No 82: When Richard advises people to ‘minimise’ the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activate the felicitous feelings what does he really mean by ‘minimise’? Feelings can be ‘minimised’ by brute force, e.g. repression, denial, avoidance and distraction but what is the sensible way to do it?

The result is that fear still comes, stays as long as it pleases, then departs until next time. Then it comes, stays as long as it pleases, then departs until next time. So on. So forth. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. World without end, hallelujah. I cannot see how it will ever be different because ‘I’ cannot touch the source of it. How can ‘I’, a fantastical figment of these passions, reach down and dig them up by the roots? ‘I’ have no grip because I am nothing. I am a mere ghost grasping at reflections of something that happened before ‘I’ even appeared and started reacting to it. How can such a thing act upon itself? Can it? Does it? Who can vouch for this method with 100% sincerity?

To No 82: I have actually done an experiment with some positive results you could try as well:

Finally, when you have deprived yourself of any positive language with regard to what you experience and what you called ‘fear’ in the beginning the only thing that should remain is a blanc mind. The fear should disappear or at least you should be able to experience that what you called fear in the beginning without any superimposition by words/thoughts and feelings.

An excellent description of how dissociation looks like in practice.

I miss your point here. This method is not at all dissociative.

Dissociation is a psychiatric/psychological term meaning  ‘the separation (dissociation) of one’s thoughts, emotions and even body sensations’ (©George F. Rhoades, Jr., Ph.D. November 1, 1998), which is exactly the technique you described above. In order to eliminate the feeling (‘the fear should disappear’) you first suggested separating feeling and thought (‘don’t call it ‘fear’’) and then you suggested separating body sensation and thought (‘don’t call it a pain in the chest’).

In a normal human being, dissociative reactions are attempts to escape from traumatic tension and anxiety by separating off or dissociating one’s feelings from the rest of cognition as an attempt to isolate or distance oneself from that which arouses anxiety Nowadays, given the increasingly dominating influence of Eastern Mysticism, this somewhat normal reaction to trauma is held to be the ultimate panacea to the grim reality of human existence to the point where dissociative practice has become the common garden approach for the spiritually-minded to any and all kinds of uncomfortable feelings and unpleasant situations.

This method is based on the simple observation: We have been programmed to associate certain emotions/feeling with certain words/thoughts. There have been vast research on the relationship between our emotional well-being and language patterns we use to describe ourselves and others.

Yes, this is the theoretical basis for the practice of dissociation – the assumption being that you ‘have been programmed to associate’, the conclusion being that you de-program by dis-associating.

This theory, like the vast majority of psychological/psychiatric theories, ignores the fact that human beings are born with basic instinctual passions, which are only overlaid by the social conditioning designed to keep the underlying passions in check, in other words, it is a theory aimed at alleviating the symptoms rather than eliminating the cause. Further, this theory ignores the practical observation that ‘I’ am my feelings and my feelings are ‘me’ and as a consequence the ploy of deliberately not labelling my feelings is only ‘me’ playing games with my self.

The proposed de-programming via dis-association (as in deliberately not naming the feeling) can therefore only ever be a ruse and a skin-deep and fickle ruse at that – as the continuing need in every society to uphold the law at the point of the gun (or knife, or spear, or club) clearly demonstrates.

For example: Somebody calls you ‘loser’. This word might trigger in your mind some emotional reactions based on conscious or unconscious [childhood] trauma and you experience fear and sentences like ‘I will never make it’ or ‘I am not good enough’ might involuntarily cross your mind. This is called negative self-talk. I read that some 80% of the population is supposed to suffer from that. My method is deprogramming emotional reactions towards trigger-words. You just have to find your trigger word and put it out like that: What is <trigger word> if I don’t call it <trigger word>? That creates a paradox in the mind and the mind should go blanc for a moment. I will then be able to distinguish between the word ‘loser’ and my emotional reaction towards it [like fear].

What you are suggesting is to un-define the word ‘loser’ such that it no longer means ‘I am not good enough’. Have you thought of calling this the Four Wise Monkey approach – see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil and label no evil … and bingo, what a wonderful world it is inside here.

Basically there are two types of dissociation, head-in-sand or head-in-clouds (in German: ‘Vogel-Strauss’ und ‘Hans-guck-in-die-Luft’). Whether it be a head-in-the-sand or a head-in-clouds approach, your method is comparable to not labelling what is happening to the Titanic as ‘sinking’ when it goes under.

If I exercise this long enough I might achieve some results in deprogramming myself not to react emotionally towards the word ‘loser’. This is just an experiment, work-in-progress. I have no definite prove that it works. Therefore it would be interesting to see if somebody else like Robert finds it useful. Obviously the AF method has helped him [Robert] only so far.

I find it somewhat strange that you would subscribe to a mailing list, denigrate what is on offer on this mailing list as well as those who offer it, diagnose that those who are interested in what is on offer are getting little or no benefit from what is on offer and then proceed to offer something that you yourself admit to only having just begun to try and claim that it might give results. Strange reasoning for selling a method with ‘no definite prove that it works’. Sure seems like snake-oil selling to me, but then again, I’ve developed an acute nose for such things in my investigations into the human condition.

In contrast, the AF method has a proven track record in that it made one person actually free and several people virtually free from the human condition.

As for No 82’s question about what to do with fear – in my experience fear is part and parcel of the enterprise of becoming free and can at times be the very indication that the method works. After all, ‘I’ am being exposed to the bright light of awareness and this is a daring adventure, to say the least.

As Richard points out –

Richard: Speaking personally from experience, eventually – and ultimately – all the instincts are undone instantly via psychological and psychic ‘self’-sacrifice. This is, purely and simply, altruism at its very best ... and altruism’s energy is an instinctual passion (this is indeed hoisting oneself by one’s bootstraps ... writ large). However, until the initiation of the process that leads to ‘self’-immolation is consciously triggered – whereupon the ending of ‘me’ happens of its own accord – one can become acutely aware of the operation of the instinctual passions as they are experienced moment-to-moment. It is but the same ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ investigation of beliefs and feelings ... only extended deeper into one’s psyche.

Strangely enough, it does mean an exploration into the psychic realm ... which is why it is essential that one first establishes a firm base – called virtual freedom – to fall back upon when the going gets tough. A journey into one’s psyche – which is the human psyche – is not for the faint of heart or the weak of knee ... one must have nerves of steel to go all the way. The rewards for doing so are immense, however, and the ramifications far-reaching.

It means peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body. Richard, List AF, Mark, 19.3.1999

As for ‘how did you investigate those feelings’, i.e. those feelings that don’t necessarily have beliefs attached to them – I found that there was no need to make a distinction between feelings with beliefs and feelings without beliefs. Given that my aim is to eliminate ‘me’ the identity in toto, any feeling that prevents me from being happy and harmless is acknowledged, felt and labelled as it arises, neither expressed nor suppressed but attentively observed, in order that I can then either nip it in the bud or, if need be, explore and understand it fully so as to then be able to abandon them.

Feelings connected with beliefs inevitably surfaced whenever the particular belief was challenged. The only way to completely disempower the feelings is to abandon the belief – no belief, no need to feel defensive, feel aggrieved, feel the need to attack and so on. Even when I thought I had eliminated my major beliefs, such as my religious and spiritual beliefs, I would nevertheless discover yet more beliefs that I had inadvertently taken on board and these beliefs made themselves apparent by the fact that I got upset or sad or irritated about what someone said or did.

Undertaking an exploration of one’s own feelings when and as they are occurring – becoming fascinated with the business of being alive – is the means to developing apperceptive awareness, a prerequisite to becoming free of the human condition itself.

If that is what you choose to be content with, then so be it.

I know of quite a few people who manage to feel good most of the time as a consequence of practicing dis-identification, detachment and emotionally retreating from the world-as-it-is but in the end they are all unable to raise the bar to thoroughly enjoying life and delighting in being here by practicing this technique. This stands to reason because it’s impossible to unequivocally and unconditionally delight in being here whilst simultaneously practicing aloofness to one’s fellow human beings and indifference to the human condition that afflicts all human beings while cutting oneself off from the purity and perfection of the actual world.

Personally, feeling good almost all the time wasn’t good enough for me – I wanted to live the perfection I had experienced in my PCEs as much as possible. So when I had managed to feel good most of the time I raised the bar to feeling great, then to feeling excellent to the point where I wake up in the morning and take it for granted that I will have an excellent day.

After I had experienced the best that is possible, settling for second best was no longer an option.

I didn’t say anything about practicing dis-identification, detachment and emotionally retreating from the world as it is. I also didn’t say anything about practicing aloofness and indifference to the human condition. I am enjoying life.

If you re-read what I wrote you will notice that I did not say that you personally are ‘practicing dis-identification, detachment and emotionally retreating from the world as it is’. I reported that ‘I know of quite a few people’ who do that. Neither did I say that you practice ‘aloofness and indifference to the human condition’. I reported that ‘I know of quite a few people’ who do that.

However, given that you once told me that, although you didn’t consider your ‘previous ‘teachings’ as a spiritual belief-system’, you have trodden ‘this path of self-discovery for 30 years now’, I found it entirely relevant to pass on some information that may well be of benefit about the patterns and practices people can and do adopt when they have been conditioned by spiritual teachings for years.

All I was doing was sharing my observations of how the human condition operates and the type of feelings that inevitably arise and the behaviour patterns one establishes when following any one of the variations of spiritual teachings – it is up to you to determine if this information is useful to whatever it is you want to achieve in life. After all, you did say that you are ‘living with this feeler’ who is ‘lurking and waiting to gum up the works’.

Actually, you seem aloof to me in that I find it near impossible to have a conversation with you.

I wonder what kind of conversation you are looking for that you ‘find it near impossible to have a conversation’ with me? In case you are seeking an ‘I-don’t-know, you-don’t-know, what-do-you-think’ type of conversation as is so common on spiritual mailing lists then surely you are talking to the wrong person. If you are looking for sympathy, empathy, commiseration, love or compassion, then again you won’t find it here.

What I am doing is having a conversation with you about the workings of the human condition – the very nature of the topic makes such a conversation the most candid and frank kind of discussion one can have with another person. To liken this to being ‘aloof’ is to misunderstand both the nature of aloofness/ detachment/ disidentification and the degree of intimacy and sincerity required in order to undertake an honest inquiry into the human condition.

‘I’ don’t merely ‘acquiesce and cede control’ – I actively use ‘my’ passion for peace-on-earth to find out where I need to change in order to become harmless, I use ‘my’ desire for happiness to discover where I need to abandon being grumpy, melancholic, sad and depressed, I use ‘my’ yearning for stillness in order to find out where I am driven by frenzy and consumed by fear and I use ‘my’ longing for genuine harmony in order to determine where ‘my’ feelings of love and nurture stand in the way of an actual intimacy with my fellow human beings. And I use ‘my’ altruistic passion to bring about a final end to the bloody war-torn history of humanity in another flesh and blood body in order to keep ‘me’ on track in this unnatural process of taking myself apart and making my ‘self’ redundant.

Ok, thanks for the feedback here. I was wary about using some types of affective energy to disempower other types of affective energy, …

Given that ‘I’ am an affective being, ‘affective energy’ as such can only cease when ‘being’ in its entirety ceases to exist. Any attempt to separate one’s being from one’s emotions will only result in disidentification and dissociation and when ‘I’ pretend to be aloof or when I am disconnected from what I feel it is much harder to recognize emotions as and when they are happening, let alone be able to investigate them. You can recognize when you are disconnected from your emotions whenever you experience life as dull, when you are disinterested in being alive, when you are bored or comfortably numb, when you feel a grey calmness that appears to be emotionless. I had a few conversations about such apparently emotionless states I used to call ‘zombie-states’, if you are interested.

… but at the same time I was concerned that avoiding this might result in dissociation (by which I mean a kind of disidentification with the ordinary ‘me’ and a re-identification with a split-off portion of ‘me’ that masquerading as ... something independent). Thankyou for clarifying this.

Disidentification is our normal state because from very early on children are trained to repress their unwanted emotions, a condition which quite a few people later increase by adopting the teachings of Eastern mysticism. Actualism – at least at the beginning – is often a process of recognizing and then undoing this conditioning of pushing certain feelings under the carpet. It is a process of simply acknowledging that it is me who is feeling sad, lonely, angry, frightened, desirous, mad, annoyed, etc. As a simple guideline and a way of avoiding any confusion about the matter – unless I am having a PCE, it is always ‘me’ in action.

I am always astounded how deeply spiritual people are, and in particular how much humans have been trained to dissociate themselves from the uncomfortable situations they find themselves in, or from the undesirable feelings they experience. This afternoon I talked to a woman who said feelings and emotions come and go but they don’t disturb her wellbeing. Because I was curious, I asked her how she felt when she was feeling sad. She said she could feel wellbeing while being sad because sadness is transient, it comes and goes and does not affect the core of her wellbeing. She said feelings were only at the periphery whereas inside she felt ‘wellbeing’ and real ‘presence’.

By following this practice of considering her emotions as peripheral, she is in fact distancing herself from what she is feeling in the moment in order to maintain the idea that her inner wellbeing remains untouched. When I observed and examined my spiritual beliefs and practices, I found that distancing or dis-associating myself from what went on in my head or heart only produced a new, imagined and thus spirit-ual identity – a true ‘self’, a higher ‘self; a more desirable ‘me’. I discovered that the very act of distancing oneself from anything one is thinking, feeling or doing is a spiritual act, as in ‘I believe that I am not my thoughts, my feelings, my body’.

As an actualist, I acknowledge that everything I feel, think or do is ‘me’, the passionate identity, in action, and the only thing ‘I’ can do to weaken this identity is not only to take full responsibility for all of my thoughts, feelings and actions but also to bring them into the full light of awareness. Actualism is all about ceasing the habit of dis-association, luring the identity out of hiding and convincing ‘me’ to exit the stage for the benefit of this body, that body and every body.

Then the peace and splendour and purity of the actual world can finally become apparent.

However, if you are inspired by ‘people describing their PCEs’ and you would like to live a ‘self’-less PCE 24 hours a day, everyday, then you will need to change. You will need to make being harmless and happy priority number one in your life – the very top of your laundry list.

Being ‘reasonably happy’ can generally be achieved either by repressing one’s unwanted feelings, obeying the social-religious morals and ethics, or by detaching from one’s unwanted feelings, following the spiritual practice of dissociation. If you are interested in experiencing the dazzling splendour and peerless pristine excellence of the actual world then you would have to investigate why you would settle for feeling ‘reasonably happy’ – reasonably as in ‘moderately, modestly, cheaply, within one’s means, tolerably, passably, acceptable, average’. Oxford Thesaurus

Isn’t it amazing how much one sincere introspection can reveal. You described the spiritual practice of detachment very precisely – ‘detaching myself from my unwanted feelings’. This practice is not actualism, because actualism is about feeling one’s feelings, becoming aware of one’s feelings and exploring the origin of one’s feelings with the aim of minimizing both the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ feelings ‘so that one is free to feel good, feel happy and feel perfect for 99% of the time’ – as Richard says below in a correspondence he had with you –

Perhaps this is an excellent opportunity to clarify this whole issue about feelings. Often people who read about actual freedom gain the impression that I am asking people to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire affective faculty is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the psyche itself is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings. It is impossible to be a ‘stripped-down’ self – divested of feelings – for ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’. Anyone who attempts this absurdity would wind up being somewhat like what is known in psychiatric terminology as a ‘sociopathic personality’ (popularly know as ‘psychopath’). Such a person still has feelings – ‘cold’, ‘callous’, ‘indifferent’ – and has repressed the others (‘repressed’ not ‘suppressed’). In a PCE the feelings play no part at all – the self is in abeyance – but can come rushing in, if one is not alert, resulting in the PCE devolving into an ASC ... complete with a super-self. Indeed, this demonstrates that it is impossible for there to be no feelings whilst there is a self – in this case a Self – thus it is the ‘being’ that has to go first ... not the feelings. What actualism – the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom – is on about is a ‘virtual freedom’ (which is not to be confused with cyber-space’s ‘virtual reality’) wherein the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to feel good, feel happy and feel perfect for 99% of the time. Richard to No 4, 19.2.1999

However when I try to bring my attention to this moment – I find that I am trying to avoid being here and now. The reason looks to be that I do not really enjoy being here. Instead I enjoy more comforting myself in the thought that I am somewhat better off than most other people as I don’t get affected easily by feelings.

Yes, the avoidance of being here and now is the very purpose of practicing detachment and aloofness – spiritual people do not want to be here which is why they practice going ‘inside’. And it is an honest admission to say that you clearly recognize the cultivation of feelings of superiority over others that are an essential ingredient of all religious faith and spiritual practice. It is a great step towards regarding other people as what they are, fellow human beings.

*

Actualism, being non-spiritual, non-philosophical and down-to-earth, is like any other pursuit in life. For example, if your aim is to win the Olympic gold medal in the 5000m marathon, then you will spend your days training and exercising until you are confident of reaching your goal – you will stream-line your whole life, putting all other desires aside, to make sure you reach your goal and you won’t let off until you have perfected your skills. But if you only want to do a little bit of jogging to see if you like it or not, then you won’t need to practice, you won’t need to change your life, you won’t need to perfect your running style.

Mr. Buddha’s Four Noble Truths come to mind –

1. Life is fundamentally disappointment and suffering;
2. suffering is a result of one’s desires for pleasure, power, and continued existence;
3. in order to stop disappointment and suffering one must stop desiring; and
4. the way to stop desiring and thus suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path – right views, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right awareness, and right concentration.

Is it that you do not have an ‘aim in life’ because you have learnt to believe that to have a passionate ‘aim in life’ is a desire – a desire that the mythical Mr. Buddha supposedly said will inevitably bring disappointment and frustration? Such teachings do indeed inflict a severe lack of motivation to improve anything here on earth.

The other aspect of this spiritual practice that you point to – ‘detaching myself from my unwanted feelings’ – not only means you are ‘not getting effected’ by unwanted feelings, it also locks you out from feeling motivated, feeling interested, feeling curious, feeling inquisitive, feeling enthusiastic, feeling excited and feeling determined. It therefore becomes apparent that you will have to abandon your current practice of ‘not getting effected by feelings’ in order ‘to motivate myself enough to make ‘enjoying this moment’ priority number 1 in my life’.

To head off confusion before it sprouts further misunderstandings – No 22 is not an actualist. On the contrary, he made it clear in many earlier posts that he considers himself to be GOD, omnipotent and infinitely responsible. Vis:

• ‘I can do nothing, but I do everything. Omnipotence not only comes with the package, it is the package. I am infinitely responsible for I am responsible for each I that I create. I am responsible for being the action that are you, and I am responsible for the action that is I.’ No 22 to Richard, 1998
• ‘I is not inside anything – it is everything. I create what is by becoming what is. I am the intelligence that rearranges itself endlessly. This body, that body, the entire cosmos is but the evidence of I.’ see
• ‘This is GOD, not a god, nor the god, nor some god, nor another god.’ see

No 22 is our resident Godman on the actual freedom list. No 22 could well be on the actualist payroll, so well does he demonstrate the fact that spiritualism is diametrically opposite to actualism and portray the blatant nonsense that results from practicing dissociation. Just in case someone is tempted to return to practicing old time religion and spiritual ‘self’-inquiry with the aim of becoming ‘the Truth’, No 22 has devised a method of how to deceive yourself and achieve a pure solipsistic state –

Recipe for bringing an end to sexual abuse, rape, child abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse, depression, corruption, despair and suicide...’

1. Recognize and acknowledge that One (you) is absolutely, unquestionably and infinitely responsible for every aspect of the behaviour called ‘insert ‘your’ name here’.
2. If the above does not feel correct and honest, do not stop until it does
3. Remove from your thoughts, vocabulary, action, library, computer hard drive, floppy disk, daily routine, social interaction and behaviour in general, ANY information that promotes, assures, attests, re-enforces, claims, or otherwise communicates in any form that 1. is not true.

There, it is done. No 22 to Peter 19.7.2001

In other words, No 22 has not reached ‘some ‘low water’ level’ in actualism – he lives with his head in the clouds and his views and beliefs are the very antithesis to what is actual.

I am reminded of an episode in the space-comedy ‘Red Dwarf’. The crew, Lister, Kryton and the Cat, encounter some difficult times travelling through ‘illusion bubbles’ and are experiencing one strange Unreality after another, when they suddenly find themselves in front of a huge video-game machine and their time of playing ‘Red Dwarf’ is up. Because they had played the space-game for several years, they all have great difficulty in remembering their former identities. They finally work out who they were before starting the game and each is shocked to find himself living in a grim, violent, corrupt and desperate Reality, which was the very reason why they had started playing the space-game in the first place. They all decide that it is better to shoot themselves and while attempting to make efficient use of the last bullet Lister has left in his pistol, they hear a faint female voice, the spaceship’s computer, trying to ‘make contact’ – ‘Hello, hello, can anyone hear me? You are in an illusion. Come back to the ship.’

So far there have been two options on offer to deal with life – stay in a societal illusion of a grim Reality or escape into the fantasy of a Greater Unreality. With the discovery of an actual freedom there is now a third alternative available – dismantling the internal software program that constitutes grim Reality without replacing it with the fantasy of a Greater Unreality. By diligently dismantling this software program that makes up your social identity and your instinctual identity you can evince a deletion of this redundant programming and ‘what’ you are will emerge – a flesh and blood human being, free of malice and sorrow and free of any metaphysical delusions whatsoever.

It made so much sense to me that I couldn’t resist trying it out and a pure consciousness experience soon confirmed that it is indeed possible to live without any social-instinctual identity whatsoever.

For me nothing justifies ‘a cessation of investigation’, until the fat lady has sung. That is my aim in life and it does not matter how long it takes because for me there is no other game to play that is worth playing. I left the real world behind when I found that it sucks and I left the spiritual world behind when I found it to be a shallow fantasy and a hypocritical delusion.

The other day I heard a woman say in a TV drama discussing her emotional state: ‘I like being messy because that’s who I am’. I find her statement a good description of normal existence because to be a social-instinctual identity is to be emotionally messy. In that context, my pure intent is that I don’t ‘like being messy’, both for my own sake and for that of others, no matter what consequences it has to ‘who I am’. Speaking personally, rather than wanting to ‘cease the investigation’, I have found the process of self-investigation both thrilling and fascinating – it gives ‘my’ life both meaning and purpose.

The way you formulated your reply it appears that there is a ‘me’ who wants to be actually free and a ‘me’ who doesn’t. Yet in fact there are not two ‘me’s’, there is only one entity, who may sometimes want to be free and other times not want to be free.

With the memory of the PCE ‘I’ could clearly see that ‘I’ am standing in the way of perfection and therefore ‘I’ agreed to take ‘myself’ apart. The impetus to examine, investigate and change comes from ‘me’ – ‘I’ am willing to die because ‘I’ have unmistakably understood it to be the best and only solution to the human condition. Once ‘I’ made the full-hearted decision to actively stage my own disappearance, the journey became easier and I could make use of my instinctual passions to help ‘my’ mission. Now desire helps me to achieve the best possible, aggression to stubbornly stick to my goal, nurture to altruistically sacrifice my ‘self’ for the benefit of this body and every body, and fear, well, fear gives me the impetus to end fear forever.

But it is ‘me’, and only ‘me’, who is willingly doing all the work of becoming free. For comparison –

Respondent: How would you achieve peace Richard?

Richard: It is not a question of how would I achieve peace ... it is a question of how did I achieve peace. Strangely enough I did nothing. It was ‘I’ that did all the work. Richard, List B, No 18

Other like-minded people, i.e. practicing actualists, are of no benefit whatsoever as long as ‘what ‘I’ most want’ is ‘ceasing the investigation’. Unless an actualist is eager to roll up his or her sleeves and do something in order to become free from the human condition, other people who talk about their experiences with the method and demonstrate its success by being increasingly happy and harmless can even be perceived as nosy intruders.

Personally, I cannot ‘ignore’ the lure of actual freedom, not because I live with Peter or occasionally chat with Richard, but because I am haunted by the memory of the perfection that already always exists and that only becomes apparent when ‘I’ am absent. My backpressure to become free doesn’t come from ‘like-minded people’ asking probing questions but from having tried the normal-world and spiritual-world solutions and found that they failed.

The other story I wanted to report to you started with that familiar feeling of fear and thrill, surging through the back of my neck, pounding in the heart area and then down into the belly. The ‘self’ in action was distinctively felt and easily identifiable, yet had me fully in its grip. I was contemplating Richard’s latest correspondence with No 3, the self-acclaimed enlightened teacher on mailing list C and thinking particularly about Richard’s description and classification of enlightenment as the mental disorder of dissociation. It is a fascinating reading to have enlightenment perfectly explained in psychiatric terms and not as a religious achievement. Richard’s scientific explanation makes perfect sense, as I have seen (and admired) this mental disorder, aka enlightenment in action for years on the spiritual path, and several times I have experienced it myself ( detailed description). I now understand that my 17 years of spiritual practice have been a training course in how to dissociate, how to develop a mental disorder, how to become insane. ‘Close your eyes and repeat after me: I am not my body, I am not my mind and the world is an illusion.’ What a hoot!

The question running in my head now was how to self-immolate without dissociating – the well-known spiritual practice of ‘this is not me’. When I told Peter he laughed and thumped me on the shoulder. The hit immediately changed my perception – from thinking and feeling as all there is to experiencing the physical sensation of the thump. Right, I am this flesh-and-blood body, I forgot! The difference between these two experiences was so stunning, so obvious – and the thinking and feeling entity inside of my body, ‘me’, was once again revealed as just that, an alien entity.

The fascinating question is how to facilitate this shift of attention? It doesn’t happen through thinking but it can be stimulated by contemplation. But most of all it is a memory job, experientially, sensately remembering to not believe the emotion and to step out. I had found another piece in the puzzle of how to move from ‘to be or not to be’.

It just occurred to me that immolation, the final ‘stepping out’, will happen out of a situation of a distinctly felt emotion when the ‘self’ in action is clearly experienced. It won’t be a soft glide from happy to more happy but a deliberate tearing away from the grip of the instinctual entity. I will have to be experiencing at the time exactly what it is that I am stepping out of.

Bloody excellent.

Actualism Homepage