Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Flogged Misconceptions

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

RICHARD: Yes ... I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. What one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written.

Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path.

RESPONDENT: 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.

RICHARD: As actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is not a philosophy then the question as to whether or not it is well-rounded and/or all-embracing and/or sensible and/or narrow one is irrelevant. For example:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You represent the ultimate step of a philosophy that is totally existence oriented.
• [Richard]: ‘It is not a philosophy ... it is an accurate description of an on-going and fully-lived experiencing of life ... complete with consciousness operating perfectly well as apperceptive awareness.

RESPONDENT: I meant by philosophy the ‘love of wisdom’ ...

RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-phrase my response so as to be in accord with what you mean by saying that actualism is a philosophy:

• As actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is not ‘the love of wisdom’ then the question as to whether or not it is well-rounded and/or all-embracing and/or sensible and/or narrow love of wisdom is irrelevant.

And just so that there is no misunderstanding: actualism is not the love of an ideology either ... or of an idea, an ideal, a belief, a concept, an opinion, a conjecture, a speculation, an assumption, a presumption, a supposition, a surmise, an inference, a judgement, an intellectualisation, an imagination, a posit, an image, an analysis, a viewpoint, a view, a stance, a perspective, a standpoint, a position, a world-view, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, a metaphysics or any other of the 101 ways of down-playing/ dismissing a direct report of what it is to be actually free from the human condition and living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe actually is.

RESPONDENT: [I meant by philosophy the ‘love of wisdom’] ... which is an experiential knowledge, application, and living of wisdom.

RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-phrase my response so as to be in accord with what you mean by saying that actualism is a love of wisdom:

• As actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is not ‘an experiential knowledge, application, and living of wisdom’ then the question as to whether or not it is well-rounded and/or all-embracing and/or sensible and/or narrow experiential knowledge, application, and living of wisdom is irrelevant.

And just so that there is no misunderstanding: actualism is not an experiential knowledge, application, and living of an ideology either ... or of an idea, an ideal, a belief, a concept, an opinion, a conjecture, a speculation, an assumption, a presumption, a supposition, a surmise, an inference, a judgement, an intellectualisation, an imagination, a posit, an image, an analysis, a viewpoint, a view, a stance, a perspective, a standpoint, a position, a world-view, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, a metaphysics or any other of the 101 ways of down-playing/ dismissing a direct report of what it is to be actually free from the human condition and living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe actually is.

RESPONDENT: Actualism’s living w/o ego/soul falls under this description.

RICHARD: Au contraire ... it does no such thing.

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

RICHARD: I couldn’t agree more ... I am factually free of sorrow and malice irrespective of whether person (A) believes my words to be true. Also, conversely, I am factually free of sorrow and malice irrespective of whether person (B) believes my words to be false. My freedom from the human condition has nothing whatsoever to do with what other people believe or disbelieve. However, their own freedom from the human condition – which is what is of crucial importance here – is dependent upon their remembering at least one of their PCE’s accurately ... and herein I can play a part in affirming and confirming their personal experience of the perfection of the infinitude of this material universe. What I have to say is this:

• [Richard]: ‘I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings’. Of course, if they believe my words to be false they close the door on their own freedom from the human condition and have to invent a synthetic freedom ... be it a freedom from human conditioning or whatever substitute for the actual they manage to spin out of dreams and visions.

IRENE to Peter: It [being factually free from malice and sorrow] is what he himself believes.

RICHARD: And you believe that I am not ... this ’tis/’tisnt persiflage gets us nowhere fast.

RESPONDENT: (...) 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.

RICHARD: The word ‘moral’, from the Latin ‘moralis’ (rendering Greek ‘ethikos’ or ethic) from the Latin ‘mor-’/‘mos’ meaning custom (plural ‘mores’ meaning manners) + the suffix ‘-al’ with the sense ‘of the kind of, pertaining to’, refers to the values – ‘the principles or moral standards of a person or social group’ (Oxford Dictionary) – instilled from birth onwards to direct/guide human behaviour and/or conduct ... and the word ‘injunction’ (from the Latin ‘injunct-’ meaning prohibit or restrain) refers to ‘the action of enjoining [to prescribe/forbid] or authoritatively directing someone; an authoritative or emphatic admonition or order’ (Oxford Dictionary).

How actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – can, even to the most jaundiced eye, be ‘simply a moral injunction’ has got me beat.

*

RESPONDENT: (...) 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?

RICHARD: Indeed so ... only I tend to say altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice, and ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body, that body and every body, as I follow the useful convention of putting references to the identity within in scare-quotes so as to distinguish same from references to the flesh and blood body.

Put briefly: although the word ‘altruistic’ has also come to mean the same as ‘unselfish’ (and thus moralistic/ethicalistic) it is used on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list in its instinctive self-sacrificial meaning. Vis.:

• altruism: 2. (zoology) instinctive cooperative behaviour that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species. (©The American Heritage® Dictionary).
• altruism: 2: behaviour by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species. (©Merriam-Webster).

As this instinctive self-sacrifice is epitomised by the honey-bee – when using its sting to defend the hive it dies – there is no way morality (or ethicality) comes into it ... it takes a powerful instinct (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinct (selfism).

Put simply: moral injunctions/morality have never set anybody free from the human condition – and never will – as they cannot.

RICHARD: (...) although you may say actualism ‘works’ just as well as other religions (and, by way of explanation, that actualism is simply a moral injunction to avoid malice and sorrow at all costs and to arrange one’s life accordingly), you do acknowledge you cannot demonstrate that actualism is indeed a religion. Which means you cannot provide the evidence for the very basis of your many and various assertions, claims, and comments ... yet what do you go on to aver (immediately after your ‘to amuse myself by observing the games people play’ disclosure)? None other than this gem:

• [Respondent]: ‘Anyway, the evidence are out there. People who retain the capacity for independent thought will be able to draw their own conclusions’.

Needless is it to mention, being a trifle nonplussed by this adroit sleight-of-hand, I looked for the ... um ... the evidence being referred to?

RESPONDENT: 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.

RICHARD: Perhaps an every-day-life metaphor might be of assistance: a person, wanting to be a concert pianist, asks a concert pianist how they changed from not being a concert pianist into being a concert pianist (as in ‘what did you do to become a concert pianist’ for instance) and the concert pianist says, amongst many other things about intent and dedication, for example, and practice and perseverance and diligence and application, for another, that they practiced a method of their own devising which has nowadays become known as the pianism method (for instance) and yet, after x-number of years of doing all that, the person concerned – whilst having achieved a level of excellence way beyond normal expectations – was still not a concert pianist.

Here is my question: how does that make pianism a religion (albeit devoid of metaphysical dogma and overt moral trappings)?

And here is my follow-up query: how does that make the pianism method not any better than moral precepts/injunctions?

RESPONDENT: The standard of ‘concert pianist’ is a somewhat arbitrary fine line, but surely there is a striking discontinuity between being a ‘self’ and being extinct?

RICHARD: There is no fine line – let alone a somewhat arbitrary one – between a work of art (masterwork/masterpiece) and a work of craft (no matter how excellent the craftsmanship may be) ... there is, to deliberately use your phrasing for effect, a striking discontinuity between the one and the other.

To explain: I was not only a trained art teacher, in the fine arts, but a practicing artist for a period in my working life and honed my skills to a high level of craft (so much so that I was eventually able to discontinue teaching and support both myself and my then wife plus four children all the while paying off a mortgage and a car on hire purchase) yet it was only when ‘self’ was absent during the process of putting paint on canvas (or moving a pencil on paper or shaping clay on a pottery-wheel or whatever) that the product became art – as distinct from craft (and ‘I’ was a good craftsman) – inasmuch the expression ‘the painting painted itself’ was how I would respond, with no false modesty whatsoever, when complimented/praised/admired for my supposed genius.

I have written about this before (where I explain how my wanting to have my life live itself, in the same way that the painting painted itself, is what started me on this whole business) but I happen to have to hand a transcribed interview with Mr. John Lennon, where he is talking about ‘Across The Universe’, which says much the same as above. Vis.:

• [Mr. John Lennon]: They [the words] were purely inspirational and were given to me as boom! I don’t own it, you know; it came through like that. I don’t know where it came from, what meter it’s in, and I’ve sat down and looked at it and said, ‘can I write another one with this meter?’ It’s so interesting: ‘words are flying out like [sings] endless rain into a paper cup, they slither while they pass, they slip across the universe’. Such an extraordinary meter and I can never repeat it! *It’s not a matter of craftsmanship; it wrote itself*. It drove me out of bed. I didn’t want to write it, I was just slightly irritable and I went downstairs and I couldn’t get to sleep until I put it on paper, and then I went to sleep’. [emphasis added/italics in original]. (pages 192-193; ‘Last Interview’ by David Sheff; first published 2000 by Sidgewick & Nelson).

And (where he is talking about ‘John Sinclair’):

• [Mr. John Lennon]: ‘They wanted a song about ‘John Sinclair’. So I wrote it. That’s the craftsman part of me. If somebody asks me for something, I can do it. I can write anything musically. You name it. If you want a style and if you want something for Julie Harris or Julie London, I could write it. But I don’t enjoy doing that kind of work. I like to do the inspirational work. I’d never write a song like that now’. (page 220; ‘Last Interview’ by David Sheff; first published 2000 by Sidgewick & Nelson).

*

RICHARD: Here is my question: how does that make pianism a religion (albeit devoid of metaphysical dogma and overt moral trappings)?

RESPONDENT: It doesn’t.

RICHARD: Okay.

*

RICHARD: And here is my follow-up query: how does that make the pianism method not any better than moral precepts/injunctions?

RESPONDENT: Both piano exercises and the daily observance of moral precepts/injunctions are ways to condition oneself.

RICHARD: Speaking personally I spent three years in full-time art college, plus two years full-time practice after that, in painstakingly acquiring the necessary skills so that the painting could paint itself (and the drawing draw itself and the pot form itself and the sculpture sculpt itself and so on) ... if you see the acquisition of skills, the honing of talent, as conditioning oneself then it is doubtful whether you will comprehend what I am talking about.

RESPONDENT: The entity or method or concept or mindset or viewpoint known as ‘Actual Freedom’ I refer to is all the words and communication that is labelled ‘actual freedom’.

RICHARD: Yet there is no ‘entity or method or concept or mindset or viewpoint known as ‘Actual Freedom’’ other than what exists in your mind.

RESPONDENT: Not true; anther example of Richard pretending there is a fact when there is not. 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.

RICHARD: If some other person reads my description and likewise creates an ‘entity or method or concept or mindset or viewpoint known as ‘Actual Freedom’’ in their mind then that is their business ... I am talking about you and your viewpoint (the one which you hold to be ‘correct and true’).

RESPONDENT: And the entity known as actual freedom exists in your mind also.

RICHARD: Nothing I write or say about an actual freedom from the human condition is either an ‘entity’ or a viewpoint or a mindset or a world-view or a philosophy or a metaphysics or a thesis and so on as all that I write is a description which comes out of my direct and spontaneous experiencing at this moment in time at this place in space ... my words are an ‘after the event’ report, as it were.

RESPONDENT: You have concepts and a viewpoint – that is clear.

RICHARD: As I have remarked before, I do not have a viewpoint in regards to an actual freedom from the human condition. In other areas where I do have opinions, make estimations, find it reasonable to presume and so on, I never hold it to be ‘true and correct’ in the first place ... for I am well aware that it is only a current appraisal until further investigation shows otherwise.

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

RICHARD: Yes ... I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. What one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written.

Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path.

RESPONDENT: ... 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.

RICHARD: I am well aware that this is your viewpoint ... and, as I said, these discussion are serving to elucidate whether your viewpoint has validity.

So far it has shown no validity whatsoever.

RESPONDENT: You set up the system and everybody who comes along gets examined on the basis of that system.

RICHARD: I did not individually set up The Actual Freedom Trust. The Actual Freedom Trust is a statutory legal body that five nominal directors established in order to operate under for sensible commercial reasons.

The words and writings promulgated and promoted by The Actual Freedom Trust explicate the workings of an actual freedom from the human condition and a virtual freedom in practice in the market place. There is no meditating in silence or living in a monastery shut away from the world. There are no celibacy or obedience requirements. There are no dietary demands or daily regimes of exercise. No one is excluded by age or racial or gender origins. There are no prescribed books to study ... upwards of maybe two million words are available for free on The Actual Freedom Web Page. There are no courses to follow or therapies to undergo or workshops to endure. There are no fees to pay or any clique to join ... there are no rules at all.

I have no plan whatsoever ... there is no authority here in charge of a hierarchical organisation.

This is my position: we are all fellow human beings who find ourselves here in the world as it was when we were born. We find war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and corruption to be endemic ... we notice that it is intrinsic to the human condition ... we set out to discover why this is so. We find sadness, loneliness, sorrow, grief, depression and suicide to be a global incidence ... and we gather that it is also inherent to the human condition ... and we want to know why. We report to each other as to the nature of our discoveries for we are all well-meaning and seek to find a way out of this mess that we have landed in. Whether one believes in re-incarnation or not, we are all living this particular life for the very first time, and we wish to make sense of it. It is a challenge and the adventure of a life-time to enquire and to uncover, to seek and to find, to explore and to discover. All this being alive business is actually happening and we are totally involved in living it out ... whether we take the back seat or not, we are all still doing it.

I, for one, am not taking the back seat.

RESPONDENT: Okay, actualism isn’t an ideology but it is conveyed using a body of language, right?

RICHARD: Having taken pause to read the above you will see that what is being conveyed is that actualism is the direct experience that matter is not merely passive.

RESPONDENT: The body of language is an ideology that attempts to point to actualism.

RICHARD: No, the words are a description of the direct experience that matter is not merely passive.

Or, to put that another way, the words and writings on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site make it quite clear that actualism – the third alternative to either materialism or spiritualism – is not ‘an ideology that attempts to point to actualism’ ... they are an invitation for the reader to directly experience for themself that they do not live in an inert universe.

Put succinctly: actualism is experiential not ideological.

And just so that there is no misunderstanding: actualism is not an ideal either ... or an idea, a belief, a concept, an opinion, a conjecture, a speculation, an assumption, a presumption, a supposition, a surmise, an inference, a judgement, an intellectualisation, an imagination, a posit, an image, an analysis, a viewpoint, a view, a stance, a perspective, a standpoint, a position, a world-view, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, or any other of the 101 ways of dismissing a direct report of what it is to be actually free from the human condition and living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe actually is.

RESPONDENT: 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.

RICHARD: No, the unmediated experience of infinitude – the apperceptive awareness of boundless space, unlimited time, and perpetual matter (mass/energy) – is not a metaphysical experience ... the metaphysical experience, during the eleven years of spiritual enlightenment and called by some as being ‘choiceless awareness’, was of a timeless and spaceless and formless ‘infinitude’ known as god or truth or ground of being or implicate order and so on.

When I am speaking about consciousness I am referring to the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun meaning a state or condition) as in being alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose), and when I am talking about pure consciousness I am referring to the condition of a flesh and blood body being conscious sans identity in toto – both ego-self (the thinker) and the feeling-self (the feeler) – which means that perception is bare perception (unmediated perception) ... the term ‘apperceptive awareness’ is but another way of referring to this simple perception (aka naïve perception) and being thus direct it is non-separative (not separated from the physical).

Thus there is nothing metaphysical about being apperceptive ... indeed, if anything the normal way of perception – a mediated, or indirect and thus separative, perception – being once-removed from the physical, is arguably already well on the way to being beyond time and space and form.

RESPONDENT: I define metaphysics as ‘meta ta physsika’, a Greek word meaning beyond nature and physics.

RICHARD: As the word ‘physics’ – plural of ‘physic’ from the Latin ‘physica’ from the Greek ‘ta phusika’ (‘the natural’ understood as ‘things’) – is derived from the Greek ‘phusis’ (‘nature’) it properly refers to the science of the natural world (as in knowledge of the physical world of animal, vegetable and mineral) ... thus to say nature and physics is to separate it [physics] from the physical.

And I am not just nit-picking over the meaning of words here as it is glaringly obvious that the late nineteenth-century/early twentieth-century physics departed from being a study of the natural world (the physical world) and entered into the realm of the mathematical world ... an abstract world which does not exist in nature.

Indeed the word ‘metaphysical’ also refers to that which is ‘based on abstract general reasoning or a priori principles’ (Oxford Dictionary) as well as the more common meaning of that which transcends matter or the physical (as in immaterial, incorporeal, supersensible, supernatural and so on).

And quantum theory, for an instance of this, is most definitely based on a mathematical device (Mr. Max Planck’s ‘quanta’) initially designed to solve the hypothetical problem of infinite ultra-violet radiation from a non-existent perfect ‘black-box’ radiator and never intended to be taken as being real (until Mr. Albert Einstein took it up for his own purposes).

RICHARD: I had occasion, recently, to provide the following explanation in regard to a bibliography I had appended as an adjunct to a response to a query: [Richard]: ‘I provided a ‘lengthy bibliography’ because my experience on this Mailing List has shown that my reports of what I experientially discovered for myself – an intimate ‘hands-on’ experiencing – are capriciously dismissed as being ideas, beliefs, opinions, viewpoints, points of view, concepts, theories, conjectures, speculations, assumptions, presumptions, suppositions, surmises, thoughts, inferences, judgements, positions, mind-sets, stances, images, intellectualising, analyses ... the entire 101 stock-standard denials of the possibility of being happy and harmless, here on earth in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body’ [endquote]. Perhaps this is an opportune moment to flesh this (apparently) insufficient explanation out a trifle: actualism is not, and has never been, a philosophy, a religion, a metaphysics, a psychology, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, a view, a view-point, a point of view, a world-view, a perspective, a standpoint, a position, a posit, a stance, an opinion, a belief, an imagining, an intellectual understanding, an idea, a concept, a theory or a cult.

RESPONDENT: Why, then, is what you are explaining have an ‘ism’ attached to the end of it?

RICHARD: Because in the English language the application of ‘-ism’ (and ‘-ist’) has a very common usage ... it enables someone to say, for example, ‘I am studying feudalism’ or ‘I am learning about existentialism’ or ‘I am interested in relativism’ or ‘I am exploring actualism’ and so on (and ‘I am an artist’ or ‘I am a scientist’ or ‘I am a pianist’ or ‘I am an atheist’ or ‘I am a communist’ or ‘I am an actualist’ and all the rest). In other words it is a name, a classification, a descriptive label, of what would otherwise be a long-winded explanation each time one talked about oneself and one’s interests, simplified into a single word.

I chose the name rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism. My memory of the dictionary definition was obviously somewhat hazy as I see from my records that I first re-formulated it thus:

[Richard]: ‘... actualism is the direct experience that matter is not inert’.

Some years later someone told me they had heard about a ‘Philosophy of Actualism’. The ‘Encyclopaedia Britannica’ CD reports:

• [quote]: ‘for Giovanni Gentile, propounder of a philosophy of Actualism in Italy, the pure activity of self-consciousness is the sole reality’.

I could not disagree more (he also has a philosophy called ‘Actual Idealism’) ... also, there is a Web Page in the US of A titled ‘Actualism’ which I found via a search engine. But it is religious and spiritual ... which I find strange as the word ‘actual’ commonly means ‘existing in act or fact; practical; in action or existence at the time; present, current and not merely potential or possible’ and usually means being objectively accessible sensately or sensuously.

I am yet to find the origin of the dictionary’s definition.

RESPONDENT: The world is actual.

RICHARD: Not for maybe 6.0 billion human beings ... they live in the ‘real world’, a grim and glum illusion pasted over this pristine actual world, by the affective filters of the entity within their flesh and blood bodies, as a veneer that obscures the already always existing peace-on-earth.

Which is why I say that naiveté is essential less all the misery and mayhem continue.

RESPONDENT: We do not need a doctrine to explain that.

RICHARD: I see that I inadvertently left ‘a doctrine’ and its synonyms off my list ... I appreciate you drawing this to my attention and will amend my paragraph forthwith: actualism is not, and has never been, a doctrine, a policy, a canon, a dogma, a code, a tenet, a creed, a credo, a rule, a principle, an ideology, a faith, an act of faith, an article of faith, a philosophy, a religion, a metaphysics, a psychology, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, a view, a view-point, a point of view, a world-view, a perspective, a standpoint, a position, a posit, a precept, a stance, an opinion, a belief, an imagining, an intellectual understanding, an idea, a concept, a theory or a cult.

‘Tis no wonder my E-Mails become more and more lengthy, eh?

RESPONDENT: There are actual murders; actual rapes; actual child abuse; actual joy; etc.

RICHARD: Indeed (apart from the ‘actual joy, etc.’ ) ... and even though I only ever get to meet flesh and blood bodies – there are no psychological and psychic entities here in this actual world – the evidence of their very real (to them) existence within these bodies is played-out here in this actual world in all its stark, grisly detail.

Yet all this misery and mayhem is unnecessary.

RESPONDENT: If you are living in peace, why call it actualism, unless it is something you are trying to push.

RICHARD: I do indeed have a barrow that I push – I make my agenda crystal-clear, up-front and out-in-the-open, for all to see – and push it relentlessly and unstintingly. Vis.:

It is possible to live in the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body only.

RESPONDENT: The theories about the role of instincts on the website ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? Just what [quote] ‘theories’ [endquote] are you referring to? And the reason I ask is because what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential ... as in coming out of direct experience.

RESPONDENT: They are theories to me because I haven’t had your particular ‘experiential’ revelation.

RICHARD: If I may point out? Just because experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations are theories to you does not make them [quote] ‘the theories’ [endquote] ... and neither does your lack of similar experience make them a [quote] ‘revelation’ [endquote] either.

RESPONDENT: I take it that you’re not talking about a scientifically verifiable report then?

RICHARD: What I am talking about is experientially verifiable ... as explicitly spelled-out on the homepage of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus *verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written* (which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name). The PCE occurs globally ... across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age. However, it is usually interpreted according to cultural beliefs – created and reinforced by the persistence of identity – and devolves into an ASC ...’.

Did you overlook that when you read what was on offer there preparatory to asking me these questions?

*

RESPONDENT: ... 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.

RICHARD: Maybe, just maybe, that is because what actualists report/ describe/ explain is experiential and not theoretical.

RESPONDENT: Are you suggesting that researchers only ever deal with theory and that they never employ observation to arrive at their own experiential revelations?

RICHARD: All I was doing was responding to your invitation to see a web page you cited for an overview of [quote] ‘theories’ [endquote] on aggression ... however, in view of your ‘they are theories to me’ explanation (further above) are you now suggesting that the overview on aggression at that web page you cited should be read as being [quote] ‘experiential revelations’ [endquote] and not theories after all? For example:

• [example only]: ‘See www.beyondintractability.org/m/aggression.jsp for an overview of experiential revelations on aggression’. [end example].

*

RESPONDENT: On the website it is confidently said ‘contrary to popular belief instincts are not ‘hardware’ but ‘software’ and as such they can be deleted’. See www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/instinctualpassions.htm. What proof do actualists use to assert these claims?

RICHARD: They are neither claims nor an assertion of such ... and the ‘proof’ is the experience of the very deletion of same.

RESPONDENT: How is it known that any of the programming removed by the actualist method is actually genetically endowed programming?

RICHARD: In a word: experientially.

RESPONDENT: So you seem to have a special class of experiential proof ...

RICHARD: No, as I was born and raised on a farm there was no need for a special class of experiential proof – the human animal was demonstrably born with instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) just like the other animals were – thus the common or garden variety of experiential proof was all that was required.

RESPONDENT: ... I’ll call it actualist proof.

RICHARD: Suit yourself ... it is your argument, when all is said and done.

RESPONDENT: Using actualist proof are you able to tell us which particular genes or gene complex are involved in genetically endowed programming?

RICHARD: As I do not have what seems to you a special class of experiential proof, which you have seen fit to inform me you will call actualist proof, I am unable to answer your query as-is ... perhaps you may be inclined to rephrase your question?

RESPONDENT: That would be very interesting if you could. If you could tell researchers which particular gene sequence to look into, imagine what could be achieved.

RICHARD: As it obviously escaped your notice, when reading all of my responses to you before replying, that there is no imaginative facility extant in this flesh and blood body it would be conducive to clarity in communication to draw it to your attention here:

• [Respondent]: ‘Are all instincts ‘software’ as implied in the quote above?
• [Richard]: ‘As the altruistic ‘self’-immolation, of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, was simultaneously the extirpation of all instinctual impulses, drives and urges – the entire affective faculty (*including its epiphenomenal imaginative and intuitive facility*) in fact – then the analogy to computer software is reasonable enough for the purpose of communication’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: Scientists could switch off the responsible genes in laboratory animals and scientifically validate your actualist proof. Can you do it?

RICHARD: As I do not have what seems to you a special class of experiential proof, which you have seen fit to inform me you will call actualist proof, then scientific validation of what you have fabulously seemed into pseudo-existence (quite possibly per favour an intact imaginative facility) might be a long time coming ... if ever.

Meanwhile, all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so on, keep on going on unabated.

*

RICHARD: As the author of the web page article you cited clearly says right up-front [quote] ‘... I find it helpful to look at *theories* of aggression by dividing them into three schools ...’ [emphasis added], as well as using the word ‘theorists’ more than once, further on, to refer to what you describe as [quote] ‘researchers’ [endquote], then the reason why I responded to your initial paragraph the way I did might become more readily apparent were it to look something like this:

• [example only]: ‘The experiential reports/ descriptions/ explanations about the role of instincts on the website are confidently expressed as if they are describing something factual but there is considerable debate amongst theorists 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 theorists but actualists seem confident’.
• [Richard]: ‘Maybe, just maybe, that is because what actualists report/ describe/ explain is experiential and not theoretical’. [end example].

RESPONDENT: You are artificially dividing theory and the experiential.

RICHARD: Here is the example you provided from The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... and my succinct response:

• [Respondent]: ‘On the website it is confidently said ‘contrary to popular belief instincts are not ‘hardware’ but ‘software’ and as such they can be deleted’. See www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/instinctualpassions.htm. What proof do actualists use to assert these claims?
• [Richard]: ‘They are neither claims nor an assertion of such ... and the ‘proof’ is the experience of the very deletion of same’.

Given that more than a few ... um ... researchers posit/ postulate/ propose that the instincts being referred to (instinctual passions such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) are ‘hardware’, and not ‘software’, then if you could explain how I am [quote] ‘artificially dividing theory and the experiential’ [endquote] it would be most appreciated.

RESPONDENT: You simply say that your experience is ‘experiential’ and therefore superior.

RICHARD: Unless you are suggesting that ‘hardware’ can be removed non-surgically (in an experiential process that currently goes by the name altruistic ‘self’-immolation) then my experiential ‘proof’ as to their ‘software’ nature – the experience of the very deletion of same – is so vastly superior to those posits/ postulates/ proposals as to make them not even worth the mass-produced papers they are printed on.

RESPONDENT: Good theories are not completely divorced from experiential evidence.

RICHARD: If you could provide me with the name of one – just one – of those researchers you allude to who has experiential evidence that the extirpation of the instinctual passions, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, is a matter of the removal of ‘hardware’ (in a non-surgical process that currently goes by the name altruistic ‘self’-immolation), and not the deletion of ‘software’, it will be most appreciated.

RESPONDENT: As soon as you open your mouth to describe the experiential you are expounding theory.

RICHARD: So as to keep it topical here is what I wrote in my first response to you:

• [Richard]: ‘... the altruistic ‘self’-immolation, of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, was simultaneously the extirpation of all instinctual impulses, drives and urges – the entire affective faculty (including its epiphenomenal imaginative and intuitive facility) in fact ...’. [endquote].

If you could point out where I am [quote] ‘expounding theory’ [endquote] in that instance of me opening my mouth it will be most appreciated ... as it is a fact, and not theory, that it was an act of altruism (and not an act of selfism) whereby ‘self’-immolation occurred; it is a fact, and not theory, that it was the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago who altruistically ‘self-immolated; it is a fact, and not theory, that the identity’s altruistic ‘self’-immolation was simultaneously the extirpation of all instinctual impulses, drives and urges; it is a fact, and not theory, that the simultaneous extirpation included the entire affective faculty (including its epiphenomenal imaginative and intuitive facility).

RESPONDENT: It’s unavoidable. A description cannot capture all the details of a situation, so it is necessarily a distillation of experience ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? Since when has a distilled description of experience rendered the experience a theory? Or, even more to the point, how can experience be theoretical?

RESPONDENT: ... it’s a theory that could be modified or disproved by further experience or a change in perspective.

RICHARD: Here again is what I wrote in my first response to you:

• [Richard]: ‘... the altruistic ‘self’-immolation, of the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, was simultaneously the extirpation of all instinctual impulses, drives and urges – the entire affective faculty (including its epiphenomenal imaginative and intuitive facility) in fact ...’. [endquote].

If you could demonstrate how [quote] ‘a change in perspective’ [endquote] can modify or disprove that factual account it will be most appreciated.

RESPONDENT: ‘The chair is blue’ is untrue at 10,000X magnification.

RICHARD: I will draw your attention to what you wrote a scant three sentences ago:

• [Respondent]: ‘As soon as you open your mouth to describe the experiential you are expounding theory’. [endquote].

As you have, perforce, opened your mouth in order to share that bit of wisdom then, by your own reckoning, you are expounding theory and I can only guess that your theory, that the chair miraculously ceases to be blue per favour the transmogrifying power of a human eye looking at it through a magnifying lenses, is as valid or as invalid as any other in the factless world you live in.

So be it then ... end of discussion.

RICHARD: Just as a matter of associated interest ... why did you entitle this e-mail of yours [quote] ‘exit ism’ [endquote]?

RESPONDENT: 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 ...

RICHARD: As I neither have a doctrine, etcetera, nor an ism perhaps you might be inclined to write whatever it is you are wanting to convey in a way that makes sense?

RESPONDENT: Hmm? Here is the definition of ism: A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory. Which is what I wrote.

RICHARD: Indeed it is ... the mere fact of writing something does not miraculously turn it into a fact, however.

RESPONDENT: Ism, you know as in actulISM.

RICHARD: It is no such thing ... the following is:

• ‘-ism: forming usu. abstract ns. expr. a peculiarity or characteristic of a nation, individual, etc.’. (Oxford Dictionary).

As contrasted to this:

• ‘ism: chiefly derog. a form of doctrine, theory, or practice having, or claiming to have, a distinctive character or relationship’. (Oxford Dictionary).

You are not the first and, given the endemic nature of the human condition, you will probably not be the last to try and score a cheap point out the word actualism. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... there are those who attempt to get mileage out the word actualism, as it is used on The Actual Freedom Trust web site , as being indicative of a cult – complete with both cultists and a cult-leader being in denial – merely because of the ‘-ism’ suffix. [footnote: the suffix ‘-ism’ simply forms a noun signifying a characteristic quality]’.

RESPONDENT No 54: Of course, if the Richard’s method does begin to produce, not just believers in actualism, but people who are effortlessly and without interruption residing in the PCE of actual freedom, we will have the confirming data that I assert is so needed at this point.

RESPONDENT No 21: 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.

RESPONDENT No 38: 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.

*

RESPONDENT No 47: Faith: NOUN: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. The American Heritage® Dictionary

While reading your last post, at the University Computer Lab, a fervent believer sat down beside me and we talked for hours long about spiritualism. One of the things I asked was, what did ‘faith’ mean to him? He responded: To believe before seeing. He then continued admonishing those who expect to see in order to believe. Well, Actualism does away with both of these.

After I suspended my major beliefs in spiritualism I started believing in Actualism ... hence I started doubting Actualism. I had the ‘actualist calenture’ you speak of, which has absolutely nothing to do with actualism, and this was finally dispelled with by common sense, naivety and the remembrance of a PCE...it’s so simple that it is darn nearly impossible to comprehend whilst being a believer. Can a believer know what it is like not to believe? You might argue that it was a necessary stage that helped me to understand more about an Actual Freedom, but I factually report to you that it digressed and stalled my understanding.

If you believe/ doubt in actualism then you are not following the ‘Wide and Wondrous Path’ but your own conclusion of it.

I write this without any defence whatsoever, a little intimidation perhaps, for you are far too smart and would definitely leave me at a loss if I were to try to intellectually compete with you ... but I talk out of the confidence of experience. An experience that, by what I have been reading, will not be too difficult for you to achieve. Anyhow, keep writing. I’m following your posts with avid interest.

Wish you well.

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Design, Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.