Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections

As for myself, I already know actualism ‘works’ in making me happier and more harmless ... As for myself, I know that it doesn’t. My experience, observation and reasoning tells me that unless it’s accompanied by an actual pathological process that causes damage to the brain (maybe even be random damage at that), the actualism process is naught but wishful thinking and (at best) a powerful placebo effect. It causes changes, sure ... but those can (best, IMO) be attributed to: (a) finding a meaningful purpose to pursue; (b) being fully committed to a single goal; (c) doing it with a like-minded individual; (d) practising a happy/harmless morality (because that’s all it is unless/until ‘self’-immolation occurs). ... The possibility that a rare neurological condition was the driving force behind the remarkable events of your post-1980 life, and that your ‘followers’ were having themselves on, occurred to me right from the start.

I’m no longer interested in practising the method (it’s got so bad that it’s almost like a strong conditioned response now ... ask the question, expect to have poisonous emotions pumping through your veins any minute now ... because it has happened every time). But I’m still very interested in why it is happening. Any ideas? Have you come across this before? [As a guess, I’d have to say you’re too ‘normal’ to be ‘a lone freak in regards to this problem. This will come up again, I think]. I’d like to hear some reasonable explanation of why from a experienced actualist. 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.

Unfortunately, your method has not helped anybody to achieve this lofty goal to extinct the ‘passionate instincts’. At best your method has helped people to reduce the effects of their instincts and affections on their behaviour. From a practical point of view, it does the same like Buddha’s method. Not you, of course ...

Richard: Okay ... here is the way the actualism method works in practice: 1. Was that – your ‘no one really likes me’ example – the feeling which changed within you? 2. If so, what was it that triggered off that feeling (the feeling which changed within you)? 3. What did that feeling which changed within you change into? 4. What was it that triggered off that change? 5. Was it silly to have both event No. 2 and event No. 4 take away your enjoyment and appreciation of being alive at this particular moment (the only moment you are ever alive)? Why is it important to ask question 2, 3 & 4? Can one not see the silliness of having the feeling immediately after 1? Speaking personally I am not able to find the answers to 2, 3 & 4 most of the time, yet I can see the silliness of having the feeling take away my enjoyment. Speaking personally I am not able to find the answers to 2, 3 & 4 most of the time, yet I can see the silliness of having the feeling take away my enjoyment. I still don’t understand how ascertaining the cause and pinpointing the starting of a feeling can set oneself free from that feeling. However rather than arguing about it, I would try my best to put it into practice and then come back to you. Now can you please tell me where I am I wrong in applying the method?

In the real-world case, in contrast to this put-up job, Richard’s advice did not work. I should have trusted my own judgement all along. This ‘happy and harmless as humanly possible while remaining a self’ bullshit ... it’s just delaying the inevitable (and maybe getting so comfortable with it that there’s no longer a powerful enough incentive to go the rest of the way). No two ways about it, ‘self’-immolation is out and out suicide, an all-or-nothing affair if ever there was one ... and all the happy/ harmless minimise-this-feeling maximise-that-feeling is no more than another game of ego, another way of jerking off and jerking oneself around.