I know a system of belief is not actual freedom; you do also ...

I have known for years that believing in god, soul, afterlife, and free will are all becoming increasingly suspect, but I would always think: hey what’s the alternative – to live a godless, nihilistic, unhappy life? Now I know from personal experience that removing superstition from life can clear the way to a abundantly happy life if one has a good secular philosophy(ies). I’m loving life as it is right now, and having a blast trying to leave a positive impact on this world right now and hopefully this effect will even pass on to the next generation. Actualism has been helpful in this journey, but I have serious doubts about it as a well rounded, all embracing philosophy. It is very sensible in some areas, but seems very narrow. I meant by philosophy the ‘love of wisdom’ which is an experiential knowledge, application, and living of wisdom. Actualism’s living w/o ego/soul falls under this description.

Believing Richard’s words to be true and repeating them as teaching does not make Richard factually free from malice and sorrow.

(...) actualism ‘works’ just as well as other religions. And why wouldn’t it. It’s simply a moral injunction to avoid ‘malice’ and ‘sorrow’ at all costs, and to arrange your life accordingly. Would you say that ‘altruistic self-sacrifice’, or ‘self-immolation for the good of this body, that body and every body’ lies outside the scope of morality?

Look around you. The evidence being referred to is the dozens of people who practice your method with varying degrees of dedication ranging from casual interest to rabid fanaticism without becoming actually free. The method doesn’t work any better than moral precepts/injunctions.

There are as many viewpoints into actual freedom as there are people who come in contact with the teaching you present. Each viewpoint exists autonomously and discretely in the mind of each person who comes into contact with your teaching. And the entity known as actual freedom exists in your mind also. You have concepts and a viewpoint – that is clear.

I know a system of belief is not actual freedom; you do also and I know that what you are creating is a new system of belief that superimposes itself on top of the actual freedom you seem to cherish. You set up the system and everybody who comes along gets examined on the basis of that system.

Okay, actualism isn’t an ideology but it is conveyed using a body of language, right? The body of language is an ideology that attempts to point to actualism.

I should like to tell you, that the moment you are speaking about consciousness, PCE, etc., and that you perceive the infinity of the universe through apperceptive awareness, then you have already entered the field of metaphysics. I define metaphysics as ‘meta ta physsika’, a Greek word meaning beyond nature and physics.

Why, then, is what you are explaining have an ‘ism’ attached to the end of it? The world is actual. We do not need a doctrine to explain that. If you are living in peace, why call it actualism, unless it is something you are trying to push.

The theories about the role of instincts on the website are confidently expressed as if they are describing something factual but there is considerable debate amongst researchers about the role of genes and environment on conditioning. See www.beyondintractability.org/m/aggression.jsp for an overview of theories on aggression. Clearly, there’s not a consensus amongst researchers but actualists seem confident. They are theories to me because I haven’t had your particular ‘experiential’ revelation. I take it that you’re not talking about a scientifically verifiable report then? Are you suggesting that researchers only ever deal with theory and that they never employ observation to arrive at their own experiential revelations? So you seem to have a special class of experiential proof ... I’ll call it actualist proof. * You are artificially dividing theory and the experiential. You simply say that your experience is ‘experiential’ and therefore superior. As soon as you open your mouth to describe the experiential you are expounding theory. ‘The chair is blue’ is untrue at 10,000X magnification.

I don’t know what I will do with AF, I am still trying to understand it and me and the world but in the moment of writing that message and questioning your: distinctive doctrine, system, theory, etc., in short, investigating your ism ... Hmm? Here is the definition of ism: A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory. Which is what I wrote. Ism, you know as in actulISM.

While of course I cannot know your intention with this comment, it occurs to me that a ‘need’ for ‘confirming data’ could also be a desire for something believable to have faith in. ... There’s the rub. Without the direct experience, everything must be taken on ‘faith’. Since that’s a loaded term, let’s replace it with ‘something that sounds like it might make sense and is worth exploring further’. That resolves to common sense. And, don’t forget the repeated admonishment to prove this to yourself... that’s the bottom line. No faith required.