also operate within groups of people, be they religious, cultural, tribal or national. To clarify: Each time I have a PCE it becomes obvious how perfectly I as a human being fit in this whole story of humanity. Even more so how it makes more and more sense what part(s) my fellow travellers play in that. ‘I’ as an identity fit exactly ‘in this whole story of humanity’ because ‘I’ am humanity and humanity is ‘me’. Now the memory of that perfection is a source of nurture to my naivety and also a reason to be moderately optimistic as to the unfolding of a future where the number of people being Happy and Harmless (99%) is not limited to a just a rare few lucky ones. Nevertheless I am also aware that should I indulge in making an uhm… educated guess as to that number and the period of time that may be involved with that this easily could lead to a sort of scepticism that I rather not have intoxicated myself with. You are right – there is no point in intoxicating yourself with scepticism. Yet while successfully practicing actualists can give confidence and surety about the fact that it is indeed possible to become virtually free from the human condition, an actual freedom is, by definition, a freedom from the need to belong to a group, any group, particularly that fabled lot of ‘fellow travellers’ who persist in imagining that other people are somehow going somewhere together with them. By the way, becoming virtually free of malice and sorrow is not a matter of luck – it is instigated by a deliberate decision, the outcome of pure intent to become blithe and benign and the reward for persistent endeavour. PS: The site you referred to http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ I have scanned and came up the ring of tears well what to say…I consider it as a rather abundant supplement to the horror that has been referred to as malice and sorrow on the AF-site indeed one picture tell more then... so… There is no need for me to become too discriminative in describing the fact that human beings kill each other. Using an extended vocabulary to make distinction i.e. between terrorism, democide, genocide, aso. may be useful when it comes down for scholars when making statistics or lawyers to make a case for crimes against humanity, I for one only need these two labels malice and sorrow and that covers all of it. If, as you said above, you ‘want to have some understanding of what is happening in my backyard so to speak’, i.e. ‘the present situation in the Middle East as is’, you will have to make the effort to discriminate the nuances of how and why human beings and nations interact with each other the way they do. In order to do this, however, you first need to have an experiential understanding of the nuances of how and why ‘you’ tick, which is what the actualism process is about.
Vineeto you might consider this as a preliminary response to your latest posting to me [re: World Peace vs. Peace-on-earth]. Suffice for now to mention that, I’m quite happy with the way and the tone in which you have made your response. I am pleased to have been of assistance in further resolving your query. You are by no means alone in riling against the world as-it-is and people as-they-are and hoping that others will change. The political/national struggles I observe on TV are not very different in nature to the struggles I read about in the local newspaper – it is the human condition in action. Through the practice of actualism I have eventually come to understand the silliness of habitually taking sides in these struggles – particularly more so when I realized that I formed my opinions and beliefs by accepting the ideological views and biased information disseminated by those who ‘I’ agreed with whilst simultaneously turning a blind eye to any facts that didn’t fit. So much for clear thinking. Richard devoted a whole chapter in his journal to describe that ‘it is impossible to combat the wisdom of the real world’ because ‘for a person to acknowledge a fact would require that they betray their belief’ (article 21) … and that apparently is what very few people are willing to do. As simultaneously I also have been hmm… monitoring No 56’s postings and responses and have considered his objections as to how the AF-foundation is conducting its public relations. I must say that I have a different opinion as I think The AF-foundation is doing excellent the way it is doing. The embedded midi melodies, the overall make up of the pages with the cute illustrations make it really fun to access them. I am pleased to hear that you like the AF website. It is certainly great fun to maintain. Back to That No 27 is ‘not available’ is evidence that the website is still being added to. * And in a second post you wrote – Gruss Gott, Vineeto, Greet God? How did God get into your mail – did you accidentally leave the back door open? From No 45’ postings I get the impression that he thinks that there is some sort of Hierarchy in AF. Vis:
Incidentally, the greatest number of objections accusing actualists of being cult members, forming a hierarchy and following a guru have thus far come from followers of Jiddu Krishnamurti, closely followed by objections from followers of Mohan Rajneesh. And yet, when they come to a mailing list set up by a man who was once enlightened and managed to free himself from the delusionary state along with two others who had trod the spiritual path intensely enough and for long enough to have witnessed the duplicity of the revered God-men first-hand, they then proceed to accuse the very whistleblowers as being either gurus or disciples. But it is all quite simple – as long as I had an issue with authority, I assumed that everyone else also must have a similar problem with authorities. It was only when I, once and for all, realized that there is no God (by whatever name) in this infinite, eternal and perpetual universe – a He/She or It who pulls the strings, grants bonuses to goodie-two-shoes and punishes sinners – that my issues with God’s authority vanished into thin air, never to return. Since then I have discovered what thinking for yourself and standing on your own two feet really means – and it is delightful. So… I thought I might make that shift the sooner the better because that kind of dependency is something I find difficult to live with. A ‘shift to Vineeto’? What good is this going to do? I think your tongue is in your cheek, alternating from left to right. When I had this sudden flash of insight that anyone could now even from the first page decide whether they consider themself to be in favour of consideration of the third alternative. It is not a matter of considering ‘themself to be in favour’ – it is far more direct. People either are in favour of further investigation and exploration or they are dead set against it. As a rule of thumb it seems that those who find the real world struggles and the spiritual fairy stories to be unsatisfactory could possibly be drawn to explore further and those who are content with their life as-it-is and who feel compelled to remain loyal to their particular teacher will strongly object. The way I apply the HAIETMOBA-sequence you can consider to have resulted from a dialogue, in which you mentioned that I had not accurately represented the HAIETMOBA-sequence: quite while ago btw. Now it pleases me immensely that I can present the litmus test for sincerity in rich text as well as in plain text. Peter and I coined the expression ‘litmus test’ to describe the curious phenomenon that some people wholeheartedly agreed with whatever it was that Richard said whilst at the same time strongly objecting to whatever Peter or I said about becoming virtually free from the human condition. Eventually it became clear why – only those who are sincerely interested in actually becoming free of the human condition would deign to inquire about the process of applying the method of actualism from other practicing actualists. PS. Vineeto You also made clear that it was me who had to experiment with it in order to find out the difference. I think the formulae as is, works excellent … I am pleased to hear that your query about how to use the actualism method has now been resolved, experientially. The phrase ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ is simply the attentiveness of being right here in this physical place right now at this moment, put into words. When you remember to be attentive, the words are redundant, but when you forget to be attentive, remembering to remember the words can jog you back to attentiveness. … and it is simply a matter of time that indeed the likeliness of the occurrence of a ‘chain reaction’ will increase considerably. Well one may call me a mad scientist for aspiring to such miracles, yet isn’t life grant eh? The first and most important ‘chain reaction’ is the one that happens in you – first you make it your aim to feel good, then to feel very good, then to feel excellent, then to feel excellent most of the time, and your growing attentiveness to this moment of being alive will insure that ‘me’, the passionate identity, will take more and more the back stage. This process of diminishing ‘self’-centredness is indeed a grand adventure, the journey of a lifetime. Vineeto’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust |
