Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Flogged Misconceptions

IRENE to Vineeto: I am ... out to demolish ... [the] belief in the old spiritual man-made ‘ideal’ of getting rid of your self ... that Richard has augmented with getting rid of literally everything that you can possibly call human: the feelings, emotions, instincts, sense of humaneness towards other people around you, in short all that was a natural given to start of with. To be so anti-nature is called preposterous. Only a person who is deeply troubled by emotions will turn against them in anger and try to rid themselves of the whole plethora of emotional experiences (...) I don’t see Richard as free, but rather removed from being human.

RICHARD: Aye ... in fact I am so far removed from being human that I am out of sight. Indeed it is unnatural what I did and – given that it is natural to kill one’s fellow human being – I am well-pleased to be so preposterous (the word ‘preposterous’ literally means being 180 degrees in the opposite direction). However, a person ‘deeply troubled by emotions’ who will ‘turn against them in anger’ in an effort to rid themselves of the ‘whole plethora of emotional experiences’ will fail spectacularly. Speaking personally, the first thing I did in 1981 was to put an end to anger once and for all ... then I was freed enough to live in virtual freedom. It took me about three weeks and I have never experienced anger since then. The first step was to say ‘YES’ to being here on earth, for I located and identified that basic resentment that all people that I have spoken to have. To wit: ‘I didn’t ask to be born!’ This is why remembering a PCE is so important for success for it shows one, first hand, that freedom is already always here ... now. With the memory of that crystal-clear perfection held firmly in mind ... that basic resentment goes. Then it is a relatively easy task to eliminate anger forever. One does this by neither expressing or repressing anger when an event happens that would previously trigger an outbreak.

Anger is thus put into a bind ... and the third alternative hoves into view.

RESPONDENT: It seems to me more logical, that if something like freedom of the instincts ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? An actual freedom from the human condition is a freedom from the instinctual passions – not the instincts per se – plus, of course, the feeling of ‘being’ (usually designated as a ‘state of being’) or ‘presence’ they automatically form themselves into.

RESPONDENT: ... must happen to humankind, then nature knows when and something will take place.

RICHARD: The identity who used to parasitically inhabit this flesh and blood body acted on the observation that an individual life was too short to hang about waiting for blind nature to get its act together (plus the human condition was already in place by being born replete with instinctual passions anyway).

RESPONDENT: Why must depend on you to change your nature?

RICHARD: Because at the current stage of evolution it is ‘you’ – and only ‘you’ – who can determine the fate of one flesh and blood body in particular and humankind in general.

RESPONDENT: Why you call nature blind nature etc and then you speak about beautiful universe unimaginable etc?

RICHARD: The term ‘blind nature’ is a well-known term which refers to the natural process of species propagation being survival of the species most fitted to the environment.

In short: it is not an intelligent process (the cognitive ability to think, recognise, remember, compare, appraise, reflect and propose considered action for beneficial reasons, which other animals cannot do, is intelligence in operation).

As I never speak about ‘beautiful universe’ your related query is a non-sequitur.

RESPONDENT: Do you think that the universe who created you or in your words the universe who is you experiencing its self, is less intelligent that you?

RICHARD: This infinite, eternal, and perpetual universe is not intelligent (except, as far as space exploration has been able to ascertain, as a human being) ... it is far, far more than merely intelligent.

Human beings value intelligence highly, of course, it being what has enabled the species to progress as far as it has thus far ... but to project this highly valued attribute onto the universe at large is anthropomorphism.

RESPONDENT: Instincts are very powerful for the reason that they help surviving reproducing etc.

RICHARD: Now that intelligence, which is the ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered action for beneficial reasons, has developed in the human animal the blind survival passions are no longer necessary – in fact they have become a hindrance in today’s world – and it is only by virtue of this intelligence that blind nature’s default software package can be safely deleted (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto).

No other animal can do this.

RESPONDENT: If you have not to eat and you have no other way to find food, are you going to die or you will steal?

RICHARD: To steal food means there must be food available in the possession of one’s fellow human beings, and, as the country I reside in operates with both an established social security system and social welfare system – plus all manner of local community aid organisations – it is not necessary to steal food these days ... nobody is allowed to starve in a modern society.

RESPONDENT: You are doing sex without the reason to make any children, that means still because of the lust are having power on you.

RICHARD: Here is the exchange in question:

• [Respondent]: ‘You said that you are not able for flirting but able for sex.
• [Richard]: ‘You must be referring to this: [Co-Respondent]: ‘Do you joke, laugh, flirt (...)? [Richard]: ‘I like to joke, yes and I laugh a lot ... there is so much that is irrepressibly funny about life itself. I have no ability to flirt, however, as my libido is nil and void ... yet I have an active sexual life (...).
• [Respondent]: ‘I can’t understand that. I really can’t.
• [Richard]: ‘The word ‘libido’ (Latin meaning ‘desire’, ‘lust’) is the psychiatric/psychoanalytic term for the instinctual sex drive, urge, or impulse, and the word ‘flirt’ refers to behaving in a superficially amorous manner, to dally sexually with another ... what is so difficult about understanding that, sans the instinctual passion to procreate (and nurture) the species, the ability to be sexually amorous (either superficially or deeply) ceases to exist? With no passions driving behaviour one is able to treat the other as a fellow human being ... and not a sex-object.

How you converted my report of the total absence of ‘libido’ (Latin meaning ‘desire’, ‘lust’), which is the psychiatric/psychoanalytic term for the instinctual sex drive, urge, or impulse, into ‘you are doing sex without the reason to make any children, that means still because of the lust are having power on you’ defies any rational understanding.

What do the words ‘without the reason to make any children’ refer to if not the absence of libido (Latin meaning ‘desire’, ‘lust’)?

RESPONDENT: So nature is completely idiot, it create unhappy humans and unhappy animals. That is what you are saying in other words.

RICHARD: No, that is what you are saying ... what I am saying is that, just as it is with other animals, blind nature endows the human animal with instinctual passions, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, as a rough and ready survival package and a fearful animal, for example, be it a human animal or not, is not a happy animal.

Just because I say that nature is blind – and the universe is not intelligent (except as human beings) – does not mean I am saying nature is ‘completely idiot’ anymore than I am not saying, for instance, that life is a random chance event in an otherwise empty (read mindless) universe ... I am on record as saying that the universe is far, far more than merely intelligent and that, although human beings value intelligence highly, to project this esteemed human trait onto the universe in general is anthropomorphism writ large.

Furthermore it is possibly anthropomorphism at its worst at that, as something tremendously significant is happening, and those that speak sagely of the ... um ... the mind of god, or evidence of intelligent design, and so on, are missing the point entirely and are keeping humankind in thralldom to a spirit-ridden bronze-age wisdom which is long past its use-by date.

And, perhaps, this is also an apt moment to explain that nowhere do I say that either the human animal or the other animals cannot be (relatively) happy from time-to-time or (relatively) harmless from time-to-time – and even for extended periods – but that the survival passions, and the feeling-being they automatically form themselves into, not only preclude both total happiness and harmlessness and happiness all-the-time and harmlessness all-the-time but occlude the direct experience of the meaning of life as a living actuality each moment again.

In short: if anything is ‘completely idiot’ it is to stubbornly insist that bronze-age peoples knew better than a modern-day person can.

RESPONDENT: Feelings are absolutely important.

RICHARD: Speaking from the on-going experiencing, for over a decade now, of living life sans the feelings you say are ‘absolutely important’ I can unequivocally testify that operating and functioning in the everyday world of people, things and events freed of the entire affective faculty (and thus its epiphenomenal psychic facility) is a breeze.

You see, there is a distinct difference between theorising about actuality and actuality itself.

RESPONDENT: They had formed in the human brain before the language.

RICHARD: The affective feelings exist prior to cognition (and thus language) ... yes.

RESPONDENT: The are controlled by the frontal lobes and also by the brain stem.

RICHARD: I am pleased to see you have finally acknowledged the brain-stem ... all sentient beings have a brain-stem (no matter how rudimentary), whereas not all sentient beings have a brain (let alone a neo-cortex), and all sentient beings have affective feelings (no matter how rudimentary they may be).

RESPONDENT: One alteration in the frontal lobs or in brain stem, the so called primitive brain, can alter the feelings, but this does not mean than is anything bad with feelings.

RICHARD: I fail to see the point you are making here.

RESPONDENT: Why do you think one must to be void of feelings and emotions in order to not be abusive, a rapist, a murdered or suicidal.

RICHARD: Often people who do not read what I have to say with both eyes gain the impression that I am suggesting that 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 psyche itself 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 affective faculty is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings ... as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) where, with the self in abeyance, the feelings play no part at all. However, in a PCE the feelings – passion and calenture – can come rushing in, if one is not alert, resulting in the PCE devolving into an altered state of consciousness (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.

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. What the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom is on about is a virtual freedom 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 well, feel happy and feel perfect for 99% of the time. If one minimises the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activates the felicitous feelings – happiness, delight, appreciation, joie de vivre, bonhomie and so on – in conjunction with sensuousness – then the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness. If it does not ... then one is way ahead of normal human expectations anyway as the aim is to enjoy and appreciate being here now for as much as is possible.

It is a win/win situation.

RESPONDENT: There is nothing ‘wrong’ with being sad, Richard. It is ‘ok’ to be sad. I get sad for a little while when something sad happens, like when my brother died. That was not ‘sorrow’.

RICHARD: Okay ... so if sadness is not sorrow then is ... um ... scorn equally not malice under your schemata?

*

RICHARD: Anyway, at least you have acknowledged that one half of my oft-repeated ‘malice and sorrow’ diagnosis is valid.

RESPONDENT: What is it that YOU have diagnosed as ‘malicious and sorrowful’ ... someone with feelings?

RICHARD: I have used the generally accepted convention of ‘malice’ and ‘sorrow’ as delineated by most religions and/or philosophies, that fall under the umbrella term ‘The Human Condition’, purely for convenience. In Christianity, for example, the word ‘suffering’ means the same feelings as the word ‘sorrow’ does in the translation from the Buddhist word ‘dukkha’ (unsatisfactoriness). Similarly, the ‘Golden Rule’ (found in all religions) of ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ points to the feelings covered under the catch-all word ‘malice’. Basically, ‘malice’ is what one does to others (resentment, anger, hatred, rage, sadism and so on) and ‘sorrow’ (sadness, loneliness, melancholy, grief, masochism and so on) is what one does to oneself.

RESPONDENT: There is quite a difference in the intended meaning of ‘sorrow and malice’ and just simple ‘sadness’.

RICHARD: Of course ... but it is a difference in degree and not a difference in kind.

RESPONDENT: Is it natural to run over an animal and not be ‘sad’ about it?

RICHARD: But I am not talking of being ‘natural’ (it is natural to kill one’s fellow human being) but of being un-natural (not killing one’s fellow human being).

RESPONDENT: ‘Sorrow’ implies a deep, lingering, degenerative sadness whereas one can be sad for a second.

RICHARD: Indeed ... but once again, a difference in degree and not a difference in kind.

RESPONDENT: Are not tears ‘actual’.

RICHARD: The watering of the eyes from the tear-ducts is actual, yes ... and is beneficial as a cleanser in all types of conditions. Dust, for instance, or smoke.

RESPONDENT: Do you not have ‘actual’ tears, Richard?

RICHARD: Yes.

RESPONDENT: When you accidentally kill something, are you not ‘sad’ about it?

RICHARD: No ... nor when I deliberately kill something. Every time I breathe air, drink water, eat food, take a step, sneeze and so on, something, somewhere (if only on the microscopic level) is being killed by me. Being alive as a creature means other creatures inevitably die ... under your scheme I would be sad every second of the day. I watched a fascinating video, some time back, of fantastic camera work on the microscopic level ... a drop of dew from an early morning rose had millions of tiny ‘shrimp-like’ creatures in it all swimming around and multiplying and eating each other. A dew drop, mind you.

Modern technology makes the ‘Sacred Teachings’ of those path-sweeping pacifistic Jain Monks look silly.

RESPONDENT: What do you call your care and concern for the 6 billions abused, raped, murdered peoples on this planet?

RICHARD: I particularly favour the word ‘benevolence’ (‘well-wishing’) but equally words like ‘consideration’, ‘regard’, ‘care’ and so on. I like my fellow human being and delight in their happiness and harmlessness and enjoyment in being alive and fully appreciate their company each time again.

It is such fun being here.

RESPONDENT: Concern? How does ‘concern’ manifest itself? With selling PCE over the internet at $35.00 a whack?

RICHARD: If you are referring to the semi-autobiographical novel ‘Richard’s Journal’ ... it is AUS $29.95 and constitutes 114,000 words, of a more personal type, out of the more than 1,000,000 words about the human condition that are available for free on the web-site. It is not essential reading at all and any sales go to meet the overheads of legally maintaining and expanding the Trust ... I never personally receive any money from it. Also, by latest count, 576,000 words have appeared on this Mailing List and the Actual Freedom Mailing List ... also gratis. I am retired and on a pension and have more than sufficient for my needs for the remainder of my life.

Just what is the point you are trying to make?

RESPONDENT: Actualism won’t spread like a chain letter till we ‘actually care’ enough to learn how to observe and examine human instincts without ‘investigating’ them as though they are criminal.

VINEETO: When I use the word ‘investigate’ I use it meaning ‘research, probe, explore, inquire into, go/look into, study, examine, inspect, consider, sift, analyse; check out’ (Oxford Thesaurus). My investigation is a ‘self’-inquiry into my own beliefs and instinctual passions with the aim to become actually free from the human condition.

For me, the very first step in this investigation was to admit that deep down, I was governed by instinctual passions – predominantly fear, aggression, nurture and desire. This simple act of acknowledgement meant that any feelings of guilt and shame (that ‘I’ am a criminal for having these passions) or feelings of self-righteousness (that ‘I’ am a saint for having repressed or denied these passions) that arose in my investigations were clearly seen for what they were – the inevitably by-products of socialization.

For anyone who has done some ‘self’-investigation it is obvious that one can only observe and investigate human instinctual passions if one is friends with oneself and coopts any aspect of oneself as an ally in this investigation into the human psyche. Here is an example of how I described to someone what I mean by investigating feelings.

Maintaining a moralistic attitude towards one’s instinctual passions unavoidably results in avoidance, denial and detachment. For this reason actualists have always maintained that before one can begin to examine one’s instinctual passions it is essential to first rekindle one’s naiveté and activate one’s pure intent born from the experience of the perfection of the actual world. Then one can begin to take apart one’s social identity – one’s spiritual values and beliefs and one’s social morals and ethics – in order to replace them with naiveté and the pure intent to be as happy and as harmless as humanly possible.

This is precisely described in the ‘Actualist Guide for the Wide and Wondrous Path’ –

The first impediment to freedom, peace and happiness to be tackled is always one’s own social identity. Once there is a sufficient dent in this identity, it is possible to see the underlying passions that fuel the spiritual search – the desire for immortality fuelled by the fear of death, the desire for omnipotentency fuelled by the passion for power, etc. The very action of turning around from the spiritual and facing the other direction – see diagram of ‘180 Degrees Opposite’ – means that one begins the process of demolishing one’s social identity and for those who have travelled the Eastern spiritual path this means one’s spiritual identity, usually layered on top of the underlying identity instilled in childhood and refined in early adulthood. The process of investigating and demolishing the social identity is also evident in the two-stage process that happens with each and every investigation of a deep-seated emotion from then on, on the path to Actual Freedom.

It is vitally important to understand that two stages happen with every investigation of a particular deep seated emotion over a period of time, such as aggression, sex, love, sorrow, authority, desire, etc. – first the social identity is dismantled, only then are the raw instinctual passions underneath are exposed. I know, I keep flogging this point but it is the only way to go deep sea diving into one’s own psyche. The initial tendency is to go straight into trying to look at the instinctual passions, but this is a disingenuous short-cut that can only lead to snorkelling around on the surface. This two-stage investigation is the crucial difference between the spiritual version of denial, selective awareness and remaining a passive watcher of life and the Actualist’s application of sincerity, all-encompassing awareness and becoming an active participant in this moment of being alive. Peter, An Actualist Guide for the Wide and Wondrous Path

RESPONDENT: This contaminated trio is still moralising and posturing so learning is crippled here.

VINEETO: Again your claim would have at least some smidgeon of credibility had you ever expressed any interest at all in wanting to learn anything about the human condition and how it operates, or even expressed any interest whatsoever in wanting to become free of the human condition.

Once one adopts a posture, particularly an adversarial one, maintaining it becomes a face-saving matter, hey?

RESPONDENT: Why do you think one must to be void of feelings and emotions in order to not be abusive, a rapist, a murdered or suicidal.

RICHARD: Often people who do not read what I have to say with both eyes gain the impression that I am suggesting that 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 psyche itself 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 affective faculty is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings ... as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) where, with the self in abeyance, the feelings play no part at all. However, in a PCE the feelings – passion and calenture – can come rushing in, if one is not alert, resulting in the PCE devolving into an altered state of consciousness (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.

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. What the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom is on about is a virtual freedom 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 well, feel happy and feel perfect for 99% of the time. If one minimises the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activates the felicitous feelings – happiness, delight, appreciation, joie de vivre, bonhomie and so on – in conjunction with sensuousness – then the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness. If it does not ... then one is way ahead of normal human expectations anyway as the aim is to enjoy and appreciate being here now for as much as is possible.

It is a win/win situation.

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

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