|
Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List with Correspondent No 22
RESPONDENT to Richard: As stated previously, it is preferable to have the inevitable questions that must arise when pursuing the opportunity and right to follow the injunction to study actualism answered by someone less capricious, PETER: Welcome to the Actual Freedom mailing list. When I first saw your post I thought you had wandered on to the wrong list, given your unwavering defence of spiritualism in your previous voluminous correspondence with Richard. You certainly have an opportunity and right to study actualism – this is the very reason that The Actual Freedom Trust has set up the website – to allow the unrestricted opportunity for anyone to read about actualism and make up their own mind whether what is on offer makes sense. This reading has lead some people to come to a prima facie conclusion that actualism is worthy of further investigation and some have begun to utilize the method in their daily lives. Some have even begun the difficult and painstaking work of actively investigating their own cherished beliefs, indoctrinated morals and ethics in order that they may become aware of both their repressed or sublimated savage feelings as well as their precious dearly-held tender feelings. However, to get to the stage of applying actualism in daily life it is essential that the person has a burning discontent with their life as it is – both their normal worldly life and their spiritual other-worldly life. Having ‘nothing left to lose’ was the expression I used in my journal. In your extensive previous correspondence with Richard you have shown not a skerrick of being discontent with either your life or your exalted state of Godship. This does leave me wondering if you have come to this list to enquire and discover or whether you have come merely to attack actualism and defend the spiritual status quo. The purpose of this mailing list is to question beliefs, investigate feelings and uncover the facts appertaining to the human condition we all find ourselves born into, absorbed by and totally identified with. Given that the human condition is exemplified by malice and sorrow, the function of this enquiry and investigation is to become free of malice and sorrow – to become free of the human condition in total. This list is for sincere enquiry into the human condition in total – both the real world and the spiritual world. As such, it is meaningless to participate in this list unless you are eager and willing to enquire into the psychic nature of the spiritual world and the narcissistic nature of your spiritual beliefs and feelings. In spite of the reservations I have about your inflexible track record of being either unwilling or unable to participate in this type of enquiry, I repeat my invitation – Should you have any questions regarding the process of actualism I would be only too pleased to share my expertise but I have zilch interest in indulging in meaningless dialogues with recalcitrant defenders of their own personal version of Godship.
RESPONDENT: May I please have your attention? There is readiness to begin the study that you warmly offered to assist with. PETER: To repeat, for the second time, the offer I made to you –
Nowhere in this offer have I offered to assist with your study of ‘the world view being called actualism’. To indulge in an academic/ semantic only type study of your own invented ‘world view called actualism’ is to remain aloof from, separate from, outside of, or in your case ‘above and beyond’ what is on offer in actualism – the get-down and get-dirty business of investigating one’s own psyche in action. RESPONDENT: In order to best understand what I encounter on the second page of the introduction recommended to all newcomers, I would like to ask some preliminary questions that may not be found in the content of that same second page. In the understanding you are of the world view being called actualism, what is the best definition of ‘matter’ as it is used in:
In the understanding you are of the world view being called actualism, what is the best definition of the word ‘universe’ as it used in:
PETER: For ‘this astonishing universe’, see http://www.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/index.html. I recently watched a television program documenting the first Voyageur spacecraft flyby of the planets in our solar system. It was intriguing to watch the scientists’ reactions as the first photos and data streamed in from the first planet. They were stunned at what they saw as the pictures began coming in – what was actual was indeed beyond their wildest imaginations and theories. As each successive flyby happened the scientists’ astonishment only increased to the point that by the last flyby of the outermost planet they had already abandoned their theories and concepts and were utterly fascinated by what they were seeing with their eyes. In a similar vein, I heard an entomologist say that the insects that exist in the average rubbish bin are far more astonishing than any imagined creature from another planet thus far dreamt up by any science fiction afflictionados. RESPONDENT: In the understanding you are of the world view being called actualism, would it be correct to understand the posit:
to be factually equal with the posit:
If the posits are found not to be factually equal, could you please provide the differences observed between the facts described by the former posit and the later? PETER: As for the quote – ‘this astonishing universe has manifested an event of no little significance...’ – have you ever simply sat down and looked at your hand and contemplated upon the amazing physicality of it? Wave it through the air and you will notice that the whole of the surface is a sensate receptor, touch one finger with another and you will notice that not only can the hand feel the texture of the skin of the hand but that you can be aware of the texture. And not only the texture, but the temperature, the moistness and the softness as well. I find animate life an event of no little significance and that I am it, that I can think about it, that I can be aware of knowing it and that I can write about is extraordinary to say the least. I know that in your current state you regard all that is physical, palpable, tangible, touchable, seeable, smellable, tasteable and audible as so insignificant as to be illusionary, so writing this to you is as meaningful as trying to sell coloured pencils to a blind man. As for your own posit – ‘through the utterly chance arrangement of random material substance, a resulting circumstance of the same significance as every other resulting circumstance that appeared’ – this does sound a bit like that dismal materialist-nihilist view that human beings are but randomly produced scum infecting a randomly produced planet in a random event called the universe ... or something like that. RESPONDENT: In the understanding you are of the world view being called actualism, would the tenets of that world view include the following posits:
PETER: You could try ‘inevitable’ as in – it has obviously happened and it exists in fact. According to one estimate –
I would say that the inevitability has blossomed into a copious cornucopia of bewildering diversity. As for randomness it does seem that quite specific and, as far as we know, quite unique circumstances existed on this planet for matter to become animate matter. RESPONDENT:
PETER: Physical evidence such as fossils and skeletal remains does indeed support this statement. It is certainly the only explanation that is supported by tangible substantiated evidence. There are many other theories as to the origins of human existence – about as many as there are religions or philosophies on the planet. The only proviso I would have is that ‘advancement’, as you put it, appears to have occurred as the result of spontaneous genetic mutations and not as some gradual process, as is commonly believed. In other words, the ‘missing link’ from animal to human is still a missing link. RESPONDENT:
PETER: ‘Simple to more complex’ is not a description I would use to describe the manifestation of both consciousness and intelligence in the human animal. It is only humans who see these attributes as increased complexity, for humans have a predisposition to always make what is simple into something complex. You do seem to be fixated on randomness as being the only alternative to being premeditated, as in deliberately created, controlled or ordered by Someone or Something. RESPONDENT:
PETER: When you refer to consciousness being separate from matter you are referring to ‘I’, as a disembodied consciousness, looking out through the eyes at the physical world and feeling separate from it? A pure consciousness experience is an experience where this separation simply does not exist for it is evident that ‘I’ am an illusion and my consciousness is a none other than this physical body’s consciousness. Or, to put it succinctly for you, this flesh and blood body is conscious animate life. However if you really go with this feeling of ‘you’ being a separate disembodied entity and practice dissociation from the physical world, ‘you’ can feel as though you are Real and the outer world can appear unreal or illusionary. I have had a few of these experiences myself but when a God-man confirmed I was ‘on the right track’ I started to seriously doubt the sensibility of my glorious, ‘I am the centre of all existence’, experience. I began to see that becoming a God-man was a poor career choice because I had seen enough of the God-men up close to know that I did not like how they were with their women, I didn’t like their lifestyle, and I didn’t like how they were with their disciples and with each other. RESPONDENT:
PETER: Has this got something to do with that solipsistic nonsense that goes something like ‘if nobody sees a tree falling in the forest, does it really fall?’ I remember walking around the house once and turning around very quickly to see if I could catch some object that was a little slow in appearing to my senses. I gave up pretty quickly as I realized how foolish I was and how totally ‘self’-centred my neurosis was. RESPONDENT:
PETER: As I said, humans have a predisposition to always make what is simple into something complex. In a normal person consciousness is what is happening when one is alive and awake. Unconsciousness is what is happening when alive and in deep sleep, concussed or anaesthetized and is epitomized by oblivion. But I do understand your particular problem. The common interpretation of consciousness is self-consciousness or self-awareness and is epitomized by three faculties – the sensate awareness of what appears to be a separate ‘outer’ world and the cerebral awareness and affective awareness of one’s inner ‘self’. Thus in a normal person, consciousness usually refers to the consciousness of the psychological and psychic entity only. Thus ‘I’ am conscious of ‘me’ only – the normal ‘self’-centredness of normal people. It is only in a Pure Consciousness Experience when the psychological and psychic entity’s affective and cerebral dominance is temporarily absent that the extraordinary perfection and purity of the actual is directly and sensately experienced. Whereas, as you well know, in an Altered State of Consciousness the psychological and psychic entity’s affective and cerebral dominance becomes total and ‘I’ think and feel ‘I’ am absolutely Real and totally disembodied, and what is actual as in physical, tangible and palpable is experienced by ‘me’ as being unreal, dreamlike or illusionary. RESPONDENT: The sharing of explanations you believe would add clarification to either actualism’s agreement or disagreement with the above posits is greatly appreciated. Also, I am deep appreciation of the attention you have offered to provide. In truth, there are several more preliminary enquiries I would like to share with you, but being the awareness of the complexity that may arise from what has been asked here above, will wait until these basic matters are addressed and distilled before adding to them. PETER: I can assure you the complexity is all yours. There are approximately 10,000 words in the Introduction to Actualism and thus far you are busy studying the meaning of 17 of them. You are certainly not joking when you talk about ‘preliminary enquiries’. But given that both the words on this screen and the screen itself are but illusionary matter to ‘you’, as a disembodied Consciousness only, answering any of your posits is as useful as ringing the doorbell of a deaf man’s house.
RESPONDENT: May I please have your attention? There is readiness to begin the study that you warmly offered to assist with. PETER: To repeat, for the third time, the offer I made to you –
To indulge in an academic/semantic only type study of your own invented ‘world view called actualism’ is to remain aloof from, separate from, outside of, or in your case ‘above and beyond’ what is on offer in actualism – the get-down and get-dirty business of investigating one’s own psyche in action. RESPONDENT: Please forgive if I have over estimated your willingness to assist, and please be assured that regardless of the specifics of your offer, and your ability to stick to it, the assistance offered below is very helpful in completing Richard’s advice to study actualism (a doctrine; theory; system of principles of what is actual). PETER: I know you are a relative newcomer to this list but the fact is you underestimate my willingness to assist anyone who is interested in the process of actualism – thus far I have written over half a million words on the subject of how to become free from the Human Condition. RESPONDENT: There is no interest in either academics or semantics. The only interest is in completing the advice ‘I thoroughly recommend the study of actualism’, and therewith determine the truth of the worldview (a comprehensive view of the world and human life) being called actualism. PETER: I guess you think by repeating the phrase ‘the worldview called actualism’ you will somehow change a practical process of ‘self’-investigation into something much less threatening – a theory, a doctrine, a system of principles, a worldview. It is you who insists on making a pragmatic process aimed at eliminating one’s own malice and sorrow into a head-banging philosophy. RESPONDENT: In regards to being aloof from, separate from, outside of, or, as is erroneously speculated to be ‘my’ case, above and beyond, the get-down and get-dirty business of investigating one’s own psyche in action; respectfully, if a psyche in action and ‘one’ who ‘owns’ that psyche, and there by can be aloof from it, separate from it, outside of it, or above and beyond it, and thus able to ‘study’ it can be demonstrated, please do so. Until the time such a demonstration is made, I will prefer to remain as peace and not bother with what must be the immensely stressful, frustrating, and quite dirty business of digging out of a hole. PETER: You are obviously perfectly at peace as your Self, being one of the fathomless all-mighty God-men within the human condition. As such, you do not even recognize, let alone ‘own’, your fear, anger, doubt, sorrow, frustration, aloofness or ‘above and beyond’ sanctimony. Which is why you prefer to remain within a delusion of your own creation and prefer to ‘not bother with what must be the immensely stressful, frustrating, and quite dirty business of digging out of a hole’. As for ‘until the time such a demonstration is made’ – I am not here to demonstrate anything to you – what you make of what is on offer is entirely your business. Given we are still discussing the meaning of 17 words of the Introduction to Actual Freedom, I shan’t be holding my breath that anything could dent your Divine armour. * RESPONDENT: In order to best understand what I encounter on the second page of the introduction recommended to all newcomers, I would like to ask some preliminary questions that may not be found in the content of that same second page. In the understanding you are of the world view being called actualism, what is the best definition of ‘matter’ as it is used in:
In the understanding you are of the worldview being called actualism, what is the best definition of the word ‘universe’ as it used in:
PETER: For ‘this astonishing universe’, see http://www.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/index.html. RESPONDENT: Thank you. PETER: No further comment, No 22? Do you not find this physical universe astonishing? * PETER: I recently watched a television program documenting the first Voyageur spacecraft flyby of the planets in our solar system. It was intriguing to watch the scientists’ reactions as the first photos and data streamed in from the first planet. They were stunned at what they saw as the pictures began coming in – what was actual was indeed beyond their wildest imaginations and theories. As each successive flyby happened the scientists’ astonishment only increased to the point that by the last flyby of the outermost planet they had already abandoned their theories and concepts and were utterly fascinated by what they were seeing with their eyes. In a similar vein, I heard an entomologist say that the insects that exist in the average rubbish bin are far more astonishing than any imagined creature from another planet thus far dreamt up by any science fiction afflictionados. RESPONDENT: *deep bow* Yes, observing the loosening of the clinging to wrong, though cherished, theories and worldviews is a most satisfying activity. Pointing out wrong thinking and watching the awakening that accompanies realization is great sport also. PETER: Ah, No 22. You are copping out again. You have already dismissed the actualism method of ‘loosening of the clinging to wrong, though cherished, theories and worldviews’ by saying you prefer not to ‘bother with what must be the immensely stressful, frustrating, and quite dirty business of digging out of a hole’. And yet here you say that observing it in others is a most satisfying activity. My experience of God-men is that they like to ensnare others into loosening their clinging to so-called wrong thinking and twist them into adopting Right thinking solely in order that they can strut their own humble Self-Righteousness in return for admiration, gratitude, love and veneration. As for ‘pointing out wrong thinking and watching the awakening that accompanies realization’ – what I was relating was an event that threw light on the fact that what is actual is far more astounding than any imagination, belief or theory cooked up by human beings. In the case I mentioned there was not an ‘awakening that accompanies realization’ as occurs in spiritual practice, but a fascination that accompanies the discovery of what is actually happening this very moment in this infinite and eternal universe. You seem to have a tendency to dismiss astounding actual events and amazing actual matter as amusing irrelevant side issues to your ‘study of actualism’. You are missing the point of what actualism is about, exactly as you did in all of your previous correspondence with Richard. RESPONDENT: Now, with the mutual enjoyment of the above established, and if you will, the question remains: In the understanding you are of the worldview being called actualism, what is the best definition of ‘matter’ as it is used in:
PETER: Oops, I see I missed this question first time round. Okay, this one is very easy to explain. With your finger, touch the frame of your computer keyboard. You may notice it feels solid to the touch, i.e. the soft flesh of the bottom of your finger squashes in a bit. This is matter, as is the monitor in front of you, as is the stuff of the walls of the room you are sitting in, as is the chair you are sitting on, as is the stuff photographed on the NASA web-site or that you can see as points of light in the night sky. And what touched the solid bit of matter that is your keyboard frame is a bit of animate matter – your finger. Do you have a problem with this? I know you are searching for a definition or a concept of matter, but I thought a more pragmatic approach might save a bit of time. * RESPONDENT: In the understanding you are of the world view being called actualism, would it be correct to understand the posit:
to be factually equal with the posit:
If the posits are found not to be factually equal, could you please provide the differences observed between the facts described by the former posit and the later? PETER: As for the quote – ‘this astonishing universe has manifested an event of no little significance...’ – have you ever simply sat down and looked at your hand and contemplated upon the amazing physicality of it? RESPONDENT: No, moreover, the fact is, neither have you. PETER: Despite your nonsensical dismissal, the fact is I have and was able to describe the experience to you. RESPONDENT: With your permission, we can discuss the mistake in category included in the offering above when we encounter a similar error in the text under study. PETER: No 22, this is your study of actualism, I merely offered to answer any questions you may have about the process of actualism. You don’t need my permission to dismiss my offerings as ‘mistakes in category’ or ‘errors in text’. If you have never contemplated the amazing physicality of your hand, it is you who is stubbornly refusing to study what is actual, not me. * PETER: As for the quote – ‘this astonishing universe has manifested an event of no little significance...’ – have you ever simply sat down and looked at your hand and contemplated upon the amazing physicality of it? Wave it through the air and you will notice that the whole of the surface is a sensate receptor, touch one finger with another and you will notice that not only can the hand feel the texture of the skin of the hand but that you can be aware of the texture. And not only the texture, but the temperature, the moistness and the softness as well. I find animate life an event of no little significance ... and that I am it, that I can think about it, that I can be aware of knowing that this is so and that I can write about it is extraordinary to say the least. RESPONDENT: Thank you, this is helpful. PETER: Helpful for what? You just said above that you have not ‘sat down and looked at your hand and contemplated upon the amazing physicality of it’. You seem to have no interest at all in a practical matter-of-fact observation – the very core of the method of actualism. Why do you offhandedly, or no-handedly in this case, dismiss and scorn practical matter-of-fact observation? You have previously said you have ‘no interest in either academics or semantics’ and yet the only comments you made were about a ‘mistake in category’ and an ‘error in text’ – both clear signs of the academic and semantic bent of your study. * PETER: I know that in your current state you regard all that is physical, palpable, tangible, touchable, seeable, smellable, tasteable and audible as so insignificant as to be illusionary, so writing this to you is as meaningful as trying to sell coloured pencils to a blind man. As for your own posit – ‘through the utterly chance arrangement of random material substance, a resulting circumstance of the same significance as every other resulting circumstance that appeared’ – this does sound a bit like that dismal materialist-nihilist view that human beings are but randomly produced scum infecting a randomly produced planet in a random event called the universe ... or something like that. RESPONDENT: This is wrong thinking. There has never been, is not now, nor will there ever be insignificance. PETER: Pardon me No 22. Of course it has significance to you for you are ‘it’, as in your declared position –
It was definitely wrong thinking on my part. The problem I have is that I don’t believe in Gods, let alone creator Gods, and therefore I find it difficult to think rightly in the solipsistic ‘I am all that exists and all that exists is me’ terms. * PETER: I know that in your current state you regard all that is physical, palpable, tangible, touchable, seeable, smellable, tasteable and audible as so insignificant as to be illusionary, so writing this to you is as meaningful as trying to sell coloured pencils to a blind man. RESPONDENT: You will be better able to assist, and more honest in your answers, if you will make an effort to avoid drawing imagined conclusions about me. Thank you. PETER: Could you perhaps point out where you think I am being dishonest in my answers, as I have done nothing other than rely on your own words in these discussions? In this case your quoted position is –
Have you been wrongly misquoted perhaps? I have already acknowledged that my thinking was ‘wrong’ in your terms but that does nothing to alter the fact that you regard all that is physical as being illusionary – i.e. spirit-ual or ethereal in nature. RESPONDENT: If you have specific questions about ‘my state’ I will be happy to assist you, however, if I may, I would appreciate not straying too far from the business at hand, namely, completing the advice ‘I thoroughly recommend the study of actualism’, and therewith determine the truth of the world view being called actualism. PETER: I have no questions at all about your stated view of the world. You have been unambiguous, forthright and unwavering in your views over several years of correspondence with Richard. Given that I have already said that actualism is ‘the get-down and get-dirty business of investigating one’s own psyche in action’, any questioning of your beliefs, morals, ethics or exalted state is entirely your business. As for straying too far from the business at hand I do note that you have ardently, consistently and repeatedly rejected conducting any ‘self’-questioning of this type, so I fail to see how you can stray from a course you have yet to even consider beginning to undertake.
RESPONDENT: May I please have your attention? There is readiness to begin the study that you warmly offered to assist with. PETER: To repeat, for the third time, the offer I made to you –
Nowhere in this offer have I offered to assist with your study of ‘the worldview being called actualism’. To indulge in an academic/semantic only type study of your own invented ‘world view called actualism’ is to remain aloof from, separate from, outside of, or in your case ‘above and beyond’ what is on offer in actualism – the get-down and get-dirty business of investigating one’s own psyche in action. RESPONDENT: Please forgive if I have over estimated your willingness to assist, and please be assured that regardless of the specifics of your offer, and your ability to stick to it, the assistance offered below is very helpful in completing Richard’s advice to study actualism (a doctrine; theory; system of principles of what is actual). PETER: I know you are a relative newcomer to this list but the fact is you underestimate my willingness to assist anyone who is interested in the process of actualism – thus far I have written over half a million words on the subject of how to become free from the Human Condition. RESPONDENT: Very Good, thank you. At this point, in completing the advice ‘I thoroughly recommend the study of actualism’ and following the advice at the actualism website (An illustrated complete introduction to Actual Freedom, recommended for all newcomers), there has been no process of actualism mentioned. PETER: Wow, No 22. Do you always conduct a study by blatantly ignoring the gist of what is on offer – in this case unavoidably upfront on the opening page of the Actual Freedom Trust website where it is mentioned that –
Given that you obviously skipped over this section without feeling any need to study it, you have then proceeded to the Introduction again without feeling the need for addressing the gist of what it is about – peace on earth. This head in the sand, or head in the clouds, approach of pretending to study what is happening, while ignoring what is actually happening in the world, is typical of Oxford Dons and Eastern God-men. Why do you insist on carrying on like all three wise monkeys rolled into one by obstinately pretending that you don’t know what actualism is really on about and persistently refusing to talk about it? RESPONDENT: However, the process of the universe giving rise to the circumstances that resulted in inanimate matter becoming animate matter has been presented, and is now being questioned to assure a clear understanding of the posits of the worldview called actualism. We will of course discuss what you describe as the process of actualism when it is encountered in the sequence recommended by the text of The Actual Freedom Trust Website. PETER: It is you who have skipped over what was written on the opening page of the web-site, No 22. It is you who are blatantly skipping out of sequence, for whatever motive. * RESPONDENT: There is no interest in either academics or semantics. The only interest is in completing the advice ‘I thoroughly recommend the study of actualism’, and therewith determine the truth of the worldview (a comprehensive view of the world and human life) being called actualism. PETER: I guess you think by repeating the phrase ‘the worldview called actualism’ you will somehow change a practical process of ‘self’-investigation into something much less threatening – a theory, a doctrine, a system of principles, a worldview. It is you who insists on making a pragmatic process aimed at eliminating one’s own malice and sorrow into a head-banging philosophy. RESPONDENT: At this point, in completing the advice ‘I thoroughly recommend the study of actualism’ and following the advice at the actualism website (An illustrated complete introduction to Actual Freedom, recommended for all newcomers), there has been no pragmatic process aimed at eliminating one’s own malice and sorrow mentioned. PETER: You obviously not only missed reading the opening page of the Actual Freedom Trust website but also the very first opening sentences of ‘An illustrated complete introduction to Actual Freedom, recommended for all newcomers’ where what is on offer, as a practicality, is explained clearly and upfront –
Methinks you are far more interested in ‘Who’ or ‘What’ created animate life rather than in the question as to why so-called intelligent conscious animate life – the 6 billion or so human beings currently on the planet – are still involved in a grim instinctual and senseless battle for survival. In short, actualism directly addresses the question of why are human beings are in an almost constant state of war with each other and offers a pragmatic solution.
RESPONDENT: In regards to being aloof from, separate from, outside of, or, as is erroneously speculated to be ‘my’ case, above and beyond, the get-down and get-dirty business of investigating one’s own psyche in action; respectfully, if a psyche in action and ‘one’ who ‘owns’ that psyche, and there by can be aloof from it, separate from it, outside of it, or above and beyond it, and thus able to ‘study’ it can be demonstrated, please do so. Until the time such a demonstration is made, I will prefer to remain as peace and not bother with what must be the immensely stressful, frustrating, and quite dirty business of digging out of a hole. PETER: You are obviously perfectly at peace as your Self, being one of the fathomless all-mighty God-men within the human condition. RESPONDENT: *deep bow* Yes, of course. Why would there be the choice to exist as anything other than perfect peace? PETER: Because there is a choice. The choice that is offered on the opening page of The Actual Freedom Trust website and that you are busy ignoring and denying – the choice to actually eliminate one’s own malice and sorrow. RESPONDENT: The term ‘God-men’ is absurd and refers to no actuality. PETER:
as in
It is not the term God-men that is absurd – it is flesh and blood mortal human beings believing themselves to be God-on-Earth that is absurd. This would be an amusing aberration except for the fact that other human beings are suckered into believing them. God-men are alive and well, though I hesitate to use the term ‘well’. The proof that ‘the term ‘God-men’’ refers to an ‘actuality’ is the proliferation of religions on the planet – each of them founded by a God-man, shaman, seer, messenger, spiritual teacher, sage, swami, maharishi, guiding light, Master, Son of God, or whatever other name. Methinks thou art in denial of what is actual in the world ... yet again. RESPONDENT: If the term human condition is referring to existing as malice and/or sorrow, it can be offered that I have never been malice or sorrow. PETER: Ah. Perchance was yours an immaculate conception? Is this why you have never felt anger and never felt sad, even as a child? But you didn’t say that directly, did you No 22. You are very careful only to hint at, allude to, offer, hedge or fudge, duck and weave while actually not saying anything meaningful about yourself as a human being. Ambiguous duplicity is a typical God-man attribute and skill that has been refined and honed over millennia into a set of mind-bending and soul-beguiling platitudes that are an affront to intelligence and sensibility. RESPONDENT: I can be the thought of no reason why existing as malice or sorrow would be chosen. PETER: Because we humans had no choice in the matter. Every human being created via the process of a sperm fertilizing an egg is born with a genetically-encoded set of survival instincts. From the Introduction to Actual Freedom, just a little further on from the 17 words you are so fixated on –
Those who believe they were born via Immaculate Conception or those who believe they Created their own earthly existence will of course imagine themselves as exempt from this biological imperative. To acknowledge the direct cause and effect relationship between genetically-encoded instinctual passions and malice and sorrow pulls the rug out from under the whole of the Good Spirit / Evil Spirit fairy story that is the very lynchpin of spirit-ual belief. Which is why God-men will be the most fervent resisters of actualism – their very identity and livelihood is at stake. God-men can be likened to Dinosaurs – their extinction as a outmoded species is inevitable. * PETER: You are obviously perfectly at peace as your Self, being one of the fathomless all-mighty God-men within the human condition. As such, you do not even recognize, let alone ‘own’, your fear, anger, doubt, sorrow, frustration, aloofness or ‘above and beyond’ sanctimony. Which is why you prefer to remain within a delusion of your own creation and prefer to ‘not bother with what must be the immensely stressful, frustrating, and quite dirty business of digging out of a hole’. RESPONDENT: This is incorrect thought. I have existed as fear, doubt and aloofness, although, and this is important, I have never owned what I existed as. PETER: This gets a bit silly given that you said above – ‘it can be offered that I have never been malice or sorrow’. Where I come from normal people who have feelings of fear and doubt invariably experience feelings of malice – resentment, frustration, annoyance, anger, etc. – and feelings of sorrow – sadness, melancholy, depression, despair, etc. But I do note your important point that you ‘have never owned’ these feelings – a concise description of being in a dissociated state. RESPONDENT: I have never been separate from what I exist as to ‘own’ any-thing, though I am Infinitely responsible for what I exist as. PETER: ‘Infinitely responsible’, but not humanly responsible, hey? By waving the ‘I am Infinitely responsible’ flag, God-men have literally got away with murder since time immemorial. Being ‘infinitely responsible’ is God-man-speak for ‘I am not responsible for peace on earth because I am not responsible for my malice and sorrow because I have risen above all earthly matters’. In a similar vein, ‘I am Unconditional Love’ is God-man-speak for I am not responsible for peace on earth because I am not responsible for being incapable of living with my fellow human beings in peace and harmony because I have risen above all earthly matters. God-man-speak has intimidated and enthralled, enraptured and ensnared human beings since time immemorial but to an actualist it only speaks of a dissociated cop-out. RESPONDENT: Being respectful of the material under study, I will not offer here the truth of why I no longer exist as fear, doubt, and aloofness. PETER: Is this what you mean by respectful? –
For an actualist this reads – ‘Until the time such a demonstration is made, I will prefer to remain as peace and not bother with ... actualism’. For an actualist that is summary dismissal bordering on distain. And then you keep steering the conversation way from the topic which is actualism. Ever since my first post you have repeatedly said you are not interested in actualism per se, as you have demonstrated by the type of questions you have asked about actualism to date –
And after asking these questions about definitions of words you then tell me ‘There is no interest in either academics or semantics.’ Look No 22, you have been nothing but up-front in your views about actualism. You have made your objections very clear over several years of correspondence. If you don’t want to study the gist of what actualism is about that is entirely your business. However, given that my field of interest and expertise is process of actualism it is clear that we have nothing in common and little to share. I know you are still busy starting to collect data about your invented worldview of actualism, as you say in your next post –
but all of this data can easily be found on the Actual Freedom Trust website. There is even a I’m quite happy to continue to answer your questions as my offer ‘should you have any questions regarding the process of actualism I would be only too pleased to share my expertise’ is sincere. However, I offer as a suggestion that you cut to the quick of what actualism is really about and stop dithering and blustering around the edges.
RESPONDENT: In regards to being aloof from, separate from, outside of, or, as is erroneously speculated to be ‘my’ case, above and beyond, the get-down and get-dirty business of investigating one’s own psyche in action; respectfully, if a psyche in action and ‘one’ who ‘owns’ that psyche, and there by can be aloof from it, separate from it, outside of it, or above and beyond it, and thus able to ‘study’ it can be demonstrated, please do so. Until the time such a demonstration is made, I will prefer to remain as peace and not bother with what must be the immensely stressful, frustrating, and quite dirty business of digging out of a hole. PETER: You are obviously perfectly at peace as your Self, being one of the fathomless all-mighty God-men within the human condition. As such, you do not even recognize, let alone ‘own’, your fear, anger, doubt, sorrow, frustration, aloofness or ‘above and beyond’ sanctimony. Which is why you prefer to remain within a delusion of your own creation and prefer to ‘not bother with what must be the immensely stressful, frustrating, and quite dirty business of digging out of a hole’. As for ‘until the time such a demonstration is made’ – I am not here to demonstrate anything to you – what you make of what is on offer is entirely your business. Given we are still discussing the meaning of 17 words of the Introduction to Actual Freedom, I shan’t be holding my breath that anything could dent your Divine armour. RESPONDENT: *deep bow* The wrong thought has resulted in a wrong conclusion. Again, being respectful of the material under study, I will not offer here the truth of why I will not bother with what must be the immensely stressful, frustrating, and quite dirty business of digging out of a hole’. PETER: I am the thought that your respect is but a poker player’s front to avoid laying your cards on the table, but then again ... it is only a thought. I’m just dabbling in a bit of God-man-speak, so don’t take this comment seriously. RESPONDENT: If I may, remembering your offering ‘...I have zilch interest in indulging in meaningless dialogues with recalcitrant defenders of their own personal version of Godship.’ Wouldn’t it be preferable to spend less time creating and discussing images of me? PETER: I don’t have an image of you at all, No 22. I have no idea what you look like – whether you are tall, stout, slim, bearded, clean-shaven, have green hair, or whatever. It is irrelevant because in this form of direct communication it is the words that convey meaning and what your words convey is Godship, as in –
These are your words, are they not? This clearly indicates a man – and I am presuming a man and not a woman – who thinks and feels that they are God, as in the creator of the entire cosmos. I don’t know what image you have of yourself, but the words you write clearly indicate your own personal view of Godship or Godhood. RESPONDENT: I am the interest in moving forward with completing the advice ‘I thoroughly recommend a study of actualism’ and these digressions into what is imagined, erroneously, about me are not aiding in that end, save for demonstrating a good deal of imaginative capabilities still present in your behaviour. PETER: This sort of huffing and puffing does not work on me No 22. As I have said before ‘I don’t believe in God or Gods’ and therefore God-men fail to put the wind up me in any way at all. I am immune to the typical God-man ploy of diverting any questioning of His or Her exalted state by turning on the questioner. The emotional power-plays of the Guru-disciple system of psychic enslavement is an affront to intelligence and the antithesis of autonomy and freedom, peace and harmony. To repeat, I don’t imagine anything about you No 22, I simply take your words literally, at face value. RESPONDENT: May I suggest that from this point forward the conversation not include personal opinions, commentary on respective personalities, critiques of respective philosophy, nor any material not directly related to establishing or refuting the facts immediately under study? Thank you. PETER: In my experience God-men are most reluctant to discuss anything about their private lives, ‘off-stage’ as it were and they fiercely resist exposing anything about themselves by maintaining a holier-than-the-rest-of-mortal-ignorant-human-beings-attitude. The good thing about not fearing God is that I am free from having to humbly cow-tow to His or Her continual demands for inequality. I’ll just remind you that you are writing on The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List and as such, your demands that you have open slather to critique actualism but that I cannot critique God-men cuts no thrust here. The whole point of actualism is to explore all aspects of the human social and instinctual personality and investigate all the philosophies and belief-systems that constitute the human condition. This is what actualism is about and to suggest it be swept under the carpet or locked in the cupboard is nonsense. In short, no subject is considered too sacred or too holy to discuss on this list. * RESPONDENT: In regards to being aloof from, separate from, outside of, or, as is erroneously speculated to be ‘my’ case, above and beyond, the get-down and get-dirty business of investigating one’s own psyche in action; respectfully, if a psyche in action and ‘one’ who ‘owns’ that psyche, and there by can be aloof from it, separate from it, outside of it, or above and beyond it, and thus able to ‘study’ it can be demonstrated, please do so. Until the time such a demonstration is made, I will prefer to remain as peace and not bother with what must be the immensely stressful, frustrating, and quite dirty business of digging out of a hole. PETER: <Snip> As for ‘until the time such a demonstration is made’ – I am not here to demonstrate anything to you – what you make of what is on offer is entirely your business. Given we are still discussing the meaning of 17 words of the Introduction to Actual Freedom, I shan’t be holding my breath that anything could dent your Divine armour. RESPONDENT: Very Good, thank you. The unwillingness, or inability, to fulfill the respectful request ‘if a psyche in action and ‘one’ who ‘owns’ that psyche, and thereby can be aloof from it, separate from it, outside of it, or above and beyond it, and thus able to ‘study’ it can be demonstrated, please do so’ is noted, and the request will not be pursued further. The response of unwillingness, or inability, to answer the request will be recorded as offered in the database component of the study. PETER: Was there a genuine request for an answer hidden in amongst your aloofness? If so, I must have missed it. I was the thought that you were merely pontificating. As for ‘if a psyche in action ... can be demonstrated’ – every word you write, No 22, clearly demonstrates your God-man psyche in action, but if you cannot see it, let alone acknowledge it, then no wonder you keep missing the point of what actualism is really about. Goodness knows what you are recording in your ‘database component of the study’, but it does seem that it will be a trifle Self-centred and One-sided. * RESPONDENT: In order to best understand what I encounter on the second page of the introduction recommended to all newcomers, I would like to ask some preliminary questions that may not be found in the content of that same second page. In the understanding you are of the world view being called actualism, what is the best definition of ‘matter’ as it is used in:
In the understanding you are of the worldview being called actualism, what is the best definition of the word ‘universe’ as it used in:
PETER: For ‘this astonishing universe’, see http://www.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/index.html. RESPONDENT: Thank you. PETER: No further comment, No 22? RESPONDENT: No. The question was asked, the best definition, in the understanding you are of the worldview being called actualism, was offered. The response to the question will be recorded as offered in the database component of the study. Thank You PETER: Wow. That was easy. I think we can tick off at least one question as complete and ready for recording. * PETER: Do you not find this physical universe astonishing? RESPONDENT: *deep bow* I am often the feeling astonishment. PETER: Wow. T’was a silly question to ask the creator of the entire cosmos, I must admit. As the saying goes ... ‘ask a silly question and you get a silly answer’. * PETER: I recently watched a television program documenting the first Voyageur spacecraft flyby of the planets in our solar system. It was intriguing to watch the scientists’ reactions as the first photos and data streamed in from the first planet. They were stunned at what they saw as the pictures began coming in – what was actual was indeed beyond their wildest imaginations and theories. As each successive flyby happened the scientists’ astonishment only increased to the point that by the last flyby of the outermost planet they had already abandoned their theories and concepts and were utterly fascinated by what they were seeing with their eyes. In a similar vein, I heard an entomologist say that the insects that exist in the average rubbish bin are far more astonishing than any imagined creature from another planet thus far dreamt up by any science fiction afflictionados. RESPONDENT: *deep bow* Yes, observing the loosening of the clinging to wrong, though cherished, theories and worldviews is a most satisfying activity. Pointing out wrong thinking and watching the awakening that accompanies realization is great sport also. PETER: Ah, No 22. You are copping out again. You have already dismissed the actualism method of ‘loosening of the clinging to wrong, though cherished, theories and worldviews’ by saying you prefer not to ‘bother with what must be the immensely stressful, frustrating, and quite dirty business of digging out of a hole’. RESPONDENT: *deep bow* To this point, in completing the advice ‘I thoroughly recommend the study of actualism’ and following the advice at the actualism website, there has been no mention of actualism as a process of ‘loosening’ ‘...the clinging to wrong, though cherished, theories and worldviews’. PETER: I could be of the thought that this was an untruth, but you obviously missed what was written on the opening page of the Actual Freedom Trust website, thereby miraculously arriving at the Introduction and again missed what was written on the opening page. As case of selective awareness, perhaps? I am, however, left wondering why you keep trumpeting your alleged ignorance of what actualism is really about, when you have corresponded with Richard for over 2 years about actualism and I have constantly told you what actualism it is really about. My experience with God-men is that they feign ignorance, even trumpeting it as a virtue, when the going gets rough and then rapidly revert to the full-on power of ‘I am all knowing’ when the coast is clear. RESPONDENT: However, the process of the universe giving rise to the circumstances that resulted in inanimate matter becoming animate matter has been presented, and is now being questioned to assure a clear understanding of the posits of the worldview called actualism. We will of course discuss what you describe as actualism being a process of ‘loosening’ ‘...the clinging to wrong, though cherished, theories and worldviews’ when it is encountered in the sequence recommended by the text of The Actual Freedom Trust Website. PETER: Well, it’s your ‘study of actualism’, No 22. It’s your game your playing, and therefore you get to make the rules. It’s called playground rules. At school the tough guys made the rules to suit themselves – in the spiritual playground the God-men make and remake the rules to suit themselves. * RESPONDENT: *deep bow* Yes, observing the loosening of the clinging to wrong, though cherished, theories and worldviews is a most satisfying activity. Pointing out wrong thinking and watching the awakening that accompanies realization is great sport also. PETER: Ah, No 22. You are copping out again. You have already dismissed the actualism method of ‘loosening of the clinging to wrong, though cherished, theories and worldviews’ by saying you prefer not to ‘bother with what must be the immensely stressful, frustrating, and quite dirty business of digging out of a hole’. And yet here you say that observing it in others is a most satisfying activity. RESPONDENT: No-thing of ‘others’ was offered. PETER: Of course. Silly me again. I fell for it again – hook, line and sinker. For someone who says
there are no others, as in fellow flesh and blood human beings – there is only ‘I’. I know how lonely it was being an ordinary ‘I’, but for God-men who believe that there is only the ‘One-and-only-I’ this feeling must be something else again. When I had a good taste of a ‘there is only I’ experience it was both exhilarating and glorious but it was also totally isolating because I totally existed in a world of my own making and ‘others’ were totally inconsequential. It was this glimpse of a ‘there is only I’ experience that made me suss of the whole spiritual path because it belittled and even negated the very existence of every one of my fellow human beings on the planet. The revered spiritual experience of ‘there is only I’ simply takes normal ‘self’-ishness to its extreme – self-ishness turns into Self-ishness, self-centredness turns into Self-centredness. The only way to become completely unselfish is to become completely ‘self’-less, i.e. no ego and no soul – which is what actualism is really about. A pure consciousness experience is a glimpse of the innate purity and perfection of self’-lessness. * RESPONDENT: Pointing out wrong thinking and watching the awakening that accompanies realization is great sport also. PETER: My experience of God-men is that they like to ensnare others into loosening their clinging to so-called wrong thinking and twist them into adopting Right thinking solely in order that they can strut their own humble Self-Righteousness in return for admiration, gratitude, love and veneration. RESPONDENT: *deep bow* Thank you for sharing. PETER: It’s a pleasure to be able to pass on my experiences of 17 years on the spiritual path. The other day I came across a woman who was just starting on the spiritual path and who was still shell-shocked at just having visited India for the first time. It struck me at the time, after 17 years of searching for peace and happiness on the spiritual path, how serendipitous it was to have come across an ex-God-man who had discovered something far superior to the hallowed state of Enlightenment – an actual down-to-earth freedom and not a fear-driven escape into an inner spiritual fantasy-land. This serendipitous event has given me the opportunity to contribute to the de-bunking of the shams and scams of the utterly ‘Self’-centred spiritual path by writing of my experience and making it freely available for others to peruse. And then, on top of that, I get to write of my experience and expertise in utilizing the actualism method to become actually free of the human condition. Where I come from, sharing is making your experience and expertise freely available for others who are interested – to hide nothing, to sweep nothing under the table. For a normal person sharing means sharing their feelings of malice and sorrow – what is commonly known as having a gossip, having a whinge, having a bitch, having a heart to heart, connecting, giving support, being honest, etc. My experience with God-men is they don’t share – they hide much from others and are driven to preach and proselytize to others. * PETER: You seem to have a tendency to dismiss astounding actual events and amazing actual matter as amusing irrelevant side-issues to your ‘study of actualism’. RESPONDENT: This is wrong thinking. Completing the advice ‘I thoroughly recommend a study of actualism’ is an astounding actual event and is an aside from no-thing. PETER: There you go again. You dismiss the comment I made about astounding actual events and amazing actual matter with the comment –
What this comment tells me is that you like observing and that you like teaching – it says nothing at all about the astounding actual events and amazing actual matter that I was talking about. And then you further demonstrate your Self-centred viewpoint as in –
I made a comment about the astounding actual events and amazing actual matter of this physical universe and you only make comment about observing and teaching and what an astounding actual event your study of actualism is. As I said – you seem to have a tendency to dismiss astounding actual events and amazing actual matter as amusing irrelevant side-issues to your ‘study of actualism’. * PETER: You are missing the point of what actualism is about, exactly as you did in all of your previous correspondence with Richard. RESPONDENT: Thus far in the study, the point of the world viewed being called actualism is about the process of the universe giving rise to the circumstances that resulted in inanimate matter becoming animate matter. This point has not only not been missed, it is being thoroughly examined as to not be misunderstood. PETER: ‘The process of the universe giving rise to the circumstances that resulted in inanimate matter becoming animate matter’ has nothing at all to do with the very-recent discovery of the process of actualism. By all the available evidence the process of inanimate matter becoming animate matter first happened on this planet billions of years ago. As such, the initial process has already happened, it is a fait accompli, it is a given, it is a fact. Believe it or not, you and I are animate matter – what is known as live matter, living things, sentient beings, flesh and blood, corporeal, or to use cyber-jargon, ‘wetware’ as opposed to hardware or software. We can discuss the myriad of human beliefs and theories about how this process happened, why it happened or which God made it happen and why He/She/It made it happen, if you insist, but it has bugger all to do with the fact that it happened and still is happening this very moment all over this planet. These types of philosophical discussions, so-called examinations, posits and postulations, theories, beliefs and flights of imagination are a furphy – a distraction from the main event of actualism, which is about a method of freeing conscious animate matter – flesh and blood humans – from its archaic bio-heritage of ‘self’-centred malice and sorrow. * PETER: As for ‘pointing out wrong thinking and watching the awakening that accompanies realization’ – what I was relating was an event that threw light on the fact that what is actual is far more astounding than any imagination, belief or theory cooked up by human beings. In the case I mentioned there was not an ‘awakening that accompanies realization’ as occurs in spiritual practice, but a fascination that accompanies the discovery of what is actually happening this very moment in this infinite and eternal universe. RESPONDENT: *deep bow* Thank you. PETER: Oops. I am a bit concerned you might hit your head on the keyboard with all this deep bowing. Animate matter can be bruised when it hits inanimate matter. You must already know by now that this *deep bow* stuff is wasted on me because my experience of God-men is that they are anything but humble. * RESPONDENT: Now, with the mutual enjoyment of the above established, and if you will, the question remains: In the understanding you are of the worldview being called actualism, what is the best definition of ‘matter’ as it is used in:
PETER: Oops, I see I missed this question first time round. Okay, this one is very easy to explain. With your finger, touch the frame of your computer keyboard. You may notice it feels solid to the touch, i.e. the soft flesh of the bottom of your finger squashes in a bit. This is matter, as is the monitor in front of you, as is the stuff of the walls of the room you are sitting in, as is the chair you are sitting on, as is the stuff photographed on the NASA web-site or that you can see as points of light in the night sky. And what touched the solid bit of matter that is your keyboard frame is a bit of animate matter – your finger. Do you have a problem with this? I know you are searching for a definition or a concept of matter, but I thought a more pragmatic approach might save a bit of time. RESPONDENT: *deep bow* Thank you. I have not chosen to be a problem. The question was asked, and the best answer, in the understanding you are of the worldview being called actualism, was offered. PETER: *Mind the keyboard ...* Well, that was easy. Is that the first question re-ticked or is that a second question answered to your satisfaction? I guess it doesn’t matter really, but we do seem to be getting into a real flow. * RESPONDENT: In the understanding you are of the world view being called actualism, would it be correct to understand the posit:
to be factually equal with the posit:
If the posits are found not to be factually equal, could you please provide the differences observed between the facts described by the former posit and the later? PETER: As for the quote – ‘this astonishing universe has manifested an event of no little significance...’ – have you ever simply sat down and looked at your hand and contemplated upon the amazing physicality of it? <Snip> RESPONDENT: No, moreover, the fact is, neither have you. PETER: Despite your nonsensical dismissal, the fact is I have and was able to describe the experience to you. RESPONDENT: With your permission, we can discuss the mistake in category included in the offering above when we encounter a similar error in the text under study. As before, the mistake in ‘the fact is I have (sat down and looked at my hand and contemplated upon the amazing physicality of it) and was able to describe the experience to you’ can be corrected if it is found in the text under study. Thank you. PETER: No 22, this is your study of actualism, I merely offered to answer any questions you may have about the process of actualism. You don’t need my permission to dismiss my offerings as ‘mistakes in category’ or ‘errors in text’. If you have never contemplated the amazing physicality of your hand, it is you who is stubbornly refusing to study what is actual, not me. RESPONDENT: *deep bow* If you will, when using quote marks, please be certain that the material included therein is an actual quote. In the case of ‘error in text’, you have indicated you are quoting from the material of this conversation, when in fact the phrase ‘error in text’ has not been offered. You may be intending to refer to ‘... error in the text’ that was offered to indicate that there was no interest in pursuing the mistake in category encountered in the previous communication until such time as ‘...we encounter a similar error in the text under study’. Thank you. PETER: *Mind the keyboard ...* It’s a good thing you have told me you are not interested in semantics or we would never get anywhere in this conversation. I’ll take your advice and try to be more careful with my p’s and q’s ... and the’s ... in future. By the way, I note you have made a similar mistake in misquoting because the phrase I used was ‘errors in text’ – as in the present error and future ‘similar error’ – and not ‘error in text’ as you quoted. One of the attributes of an actualist is a willingness to admit to making mistakes – indeed, how else would you become an actualist? Otherwise you would stubbornly remain a ‘self’ insisting you are right, while at the same time knowing you are wrong ... or you could end up a God-man, as in infallible, and then you would be really stuck on ‘Self’-righteousness. But in the interest of moving on, can we take my answer to your question as being my answer to your question and tick this one off as well? I know it might be unsatisfactory to you but maybe you can create an ‘unsatisfactory answer’ folder in your database. Just a suggestion. * PETER: As for the quote – ‘this astonishing universe has manifested an event of no little significance...’ – have you ever simply sat down and looked at your hand and contemplated upon the amazing physicality of it? Wave it through the air and you will notice that the whole of the surface is a sensate receptor, touch one finger with another and you will notice that not only can the hand feel the texture of the skin of the hand but that you can be aware of the texture. And not only the texture, but the temperature, the moistness and the softness as well. I find animate life an event of no little significance ... and that I am it, that I can think about it, that I can be aware of knowing that this is so and that I can write about it is extraordinary to say the least. RESPONDENT: Thank you, this is helpful. PETER: Helpful for what? RESPONDENT: Helpful in providing, in the understanding you are of the worldview being called actualism, what the best answer to the question is. The response to the question will be recorded as offered in the database component of the study. PETER: Another tick, or is it the same tick? It doesn’t matter really. It’s a tick. * PETER: You just said above that you have not ‘sat down and looked at your hand and contemplated upon the amazing physicality of it’. You seem to have no interest at all in a practical matter-of-fact observation – the very core of the method of actualism. RESPONDENT: *deep bow* This is wrong thought. It is interest that results in practical matter of fact observation, the interest that gave rise to the practical matter of fact observation that the above offering is false is an example. PETER: *Mind the keyboard ...* No 22, we are at last cutting to the quick of what actualism is really about – by default of course. By what you write it is your own interest that is paramount – ‘It is (my) interest that results in practical matter of fact observation’ . This type of self-interest is born out of spiritual teachings that encourage the cultivation of an ‘I’ as an observer or watcher or witnesser. As such, what is being observed or watched becomes secondary or irrelevant and of such little concern to ‘me’ that it can even appear to be illusionary or appears to only exist when I am interested in it or observing it. This practice, as you may know, can lead to a solipsistic state where ‘there is only I’ or even to a state where you think and feel that you, personally, create all that exists. For an actualist, practical matter-of-fact observation is what it is. Objects that can be seen, touched, smelt or heard are taken to be actual – existing in fact. Events observed as happening are taken to have actually happened or be actually happening such as my fingers typing these words – and the words appearing on the screen – existing in fact. Human beings whom I meet and communicate with are taken to be actual flesh and blood human beings – fellow human beings, as in being of the same generic species. There is no room for denial, obscuration or deception in this type of down-to-earth, matter-of-fact observation. When you apply this very same matter-of-fact observation to your own actions, thoughts and feelings by running the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ the results can be stunning, to say the least. If this self-observation is undertaken with integrity and honesty, all sorts of murky and mucky things can be found in the closet of one’s psyche, prime amongst them being repressed feelings of fear, malice and sorrow. For an actualist, this is grist for the mill, for these self-centred and self-sustaining feelings and passions are what he or she is seeking to find in order to eliminate them – in order for there to be peace on earth, as this flesh and blood body, in this lifetime. As Gary has recently observed, the discovery that these feelings – no matter how real, repulsive, ugly, unwanted or undesirable – are only feelings and are not actual, as in physical existing, and as such they can be eliminated. Actualism is not a process for the faint-hearted but the rewards are immeasurable and actual – an irrevocable end to malice and sorrow in this flesh and blood body. * PETER: You are obviously perfectly at peace as your Self, being one of the fathomless all-mighty God-men within the human condition. As such, you do not even recognize, let alone ‘own’, your fear, anger, doubt, sorrow, frustration, aloofness or ‘above and beyond’ sanctimony. Which is why you prefer to remain within a delusion of your own creation and prefer to ‘not bother with what must be the immensely stressful, frustrating, and quite dirty business of digging out of a hole’. RESPONDENT: May I suggest that from this point forward the conversation not include personal opinions, commentary on respective personalities, critiques of respective philosophy, nor any material not directly related to establishing or refuting the facts immediately under study? Thank you. PETER: Ah, you’ve noticed that I tend to divert from your strictures every now and again and try to slip in a bit about what actualism is really about. I know these diversions don’t get entered in your database component but there are others on this mailing list and they may be interested in my experience of, and expertise in, actualism. The process of actualism is about recognizing, owning and examining the feelings of fear, anger, doubt, sorrow, frustration, etc. To remain aloof from or ‘above and beyond’ this process relegates any supposed study of actualism to the category of a faking an orgasm. * PETER: Why do you offhandedly, or no-handedly in this case, dismiss and scorn practical matter-of-fact observation? RESPONDENT: *deep bow* There is no scorn (contempt or disdain felt toward a person or object considered despicable or unworthy) toward any-thing including practical matter-of-fact observation. Nor has any practical matter-of-fact observation been dismissed (factually, it is impossible to dismiss any practical matter-of-fact observation). A mistake in category was offered and addressed. Moreover, beyond the mistake in category being addressed, it was given the attention of being set aside until a similar mistake in category is found in the text under study. PETER: *Mind the keyboard ...* Okay, I’ll take ‘scorn’ out of my sentence. I’m even willing to take out ‘dismiss’ out of the sentence given that my experience with God-men is that they are so ‘Self’-centred they have no real interest at all in what they observe ... because they regard everything but their real-Selves as being non-real or illusionary. ‘I am not the body’ is a classic spiritual psittacism, which is not a dismissal for a God-man, for he or she really believes they truly are an Immortal Soul and not the flesh and blood mortal body they actually are, as a matter of fact. * PETER: As for the quote – ‘this astonishing universe has manifested an event of no little significance...’ – have you ever simply sat down and looked at your hand and contemplated upon the amazing physicality of it? Wave it through the air and you will notice that the whole of the surface is a sensate receptor, touch one finger with another and you will notice that not only can the hand feel the texture of the skin of the hand but that you can be aware of the texture. And not only the texture, but the temperature, the moistness and the softness as well. I find animate life an event of no little significance and that I am it, that I can think about it, that I can be aware of knowing it and that I can write about is extraordinary to say the least. <Snip> RESPONDENT: No, moreover, the fact is, neither have you. PETER: Despite your nonsensical dismissal, the fact is I have and was able to describe the experience to you. RESPONDENT: With your permission, we can discuss the mistake in category included in the offering above when we encounter a similar error in the text under study. PETER: You have previously said you have ‘no interest in either academics or semantics’ and yet the only comments you made were about a ‘mistake in category’ and an ‘error in text’ – both clear signs of the academic and semantic bent of your study. RESPONDENT: This is an incorrect thought. The pointing out of a mistake in category indicates neither an effort in semantics (The study or science of meaning in language forms), nor an interest in the academic (theoretical or speculative without a practical purpose or intention). A mistake in category is a fact, no less, it is a commonly occurring fact that can, when corrected, go a long way toward ‘loosening’ ‘...the clinging to wrong, though cherished, theories and worldviews’. PETER: Okay. The mistake in category that you alluded to, but did not define in any way at this stage, is to me clearly ‘theoretical or speculative without a practical purpose or intention’, given that the subject we were initially talking about was both practical and down to earth – looking at your hand. How can you find a ‘mistake in category’ in the action of looking at your hand? Did you think I meant foot when I said hand? RESPONDENT: If you will, when using quote marks, please be certain that the material included there in is an actual quote. In the case of ‘error in text’, you have indicated you are quoting from the material of this conversation, when in fact the phrase ‘error in text’ has not been offered. You may be intending to refer to ‘...error in the text’ that was offered to indicate that there was no interest in pursuing the mistake in category encountered in the previous communication until such time as ‘...we encounter a similar error in the text under study’. Thank you. PETER: You have already given me this lecture, No 22. You do seem to be in danger of becoming a pedantic semantic. RESPONDENT: The fact remains there is no interest in either academics or semantics. The only interest is in completing the advice ‘I thoroughly recommend the study of actualism’, and there with determine the truth of the worldview (a comprehensive view of the world and human life) being called actualism. This study may include, eventually, the correction of one or several mistakes in category. We will be well served if an effort could be made to restrain the tendency to make erroneous conclusions based on what is imagined about me. Thank you. PETER: – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – I just thought I’d sit here silently for a while ... ... I tried to feel chastened, but it didn’t work.
PETER: I know that in your current state you regard all that is physical, palpable, tangible, touchable, seeable, smellable, tasteable and audible as so insignificant as to be illusionary, so writing this to you is as meaningful as trying to sell coloured pencils to a blind man. As for your own posit – ‘through the utterly chance arrangement of random material substance, a resulting circumstance of the same significance as every other resulting circumstance that appeared’ – this does sound a bit like that dismal materialist-nihilist view that human beings are but randomly produced scum infecting a randomly produced planet in a random event called the universe ... or something like that. RESPONDENT: This is wrong thinking. There has never been, is not now, nor will there ever be insignificance. PETER: Pardon me No 22. RESPONDENT: *deep bow* Yes of course. PETER: *Mind the keyboard ...* * PETER: Of course it has significance to you for you are ‘it’, as in your declared position –
The fact that there has never been, is not now, nor will there ever be insignificance, has no-thing to do with what you describe as ‘significance to (me)...’ The fact that there can be no significance ‘to me’ is the whole reason insignificance is a term that represents no actuality. PETER: I suppose you know what you mean by what you wrote, but I haven’t got the foggiest idea. I’ll pass on this one ... it’s far too deep for me. * PETER: It was definitely wrong thinking on my part. RESPONDENT: Yes, that it was definitely wrong thinking was established prior to your response. The reason you posit, as your response, for it being wrong thinking is also wrong thinking. PETER: Just so I get a grip on your categorization of thinking here – does this mean that every thought you have is ‘right thinking’ and every thought everyone else has that doesn’t agree with your ‘right thinking’ is ‘wrong thinking’? If this is the case, it does seem to be an infallible approach to dealing with the thinking that goes on in your head. * PETER: The problem I have is that I don’t believe in Gods, let alone creator Gods, and therefore I find it difficult to think rightly in the solipsistic ‘I am all that exists and all that exists is me’ terms. RESPONDENT: *deep bow* Thank you for sharing. PETER: *Mind the keyboard ...* It was a pleasure. RESPONDENT: The problem is that rather than concentrating on answering the questions as offered it is practice to spin off into comments on personality and conclusions about ‘current states’. Respectfully, if the behaviour of believing that it is necessary to engage in discussions of personality, philosophy, and ‘current states’ would be avoided, the problem would not be chosen. PETER: No, the problem in our communication is that ‘I don’t believe in Gods, let alone creator Gods’ ... so your God-man admonishments are meaningless bluster to me. No doubt you have make many cower and scrape but God-speak is like water on a duck’s back to me. * PETER: I know that in your current state you regard all that is physical, palpable, tangible, touchable, seeable, smellable, tasteable and audible as so insignificant as to be illusionary, so writing this to you is as meaningful as trying to sell coloured pencils to a blind man. RESPONDENT: You will be better able to assist, and more honest in your answers, if you will make an effort to avoid drawing imagined conclusions about me. Thank you. PETER: Could you perhaps point out where you think I am being dishonest in my answers, as I have done nothing other than rely on your own words in these discussions? RESPONDENT: *deep bow* Respectfully, there has been no offering that you have been dishonest in your answers. It would be paranoid and defensive to think that there has been. There was the offering:
PETER: *Mind the keyboard ...* What a load of devious codswallop, No 22. I am immune to the typical God-men ploy of diverting any direct questioning of their alluded-to or implied comments by turning on the questioner and then piling on even more alluded-to or implied comments. This type of holier-than-thou trickery doesn’t wash with me – I was played for a sucker for 17 years by God-men who would run rings around you. So I will take your bluff as meaning you don’t chose to reply to my direct question. * PETER: In this case your quoted position is – ‘There is no objective standard defining real/unreal ... There is no objective anything.’ Have you been wrongly misquoted perhaps? RESPONDENT: No. PETER: I have already acknowledged that my thinking was ‘wrong’ in your terms, but that does nothing to alter the fact that you regard all that is physical as being illusionary – i.e. spirit-ual or ethereal in nature. RESPONDENT: *deep bow* Respectfully, I do not regard all that is physical (of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics) as being illusionary. Being respectful of the material under study, I will not offer further explanation of the truth of all that is physical here. PETER: *Mind the keyboard ...* Thank you for not sharing your truth. In my experience God-men tend to get almightily convoluted when they attempt to explain their Truth – that which cannot be described but can only be experienced as a feeling. * RESPONDENT: If you have specific questions about ‘my state’ I will be happy to assist you, however, if I may, I would appreciate not straying too far from the business at hand, namely, completing the advice ‘I thoroughly recommend the study of actualism’, and therewith determine the truth of the world view being called actualism. PETER: I have no questions at all about your stated view of the world. RESPONDENT: Very good, thank you. PETER: You have been unambiguous, forthright and unwavering in your views over several years of correspondence with Richard. RESPONDENT: Yes, that is true. PETER: Yep, very true. Thousands of words ... all objecting to a practical method to rid oneself of malice and sorrow. * PETER: Given that I have already said that actualism is ‘the get-down and get-dirty business of investigating one’s own psyche in action’, any questioning of your beliefs, morals, ethics or exalted state is entirely your business. RESPONDENT: Very Good, thank you. That should also end any further reference to my beliefs, morals, ethics or exalted state for the course of this study, yes? PETER: This latest stricture of yours only confirms the fact that you have zilch interest in the process of actualism. You do realize you are writing on The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List here and that you are busy telling me that I shouldn’t talk about spiritual beliefs, morals and ethics and the exalted state of Godhood. Maybe a mutually agreeable solution would be for you to pretend not to take my comments personally and just ignore them and that way I am not restricted in talking about what the process of actualism is really about. * PETER: As for straying too far from the business at hand, I do note that you have ardently, consistently and repeatedly rejected conducting any ‘self’-questioning of this type, so I fail to see how you can stray from a course you have yet to even consider beginning to undertake. RESPONDENT: The course is to complete the advice ‘I thoroughly recommend the study of actualism’, and there with determine the truth of the worldview (a comprehensive view of the world and human life) being called actualism. At this point, in completing the advice ‘I thoroughly recommend the study of actualism’ and following the advice at the actualism website, there has been no ‘... ‘self’-questioning of this type’ or any type. However, the process of the universe giving rise to the circumstances that resulted in inanimate matter becoming animate matter has been presented, and is now being questioned to assure a clear understanding of the posits of the worldview called actualism. We will of course discuss what you describe as ‘... ‘self’-questioning of this type’ or any type, when it is encountered in the sequence recommended by the text of the AF Website. Now, since the questions:
PETER: You do flutter around a bit. This new question obviously refers to my previous comment –
I see you are back with your obsession as to how or why animate life was created and no doubt, what or who created it. I have already replied that indulging in such philosophical, metaphysical or spirit-ual postulations about an event that, by all the available evidence, initially occurred billions of years ago is of zilch interest to an actualist. You can posit away to your hearts content as you chose, but it does nothing to alter the fact that ‘an event of no little significance’ happened ... and is happening. Diverting to something I wrote in my Journal about this type of questioning may be of relevance to someone interested in actualism –
RESPONDENT:
PETER: To bring the discussion down-to-earth a bit, I see nothing at all random in the earth’s orbit around the sun or the fact that its rotation causes a very reliable and constant cycle of sunlight and darkness that we humans call day and night. Further, the earth’s axis is tilted in relation to the plane of this orbit which gives rise to the regular cyclic 365 day fluctuation that we call the seasons, as in summer, autumn, winter and spring. The moon that orbits the earth has a regular cycle as do the tides of the oceans. Whenever we drop something it falls down to the earth and not up to the sky. I remember being surprised as a child to discover that babies were not the result of a random event – they were only produced by a male human sperm fertilizing a female human egg. I won’t go on as you have probably got the gist of what I am saying. This is very much a cause and effect universe and an actualist’s obsession is in eliminating the cause that produces human malice and sorrow. RESPONDENT:
PETER: Firstly to avoid confusion, I would make it clear that, as far as I can ascertain, the quotes in your posits are your own – random? – quotation marks and do not refer to anything I have written. Secondly, I presume you are talking about inanimate matter becoming animate matter, and if so, how can something that has already happened be the result of random causes? One can only take it as a fact that the circumstances for the event to happen were ripe, otherwise the event would not have happened all those billions of years ago. The very point of actualism is to gaily abandon these useless, senseless and meaningless posits – actualism is about discovering and acknowledging facts in order that one can directly experience the innate purity and perfection of actuality. No 22, so far you’re not studying actualism at all – you are merely following a long tradition of indulging in archetypal philosophical, metaphysical or spiritual questioning that has done nothing but perpetuate human misery and suffering by constantly diverting attention away from the main challenge that the human species faces – eliminating instinctual malice and instinctual sorrow. RESPONDENT:
PETER: I have already made comment on the non-sense of solipsistic viewpoints. But I’ll give it another whirl. In order to ascertain the answer experimentally, stand up from your seat and walk over and stand close to a wall. Then turn your back on the wall so that you no longer have any sensory perception of the wall. Take that same hand you have said you have never really looked at, and being careful to keep looking the other way while you are doing this, punch the wall as hard as you can with the clenched fist of your hand. A sensible person would attribute the characteristic of hardness to the wall before, during and after sensory perception. According to your posit you would only know that the wall had the characteristic of hardness when your hand hurt. Another less personal example is the driver who is looking the other way and doesn’t see the pedestrian – i.e. he or she has no sensory perception of the object – and then hits the pedestrian. The pedestrian’s characteristics remain the same before and after ‘sensory perception’ except that he or she may be a bit bruised and battered. RESPONDENT:
PETER: This makes about as much sense as asking ‘can you find the characteristics of breathing in the material substratum of the lungs’. The function of the lungs is to breathe air in and out. Similarly, the function of the heart is to pump blood around the body. Similarly, the function of the brain is to be the receptor for the sensory system of the body – in fact the senses are stalks or tentacles of the brain – and one of the brain’s functions is to make sense of this sensory input. This function of making sense is called thinking and the body’s awareness of itself being alive and wake is called consciousness. I know these facts may be inconceivable to you but they are facts, all of which can be confirmed experimentally and by direct observation. The process of actualism is aimed at stripping this bodily consciousness free of all of ‘my’ self-centred neuroses and instinctual passions – to eradicate the real but non-actual parasitical alien entity that has taken up residence inside this body, ‘I’ as the thinker and ‘me’ as the feeler. This entity usurps the bodily function of consciousness and claims consciousness for itself – giving rise to the unavoidable and commonly-accepted ‘self’-centred view that ‘I’ am consciousness and ‘I’ am not the body. Actualism is about breaking this stranglehold by undertaking a process aimed at actively diminishing this social and instinctual identity to the point where ‘self’-immolation is the inevitable result The only way to make sense of what I am saying is to remember a pure consciousness experience where the ‘self’-less functioning of consciousness is made startlingly clear simply because there is no psychological or psychic identity whatsoever to be found. RESPONDENT: And the request: If you will, both possibilities (randomness, premeditation ...) can be eliminated from the study if you will confirm that neither randomness, or premeditation, according to the understanding you are of the worldview being called actualism, ‘manifested an event of no little significance...’, with that event being the creation of the circumstances necessary for inanimate matter to become animate matter. Thank you. PETER: We have tracked over this territory a few times already. If your not happy with my previous answers you are welcome to make up your own answers and stick them in your database. RESPONDENT: Have been removed from the discussion after being commented on, but without being answered, may they be organized in the database record of the study with the questions you are unable to answer? Would it be more accurate to categorize them with questions you are unwilling to answer? PETER: It’s your database, No 22. How you organize or categorize your database and what you chose to stick in it is entirely your own business. RESPONDENT: I will await your response and direction for the above questions before processing them further. Once that is completed, I will move on to the next section of the material of the Actual Freedom website. Your assistance in completing the advice ‘I thoroughly recommend a study of actualism’ is greatly appreciated. Love PETER: Yep, you never know, one of these days we might start talking about peace on earth, eliminating malice and sorrow, the animal instinctual passions, the process of ‘self’-immolation, and this astonishing universe that manifested the flesh and blood bodies that you and I really are. We could put our feet up and have a chat about what an extraordinary journey it is to become free of the illusion of grim reality and the delusion of a Greater Reality. I see no reason, given your interest in actualism, why you could not become free of the Human Condition – Richard did it by backing out of his Enlightened state, so there is already a precedent set. The key to actualism is to actively eliminate all that is illusionary and all that is delusionary and cut to the quick of what is actual – this is what is meant by ‘self’-immolation, for neither a ‘self’ nor a ‘Self’ has any actuality whatsoever.
Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom
Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
