|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 66
Non-falsifiable theories are not factual or testable, but that does not make them 100% false, is my point. Non-falsifiable theories are pseudo-scientific fantasy, … Right, they are not scientific, but their proponents will just say ‘science is the wrong tool for this job, you must ‘‘experience’ the other world.’ Of course – science (a knowledge producing procedure) is in itself inadequate to abolish spiritual beliefs because trying to produce knowledge about something that has no existence other than as a passionate imagination in the heads and as a deep-seated feeling in the hearts of men and women cannot of itself prove it to be non-existent. My point was that because the theory of the existence of God is in itself non-falsifiable and as such is outside the realm of science – a non-falsifiable theory is also a non-verifiable theory. As for ‘you must ‘‘experience’ the other world’’ – experiencing the ‘other world’, i.e. the spiritual world, is per definition based exclusively on beliefs and affective feelings, and, as you probably know from many life-experiences, affective feelings are a poor arbiter of appropriate, sensible, beneficial assessment in any situation or circumstance. In contrast, an experience of the actual world is solely based on sensate perception and clear, i.e. non-affective, thinking. To make the distinction between those two ways of experiencing see also: * … and the very quality of them being non-falsifiable makes such theories mere products of imagination, i.e. ‘100% false’. Yes, they are imagination beliefs, and affective experiences. While not having your well earned 100% certainty, I am starting to better understand why you are certain. Basically, while so far my experience of actualism mirrors your own, I am holding onto a bit of skepticism/agnosticism (for many reasons perhaps: for sure one is that it is a ‘non-offensive’ view, and seems ‘respectful’ to others of different views). To remain ‘respectful’ to others’ views is to want to remain a respected member of society/humanity certainly. Being an atheist yet tolerant of all religions (as one ethicist explained his fence-sitting stance in a recent TV program) is bound to interfere with one’s being happy and harmless because remaining open to the probability of there being a God is remaining open (as in susceptible) to the fear of divine punishment should one do something that any of the Gods has supposedly deemed to be wrong – after all, underpinning the belief in God by whatever name lies the fear of His/Her/Its wrath if one dares to irrevocably cease being a believer. I am beginning to suspect that when I attain a virtual freedom (and at this point, its only a question of time/when) I will be unable to say seriously that there ‘may be a spirit world or after life.’ Though, as actualism is a path with integrity and is all about one’s own discoveries I wont be saying I’m 100% certain before I really am. And yet, I see the beliefs in an after life as absurd superstition, so perhaps I’m close. At this point, it’s all about attaining that now very graspable goal of virtual freedom. In my experience it was the other way round – when I was ‘unable to say seriously that there ‘may be a spirit world or after life’’ I was then free to get on with being happy and harmless almost all of the time. * Here is how Reginald Firehammer (from the autonomist website you considered excellent) defines Pseudo Science – <snip> Yes, this is great for anyone who thinks the afterlife to be study-able by ‘science’ but what about the ‘thinkers’ who say the ‘otherworld’ is not study-able by human methods? Can you see the cunningness of humans inventing something that is ‘not study-able by human methods’ – no-body will ever be able to empirically analyze it and no-body will ever be able to refute it as a theory. * Of course, it would be silly to believe in them. Perhaps, it’s silly to consider them ‘possible’, that I’m uncertain of. It may throw some light on your query if you pondered upon the difference between believing in a non-falsifiable theory and considering the very same non-falsifiable theory possible. Doesn’t the very act of considering a non-falsifiable theory possible give credence to its very existence? Being an experienced wanker, I first thought, ‘no these are two very different things.’ Then I saw how even the second is totally contrary to the peaceful, simple, objective, way a virtually or actually free person would think/experience about life. Ah, virtually free/actually free humans simply give up wanking 100%. Which is what ‘considering the very same non-falsifiable theory possible’ is, wanking. No wonder why you three stir up such intense negativity in intellectuals – you are a threat to their ‘selves’ favorite sport: wanking. I like your choice of word as one definition of wanking is ‘to maintain an illusion: deceive oneself’ (Macquarie Dictionary). * I remember when I first started to look at my beliefs and proceeded to then look at the very nature of beliefs – I was then led to investigate the reasons why ‘I’ was a believer of beliefs – what emotional investment ‘I’ have in being a believer of the beliefs I believe – which then led me on to thoroughly investigating the very act of believing itself. Yes, I’ve done this as well. The difference it appears is that I’ve had this desire to not believe any beliefs, while at the same time to respectively consider them remotely possible. I can see how not only can this be slowing down my self-immolation, it is also a waste of time wanking (though, lately I’ve been better at not thinking anymore about remote possibilities save my wankfest with No 81). Nothing like a practical demonstration of what the act of valuing beliefs invariably leads to, hey? As far as Gods are concerned, 100% certainty that there are no gods in this actual world beats remaining open to any of them hands down, in other words the name of the game is loosing ... all faith. As a suggestion, you may well find reading the ‘God’ chapter of Peter’s Journal useful as he describes many of the trails and tribulations he went through before finally and irrevocable abandoning spiritual belief.
Non-falsifiable theories are not factual or testable, but that does not make them 100% false, is my point. Non-falsifiable theories are pseudo-scientific fantasy, … Right, they are not scientific, but their proponents will just say ‘science is the wrong tool for this job, you must ‘‘experience’ the other world.’ Of course – science (a knowledge producing procedure) is in itself inadequate to abolish spiritual beliefs because trying to produce knowledge about something that has no existence other than as a passionate imagination in the heads and as a deep-seated feeling in the hearts of men and women cannot of itself prove it to be non-existent. My point was that because the theory of the existence of God is in itself non-falsifiable and as such is outside the realm of science – a non-falsifiable theory is also a non-verifiable theory. Yes, I see: non-falsifiable theory=non-verifiable theory. Makes sense. I am pleased that this one is now cleared up. * As for ‘you must ‘‘experience’ the other world’’ – experiencing the ‘other world’, i.e. the spiritual world, is per definition based exclusively on beliefs and affective feelings, and, as you probably know from many life-experiences, affective feelings are a poor arbiter of appropriate, sensible, beneficial assessment in any situation or circumstance. Yes, you’re right, they are a path to delusion. Frankly, from these posts, I’ve found that there is still a part of me that wants to ‘value’ the worthwhileness of feelings. Naturally. One can’t simply eliminate feelings by decree. I had to look at each of my feelings as and when they occurred and make an assessment whether this feeling was preventing me from being happy and harmless or not. Some of those feelings needed a few repeats before I could clearly acknowledge that they were hindering my enjoyment of being alive. In fact, being a social worker in the mental health field makes this conditioning even worse in me than a ‘normal’ person. Because you would be out of a job if everyone was virtually free? * In contrast, an experience of the actual world is solely based on sensate perception and clear, i.e. non-affective, thinking. Yes, I know (and yet ‘I’ want to believe otherwise). Ah, the flesh (-and-blood brain) is willing but the heart is lagging behind? In my experience it was only a matter of time – finally acknowledging the foolishness of hanging on to ‘my’ pride about the particular issue – until the balance tipped to being sensible. * Basically, while so far my experience of actualism mirrors your own, I am holding onto a bit of skepticism/agnosticism (for many reasons perhaps: for sure one is that it is a ‘non-offensive’ view, and seems ‘respectful’ to others of different views). To remain ‘respectful’ to others’ views is to want to remain a respected member of society/humanity. Indeed, and it’s based in fear of losing ‘security’. Me leaving humanity. I’m all alone. No 32 is right – this is daunting stuff. Even terrifying at times. And yet despite the sometimes terrifying moments and daunting prospects you also report that you have already changed to such a degree that your own mother made comment on it. The process of leaving humanity is quite apparently already in full swing. * Being an atheist yet tolerant of all religions (as one ethicist explained his fence-sitting stance in a recent TV program) is bound to interfere with one’s being happy and harmless because remaining open to the probability of there being a God (and God begets a Satan) is remaining open (as in susceptible) to the fear of divine punishment should one do something that any of the Gods has supposedly deemed to be wrong – after all, underpinning the belief in God by whatever name lies the fear of His/Her/Its wrath if one dares to irrevocably cease being a believer. I see – it is leaving yourself ‘open’ to that, even if that is not happening right now. What one leaves oneself open to are the myriad psychic tentacles of others in
the form of imaginary scenarios and probabilities, not to mention ridicule and threats, to pull one back into the fold
… that is until * I am beginning to suspect that when I attain a virtual freedom (and at this point, its only a question of time/when) I will be unable to say seriously that there ‘may be a spirit world or after life.’ Though, as actualism is a path with integrity and is all about one’s own discoveries I wont be saying I’m 100% certain before I really am. And yet, I see the beliefs in an after life as absurd superstition, so perhaps I’m close. At this point, it’s all about attaining that now very graspable goal of virtual freedom. In my experience it was the other way round – 180 degrees opposite, eh? I meant it rather in the sense of not putting the cart before the horse. * … when I was ‘unable to say seriously that there ‘may be a spirit world or after life’’ I was then free to get on with being happy and harmless almost all of the time. This does make sense to me. I can sense how this would free one (me) to really start to fully enjoy life. Virtual Freedom is not some mysterious state that is one day bestowed upon you – to be virtually free from malice and sorrow means to increasingly enjoy being alive to the point that only very rarely something occurs that prevents you from feeling excellent. This is how Richard described a virtual freedom –
 The Who And How of Attentiveness And Sensuousness And Apperceptiveness
Richard: A sincere actualist is attentive to feelings all the time, day in, day out, whether active or resting; whether in association or on one’s own; whether there is thinking as well as perceiving or not. When attentiveness is actual, one will notice when one becomes stuck in one’s feeling patterns; it is that very noticing which allows one to back out of the feeling process and free oneself from it. Sensuousness returns one’s attention to its proper focus: if one is actualising a virtual freedom at that moment, then one’s focus will be the actual object of actualism. If one is not in virtual freedom, one’s focus will be just a straight-forward application of matter-of-fact attention itself, just a simple noticing of whatever comes up without getting possessively involved: ‘Ah, this feeling ... what is it ... where is it ... where did it come from ... what is it made up of ... what is it connected to ...?’ Virtual freedom re-establishes itself easily by the attentiveness that it has not been current. As soon as one is aware that one has not been attentive then one is experiencing sensuousness in virtual freedom ... and thence: Apperceptiveness. Apperceptiveness has its own distinct ambience in consciousness: it has a
flavour – a magical, crystal-clear, scintillating flavour – whereas feelings are heady, magisterial and
grandiloquent by comparison ... finicky and phantasmal and flighty and fantastical. * Yes, this is great for anyone who thinks the afterlife to be study-able by ‘science’ but what about the ‘thinkers’ who say the ‘otherworld’ is not study-able by human methods? Can you see the cunningness of humans inventing something that is ‘not study-able by human methods’ – no-body will ever be able to empirically analyze it and no-body will ever be able to refute it as a theory. Very, very, very cunning little philosophers indeed! And humanity has taken these fairy stories ‘seriously’ for so long, … Isn’t the reason we are having this conversation about 100% certainty that the proposals of those ‘very, very, very, cunning little philosophers’ still seem, if not believable, at least ‘remotely possible’ to you? … that anyone who points out the obvious (that they’re fairy stories) is considered intolerant (you) and crazy (Richard). Intolerant, eh. I rather see it as taking the wind out of yet another furphy … to use a mixed metaphor. * The difference it appears is that I’ve had this desire to not believe any beliefs, while at the same time to respectively consider them remotely possible. I can see how not only can this be slowing down my self-immolation, it is also a waste of time wanking (though, lately I’ve been better at not thinking anymore about remote possibilities save my wankfest with No 81). Nothing like a practical demonstration of what the act of valuing beliefs invariably leads to, hey? It was instructive in a way similar to watching silly monkeys get caught in a trap because they won’t let go of the banana. Can I just ‘let go’ of all this possibilitist wanking? Will I? When? Of course I can. Will I? Why not indeed. There are so many much more enjoyable things to do whilst being alive.
No 60 to Richard: Nothing happens to set off an instance of my problem with the method. Practising the method itself induces feelings that would not otherwise be present. All I have to do to is start asking myself ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’, and pretty soon it sets off the feedback loop I’ve written about several times now. This does not happen in daily life; it is caused by practising the method. I’ve just this minute been writing about this again here <snip> To Richard: (...) I’d like to hear some reasonable explanation of why from an experienced actualist. The whole scenario that has been displayed on this mailing list in the last 2
weeks reminds me of a scene repeatedly used in comedies where a man staggers home drunk, sees his bruised face in the
mirror and begins to apply ointment and bandaid to the mirror. In fact the situation has now evolved to the point where
the same man is in the process of Given that No 60, despite first asking every one’s opinion on the issue,
has now I’m talking about nothing other but good old pride. As an added staying power pride has its own feed-back loop in that pride
itself prevents one from admitting that pride is the problem – it’s a sticky wicket but nothing that cannot be
overcome with a good laugh. No 60 would probably not consider my pointing to pride a To Richard: While wishing to know why another is having problems with the method may seem unrelated to my own practice of actualism, in this case I’ve had some experiences that mirror No 60’s. As you probably know from experience in your line of work – empathizing with a bad habit, someone else’s or one’s own, only serves as an encouragement for maintaining it.
No 60 to Richard: Nothing happens to set off an instance of my problem with the method. Practising the method itself induces feelings that would not otherwise be present. All I have to do to is start asking myself ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’, and pretty soon it sets off the feedback loop I’ve written about several times now. This does not happen in daily life; it is caused by practising the method. I’ve just this minute been writing about this again here <snip> To Richard: (...) I’d like to hear some reasonable explanation of why from an experienced actualist. (...) I’m talking about nothing other but good old pride. I can’t speak for No 60, but I know there is still pride operating in me. * To Richard: While wishing to know why another is having problems with the method may seem unrelated to my own practice of actualism, in this case I’ve had some experiences that mirror No 60’s. As you probably know from experience in your line of work – sympathizing with a bad habit, someone else’s or one’s own, only serves as an encouragement for maintaining it. I have witnessed that before. Empathizing with a common problem on the flipside often creates the opportunity to move past it. I am reminded what you wrote to me in another post –
To feel empathy for someone’s problems is the very core of ‘love is the answer’, in fact empathy is considered to be the highest form of love one can feel and love, empathy and compassion are highly prized for being the cure to all the problems of humankind. What I found was that whenever I made the effort to understand someone else’s problem emotionally I always ended up only feeling their feeling (empathize with them) but not understanding the problem. Furthermore, I lost my happiness, my clarity of thought and my previous understanding of the human condition in direct proportion to the depth of my empathy. The reason is obvious in hindsight – I was not only empathizing with the other having this particular problem, I was in fact re-feeling my own problem of the past (in order to be able to empathize), which means that I then felt as sad, angry or confused as the person with whom I was empathizing with, which in turn reinforced the validity and the apparent value of having this particular feeling. This habit of being hooked into feeling sad, angry or confused because someone else is feeling sad, angry or confused often happened despite the fact that I had previously recognized and tackled the particular problem and seen the senselessness of it. Rather than nipping the feeling in the bud I was, over and over, seduced by the lure of feeling empathy for another’s woes to take yet another dive into sorrow or anger or worry or whatever feeling the other person was stricken with. Over the years I gradually learnt that I was doing neither myself nor the other person a favour when I empathized with their problem (which is but one form of patting each other on the back for feeling bad), because the solution to each and every emotional problem is to do whatever it takes to become free from its grip and then do whatever it takes to remain free from its grip. Incidentally weening oneself off feeling empathy is also the way to become free from humanity at large.
Vineeto, I’m somewhat surprised it was you, because I would not think you could still ask ‘isn’t it selfish to leave the real world’ as I thought you’d be ‘certain’ that it’s not. Life is full of surprises. :) Haven’t you noticed that when it comes to actually taking the step and doing it, ‘I’ will throw up objections that were intellectually understood long ago?
No 103 (R): HAIETMOBA tackles maladapted thoughts and emotions. Basically I think you understand both well. Shalif’s method is good for its purpose. Do you really think that the actualism method’s purpose is to ‘tackle[s] maladapted thoughts and emotions’? I ask because this viewpoint obviously implies that well-adapted thoughts and emotions are the solution for the situation human beings find themselves in. In short – enhance the good (well-adapted) thoughts and emotions and suppress and/or transcend the bad (maladapted) thoughts and emotions and voila, the actualism method has yet again been reduced into the well-known ancient spiritual recipe for spiritual enlightenment.
The fact that actualism has no systematic ‘method’ of inquiry has always been quite clear to me, so this is no new issue for me. At some point I realized that RVP either can’t or won’t have any helpful feedback for such a question so I just quite asking questions about improving the Swiss knife ‘method’ of actualism. I have no doubts about the awesomeness of living a PCE, because I’ve had a PCE. It’s actualizing that as an ongoing experience that is the ‘problem’. I can respect that it’s up to me and me alone to come up with the questions to uncover the beliefs that cause my unhappiness. The reason why the actualism method has no ‘systematic method of inquiry’ is simply that as one inquires into one’s beliefs (beliefs being feeling-backed thoughts), the resultant feelings when they happen are usually all over the place as you probably know from experience. The only method I systematically apply, and ever needed to apply, is to keep asking whether I want to hold onto the particular feelings that come with being a believer or whether ‘I’ could afford to drop the belief in question in exchange for being more happy and convivial. This dropping of a particular belief sometimes happened quite quickly but more often, especially at the beginning, it took several rounds of repeating cycles of emotions such as doubt, fear, resentment, anger, hope back to doubt, fear, resentment, anger, hope, and so on. What was always needed was to clearly see ‘me’ in action, with the concurrent willingness to put an end to my present ‘self’-created misery. Personally, I don’t think it needs to be this hard though. No, it doesn’t need to be hard but ‘I’ tend to make it hard for various reasons. One reason for this hardship I discovered was that I believed life has to be hard because I have to earn, and justify, my right to exist and I believed that if I didn’t play my part I would be a useless fool. Another reason I discovered was that I was taught to be responsible and to look after those less fortunate in order to balance the injustice happening in the world – a moral injunction based upon the notion of scoring brownie points with the Big Judge in the sky. Another reason was that if I made it really hard for myself then the later victory over myself would be all the more glorious. Another reason was that everyone around me insisted by word and deed that it is heartless to have too much fun and to abandon carrying the burden of humanity. There were many more of society’s beliefs, morals and ethics that I encountered on the way to becoming virtually free but these might convey the tricks ‘I’ am up to in order to stay strong and on stage. Maybe ‘actualism’ worked so well for RVP cause there all very simple folks. What about us complex city folks? I still think a keen psychologist/ actualist could write a brilliant manual contain ‘how to’ investigate one’s beliefs, how to minimize emotions through attentiveness, etc. I’m sure I had as complex a psyche as others when I started with actualism – I had lived in cities, learnt plenty of theories and ideals at university, was filled to the brim with spiritual gooble-di-gook for years by a master manipulator and on top of it I was proud of being better than those simple folks who didn’t do all the things I had done in my life. The sticking point for me in the end was that despite all my efforts and despite all that I had tried, I wasn’t happy. When I began to apply the actualism method I soon found out that all of my seemingly complex problems had a very simple solution, so simple that I first had to abandon bucket-loads of complexity and rediscover naiveté in order to even see the simple solution that was right under my nose – the challenge always being, did I dare to do the obvious and immediate thing I needed to do in order to be more happy and more harmless. I am aware that, in hindsight, the investigations into my psyche look far more simple than I perceived them at the time and quite often nowadays I wonder what all the fuss was about and I am sure I will say the same when I finally take the plunge to an actual freedom.
Honestly, thing go ‘great’ for me outside of work but at work, there is just so much going on and to do that irritation and nervousness pop up consistently. I cant ‘investigate’ my beliefs while working, so I try just to be attentive to the feelings and thoughts. It helps but even that can be hard while managing unmotivated staff and helping severely dangerous and mentally ill clients. Sometimes I think perhaps i need a new job, but that cant really be the answer, can it? I am reminded of a conversation I had with Gary about this subject (I don’t know whether it is relevant to your situation or not but at least it may be food for thought) –
After all, actualism is also to find down-to-earth solutions to pragmatic challenges – it’s not about managing misery but abandoning it.
It seems to me the actualism ‘method’ is pretty lean on method. Besides one descent article by V there is really no systematic ‘method’ given to uncovering beliefs. (…) Actualism is much more unstructured and that’s cool for some, but I think a little more structure and even a ‘technique’ of inquiry could be very useful. Let the ‘No 66 doesn’t understand actualism’ onslaught begin. :) or not. The ‘No 66’s silly questions don’t merit even responding to, but No 89’s, etc does’ will be the more probable ‘response’. But I can’t be certain and probabilities don’t exist in the actual world as Jack knows. Actualism is just about the facts ma’am. No 60 will be happy cause I’m being ‘honest’. Peter will be bewildered cause I’m being silly. Richard will be silent. And one of our opportunists will take the opportunity to show the customary malice toward a would be (wannabe) actualist. It’s all so un-simple here in the real world. Are these predictions due to one or more of the Where oh where did wide eye Wanda go? According to my experience, she’ll be back in no time once the issue that brought these emotions to the surface has been satisfactorily dealt with.
The fact that actualism has no systematic ‘method’ of inquiry has always been quite clear to me, so this is no new issue for me. At some point I realized that RVP either can’t or won’t have any helpful feedback for such a question so I just quite asking questions about improving the Swiss knife ‘method’ of actualism. I have no doubts about the awesomeness of living a PCE, because I’ve had a PCE. It’s actualizing that as an ongoing experience that is the ‘problem’. I can respect that it’s up to me and me alone to come up with the questions to uncover the beliefs that cause my unhappiness. The reason why the actualism method has no ‘systematic method of inquiry’ is simply that as one inquires into one’s beliefs (beliefs being feeling-backed thoughts), the resultant feelings when they happen are usually all over the place as you probably know from experience. The only method I systematically apply, and ever needed to apply, is to keep asking whether I want to hold onto the particular feelings that come with being a believer or whether ‘I’ could afford to drop the belief in question in exchange for being more happy and convivial. This dropping of a particular belief sometimes happened quite quickly but more often, especially at the beginning, it took several rounds of repeating cycles of emotions such as doubt, fear, resentment, anger, hope back to doubt, fear, resentment, anger, hope, and so on. What was always needed was to clearly see ‘me’ in action, with the concurrent willingness to put an end to my present ‘self’-created misery. And how did you find all those beliefs w/o a ‘method’ of inquiry (i.e. specific questions)? And yet I had a method of inquiry – the questions that followed the method of attentiveness were merely common sense, the application of sensual observation combined with the experience of what works and what doesn’t work in regard to my aim. I started with the aim of living with Peter in unconditional peace and harmony (which soon expanded to being unconditionally happy and harmless) and applied the method of being attentive to this moment of being alive. Putting this attentiveness into a list my line of questioning would look something like this – with the proviso that when I notice that I am feeling hurt or peevish or irritated the first thing to do is to get back to feeling good –
Yet all in all this whole process of feeling the feeling, finding the underlying belief, identifying the aspect of identity involved, understanding this part of the human condition as common to all and abandoning the whole lot was so fascinating, rewarding and thrilling that it took on its own momentum which was then speeded up by success. In a relatively short time I could see tangible results in that I was less prone to feeling hurt, there were less and less issues I felt hurt or angry about and life became more and more a cruise rather than an uphill journey, which I might add was only possible because my aim was unwaveringly clear (after my first PCE) and I was determined, come what may, to be scrupulously honest to my aim and with myself. Along with abandoning beliefs and the related fickle good and bad emotions I also made some practical changes in my life so as to have more free time (in exchange for having less goods, less social status) and less social engagements. * Personally, I don’t think it needs to be this hard though. No, it doesn’t need to be hard but ‘I’ tend to make it hard for various reasons. One reason for this hardship I discovered was that I believed life has to be hard because I have to earn, and justify, my right to exist and I believed that if I didn’t play my part I would be a useless fool. Another reason I discovered was that I was taught to be responsible and to look after those less fortunate in order to balance the injustice happening in the world – a moral injunction based upon the notion of scoring brownie points with the Big Judge in the sky. Another reason was that if I made it really hard for myself then the later victory over myself would be all the more glorious. Another reason was that everyone around me insisted by word and deed that it is heartless to have too much fun and to abandon carrying the burden of humanity. There were many more of society’s beliefs, morals and ethics that I encountered on the way to becoming virtually free but these might convey the tricks ‘I’ am up to in order to stay strong and on stage. They were instructive. One thing I found useful to keep in mind – when things looked difficult and complicated and I felt I could not find my way out of the maze of my emotions and beliefs it was usually the thing that I least wanted to do or have happen that lead to the exit of the maze. In other words, ‘I’ had set the parameters and thus made the situation apparently complicated and seemingly insoluble by desperately wanting to hang onto one particular aspect of ‘me’. * Maybe ‘actualism’ worked so well for RVP cause there all very simple folks. What about us complex city folks? I still think a keen psychologist/ actualist could write a brilliant manual contain ‘how to’ investigate one’s beliefs, how to minimize emotions through attentiveness, etc. (…) When I began to apply the actualism method I soon found out that all of my seemingly complex problems had a very simple solution, so simple that I first had to abandon bucket-loads of complexity and rediscover naiveté in order to even see the simple solution that was right under my nose – the challenge always being, did I dare to do the obvious and immediate thing I needed to do in order to be more happy and more harmless. I am fighting this ‘simplicity’ Yep, and yet this simplicity itself might just be the possible exit from hard work and complexity, don’t you think?
It seems to me the actualism ‘method’ is pretty lean on method. Besides one descent article by V there is really no systematic ‘method’ given to uncovering beliefs. (…) Actualism is much more unstructured and that’s cool for some, but I think a little more structure and even a ‘technique’ of inquiry could be very useful. Let the ‘No 66 doesn’t understand actualism’ onslaught begin. :) or not. The ‘No 66’s silly questions don’t merit even responding to, but No 89’s, etc does’ will be the more probable ‘response’. But I can’t be certain and probabilities don’t exist in the actual world as Jack knows. Actualism is just about the facts ma’am. No 60 will be happy cause I’m being ‘honest’. Peter will be bewildered cause I’m being silly. Richard will be silent. And one of our opportunists will take the opportunity to show the customary malice toward a would be (wannabe) actualist. It’s all so un-simple here in the real world. Are these predictions due to one or more of the ‘cognitive distortions’ you posted only 32 minutes after the above post? Of course they are cognitive distortions. They were somewhat ‘tongue in cheek as well’. Personally I found it essential to take all of my feelings seriously enough to investigate them, specially at the beginning of practicing actualism, particularly in situations where my feelings caused me to imagine about other people’s feelings, thoughts or intentions. To give you another possibly useful hint – for me the actualism method has been the tool to go backwards – to the origin of a feeling, an imagination, an invention, an accusation, a belief – until I arrived at the original source from where the feeling/ belief was generated and that’s where the switch is located to turn the feeling/ belief off. In fact, as Richard pointed out in his recent post to you, seeing that it is a belief is already the end of it. * If so, the question I used to asked myself was something like: what is the common theme behind those ‘cognitive distortions’ and what is the dominant feeling generating this onset of negative projections in the first place – in other words, bring the investigation right to where it really needs to happen in order to be fruitful. Ok, that is a sensible question. I guess I’d like to see more practical examples of ‘investigation’. Ok, would it be a suitable practical example to apply the same sensible question to yourself in this particular situation? What I would ask myself in a similar situation (after having returned to feeling good) was what was the dominant feeling behind my ‘cognitive distortions’ that made my world appear so complicated and/or so hostile? Once I found the dominating feeling that generated the belief, the belief disappeared and the feeling looked just silly.
Footnotes: 1.) a clear-cut decision is made – it often felt to me like I was cutting an imaginary psychic cord –
And …
And …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2.) Smashing the mirror –
3.) Ruled out any other possibility for why the actualism method fails for him –
4.) Fair dinkum suggestion –
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5.) http://lists.topica.com/lists/actualfreedom/read/message.html?mid=912559681&sort=d&start=11315 Vineeto’s Text © The Actual Freedom Trust |
