|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 38
Hi No 38, This is akin to taking the training wheels off the bicycle. I don’t quite relate to your metaphor. What I described was my acquired habit of searching for trouble-spots in my psyche that I could investigate when there is really nothing going on. <snip> However, given that for actualism to work ‘I’, the identity, willingly and consciously agree to take myself apart, I would not advise anyone to attempt a shortcut and start to question the ‘‘self’-investigator’ at an earlier stage of the process. That would be mere self-deceit, akin to the Advaita slogan that ‘if only I stop my desire to be free then I am ok as I am’ and bingo, ‘Thou Art That’! Well, maybe my metaphor doesn’t quite fit your point. I was referring to a step in the process after the mechanics of practice become more automatic. It’s not necessary to always mentally say the words HAIETMOBA as it becomes a continually running operation. So, ‘HAIETMOBA’ is kind of like training wheels, as is the deliberate sequence of detecting feelings, experiencing them, determining their root, investigating their cause in some or other belief system, etc. The beginning piano player is thinking ‘this finger here is C’, whereas for the more learned player, this is no longer a conscious operation. One person’s metaphor is another person’s fish. I understand from my own experience that the words ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’, when applied with the sincere intent to become happy and harmless, eventually turn into a wordless ongoing ‘self’-investigation. However, taking your words at face value, when you refer to ‘the process after the mechanics of practice become more automatic’ you seem only to be continuing your previously learned practices and have yet to take on board the fact that the actualism method is radically different to what you have previously been taught. * Facing the reality of my own demise has been one of my favourite obsessions in the past. I am somewhat confused as to what you mean by ‘facing the reality of my own demise … in the past’ – are you referring to the demise of the ego that leaves the soul intact, as taught in each and every branch of Eastern mysticism, or are you referring to facing physical death? I was referring to the death of the body, and by implication my identity, the traditional existential angst. I have never quite ‘got’ the soul. It always seemed a fabrication purely to assuage the visceral fear of one’s physical death. If you’re good, your soul gets to go to heaven, and in the meantime, here’s the tithing basket. The whole soul/ afterlife/ eternal energy scenario just never added up, when I applied common sense. So, the interesting characteristic of AF is this dismantling of the identity, the very thing that has the dread. Having abandoned any notion of an afterlife, it seems the only game in town. The ‘soul’ is not dissolved by dismissing ‘any notion of an afterlife’ nor by maintaining an agnostic view about a life after death. The soul – ‘who’ I feel ‘I’ am deep down inside – is apparent in every belief, every mood, every emotion and every affective reaction that one experiences. To find one’s soul in action is the essential task for an actualist because the very action of recognizing my soul in action is paramount to dismantling it. The soul is the deepest core of my being, the seat of the instinctual passions, the very substance of ‘me’ – that which you once called ‘the actual being’. Vis:
This perception that ‘who I really am’ is a non-personal ‘actual being’ who is ‘palpably distinct from’ my personal identity is pure Zen. The ‘self’ plays hide and seek by dividing itself into two apparently separate identities – a personal identity, or ego, and a non-personal actual being, or soul – with the aim of humbling the first identity in order to glorify the second identity. Actualism is not to be confused with Zen because both the method and the aim are radically different – diametrically so in fact. The aim of actualism is the extinction of both identities, as becomes stunningly apparent in a pure consciousness experience where both parts of ‘me’ – the personal ‘I’ and the non-personal ‘being’ – are temporarily absent. * Or are you talking about the recent past since taking up actualism – your contemplations about your own demise of your identity in toto, both ego and soul, something that is entirely new to human history? One curious difference between that form of demise and the one I was referring to is that slaying one’s identity is a deliberately undertaken process, rather than just waiting around to get bonked on the head by some meteorite. The ‘curious difference’ is that in actualism I am recognizing that all ‘I’ think and all ‘I’ feel myself to be – both ‘the watcher’ and the ‘watched’ in the traditional spiritual pursuit – is the sum total of ‘me’ as an identity. Therefore there is nobody else who can do the job of dismantling ‘me’ but ‘me’. In actualism ‘I’ as the watcher or ‘actual being’ am not slaying ‘me’ as the personal identity or ego – ‘I’ have deliberately and with aforethought agreed to facilitate ‘my’ demise for the benefit of this body, that body and every body. There is no ‘slayer’ that will win the war between the opposing identities – as in a battle betwixt good and evil – ‘I’ am taking myself apart all of ‘my’ own accord. Initially, the AF goal is disturbing, with visions of a zombie like existence. Clearly that is nonsense, based on the distinct personalities found on this list. I still do not understand some of the more subtle distinctions between ‘personal predilections’ (re. recent posts with Richard), and learned behaviour. I figure that will all become clear when I get there The ‘visions of a zombie like existence’ is a well-documented objection to actualism and is rooted in the fact that human beings consider their emotional-instinctual heritage as their greatest virtue and most-prized treasure. The fears of a ‘self’-less experience being a ‘zombie like existence’ are readily dispersed by a pure consciousness experience when you experience for yourself what life is like when your affective faculty temporarily ceases to broadcast and the actual world we flesh and blood bodies called human beings live in reveals itself as the sensate wonderland and squeaky clean paradise that it has always been. As for ‘personal predilections’ – they are the sensual preferences of every body, due to genetic quirks, experience, familiarity, custom and comfort. What Chinese Opera is for one, classic guitar is for another. ‘Learned behaviour’ on the other hand are the morals, ethics and values that society teaches every newborn child in order to keep the animal survival passions in check and to make the child a ‘fit’ member of society. This learned behaviour becomes redundant when the survival passions no longer rule the roost – virtually so in a virtual freedom from the human condition and actually so in an actual freedom from the human condition.
You wrote something to Gary the other day that seems to be a misinterpretation of what I wrote, so I couldn’t resist ‘butting in’. The misinterpretation is in the second part of this post but I am making a general comment at the start. Well, it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve done that. I remember at the start I misinterpreted most of what Richard said. It is not an easy thing to throw out all of the revered wisdom of the past and all of one’s past efforts and start afresh. But then again, what serendipity that there is something radically new on offer because the old has certainly not worked. * To Gary: I realize that ‘nipping it in the bud’ could be interpreted as either suppression, or as you say
The latter is what I intended, and your description jibes with that. As an example, the other day I had an angry moment, and I popped off at someone in an inappropriate (aka violate common consideration for others) manner. The moment swept me along, so there was little I could do to ‘nip it in the bud’, but the following feelings of embarrassment and shame I was able to ‘nip in the bud’. They arose, I recognized them, then got back to being H&H. In the process of becoming happy and harmless, my main focus was on becoming harmless, i.e. ceasing being aggressive or angry towards others. In this case investigating my feelings means that I examine what triggered my eruption of anger, what caused me to up my defences, what is it that I am being defensive about and what part of my identity felt threatened and therefore caused me to react aggressively. Once I am able to isolate the issue in question, then the next step is to clearly look at all aspects of this particular area of identity, be it an authority issue, a gender identification, professional pride, a certain belief or worldview or any other cause that made me react in an aggressive or inconsiderate manner. The difference between maintaining a social or spiritual moral code in order to keep a lid on outbursts of anger and the process of actualism is that in actualism I am changing my behaviour by incrementally removing the very triggers for feeling irritated, annoyed, resentful, threatened or aggressive. To achieve this, I not only have to ‘recognize’ the arising feeling as a feeling, but I have to search for and identify the part of my identity associated with the feeling – ‘me’ as a woman, ‘me’ as a national identity, ‘me’ in my professional or work role, ‘me’ as a partner or family member, ‘me’ as a social identity with a particular philosophy, culture, religion or worldview, etc, etc. Unless I recognize, examine and finally incapacitate the part of my identity who feels offended and therefore responds offensively either covertly or overtly, there will inevitably be a similar harmful response in the next similar situation. As for ‘feelings of embarrassment and shame’ – those feelings quickly became redundant as I incrementally succeeded in ridding myself of malice and sorrow. As an actualist, I set my sights higher than merely keeping the lid on my instinctual aggression by living by the rights and wrongs of some moral or ethical code. Actualism is about becoming free of malice and sorrow via a process aimed at ‘self-immolation – it is not about controlling one’s malice and sorrow via a process aimed at ‘self’-perpetuation. <snipped a bunch of stuff I understand> The reason I described the investigation process in detail is that nipping feelings of embarrassment and shame in the bud only serves to stifle the investigative process. To get rid of embarrassment I had to find the cause of my embarrassment – in the case you described the outburst of anger – and then in the same way follow up the reasons for my outburst of anger as I have described above. Embarrassment and shame are only the tip of the iceberg and nipping these first indicators of ‘me’ in action in the bud puts a full stop to further investigations and does nothing to eliminate the underlying causes for feeling shame and embarrassment. * The process you seem to be describing as ‘they arose, I recognized them, then got back to being H&H’ has a striking resemblance to the method of Vipassana. This Buddhist ‘watching practice’ is based on the understanding that ‘who’ you really are is your ‘consciousness’, ie. a disembodied, desensitized ‘watcher’, dissociated from unwanted emotions and thoughts. In Vipassana, ‘watched’ anger eventually passes away, not because you understand its underlying reason and origin but because you become the watcher and distance yourself from your anger and merely watch it run its course. In the same way you can distance yourself from any feeling or emotion without ever having to investigate the substance of your ‘self’ – it’s instinctual core. To really face the fact that anger is ‘you’ in action, and that ‘you’ are the only cause and reason of anger arising, is the first and essential step to doing something practical about bringing an end to this emotion instead of merely witnessing it and waiting for it to pass away. Actualism is not a method of passively monitoring, watching or observing one’s feelings – actualism is a method of actively investigating the origin of those feelings and thus rocking the very core of one’s identity. Actually, my experience to date is kind of opposite of that. The ‘watcher’ is a useful component of the actual No 38, whereas the ‘dissociated’ entity is the identity, that which has the emotions and learned responses. I am being careful with that word ‘dissociated’ as it could imply suppression, sweeping it under the carpet. The whole point of this work is to keep it in clear view so that it can be taken apart, piece by piece, and that can’t be done if it’s hidden away. This is the nub of the misinterpretation I was trying to explain. The ‘watcher’ is not ‘a useful component of the actual No 38’ – there is no way to experience the actual No 38 except in a pure consciousness experience. In a PCE the whole identity – both the ‘watcher’ and the ‘watched’ – temporarily go into abeyance. The ‘watcher’ and ‘the ‘dissociated’ entity’ are part of the same identity – the ‘self’ split into two for the purpose of ‘self’-improvement. I remember well the trouble I had in wrapping my mind around the
fact that all my good intentions in being a good person were but my ‘self’ playing ‘self’-sustaining
tricks. The To really let this understanding sink in may serendipitously and fundamentally rock your world and, as a result, may bring about a ‘self’-less, ‘watcher’-less, pure consciousness experience. It’s difficult for me to clearly convey this stuff into words and I would appreciate the feedback on the above. I take pains to be aware of any self-delusional tacks, but I think we are talking about the same thing here. I’ll wander through your provided links as a check. My feedback is that you and I are talking about two different methods, each designed to give two quite different outcomes. The practice of ‘watching’ is designed to create a split personality where one part of your personality – the good No 38 – watches the other part of your personality – the bad No 38 – in an effort to dissociate yourself from the unwanted parts of your identity. The identity of the watcher is based on the understanding that ‘who’ you really are is your ‘consciousness’ and this ‘consciousness’ or ‘actual being’, to use your words, then dispassionately watches the unwanted emotions and ‘learned responses’ of the ‘other’ identity. Both identities are one and the same, two sides of one coin. Actualism is the method specifically designed to bring both identities to an irrevocable end.
* So, ‘nip it in the bud’ doesn’t imply suppression, just an acquired skill in processing the emotions as they arise. As Vineeto discussed in another thread, it’s not necessary, or even useful to pump this through the grist mill every time, just recognize it as another manifestation of a fairly well understood response. Of course, there needs to be a check on this process to ensure that this categorization is not self-deception, a red herring. I take it that the thread you are referring to is from my recent post to Gary –
When I said ‘after sufficient exploration into the human condition’ I was referring to several years of actively dismantling and intensely exploring all aspects of my identity – an identity that was clearly seen and recognized in numerous ‘self’-less pure consciousness experiences as being an all-pervading yet non-actual ‘presence’. Such pure consciousness experiences are vital to the intent to investigate one’s identity because only in a PCE can I see, by the very comparison of ‘my’ absence, what havoc ‘I’ am continuously causing by ‘my’ very presence and what confusion, diversion and cunning ploys ‘I’ am inventing in order to stay in existence. The comparison of a PCE to ‘my’ normal life as an identity within the human condition also gives me the confidence that when I am ‘nipping feelings in the bud’ I am not repressing, ignoring or sidelining a ‘precious’ part of my identity. I’m not sure I see where the misrepresentation lies, presumably where I used your name...
which referred to your statement...
I am fuzzy on the misunderstanding, would you please clarify? The misunderstanding is about practicing ‘nipping feelings in the bud’ before the nature of what it is you are experiencing is fully understood. The practice of ‘watching’ does not lead to fully understanding how ‘you’ as an identity manifest yourself – how you have been programmed to operate both socially and instinctually – because the ‘watcher’ is part and parcel of ‘you’ as an identity. With the ‘watcher’ in place any nipping of feelings in the bud can only be repressing, ignoring or sidelining a ‘precious’ part of your identity. I cannot say it more clearly than that.
This is akin to taking the training wheels off the bicycle. I don’t quite relate to your metaphor. What I described was my acquired habit of searching for trouble-spots in my psyche that I could investigate when there is really nothing going on. <snip> Well, maybe my metaphor doesn’t quite fit your point. I was referring to a step in the process after the mechanics of practice become more automatic. It’s not necessary to always mentally say the words HAIETMOBA as it becomes a continually running operation. So, ‘HAIETMOBA’ is kind of like training wheels, as is the deliberate sequence of detecting feelings, experiencing them, determining their root, investigating their cause in some or other belief system, etc. The beginning piano player is thinking ‘this finger here is C’, whereas for the more learned player, this is no longer a conscious operation. One person’s metaphor is another person’s fish. I understand from my own experience that the words ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’, when applied with the sincere intent to become happy and harmless, eventually turn into a wordless ongoing ‘self’-investigation. However, taking your words at face value, when you refer to ‘the process after the mechanics of practice become more automatic’ you seem only to be continuing your previously learned practices and have yet to take on board the fact that the actualism method is radically different to what you have previously been taught. My words were intended to convey exactly the same point you made. So, ‘the process after...’ is indeed a learned practice, specifically the practice (including HAIETMOBA) of becoming free of the human condition. I imagine this practice is present in some capacity until one reaches a state of actual freedom, when it is shut off forever. Until then, we’re all using an essentially artificial or contrived mechanism, the ‘training wheels’. This is how humans learn or unlearn and has nothing to do with the fact that actualism is novel or not. Has it ever occurred to you that actualism is indeed novel to human history, i.e. 180 opposite to all spiritual belief and philosophy? Therefore when you write about ‘the more learned player’ and ‘taking the training wheels off the bicycle’, what you are writing about is equivalent to riding an old bicycle in the wrong direction. Despite your belief to the contrary, actualism is not an improvement on your previous self-monitoring practice. To continue doing what ‘you’ have been doing in the past merely keeps ‘you’ in existence and prevents any opportunity of radical change taking place. The first step for an actualist is to stop whatever practice he or she was doing thus far and investigate what exactly are the ideas, ideals and beliefs one is holding dear because these are the very obstacles to understanding what actualism is about. * Facing the reality of my own demise has been one of my favourite obsessions in the past. I am somewhat confused as to what you mean by ‘facing the reality of my own demise … in the past’ – are you referring to the demise of the ego that leaves the soul intact, as taught in each and every branch of Eastern mysticism, or are you referring to facing physical death? I was referring to the death of the body, and by implication my identity, the traditional existential angst. I have never quite ‘got’ the soul. It always seemed a fabrication purely to assuage the visceral fear of one’s physical death. If you’re good, your soul gets to go to heaven, and in the meantime, here’s the tithing basket. The whole soul/ afterlife/ eternal energy scenario just never added up, when I applied common sense. So, the interesting characteristic of AF is this dismantling of the identity, the very thing that has the dread. Having abandoned any notion of an afterlife, it seems the only game in town. The ‘soul’ is not dissolved by dismissing ‘any notion of an afterlife’ nor by maintaining an agnostic view about a life after death. The soul – ‘who’ I feel ‘I’ am deep down inside – is apparent in every belief, every mood, every emotion and every affective reaction that one experiences. To find one’s soul in action is the essential task for an actualist because the very action of recognizing my soul in action is paramount to dismantling it. The soul is the deepest core of my being, the seat of the instinctual passions, the very substance of ‘me’ – that which you once called ‘the actual being’. Vis:
This perception that ‘who I really am’ is a non-personal ‘actual being’ who is ‘palpably distinct from’ my personal identity is pure Zen. The ‘self’ plays hide and seek by dividing itself into two apparently separate identities – a personal identity, or ego, and a non-personal actual being, or soul – with the aim of humbling the first identity in order to glorify the second identity. Actualism is not to be confused with Zen because both the method and the aim are radically different – diametrically so in fact. The aim of actualism is the extinction of both identities, as becomes stunningly apparent in a pure consciousness experience where both parts of ‘me’ – the personal ‘I’ and the non-personal ‘being’ – are temporarily absent. I used the term ‘actual being’, referring to the flesh-and-blood, and you linked it with the term ‘soul’. So maybe I’m using the wrong terminology? What is the official AF term for the body that sensately goes about its daily business? Whatever you want to call it, that’s what I was referring to, not the soul. You are attempting to redefine your philosophy by using actualism ‘terminology’ and completely overlook that what you are doing is neither the method nor the practice to become actually free from the human condition. You explain it clearly in your next sentence – I don’t know where the identity/ego ends and the soul begins, and I’m not sure it matters much, as it’s all learned behaviours and I lump them in the same category. And there is certainly no humbling or glorification going on, just a recognition of the existence of this identity/ego/soul. Your understanding of the human condition is that ‘it’s all learned behaviours and I lump them in the same category’. This is the traditional spiritual stance that if one only succeeds in ridding oneself of one’s socialisation, the learned behaviours from one’s childhood, then one is free to be one’s natural being. This ancient spiritual teaching is not improved by translating it into actualism ‘terminology’ – in fact nothing can improve this one-eyed thought-inhibiting intuition-enhancing philosophy of iron-age Eastern mysticism. If you want to become actually free from malice and sorrow then any and all previously acquired philosophies, teachings and techniques need to be thrown out – rooted out from deep within the soul you think you ‘never quite ‘got’’. The day you clearly remember or clearly experience a pure consciousness experience will be the day you understand what your soul really is by the very remarkable difference of ‘your’ absence.
I realize that ‘nipping it in the bud’ could be interpreted as either suppression, or as you say
The latter is what I intended, and your description jibes with that. As an example, the other day I had an angry moment, and I popped off at someone in an inappropriate (aka violate common consideration for others) manner. The moment swept me along, so there was little I could do to ‘nip it in the bud’, but the following feelings of embarrassment and shame I was able to ‘nip in the bud’. They arose, I recognized them, then got back to being H&H. <snip> <snipped a bunch of stuff I understand> The reason I described the investigation process in detail is that nipping feelings of embarrassment and shame in the bud only serves to stifle the investigative process. To get rid of embarrassment I had to find the cause of my embarrassment – in the case you described the outburst of anger – and then in the same way follow up the reasons for my outburst of anger as I have described above. Embarrassment and shame are only the tip of the iceberg and nipping these first indicators of ‘me’ in action in the bud puts a full stop to further investigations and does nothing to eliminate the underlying causes for feeling shame and embarrassment. Maybe I’m not making myself clear, or perhaps I’m using the wrong terminology again. When I talk about nipping the feelings in the bud, I don’t mean suppressing them. I’ve certainly learned how well that doesn’t work. The nipping means detecting them as they arise so that I can fully explore them. A secondary purpose of nipping is to stop the external manifestation, as you said a while back, to ‘keep my hands in my pockets’. Mr. Oxford explains the figurative expression in question –
which is the opposite to the meaning you attribute to the expression – ‘detecting them as they arise so that I can fully explore them’. Your terminology seems to get more confused the more you try to clarify it. As for the ‘secondary purpose of nipping’ – from your description of the incident you provided as an example it appears that you expressed your anger and did not ‘keep your hands in your pockets’. Then, when ‘feelings of embarrassment and shame’ arose as a consequence of having expressed your anger, you ‘nipped them in the bud’, as in ‘destroyed at an early stage of development’. In actualism – with its intrinsic aim of being happy and harmless – to keep my hands in my pocket means that I don’t express my anger in any form whatsoever towards others. This is eminently sensible behaviour. However, only by being aware that you are feeling angry as the feeling is happening, can you be aware of the sensibility of not expressing it. T’is best to put the cart before the horse – awareness before action leads to considered and considerate action. Being aware of feelings of shame and embarrassment at having expressed your anger to others are but signs that the horse has already bolted before you became aware of it. There is much, much more to the phrase ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ than is apparent from a cursory glance, particularly for those who prize themselves as being already aware. * The process you seem to be describing as ‘they arose, I recognized them, then got back to being H&H’ has a striking resemblance to the method of Vipassana. This Buddhist ‘watching practice’ is based on the understanding that ‘who’ you really are is your ‘consciousness’, ie. a disembodied, desensitized ‘watcher’, dissociated from unwanted emotions and thoughts. In Vipassana, ‘watched’ anger eventually passes away, not because you understand its underlying reason and origin but because you become the watcher and distance yourself from your anger and merely watch it run its course. In the same way you can distance yourself from any feeling or emotion without ever having to investigate the substance of your ‘self’ – it’s instinctual core. To really face the fact that anger is ‘you’ in action, and that ‘you’ are the only cause and reason of anger arising, is the first and essential step to doing something practical about bringing an end to this emotion instead of merely witnessing it and waiting for it to pass away. Actualism is not a method of passively monitoring, watching or observing one’s feelings – actualism is a method of actively investigating the origin of those feelings and thus rocking the very core of one’s identity. Actually, my experience to date is kind of opposite of that. The ‘watcher’ is a useful component of the actual No 38, whereas the ‘dissociated’ entity is the identity, that which has the emotions and learned responses. I am being careful with that word ‘dissociated’ as it could imply suppression, sweeping it under the carpet. The whole point of this work is to keep it in clear view so that it can be taken apart, piece by piece, and that can’t be done if it’s hidden away. This is the nub of the misinterpretation I was trying to explain. The ‘watcher’ is not ‘a useful component of the actual No 38’ – there is no way to experience the actual No 38 except in a pure consciousness experience. In a PCE the whole identity – both the ‘watcher’ and the ‘watched’ – temporarily go into abeyance. The ‘watcher’ and ‘the ‘dissociated’ entity’ are part of the same identity – the ‘self’ split into two for the purpose of ‘self’-improvement. Granted. Are you saying you grant that –
and that
and that
The consequence of this agreement becomes apparent in your next paragraph. But until my identity is eliminated (if that ever happens), I need to use some tools from my present perceptive context. That includes such artificial mechanisms as a ‘watcher’ or ‘monitor’, or forcing myself to remember to HAIETMOBA. By their nature, they are contrived, and certainly not for the long term. One day I would hope to abandon them when the need for them has passed, much as a child removes the training wheels from the bike, and experiences riding fully unencumbered. If I understand you correctly you say that
Above you ‘granted’ my statement that
Putting the two together you are then saying that
Whatever bicycle it is you are riding, this tautological circling will certainly keep your identity safely in place … for as long as you choose.
Richard: [quote] ‘As all this was happening, a passing thought occurred to me, which was briefly contemplated ... then banished: Who or what was it that was observing these two ‘me’s ... the social ‘me’ and the grand ‘Me’? This trifling question was to be of immense benefit years later when I realised that I was living in a delusion and that there was an actual freedom lying beyond ... but I jump ahead of myself’. (page 245, ‘Richard’s Journal’; ©1997 The Actual Freedom Trust). This really bonked me – ‘Who or what was it that was observing these two ‘me’s’. I’ve spent a lot of time in self-observation without asking this seemingly simple question. I’ve been putting off trudging down to the bank to get some Ozbucks to order your journal... in the meantime, would you mind posting a few snippets on this subject, pls? As the self-appointed AF librarian I can suggest a few links that might be of use for your query –
The amount for
The other day you wrote to No 37 making an assumption about me that I want to clarify – Richard appears to have rewired his brain internally (and on the evidence I think that is true), so how do we know that it wasn’t simply rewired to experience the universe as timeless and infinite? Peter, Vineeto and others are attempting the same physical rewiring (not achieved yet... virtual freedom vs. actual freedom) by emulation of that programming... whether they or anyone else can ever accomplish the hard-wiring remains to be seen. I am certainly not attempting an ‘emulation of that programming’. Actual Freedom is not about emulating a programming – it is about becoming free from one’s social programming and from the invidious effects of blind nature’s instinctual programming. With the actualism method I remove my default setting, the normal and spiritual programming of the human condition – I do not replace it with another programming. When the identity is removed – as experienced in a pure consciousness experience – the actual becomes apparent only because there is no programming interfering with experiencing what is already here. Therefore I do not need to ‘ever accomplish the hard-wiring’ as you suggest – what I do in the continuous process of increasing attentiveness is to become aware of and remove the redundant software programming. Then the hard-wiring, human intelligence, can function undisturbed and undistorted and the senses perceive unfiltered delight. Once you begin to practice actualism and begin to de-program your belief in the supposedly unknowable nature of the universe, then the nature of the actualism process becomes easily apparent.
The other day you wrote to No 37 making an assumption about me that I want to clarify – Richard appears to have rewired his brain internally (and on the evidence I think that is true), so how do we know that it wasn’t simply rewired to experience the universe as timeless and infinite? Peter, Vineeto and others are attempting the same physical rewiring (not achieved yet... virtual freedom vs. actual freedom) by emulation of that programming... whether they or anyone else can ever accomplish the hard-wiring remains to be seen. I am certainly not attempting an ‘emulation of that programming’. Actual Freedom is not about emulating a programming – it is about becoming free from one’s social programming and from the invidious effects of blind nature’s instinctual programming. With the actualism method I remove my default setting, the normal and spiritual programming of the human condition – I do not replace it with another programming. When the identity is removed – as experienced in a pure consciousness experience – the actual becomes apparent only because there is no programming interfering with experiencing what is already here. Understood. My example was yet another on a long list of attempts to rationalize AF in terms that make sense to ‘I’. Clearly that can never happen as ‘I’ have a vested interest in making sure that the fundamental experience of the actual never happens. Yes, you said it very well. As long as ‘you’ ‘have a vested interest’ in preventing ‘the fundamental experience of the actual’, all you can do is ‘rationalize’ actualism – to mean what it doesn’t mean ... because what actualism really means is the end of ‘me’. When I discovered actualism and satisfied myself that it was genuine article, there came a point when I had to make a clear-cut decision. Either I would live the rest of my life settling for second best … or I would make a commitment, knowing well that this commitment would be the end of ‘me’. I don’t know why, but second best was never an option. Once I had made this commitment something quite delicious happened – I discovered ‘I’ had something worthwhile to do – ‘I’ had a purpose, a goal worth dying for – and this commitment alone made ‘me’ immensely happy. Committing myself to actual freedom ended my search and began my process of discovery, I had found the effective method to achieve the freedom I had always longed for – the only thing left to do was to do it. * Therefore I do not need to ‘ever accomplish the hard-wiring’ as you suggest – what I do in the continuous process of increasing attentiveness is to become aware of and remove the redundant software programming. Then the hard-wiring, human intelligence, can function undisturbed and undistorted and the senses perceive unfiltered delight. Regarding your last sentence above... the implication is that the underlying human intelligence (including the unique personality components) by its very nature is ‘happy and harmless’, sensately revelling in the universe. Is that a general case or could there be instances of specific human intelligences that do not have that nature, but revel in e.g. causing misery to others? Animals appear to thoroughly enjoy life, unless they’ve been damaged psychologically. Is being happy our birthright, which we typically squander? Human intelligence is indeed an ‘underlying’ function of the human brain, underlying in that intelligence is subordinate to, and hence crippled by, the instinctual survival passions emanating from the now-redundant primitive or archaic brain. This is the ‘general case’ in that survival instincts are genetically encoded in each and every human brain. The experience of the actualism process is that intelligence, when freed from the instinctual passions, is by its nature benevolent, sensible and intelligent. I don’t know which kind of animals you have in mind, but animals on farms or in the wild do not enjoy life – they are driven by the survival instinct of ‘what can I eat, what can eat me’. In the wild animals are constantly on the alert, vigilant for predators and scanning for attack on prey. Animals that are provided with shelter, food and security become domesticated such that the survival instincts are not as pre-eminent but when push comes to shove the wild animal instantly re-surfaces – exactly as it does in the domesticated human animal when push comes to shove. Animals are not aware that they are cruel, in panic, pining or bored but some are nevertheless are run by feelings and all of them are driven by instinctive imperatives. The idea that animals are innocent or happy is a myth. Spiritual teachings have always maintained that one only needs to dissociate from one’s social conditioning in order to be ‘who you really are’ – the feeling ‘self’ which is none other than the animal instinctual passions. In contrast, actualism recognizes that the root cause of human malice and sorrow lays in the animal instinctual survival passions and not, as ancient wisdom has it, in conditioned thought and cultural socialization. A freedom from the human condition can only be achieved via ‘self’-immolation, which is both, the death of one’s ego (the social identity) and the extinction of one’s ‘being’ (the instinctual identity). As for ‘is being happy our birthright’ – it does not make sense to call happiness our ‘birthright’ because there is no court where you could claim your ‘right’. I would rather describe it that the animal survival passions, universally manifest in humans as malice and sorrow, are our biological heritage – ‘me’ being as old as the first human – but a path to freedom from this software programming is now laid out. You can jump right on with both feet and complete the next step in human evolution. * Once you begin to practice actualism and begin to de-program your belief in the supposedly unknowable nature of the universe, then the nature of the actualism process becomes easily apparent. Practicing actualism has two key elements: unravelling the accrued conditioning, and experiencing the actual universe directly. I’ve been diligently doing the former for some time, with great results, but have certainly been tripping over my own feet with the latter. No wonder, you’ve ‘been tripping over my own feet with the latter’ – you have omitted the most significant part in your first ‘key element’ – the instinctual survival passions, which are a layer deeper than ‘accrued conditioning’. The ‘accrued conditioning’ is always first impediment to freedom, peace and happiness to be tackled and once there is a sufficient dent in the armour of one’s social identity, then it is possible to become more and more aware of the underlying crude instinctual passions. To believe that ‘I’ am a product of an accrued conditioning only is to remain ensnared in one’s spiritual-philosophical conditioning – the very first thing that has to go if one is to even begin to become a practicing actualist. You may remember the piece from Peter’s ‘Practical Guide for Actualists’ –
I always found that my attempts at ‘experiencing the actual universe directly’ were putting the cart before the horse. Whenever I ask the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ and I am not happy, then I explore and remove the cause of not being happy – only when I am happy, can sensate experiencing have a chance of happening on its own accord. And whenever in the process of letting go of my spiritual beliefs I eradicated a cornerstone of my identity – a core belief, a deep-seated feeling, a bit of ‘me’ – then the crack in the door bought about a pure consciousness experience. No 37’s recent missives have been very helpful in addressing my skepticism and understanding the crucial necessity of that facet. Good on ya. It is amazing how much can be achieved by a good dose of naiveté combined with the determination to change radically and irrevocably.
I have the trimmed your post a bit so as to focus on the main points you made – Animals appear to thoroughly enjoy life, unless they’ve been damaged psychologically. Is being happy our birthright, which we typically squander? As for ‘is being happy our birthright’ – it does not make sense to call happiness our ‘birthright’ because there is no court where you could claim your ‘right’. I would rather describe it that the animal survival passions, universally manifest in humans as malice and sorrow, are our biological heritage – ‘me’ being as old as the first human – but a path to freedom from this software programming is now laid out. You can jump right on with both feet and complete the next step in human evolution. Wouldn’t the social conditioning be the software programming, and the instinctual passions be the hardware programming? I’m mincing words here, but I am an engineer after all and tend to go a bit overboard on deconstructing things. Or maybe you hadn’t noticed ;-) The idea that ‘the social conditioning be the software programming, and the instinctual passions be the hardware programming’ is instilled by spiritual teachings and psychological theories that lay the blame of all the ills of mankind on social conditioning. The uniqueness of Richard’s discovery is that he proved by example that one’s instinctual passions are permanently deleteable and therefore as much software as one’s social conditioning. One need not trust Richard that this is so because everyone has had a PCE at some time in their life when both ‘I’ as ego – one’s social identity – and ‘me’ a being – one’s instinctual identity – are temporarily in abeyance. In a PCE both ‘software programs’ crash simultaneously, leaving this body free of any identity whatsoever – as such, a PCE is experiential evidence that the instinctual passions are not hardwired. * The issue of the instinctual passions also relates to your question in the second post –
Isn’t self-preservation one of the instinctual survival passions? I recall reading Richard (who has lost those passions) stating that it would not be a problem to defend himself from bodily harm. Why did that not go with the other instincts? Does it simply resolve to choosing to live... I can die, or I can live and enjoy the universe. Simply a matter of preference? Your question appears to be induced by instinctual ‘self’-preservation which cannot conceive that this body would be able to survive, or maybe not even choose to survive, without ‘my’ instinctive survival program. I as this flesh-and-blood body do not ‘resolve to choosing to live’ – I am already alive. The ‘preference’ to not be alive for a body sans identity would presumably only ever arise if one was incapable of enjoying being alive as in the case of a debilitating incurable disease that caused chronic pain. To defend oneself from bodily harm is pure common sense – you cannot ‘enjoy the universe’ when you are dead. Here is an excerpt of Richard’s response to a similar question –
* Practicing actualism has two key elements: unravelling the accrued conditioning, and experiencing the actual universe directly. I’ve been diligently doing the former for some time, with great results, but have certainly been tripping over my own feet with the latter. No 37’s recent missives have been very helpful in addressing my scepticism and understanding the crucial necessity of that facet. Good on ya. It is amazing how much can be achieved by a good dose of naiveté combined with the determination to change radically and irrevocably. I’ve mulled a bit recently on the notion of naiveté. I’ve read and understood the definition, but I must admit there is a lingering association in my mind with ‘foolishness’. I do see how elemental it is to this whole process. I think it would be interesting to explore this in the context of the universe thread. Yes, that’s it. In actualism, the first thing that takes a bashing is one’s pride because the pursuit of becoming happy and harmless means to set off in the opposite direction to what society regards as being intelligent and wise. From the real-world point of view scepticism, cynicism, criticism and denigration are considered intelligent behaviour, while from the spiritual point of view dissociation, detachment and not-knowing are deemed the peak of wisdom. Consequently the pursuit of becoming unconditionally happy and unconditionally harmless, i.e. giving up battling it out in either the real world or the spiritual world, is seen as a sign of foolishness … and the fear to appear foolish is one of the biggest stumbling blocks to beginning the journey to an actual innocence. As you say, naiveté is ‘elemental’ to the actualism process – without naiveté you cannot even consider that human beings can possibly live in peace and harmony, let alone that one can free oneself from one’s genetically encoded instinctual programming. To allow naiveté to replace scepticism and cynicism is a big step towards leaving the safe haven of resignation and never-ending uncertainty and dropping out of the day-to-day combat in the grim battle of survival. Naiveté has two purposes in actualism – firstly, moving on from the initial analytical process of making a prima facie case as to the sensibility of actualism to beginning the experiential hands-on exploration of one’s psyche – the process that leads to irrevocable change. And equally importantly – awakening one’s dormant naiveté is vital to be able to remember, or induce, a pure consciousness experience. As Richard’s sum it up –
It’s a pleasure to chat with you. Vineeto’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust |
