Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List

Correspondent No 32

Topics covered

Living together without loyalty * the magical key for us to live together in peace and harmony was commitment, love and loneliness are but the opposite sides of the same coin, third alternative to the ‘good’ person – ‘bad’ guy role-play is to aim for actual intimacy * two partners? * living with more than one partner * other actualists * all values are human-made, the writings published by the AFT are only the beginning of people discovering actuality for themselves * nipping in the bud * bottom line scenario for happiness, truism * method to become free from the human condition is equally applicable to everyone * the ‘exchange or economic principle’ is a human principle, nipping in the bud is useful when I need to erase a persistent visceral habit, eliminating the ‘silly’ actions that produced stress in my life * the psychic world is nothing but a collective illusion, I don’t intend to do ‘exactly what [Richard] has done’, the actualism method gives clear instructions how to leave ‘the world of the psyche’

 

25.9.2004

You wrote – Vineeto/Peter, How do you live with a single partner without experiencing loyalty?

When I met Peter he said he was seeking a companionship with a woman in which he would look at everything that was in the road of intimacy and of being able to live together in utter peace and harmony. I found the offer intriguing in that I knew it would challenge me to do likewise.

Within a few months of agreeing to the proposition, we noticed that we had fallen in love and, as it became clear that the resultant tumultuous feelings were anything but peaceful and not conducive to harmony, each of us investigated our feelings of love. One thing that soon became very clear was that love inevitably entailed the insistence upon loyalty that arose out of one’s own feeling of bondage along with its opposite – fear of betrayal that arose out of the fear of feeling the heart-wrenching grief of loss.

When exposed to the bright light of awareness it becomes obvious that to continue to feed such feelings is clearly nonsensical – it is inimical not only to one’s own happiness but it also makes impossible for one to not harbour antagonistic feelings towards one’s companion.

Is that a preference or socially conditioned behaviour?

To me, it goes without question that someone who is willing to commit to living with me in peace and harmony – and do the work needed to be able of doing so – is the very best partner to be with … it doesn’t come any better than that. I have experimented with a lot with different types of relationships in my life – love affairs, marriage, triangles, commune living, a long-term so-called open relationship with affairs on the side, being single and having one night stands and periods of celibacy – but I have never ever been able to find the ongoing joy and delight that comes with the intimacy of living with one other person of the opposite gender in utter peace and harmony.

I prefer having sex with different partners. At this stage I don’t know if it is simply a preference or my instinctual passions in action.

Oh, you may well find out should some of the ‘different partners’ accidentally come to know about each other.

3.10.2004

You wrote – Vineeto/Peter, How do you live with a single partner without experiencing loyalty?

When I met Peter he said he was seeking a companionship with a woman in which he would look at everything that was in the road of intimacy and of being able to live together in utter peace and harmony. I found the offer intriguing in that I knew it would challenge me to do likewise.

Within a few months of agreeing to the proposition, we noticed that we had fallen in love and, as it became clear that the resultant tumultuous feelings were anything but peaceful and not conducive to harmony, each of us investigated our feelings of love. One thing that soon became very clear was that love inevitably entailed the insistence upon loyalty that arose out of one’s own feeling of bondage along with its opposite – fear of betrayal that arose out of the fear of feeling the heart-wrenching grief of loss.

Speaking from my on-going personal experience with my current partner, she is very much interested in love to the point of asking me if I love her on a weekly basis. And I say that I do, although I kindly explain to her that love is only a step and at a later stage even a hindrance :) towards happiness and intimacy and not the final goal. She is not willing to investigate her feelings and I’m constantly subjected to a bombardment in order to provide love proofs and declarations.

I am reminded of a remark made by an old friend of mine after he read Peter’s Journal and ‘A Bit of Vineeto’. He said, ‘it would be good if my girlfriend would read the book, she could learn a lot from it’. Needless to say that he didn’t consider that the only person he really needed to change, and actually could change, was himself. He has since moved on through several other girlfriends, apparently unwilling to commit to any one.

One step aside and I make her unhappy, I’m not what she wants, etc. So I’m constantly required to subserve myself to her ideals, ethics and desires about how a relationship should be just to avoid conflict and a possible break-up. But this makes me quite unhappy, not being able to be as I am and to follow my own interests. The other side is that without love, a relationship is a ‘heart-felt desert’ to her... ruled by feelings of indifference, coldness and callousness instead of warmth, closeness, trust, togetherness, common aims, etc., everything that draws us closer to each other, but which also separates ourselves from others. It is also very important for her to have a future together, like marriage, in order to provide a meaning to the relationship, otherwise it’s felt as a waste of time, no matter how pleasant it is.

When you read Peter’s chapter on Living Together you will notice that the magical key that made it possible for us to live together in peace and harmony was commitment. Peter was willing to commit himself to do whatever necessary to remove the obstacle to living in peace with a companion. This is how he described a seminal insight at the time –

Two other ingredients necessary for success are patience and consideration, and my lack of these was soon to become a major issue between us. In typical male fashion I leapt into the process, determined to make it work. I had found a ‘solution’ and I proceeded to attempt to ram it down Vineeto’s throat. I would take the discoveries about Actual Freedom I had made in talking with Richard and try to convince her of their ‘rightness’. She was still very much on the spiritual path, whereas I was beginning to have serious doubts. Of course, she sensibly dug her heels in – she saw it as her simply taking on yet another belief system. We often would come to loggerheads over this, and this was in stark contrast to the mutual discoveries we were making about love, sex and gender differences. Here I was again acting in stereotype – arrogant, authoritarian and wielding power. What this meant practically was that I was again doing ‘battle’, and with the very woman with whom I had vowed to end all this nonsense! Our pact had in fact been about living together and did not include her having to abandon her spiritual beliefs – that was her business, not mine.

One day, as I was driving to see her, it struck me like a thunderbolt. This is not just an intellectual theory – this is about changing my actions, changing my life. A theory is useless unless it is practical, workable, i.e. can be proven in practice that it works. If the battling was to stop, then it was me who had to stop it! This was not about changing this was about changing me! When I saw her that evening I told her I was not going to battle her anymore, wanting to get my way or wanting to change her. The realization that it was me who had to stop battling was so obvious, so complete and so devastating that it was impossible to continue on as I had before.

It was to prove a seminal point, a break from my past view of relating with women. It meant that instead of trying to bridge a separation, there was a beginning towards finding a genuine intimacy – to eliminate the cause of the separation. Instead of wanting to prove ‘my’ point or defend ‘my’ position the emphasis shifted to discovering what was common ground, what was mutually agreed. Instead of conflict the emphasis shifted to peaceful resolution. This realization proved to be the beginning of being able to sincerely and openly investigate all that inhibited our living together in peace and harmony – a 180-degree shift from the normal relating. Not a ‘surrender to the other’ as in losing a battle, not a withdrawal, not a sit it out on the sidelines, but a genuine seeing and understanding of the very futility of the battle itself. It was the beginning of getting down and getting dirty to look unabashedly at all the emotions, feelings and instinctual passions that arise between men and women. To talk about and thoroughly investigate love, jealousy, dependency, sex, authority, power, gender roles, etc. without any conflict or battle. Peter’s Journal, Living Together

*

One thing that soon became very clear was that love inevitably entailed the insistence upon loyalty that arose out of one’s own feeling of bondage along with its opposite – fear of betrayal that arose out of the fear of feeling the heart-wrenching grief of loss.

Bondage, love, loyalty and the fear of betrayal is connected to the fear of loneliness and the accompanying sorrow. This is in my view the deeper layer under the grief of loss. Loyalty and trust are special in-demand feelings, as they provide security and make someone feel special and hopeful in a future happiness and promise an escape from loneliness. In short, happiness goes hand in hand with bonding in the real-world.

Yes, ‘in the real-world’ love and loneliness are but the opposite sides of the same coin. Loneliness and the accompanying sorrow exist because ‘I’ as an identity feel deep down that I am separate, forever cut off from the actual world – ‘I’ can never experience actual intimacy, neither with people nor with the world as it is. Actual intimacy only happens when ‘I’ am in abeyance, temporarily or permanently.

This is how I described my first experience of an actual intimacy –

… After a minute or two that appeared to contain an eternity of complex understanding, Peter said to me, ‘Hello, how are you? Good that you are here!’ ‘Here’ obviously meant that there existed a place outside my belief-systems! I turned round, out of my shock and bewilderment, into the actual world, and saw that I was simply sitting on the couch with Peter. Here was someone sitting next to me, another human being, not particularly a man, lover or boyfriend. Just a human being, smiling and pleased to meet me, eager to explore with me the next event in life. He is interested. And I am interested. Who is this person? What will happen next? What will he say next? What will we do next? It is exciting, alive, right here and a great pleasure!

The pure and immediate adventure of experiencing this moment of being alive was so utterly superior to everything I had come across in the name of meditation, bliss or ‘satori’ that it spoke for itself. Being in the actual world, everything is simply obvious, needs no explanation or theory, and contains no emotional memories of any past struggle or fear. There is nothing that blurs or edits the experience of the world around me, which is both wondrous and delightful. Freedom is living each moment as it happens, without any objection. A Bit of Vineeto

Experiencing an actual intimacy is not dependant on the other person – it happens when ‘I’ step aside. The intent to enable such an intimacy spurred me on to question and investigate ‘my’ beliefs, ‘my’ desires, ‘my’ selfishness, ‘my’ demands, ‘my’ pride, ‘my’ notions about freedom. The ensuing diminishing of ‘my’ ‘self’-centred view then enabled me to more and more perceive other people as fellow human beings, and I was less and less compelled, as my instinctual passions had programmed me to do, to perceive and treat them as bit-players in ‘my’ world whereby I am only happy when they comply and unhappy when they don’t.

To be alone and happy is inconceivable.

I was quite happy to be alone many times in my life and I certainly had many, many days when I was unhappy when I was not alone as in being in a relationship. One thing that became obvious to me early on in my investigations into the human condition was that it was essential that I be happy alone – or that I alone needed to be happy – if I at all wanted to be happy whilst living with a companion. Or to put it another way, if I was not happy with my own company, how could I expect another to be happy with my company?

I also think sorrow goes deeper then fear and the personal survival instinct. Evidence might be that some people choose love over money, when presented with that choice. It also reflects my experience with relationships break-up, the feelings of sorrow are predominant and those of fear tend to be non-existent. Have any idea why this is so?

I have experienced the fear of betrayal and the fear of loss whilst in a relationship whereas the grief of loss was predominant at the ending of the relationship. However, a little digging reveals that fear is the predominant instinctual passion – that all feelings of malice and sorrow have their roots in fear.

The good part of the relationship is sex and simply enjoying our living together but I find it increasingly difficult to pay for and accept the whole ‘relationship’ package.

So far you described two options in the ‘‘relationship’ package’ – bondage and rebellion . Why not give the third alternative a go?

*

When exposed to the bright light of awareness it becomes obvious that to continue to feed such feelings is clearly nonsensical – it is inimical not only to one’s own happiness but it also makes impossible for one to not harbour antagonistic feelings towards one’s companion.

Exactly what I’m feeling when facing the pressure of love, loyalty, trust, belonging and bondage. I have no desire to bond with someone, although I very much enjoy their company. I have also noticed that to be somebody’s friend usually means to be someone else’s enemy. I tend to play the ‘bad guy’ role when in the company of a ‘good’ person’ like my partner is: compassionate, loving, nurturing, etc. She worked as a nurse and there is a mixture of actually caring for me, nurture and loving. I tend to focus and encourage the caring component although sometimes is difficult to distinguish between caring and nurturing. As a rule of thumb, to nurture means to feel that one cares and actually be surprised when the other reacts unexpectedly... which sometimes I do.

The third alternative to the ‘good’ person – ‘bad’ guy role-play is to aim for actual intimacy. To be with a companion and to withdraw one’s feelings of love without replacing them with something better is but to invite resentment and frustration from one’s companion.

*

Is that a preference or socially conditioned behaviour?

To me, it goes without question that someone who is willing to commit to living with me in peace and harmony – and do the work needed to be able of doing so – is the very best partner to be with … it doesn’t come any better than that. I have experimented with a lot with different types of relationships in my life – love affairs, marriage, triangles, commune living, a long-term so-called open relationship with affairs on the side, being single and having one night stands and periods of celibacy – but I have never ever been able to find the ongoing joy and delight that comes with the intimacy of living with one other person of the opposite gender in utter peace and harmony.

I guess it’s like trying the different available solutions, one by one or all at the time compared to practicing actualism or living in a certain location that you’re very fond of. Living the best leaves no room for the rest.

What I was trying to convey was that I knew by experience that the various normal solutions for relationships, as well as the spiritual solutions – being celibate or detached from your feelings – were an abysmal failure and because I had previously experienced these failures I was prepared to do something radically new.

*

I prefer having sex with different partners. At this stage I don’t know if it is simply a preference or my instinctual passions in action.

Oh, you may well find out should some of the ‘different partners’ accidentally come to know about each other.

Ha... at this stage monogamy is more like a matter of sexual salubrity to me then a value. And if the different partners were to meet each other it is their feelings they would have to face.

In what way is monogamy a matter of sexual salubrity to you? I understood you preferred having sex with different partners – are you saying that you prefer something which is insalubrious as in disagreeable, unhealthy, unfavourable?

I am not to sacrifice my (probably-felt) freedom for someone’s else feelings-gold cage.

Not just ‘probably-felt freedom’ – the freedom you describe is merely a freedom to follow one’s feelings and instinctual passions.

Not that I’m making an excuse for my instinctual sexual nature but nor do I want to advocate the women sexual paradigm: monogamy, love, loyalty and security.

What is it then that you would want to advocate?

9.10.2004

I prefer having sex with different partners. At this stage I don’t know if it is simply a preference or my instinctual passions in action.

Oh, you may well find out should some of the ‘different partners’ accidentally come to know about each other. <snip>

I am not to sacrifice my (probably-felt) freedom for someone’s else feelings-gold cage.

Not just ‘probably-felt freedom’ – the freedom you describe is merely a freedom to follow one’s feelings and instinctual passions.

Not that I’m making an excuse for my instinctual sexual nature but nor do I want to advocate the women sexual paradigm: monogamy, love, loyalty and security.

What is it then that you would want to advocate?

My question is simple: is it possible to live with two partners (instead of one) and commit himself/herself to live happy and harmlessly with them and then experience an actual intimacy with both?

As one of the pioneers in this business, I personally set myself a simple down-to-earth challenge – being able to live with at least one other person in utter peace and harmony. If you aspire to the challenge of making that two persons at once, then why not, as No 37 said. On the face of it you are setting yourself a more difficult challenge, but for an actualist the end outcome is what is important – the ultimate ending of malice and sorrow.

11.10.2004

No 32: My question is simple: is it possible to live with two partners (instead of one) and commit himself/herself to live happy and harmlessly with them and then experience an actual intimacy with both?

As one of the pioneers in this business, I personally set myself a simple down-to-earth challenge – being able to live with at least one other person in utter peace and harmony. If you aspire to the challenge of making that two persons at once, then why not, as No 37 said. On the face of it you are setting yourself a more difficult challenge, but for an actualist the end outcome is what is important – the ultimate ending of malice and sorrow.

It might also be mentioned that as an actualist, one is already committing themselves to living in peace and harmony with every other person on the planet, regardless of where they live. It certainly may add a some extra challenges when one attempts to increase the number of partners, yet once one has gotten the ‘knack’ of what it takes to be peaceful, then it is not at all inconceivable that one can live in peace an harmony with more than one partner.

A more challenging question to ask: Even though one has committed themselves to living in peace and harmony, how will things go between the additional partners if they haven’t committed themselves to living in peace and harmony? There’s the rub.

When you say ‘there’s the rub’ I am reminded of a post from a correspondent on this mailing list a few years ago. He described well what it means to be confronted with the – quite predictable – problems of relationships within the human condition –

No 14: To say it specifically, I have been married for 11 years and have one daughter. And I have had a girl friend for 5 years. Open triangle relation. I have not been able to choose one of two for 5 years. And now my girl friend says that she will not see me anymore until I divorce. I like all of them. (I don’t want to use love in this time). When I imagine I divorce I feel too much miserable. When I imagine I live without a girl friend I feel too much miserable. I am totally at a loss. And now I am alone at the office typing on the keyboard and feel miserable. Why am I miserable? Because I am thinking about future. But this answer does not make me happy and harmless. I see my fear about the loss of all of them. This means my belief that I cannot live happily without them. Any comment? No 14, 3.5.1999  

As for ‘once one has gotten the ‘knack’ of what it takes to be peaceful, then it is not at all inconceivable that one can live in peace an harmony with more than one partner’ – Richard describes in his journal that this is not only conceivable but eminently liveable as well –

Richard: It is late-morning in mid-autumn and I am travelling in a car through densely forested country along narrow bitumen roads which sometimes degenerate into gravel before reverting back to a sealed surface again. It is a small and nimble car, yet it boasts an able air-conditioner busily blowing cool air into the interior – it being a hot morning – and it competently negotiates the steep twists and turns as it climbs higher into the mountain range. Large rain-forest trees loom lofty, forming an overhead canopy for the car to pass under. The sun is dappling shadows over the white bonnet of the vehicle as it flashes through the damp woodlands that are a delectation to the eyes. Understorey palms are reaching grandly up into the shade; some are festooned with creepers of varied description and a deep leaf-mould carpets the forest floor. As the car rounds a particularly twisting bend a large lizard crossing the road gives a startled leap to the safety of the roadside and ahead some parakeets coruscate brilliantly as they swoop low from one side into the other. Altogether it is a splendid morning ... and there is a gladness in easily cruising along my way, quiescently enjoying the peace and ease between me and the new woman in my life, who is driving the car. We are going on a picnic.

My latest companion is several years younger than my other companion and enjoys all that is involved in driving a car expertly and confidently. She is an adventurous person whom I have known for a number of years now and our association has grown into something very personal over time. She is long past being a mere tyro in actualism, for our association over the years has produced remarkable results. Long gone are the days of constant regression into normalcy: she spends much of her time being here – here is this moment of being alive – where happiness and harmony reside. The three-way alliance over this period has grown to such an extent that all of us are appreciative of being able to now live together agreeably and freely. It is no ordinary ménage à trois, however; it is an alliance based firmly on a triple aspiration to ensure a freedom for everybody ... and we are all well-pleased to be participating in such a bold venture. Our escapade has raised the odd eyebrow; ruffling the occasional feather it has caused a flurry of talk around town, but we have a delightfully cheeky approach to such discussion. When all is said and done, it is of nobody’s business but our own. What we are doing is an exhilarating essay into hitherto unknown territory, yet I am supremely confident of an ability to enjoy whatever eventuates ... because of the pure intent born out of the perfection of this universe we all live in. After all, I am living in an actual freedom and the others are both enthusiastic participators in a flourishing actualism. Richard’s Journal, Article 34 ‘How One Is Experiencing This Moment Of Being Alive’ © 1997

19.2.2005

To No 58: … is nothing compared to what happened to me... all my posts from the ‘Some Personal Accounts’ section of the website have been consciously removed. I don’t even exist as a Number at the present time, I am all but extinct ... can you imagine how it feels like? I don’t know why precisely... but I remember thinking a few days ago that it would be better if my posts were to be removed to make room for the new... it isn’t clear though if these thoughts were the cause or a consequence of that abominable snowman action. Same Questions, 18.2.2005

To No 58: They sacrificed No.7 to make place for my atomic number, nevertheless that says a lot about the promoters of actualism... they never expected to be more than six ‘others’  ... so they were caught unprepared. Sane Questions, 19.2.2005

Following your comments we have taken the opportunity to revise the relevant section of the website. The section ‘Some Personal Accounts’ has been deleted and the ‘Other Selected Correspondence’ section has been amended in that the correspondents’ numbers have been emitted. This should ensure that the focus remains on the content of the correspondence rather than the identity of the correspondent.

*

PS: This may be an apt opportunity to let you all know that both Richard’s and Peter’s Journals can now be purchased on line via ‘Paypal’ as they have recently included Australian Dollars in their E-commerce transactions.

26.2.2005

To No 58: … is nothing compared to what happened to me... all my posts from the ‘Some Personal Accounts’ section of the website have been consciously removed. I don’t even exist as a Number at the present time, I am all but extinct ... can you imagine how it feels like? I don’t know why precisely... but I remember thinking a few days ago that it would be better if my posts were to be removed to make room for the new... it isn’t clear though if these thoughts were the cause or a consequence of that abominable snowman action. Same Questions, 18.2.2005

To No 58: They sacrificed No.7 to make place for my atomic number, nevertheless that says a lot about the promoters of actualism... they never expected to be more than six ‘others’  ... so they were caught unprepared. Sane Questions, 19.2.2005

Following your comments we have taken the opportunity to revise the relevant section of the website. The section ‘Some Personal Accounts’ has been deleted and the ‘Other Selected Correspondence’ section has been amended in that the correspondents’ numbers have been emitted. This should ensure that the focus remains on the content of the correspondence rather than the identity of the correspondent.

Yes, of course... it is important what is being said and not by whom. I found the latter one to have a greater importance when feelings rule the stage, resulting in the real-world attitude / saying that for a successful and happy life, it’s not that important ‘what you know, but who you know.’ One consequence of this feeling-fed attitude is corruption and the sacrificing of objective value …

And even what is referred to as an ‘objective value’ is not objective because all values are human-made. Social values are variable, what is good for one social group is bad for another, what is right or fair for one group is wrong or unfair for another, what is perfect for some is flawed for others, what is true for some is false for others. Not only do these values vary from group to group, but they are also subject to vagaries – what is deemed to be socially appropriate behaviour changes cyclically over time dependant upon the current whims and fashions.

[One consequence of this feeling-fed attitude is corruption and the sacrificing of objective value] and measurable performance for the promotion/benefit of one’s allies, friends, family, tribe. I’ve read a study about Africa saying that one of the major causes for poverty there is the tribal divide of society and the ensuing corruption ... when a leader is empowered, it’s considered a normal duty/obligation to firstly ‘help/favor’ his clan/tribe by redistributing the country resources.

Nevertheless, if someone reaches the stage of virtual/actual freedom (who knows, someone might just pop up one day without even much participating in this list discussions), it will be interesting to have his/her experiential report/account available for reading on the website.

If other actualists consider their reports about practicing actualism beneficial for others, they may well find a way of publishing it themselves – the writings published by the Actual Freedom Trust are only the beginning of people discovering actuality for themselves.

I am very glad that this alternative now exists, it might seem strange but it perfectly matches my life-long preoccupations/ longings/ interests/ personality. Very often I wondered what will be the use of all these technological advances/ wealth/ leisure time if one was not to be happy.

… and harmless.

My life-long dream was to live with a man in utter peace and harmony and I had almost given up the possibility after many years of search in both secular and spiritual circles. It was only when I came across actualism that I found the tools to make it happen. And not only can actualism deliver living with one person in peace and harmony but I can then utilize the very same method to become free from all anger and anguish in the world-as-it-is with people-as-they-are, no matter what the circumstances.

It is truly a path to a remarkable freedom.

1.3.2005

I cannot proceed any further if I don’t pay attention and be sincere about what it is that I encounter along my way, the issue haunting me over and over until I take notice and di-solve it or nip it in the bud (whatever that means), the bottom line being that I cannot be content or settle with second best. This is...umm... ‘the best drive’.

As for ‘or nip it in the bud (whatever that means)’ – let’s say you are in unknown territory, it is fairly dark and you find yourself walking the streets in search for a hostel. Ahead of you is an alley that looks ‘not quite right’ but you can’t help but enter it anyway. Half-a mile into it you recognize it is a dead-end road, i.e. you know now that it is silly to proceed.

The decision to then turn around instead of staying at the wrong place or going towards the very end to be 100% sure could be compared to nipping the feeling in the bud half-way in before it takes complete hold of you. As you grow more familiar with the territory you will be more able to recognize a dead-end road the moment you begin to have the same feeling about something you have already recognized as being less than felicitous.

Of course, the first time you have to walk down the alley in order to experientially determine if it’s a dead-end street or not.

Does this make it a bit clearer?

5.3.2005

I am very glad that this alternative now exists, it might seem strange but it perfectly matches my life-long preoccupations/ longings/ interests/ personality. Very often I wondered what will be the use of all these technological advances/ wealth/ leisure time if one was not to be happy.

… and harmless.

My life-long dream was to live with a man in utter peace and harmony and I had almost given up the possibility after many years of search in both secular and spiritual circles. It was only when I came across actualism that I found the tools to make it happen. And not only can actualism deliver living with one person in peace and harmony but I can then utilize the very same method to become free from all anger and anguish in the world-as-it-is with people-as-they-are, no matter what the circumstances.

Have you ever thought about what percent of your happiness is created by yourself and what percent by the life circumstances you’re currently living in? If we take as the bottom line you sitting in a 4x4 meters blank white room with no windows to the outside, with only bread, water and a sleeping bag, living there alone day and night for ten years, would you be as happy as you are now? I mean, is the virtual freedom you’re living in, a 99.9 % uncaused happiness and harmlessness ... or not?

I have no answer to your ‘bottom line’ scenario because it is purely imaginary and does not apply to my current life situation. One of the benefits of being virtually free is that the simple application of common sense ensures that I can avoid being in the scenario you propose.

All of the happiness I experience is solely due to cleaning myself up from malice, resentment, boredom and sorrow and this is made obvious by the fact that millions upon millions of people live in very similar outer circumstances as I do and yet are far less happy than I am, more antagonistic and angry, more resentful and sad, more bored and worried, and so on.

I don’t need to imagine a worst-case scenario in order to know that my happiness is due to the successful application of the actualism method because everyone I have talked to in this town has more problems than I have despite the fact that they also live in the same paradisiacal area, enjoy the same climate, the same ocean, the same safety and freedom of a Western country, and many of them have far more material goods and financial security than I do.

*

It is truly a path to a remarkable freedom.

It is a path all right and freedom is the path. I have had many of the actualist essentials running in the background as it were for most of my life especially when facing silly/sensible life situations/decisions, unwilling or not daring enough to bring these questions and especially their uncomfortable answers into conscious awareness and most importantly, action. It would have been a blow to the system of lies (aka the social status quo), and when you have a system that works, albeit non-satisfactorily, you’re very suss about changing it, for you have no working alternative really, not to mention stirring a hornets nest. You do have the option to strike on your own, yet with a great chance for going actually insane in the process, the task being simply too grand to break the code as Richard put it.

My lifestyle choice, what I really wanted all my life, was that of being on my own (beholden to no one), with understanding (reading, experimenting, creativity) and sensuousness (sensuality, openness) as the essential ingredients for a happy and yes, harmless life. The dry and high intellectualizations or the celibate life never appealed to me and neither did the typical sweets of family or normal relationship life. The fact is that I never dared, yet I’ve dreamt about it even when I was in the midst of love relationships (most happy), to go for it. I’m not accountable to anyone but myself, freedom is the call and this is my destiny. The fact of this universe is that everything has its price, you can’t get something in return for nothing (as an inspired writer put it), when you gain something you lose something and vice-versa.

You seem to be saying that an actual freedom from the human condition requires one to give up the human condition, in which case this is not a ‘fact of this universe’ but merely a human truism. My experience with becoming gradually free from aspects of my identity is that as those aspects fall away I gradually forget that they ever existed. As such I not only not miss those aspects that I left behind but I often wonder what all the fuss is/was about.

On the way to an actual freedom the apparent ‘price’ I pay is in fact a gradual unburdening of unnecessary emotional baggage and silly worries – i.e. nothing at all valuable is lost on the way while a valuable and delicious freedom is gained.

It’s a win-win situation.

6.3.2005

To No 79: I cannot proceed any further if I don’t pay attention and be sincere about what it is that I encounter along my way, the issue haunting me over and over until I take notice and di-solve it or nip it in the bud (whatever that means), the bottom line being that I cannot be content or settle with second best. This is...umm... ‘the best drive’.

As for ‘or nip it in the bud (whatever that means)’ – let’s say you are in unknown territory, it is fairly dark and you find yourself walking the streets in search for a hostel. Ahead of you is an alley that looks ‘not quite right’ but you can’t help but enter it anyway. Half-a mile into it you recognize it is a dead-end road, i.e. you know now that it is silly to proceed.

The decision to then turn around instead of staying at the wrong place or going towards the very end to be 100% sure could be compared to nipping the feeling in the bud half-way in before it takes complete hold of you. As you grow more familiar with the territory you will be more able to recognize a dead-end road the moment you begin to have the same feeling about something you have already recognized as being less than felicitous.

Of course, the first time you have to walk down the alley in order to experientially determine if it’s a dead-end street or not.

That’s the reason this DIY investigation business cannot be taught, it’s not theoretical, otherwise we’ll all be ‘fair’ actualists. Another reason for this is the fact that the psyche is not a static structure, it changes with and mirrors every individual’s experience of life, so any map that might come up is obsolete the moment it hits the road. You can’t say ‘if you only do this and then do that you’ll get on street x’, I mean it’s not a logical or scientific process with definite and traceable cause and effect relationships ... we’re talking about a ghost here.

I am reminded of a scene in Monty Python’s ‘The Life of Brian’ where Brian says to the crowd ‘You are all individuals’ and one small voice cries out ‘No, I am not’. Are you by any chance reviving the old objection of ‘everyone has to find their own way to freedom’? If that is the case, then you will find some valid answers on the AF website.

Unlike spiritual freedom, which is a product of a person’s individual psyche and their individual path to achieve this psychic state, an actual freedom is actual, as in actuality is occurring in this very moment regardless of a feeling being’s perception and interpretation of it. Given that the human condition is common to everyone, surely it makes sense that the method to become free from the human condition is equally applicable to everyone? ’T’would be silly to reinvent the wheel over and over for every single person who wants to become free from the human condition.

*

Does this make it a bit clearer?

Yes, more than a bit. I know the feeling of a dead-end on my personal and precious skin. The problem is that the psyche has no exits, there’s no outside to it when living life by default, you’re either in or out and it’s also incredibly good at simulating.

Although it is undoubtedly the case that ‘I’ am either present or not, there is a proven track record – as extensively described by practicing actualists – to incrementally disempower one’s psyche in order that ‘I’ am less and less interfering in my being happy and harmless to the point that I can be feeling excellent 99% of the time. Experience has shown that the ‘you’re either in or out’ argument is generally used to procrastinate starting doing something about the human condition in oneself.

But the psyche can also help, some of my childhood and pre-teen day-dreaming fantasies (about escaping from prison, falling into a river, running away on a train carriage) were connected to the soul world, the ancient archetypes and prototypes of life. So, to what extent in your xp does the psyche helps and to what extent does it hinder?

Unless ‘I’ follow the lead of this body’s, i.e. this brain’s, native intelligence and commit to embark on the journey of fulfilling ‘my’ destiny, which is ‘my’ demise, ‘I’ (the psyche) am bound to hinder my becoming free from the human condition because ‘my’ natural instincts are to survive as an identity at any cost. As you said yourself, ‘it’s … incredibly good at simulating’.

Once I made the commitment to become free ‘I’ then agreed to be discovered and to be dismantled … and there is an inherent joy and relief in no longer having to hide that ‘I’ am in fact a fraud.

12.3.2005

It is truly a path to a remarkable freedom.

(...) The fact of this universe is that everything has its price, you can’t get something in return for nothing (as an inspired writer put it), when you gain something you lose something and vice-versa.

You seem to be saying that an actual freedom from the human condition requires one to give up the human condition, in which case this is not a ‘fact of this universe’ but merely a human truism.

Hmm... but the exchange or economic principle is certainly alive and well in the universe I live in. What I want to say is that when I moved into a big city I lost something (the wonder of the night sky, clean air, nature, space, etc) but I also gained something (higher wages, more opportunities, independence, access to internet etc.).

The ‘exchange or economic principle’ is a human principle, rooted in the fear of survival, resulting in the aggressive pursuit of certain desires and the equally aggressive rejection of others, whereas the quality of the universe, being infinite and eternal, is abundance and perfection. The universe was peerless in its perfection before human beings existed and will be so after the species is extinct and yet human beings invariably take it upon themselves to not only turn a blind eye to this fact but have collectively concocted a myriad of ways and means of denigrating the physical universe.

As for giving up a certain life style in order to gain something else, that is for me simple a matter of making sensible choices based on facts and personal preference. Once I make such a choice, for instance to live in a rural area despite there being less economic opportunities, then it is obviously foolish to have regrets (as in I have ‘lost something’) because I knew what to expect when I made my choice. To make a choice and then hanker for what I had before would be just silly and should I find a feeling of resentment then I know that this is simply ‘me’ in action – running yet another objection to being here.

*

My experience with becoming gradually free from aspects of my identity is that as those aspects fall away I gradually forget that they ever existed. As such I not only not miss those aspects that I left behind but I often wonder what all the fuss is/was about.

That’s a touchstone in seeing whether or not a particular feeling, belief or habitual response is deleted/ eliminated or merely transcended/ repressed/ denied/ avoided/ covered up. When at this stage is doesn’t even require a ‘nipping in the bud’ as ‘the problem’ is simply gone, the ‘nipping in the bud’ is a form of attrition ... eventually the beast and its accompanying beauty die out.

For me, nipping in the bud comes mainly into play when I have already understood the core of the problem and need to entirely erase a persistent visceral habit. For instance when I applied myself to investigating the issue of love, I fairly quickly understood the dream that lays behind the pining feeling of love and awareness revealed the manipulating possessiveness of the feeling of love. However, it took me much longer to detect these feelings the moment they arose and to disempower the emotional feel-good hooks and tentacles before they had a chance to really take hold. Such feelings seem to have a life of their own until ongoing attentiveness and a sustained period of ‘nipping in the bud’ finally cut them dry.

But prior to ‘nipping it in the bud’, I’ve acted in such a way as to inflame the passion and/or stretch the limits of a particular belief, see if it stands the actuality check, then I’ve moved on to curiously look at ‘me’ acting... ‘handcuffed’ (my version of the hands in the pocket), sort of when a Beauty is on the mesmerizing mode or a dragon is showing off its powers to Buggs Bunny while he says ‘hmm ... that’s really interesting doc, where have you learned that?’

I know well the seductive temptation to dramatize ‘me’ under the guise of ‘self’-exploration (and most Western therapy groups thrive on this tool of ‘self’-enhancement) – that’s why the pure intent to become free from the human condition in toto is essential. After I decided to give actualism a go I recognized that this would involve abandoning all that I had tried in the past – I would describe this turn-around as ‘cutting the crap and getting out of misery as fast as possible’.

My experience is that one does not need to exaggerate feelings as attentiveness itself reveals not only the invidious nature of affective feelings but it also reveals the full range of affective feelings whether it be from feeling slightly annoyed to being overcome by blind rage, from feeling a mild ennui to plummeting into gut-wrenching despair, from feeling a little worried to sinking into a full-blown paranoia, from feeling a little detached to plunging into a dissociative state, and so on. No need for exaggeration as every human being has the capacity to feel the feel the full gamut of affective feelings.

For me to keep my hands in my pocket while neither repressing, nor expressing nor acting upon my feelings but allowing myself to feel the feeling in order that I could be attentive to the nature of the particular feeling whilst it is happening was extremely sensible advice. This allows me to put the feeling in a bind – it is like holding the feeling under a microscope rather than letting it go unobserved or letting it run rampant as is normally the case.

*

On the way to an actual freedom the apparent ‘price’ I pay is in fact a gradual unburdening of unnecessary emotional baggage and silly worries – i.e. nothing at all valuable is lost on the way while a valuable and delicious freedom is gained. It’s a win-win situation.

Yes, I taste this freedom from time to time as I gradually let go of the various social protective masks and aspects of my identity. I begin to get a taste of the powerful instinctual passions, especially fear (habitual response to ‘losing’ something) and anger (habitual response for not ‘getting’ something) and the self-centred perspective they automatically create even when operating as a background noise.

What I found was that the ‘background noise’ is actually the engine of ‘me’ running all the time ready to flare up at any given opportunity. Although the opportunities to ‘flare’ become more and more rare, given that I am no longer bait for most of the usual follies and passions, the engine noise will only stop when ‘I’ am finally extinct.

Sometimes, as a result of my (silly) actions, I get to a point where I can’t properly sleep at night, fear, worries and anxiety dominate my life. They are very, very real and make me loath/berate myself and others even when dealing with petty issues, these passions have a tendency for overreaction, exaggeration, imagination, preoccupation with future events, generating worst-case scenarios. And when combining with social, ethical and moralistic principles, it’s really a tangled and guilty mess.

Once I got tired of berating myself for feeling worried and being emotional I decided to focus on eliminating the ‘silly’ actions that produced stress in my life. As an example, I found that having less material goods and less financial security meant that I needed to work less which then gave me less to be stressed about, more time for myself and thus more time to sort myself out. I also found that the more I considered the effect my words and actions would have on others, the less fearful I had to be of people in general to the point where the fear subsided and I found that I actually like other people as fellow human beings. (See also: richard/audiotapeddialogues/puttingtheotherbeforeoneself.htm)

When I think about the issues involved with common sense and pay attention to this moment, it becomes clear that these are only fear-induced thoughts and fantasies disconnected from the very moment I live in and even from the short-term and mid-term probable future.

Something Richard said recently made me prick up my ears. I was telling him about something that worried me during the previous week and he said ‘it doesn’t make sense, it must be a feeling’.

It’s really the feelings that keep one from seeing the splendor and grandeur of this moment and even from reading with both eyes open what’s on offer at this particular stall on the marketplace. I remember my first impression when accessing the AF site, that it was some kind of sect comprising a few almost enlightened people living an alternative lifestyle on a ranch somewhere in Australia with the aim of showing the world the way to live, and that was enough in keeping me at bay for a while, crazy at this may seem.

Imagination (dissociative thinking) produces all sorts of scenarios, none of which relate to fact and none of which make sense, which is why there is no imagination in actuality. The purity and perfection of the actual world is beyond imagination.

13.3.2005

Another reason for this is the fact that the psyche is not a static structure, it changes with and mirrors every individual’s experience of life, so any map that might come up is obsolete the moment it hits the road. You can’t say ‘if you only do this and then do that you’ll get on street x’, I mean it’s not a logical or scientific process with definite and traceable cause and effect relationships ... we’re talking about a ghost here.

I am reminded of a scene in Monty Python’s ‘The Life of Brian’ where Brian says to the crowd ‘You are all individuals’ and one small voice cries out ‘No, I am not’. Are you by any chance reviving the old objection of ‘everyone has to find their own way to freedom’? If that is the case, then you will find some valid answers on the AF website.

Unlike spiritual freedom, which is a product of a person’s individual psyche and their individual path to achieve this psychic state, an actual freedom is actual, as in actuality is occurring in this very moment regardless of a feeling being’s perception and interpretation of it. Given that the human condition is common to everyone, surely it makes sense that the method to become free from the human condition is equally applicable to everyone? ’T’would be silly to reinvent the wheel over and over for every single person who wants to become free from the human condition.

Applicable yes, no doubt about this, everyone can ask himself ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’, but would that question generate the same results?

Yes. It is obvious that sometimes human beings feel sad, sometimes they feel angry, often they feel fearful, sometimes they feel superior, sometimes they feel inferior and so on. And yet these feelings are the same feelings for each and every human being – there is no difference between Chinese anger, American anger and Indian anger, nor male sadness and female sadness for that matter.

And yet despite this human beings tend to personalize their feelings to an extent that it is common to hear people say that no-one can know how much this feeling hurts, which is not the case at all. It is a fact that no-one can feel the feeling that another is feeling – empathy is the closest possible one can get to feeling another’s feelings feeling – and this fact serves to heighten the inevitable feeling of separation from other feeling beings.

What I wanted to say is that the scientific method can be successfully applied to the physical world, an objective world, a world that can be touched and measured, but not to the meta-physical, the world of the psyche, which by its very nature is subjective, elusive and illusory. One cannot observe/measure subjectivity with objectivity, it is subjectivity that measures its own subjectivity. The first world is governed by cause and effect relationships, whereas the psychic world is not governed by this law. One can ask himself ‘Haietmoba?’ till the cows come home, if the other ingredients necessary for success are not present, it’s a futile masturbation/ self-preoccupation, resulting in that person becoming a member of the wankactasaurus family.

I wonder if your comment that the world of the psyche cannot be observed objectively is based on personal experience because I have found that this is not the case. I spent many years subjectively exploring the psychic world in my spiritual years, so I know that it is a very limited world, varied only by cultural conditioning, and given an apparent veracity by the fervent beliefs and heartfelt feelings of billions upon billions of humans over thousands upon thousands of years. It was only when I began to extract myself from this world was I then able to clearly – as in objectively – see that the psychic world is nothing but a collective illusion: rooted in instinctual fear, hindered by unawareness and mired in superstition.

Your conjecture of repeating senselessly a certain sequence of words ‘till the cows come home’ is not an accurate description of the actualism method – you left out some vital ingredients. It is sincerity that reawakens one’s dormant naiveté, which then gives rise to pure intent, which in turn is essential in the process of allowing the PCE to happen. With the clear memory of a PCE and the pure intent to have the already always existing peace-on-earth become apparent one cannot go wrong.

You cannot replicate Richard’s condition by doing exactly what he has done, …

Ah, but I don’t intend to do ‘exactly what he has done’ – Richard has clearly advised against following in his footsteps as he had become enlightened only to discover that this was not the actual world as experienced in his 4-hour PCE. Here it is in his own words –

Respondent: ... or did the fact that you had been in an altered state for the preceding 11 years make it more macabre and gruesome than it would be for a ‘normal’ person?

Richard: Definitely ... which is why I advise that nobody should attempt to follow ‘my’ footsteps – to go through enlightenment/awakening and beyond – but to be a pioneer instead:

• [Richard]: ‘... all the Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours, and the Saints and the Sages and the Seers did not have peace-on-earth on their agenda. Obviously someone had to be the first ... and this fact was thrilling to the nth degree. It meant that an actual freedom from the human condition, here on earth in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body had been discovered and could be demonstrated and described ... no one else need ever take that route again (and I would not wish upon anyone to have to follow in my footsteps and run that full gamut of existential angst to break through to what lay beyond). I always liken it to the physical adventure that Mr. James Cook undertook to journey to Australia two hundred plus years ago. It took him over a year in a leaky wooden boat with hard tack for food and immense dangers along the way. Nowadays, one can fly to Australia in twenty-seven hours in air-conditioned comfort, eating hygienically prepared food and watching an in-flight movie into the bargain.

No one has to go the path of the trail-blazer and forge along in another leaky wooden boat’.

And (further on in the same e-mail) the modified version/addendum:

• [Richard]: ‘... put succinctly the replication of my condition presently calls for pioneers, people with the necessary derring-do to pilot a one-seater aeroplane by the seat of their pants to this pristine wonderland, and not for those who will follow in their wake in air-conditioned comfort, eating hygienically prepared food and watching an in-flight movie into the bargain. And nobody knows who that pioneer aviator is until that person actually lands here ... not even me’. Richard, List AF, No 60, 6.2.2005

… an individual is an individual with its own idiosyncrasies, …

I have found that I became much more of an individual (and retained my idiosyncrasies) as I proceeded to become virtually free from the human condition because I am now far less driven by the common-to-all instinctual passions and common-to-particular societal groups fashions, and in doing so I have also abandoned the ubiquitous feeling that I am special. In other words, fairly early into the process of becoming more attentive I had to admit that I am as sad, as bad and as mad as everyone else – an admission that was instrumental in my becoming virtually free of the common-to-all human condition.

The actualism method gives clear instructions how to leave ‘the world of the psyche’ in order for actuality to become apparent. You can open the door to freedom with one hand or both hands, with your foot, your nose or your behind, or decide never to open it at all, but it will always be the same door, the one that has ‘EXIT’ written across. The actualism method is specifically designed to lead you to this exit door and make life easier while you proceed.

[an individual is an individual]… not a borg.

As the characteristics of a ‘Borg’ have sprung from the imagination of Gene Rodenberry you may well be talking about a feeling that resembles his imagination. Here is what Richard had to say when someone compared him to ‘Borg’.

I can only suggest that the way to manifest your individuality is to decline to run with the herd.

What I find of value is that ‘happy and harmless’ is, if not an objective standpoint, at least a sensible measure to my feelings and psychic states and thus experience of life. PCE’s are out of the equation as I presume they provide for an objective standpoint and guiding light. I would say that the well-meaning intent is the resultant of not remembering PCE’s, but having/remembering a PCE would connect ‘me’ with ‘pure intent’ and thus with the benevolence of this material universe? Is ‘pure intent’ the human body’s equivalent of the ‘matter’ benevolence and active force for the best form or is it simply the reaction of ‘me’ to experiencing perfection?

Personally, I started with an utterly pragmatic, very down-to-earth desire to live with another person in utter peace and harmony, which obviously meant that I needed to learn how to be act-ually considerate of a fellow human being (and not just feel that I was). Sincerely considering another’s needs and wants as much as my own then helped me question and change my ‘self’-centred myopic view on reality, which in turn made me more happy, less fearful and more at ease with myself and others. This success, in turn, increased my intent to not only live in peace with one other person but with everyone I meet and interact with, i.e. it increased my intent to becoming actually harmless. Harmless is not just feeling oneself to be harmless but ensuring that I neither have any (hidden, as in usually unconscious) intent to harm nor am I so blindly ‘self’-centred as to ignore or dismiss the other, rip them off or inconvenience them by my ‘self’-centred passions.

Then, when I had my first major PCE, it became blindingly obvious that it is not just aspects of my personality but ‘me’ as a feeling being who stands in the way of the already existing peace and this experiential knowledge turned my well-meaning intent into pure intent because I now knew that ‘I’ had to disappear in my entirety in order to be able to experience the peace on earth that I longed for.

*

Does this make it a bit clearer?

Yes, more than a bit. I know the feeling of a dead-end on my personal and precious skin. The problem is that the psyche has no exits, there’s no outside to it when living life by default, you’re either in or out and it’s also incredibly good at simulating.

Although it is undoubtedly the case that ‘I’ am either present or not, there is a proven track record – as extensively described by practicing actualists – to incrementally disempower one’s psyche in order that ‘I’ am less and less interfering in my being happy and harmless to the point that I can be feeling excellent 99% of the time. Experience has shown that the ‘you’re either in or out’ argument is generally used to procrastinate starting doing something about the human condition in oneself.

So human nature can be improved after all by its incremental elimination ... sounds a bit paradoxical but it’s my experience also ... in fact it’s me getting some fresh air at last and carrying less and less burden, the weight of having to sustain the right image, ‘my’ image, both of myself and the world. I’m not a heavyweight champ, the measure for success in real-world terms.

It doesn’t sound paradoxical to me – given that the human condition is the problem, any decrease of its influence on your life is bound to improve it. In the actualism process, it is not human nature that is improved but your experiencing this moment of being alive.

*

But the psyche can also help, some of my childhood and pre-teen day-dreaming fantasies (about escaping from prison, falling into a river, running away on a train carriage) were connected to the soul world, the ancient archetypes and prototypes of life. So, to what extent in your xp does the psyche helps and to what extent does it hinder?

Unless ‘I’ follow the lead of this body’s, i.e. this brain’s, native intelligence and commit to embark on the journey of fulfilling ‘my’ destiny, which is ultimately ‘my’ demise, ‘I’ (the psyche) am bound to hinder my becoming free from the human condition because ‘my’ natural instincts are to survive as an identity at any cost. As you said yourself, ‘it’s … incredibly good at simulating’. Once I made the commitment to become free ‘I’ then agreed to be discovered and to be dismantled … and there is an inherent joy and relief in no longer having to hide that ‘I’ am in fact a fraud.

Ha... so the whole point is not to hide from my discoveries and dare to stand in the light of awareness/actuality no matter who/what ... inconsistent* is a good term, melting** is another.

*a: not compatible with another fact or claim <inconsistent statements> b: containing incompatible elements <an inconsistent argument>

** : to cause to disappear or disperse (www.m-w.com)

You lost me here. What do you mean by ‘no matter who/what’ and by ‘inconsistent’? Also, ‘melting’ is a term that spiritualists often use to mean ‘merging with’ which is why I would not use the term myself as it can convey the wrong impression about the actualism process.

1) No 37: It looks like you have a decision you know you need to make in order to unravel your feelings of ‘bombardment’ – but as of yet have been unwilling to make that decision, since you are being pulled in two different directions.

And these two directions are conformity and rebellion. Conformity as I’m not in the business of changing my partner so as to live in peace and harmony with her and rebellion as I cannot accept her feeling-based projections on me that affect my sexual enjoyment at times. Sex and Loyalty 29.9.2004

By ‘rebellion’ I meant sexually acting outside the relationship with my girlfriend in order to get an escape/vent from the social and self-induced moralities about relationship and sex. Sex and Loyalty 1.10.2004

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2.) truism – A self-evident or indisputable truth, esp. a trivial or hackneyed one. Also, a proposition that states nothing beyond what is implied in any of its terms. Oxford Dictionary

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3.) Imagination – 1 The action of imagining or forming mental images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses; the result of this process. 2 The mental faculty which forms images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses, and of their relations (to each other or to the subject). Oxford Dictionary

Vineeto’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust