Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List
with Correspondent No 22
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 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 –
RESPONDENT: It has been some time since such a study has been undertaken, however, it is found useful to begin such a study with eliciting the assistance of an expert in the subject under study. In the case at hand, the expert assistance was requested and denied.
PETER: Your study has been on-going for years now and I fail to see what continually bleating about Richard declining to ‘assist’ you any further at this time has to do with the point I was making. This carrying on that ‘Richard won’t talk to me’ is of the same ilk as No 12’s trumpeting that ‘Richard won’t meet me’ – it is all a bit schoolyardish given that both of you have continually dismissed and objected to anything that he has written to you. Are you perchance still miffed or are you raising a smoke screen as a diversion from the point I raised – your selective denial of what actualism is really about and your consistent refusal to talk about what actualism is really about?
RESPONDENT: Subsequently expert assistance in a very specific component of the subject under study was offered. To this point said assistance has been helpful if the digressions into extraneous material are reviewed and extracted from the answers provided.
PETER: No No 22. It is you who wants to turn your study of actualism into ‘a study of the worldview called actualism’ or ‘a doctrine; theory; system of principles of what is actual’ or ‘the worldview (a comprehensive view of the world and human life) being called actualism’. This is your own version of what actualism is about and I can post the whole of the post where Richard offered ‘I thoroughly recommend a study of actualism’ to make this even clearer should you want.
You seem intent on pretending to follow this recommendation by insisting on studying something that actualism is not. This is called a straw man argument, as in –
And then, rather than simply acknowledge that you have made a mistake when I pointed out that you twice missed the gist of what actualism is about on the Web-site, let alone over years of correspondence with Richard, you go on complaining that you are not getting the assistance you require either from Richard or me.
Perhaps we can lay this issue to bed by you indulging my digressions into talking about actualism and you can simply snip those bits out of your data bank.
That way you can keep studying worldviews, doctrines, theories and principles and I can write about actualism.
PETER: 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.
RESPONDENT: This is wrong thought. The material you have offered above and that is from the first page of the Actual Freedom Trust website was in fact carefully reviewed and used verbatim as the first page of the study.
PETER: Ah, so you did see it after all. I was evidently the wrong thought that you have missed it, so my posting the sections that explained what actualism is really about was evidently a total waste of pixels.
RESPONDENT: Because the material is offered on the Actual Freedom Trust website prior to the illustrated complete introduction to Actual Freedom, recommended for all newcomers, it is considered a preliminary statement or preface explaining the scope and intention of the material encountered in the study that begins with the illustrated complete introduction to Actual Freedom.
PETER: Not only the ‘scope and intention’ of actualism, but the very gist, or substance, of what actualism is about is presented up-front on the Web-site, in Richard’s words ... and up-front in the Introduction, in my words.
RESPONDENT: Further, because it is a preface, it supposes that any questions that arise from the conclusions offered in it will be answered in the content encountered when following the advice ‘An illustrated complete introduction to Actual Freedom, recommended for all newcomers’.
PETER: Well it’s good you have found both these sections because I had understood from what you were repeatedly saying was that there had been no process or method of actualism mentioned thus far in your study. It does appear from what you are saying now that it ‘was in fact carefully reviewed and used verbatim as the first page of the study.’ At least it is clear to me now that you know what actualism is really about.
RESPONDENT: Please be assured, there is no intention to skip, slight, pass by, over-look, or ignore any of the material that will be encountered while completing the advice ‘I thoroughly recommend a study of actualism’.
PETER: You have now made it very clear that the material – what actualism is really about – not only existed and was not in fact missed but that it ‘was in fact very carefully reviewed’.
PETER: 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: There is no familiarity with the metaphor ‘carrying on like all three wise monkeys rolled into one’, and no ‘Oxford Dons’, nor God-men are known, however, with certainty in can be said that there is no obstinacy (the trait of being difficult to handle or overcome) present.
PETER: Then it all must have been a misunderstanding on my part, no?
RESPONDENT: I am happiness to follow the authority of truth (and I am the assumption that you would have me be the following of no other authority?).
PETER: Speaking personally, I am no fan of the truth as the term is used in the spiritual world.
The Godmen I have known flaunted the word in their Godly work but have all shown by their personal behaviour, words and deeds anything but up-front honesty. All of them blatantly contradicted themselves, all of them hid their private indiscretions from their public, all of them reverted to blaming their followers, all of them cunningly did all they could to further Themselves at the expense of everyone else and all of them took the moral high ground while their off-stage life and relationships were a sham of deceit. From my readings and investigations it appears that these are traits common to all God-men.
As for ‘the authority of truth’ – spiritual truth only has authority if you believe it to be true.
Once you stop choosing to believe, what is factual and actual is increasingly revealed, as layer upon layer of belief and fallacy simply drops away. What is revealed is not grim reality, for that too is a human creation. What is revealed is neither terror nor dread, for these emotions are but instinctual animal passions and these too can be stripped away.
But when you stop choosing to believe, what is in fact revealed is the perfection and purity of the actual world.
RESPONDENT: Further, you needn’t be concerned with me being recalcitrant (stubbornly resisting the authority or control of another, somebody who stubbornly resists authority or control by another).
PETER: You must have a different dictionary to me – I have recalcitrant as meaning stubborn, obstinate, intractable, strongly opposed, headstrong – no mention of authority at all, and none is implied or imposed from my side. I have repeatedly said this is your study, I am simply offering my expertise in both actualism and Spiritualism, so as to freely assist your efforts in the only way I can.
RESPONDENT: Of course, if there is the belief that this is ‘huffing and puffing’ you are welcome to continue to be the concern.
PETER: I couldn’t find that I had used the words ‘huffing and puffing’ as quoted, let alone ‘be the concern’ that I was the belief that what you are doing is huffing and puffing. I simply take your words at face value.
P.S. I did find a ‘blustering and dithering’, if that is of any use to you in the future.
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 AF 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: As was clearly explained above, no aspect of the material has been, is now being, nor will be ignored. The sensible methodology of the study is also clearly explained above. Thank you.
PETER: You have been very clear that you apparently made a Clayton’s mistake when you repeatedly said you didn’t know what actualism was really about because it hadn’t been mentioned thus far in your study of the information on the Actual Freedom Trust website and the Introduction. I have noted that you have now noted that it was mentioned and that you didn’t overlook it, so we can probably move on a wee bit now.
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 – Introducing Actual Freedom –
RESPONDENT: This is wrong thought. Because the above passage ends with ‘... Actual Freedom offers a step by step, down-to-earth, practical progression to becoming actually free of the Human Condition of malice and sorrow – to be both happy and harmless’, it is sensible that the truth of the conclusions offered as the beginning of the passage can be determined by following the step by step, down-to-earth, practical progression that must needs start with the introduction, yes?
PETER: No. What you are following is a step by step, phrase by phrase, philosophical dissection of the words offered which is why your study has bogged down on 17 words thus far.
To follow ‘the step by step, down-to-earth, practical progression to becoming actually free of the Human Condition of malice and sorrow – to be both happy and harmless’ involves ‘the get-down and get-dirty business of investigating one’s own psyche in action’. You have already dismissed this proposition with the statement ‘... I 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.’
Beginning your study with a mind-set and emotional reaction such as this will only ensure that your study of actualism will remain a purely cerebral exercise ... and not a down-to-earth pragmatic one.
PETER: 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.
RESPONDENT: *deep bow*
Respectfully, if in fact ‘methinks’ means that you are in fact the above thought, please be assured that for the term of this study, there is no interest in who or what, as a general question, created animate life.
PETER: *Mind the keyboard*
No, methinks means I think. When I write to you, I am not ‘the thought’, I am this flesh and blood body marvellously able to think and astoundingly able to be aware that I am thinking. To say that I am ‘in fact the above thought’ makes nonsense of these fingers that are typing these very words and the eyes that are reading these words now.
This actual world we humans live in is not a thought creation, nor is it a feeling creation – we only think and feel it is. Actualism is about eliminating the thinker and feeler who by its very spirit-like nature forever feels separate or desperately seeks an imaginary Union with the Whole.
As for ‘for the term of this study, there is no interest in who or what, as a general question, created animate life’ – do I take it that, for the term of this study, you are going to somehow put aside your stated position of being the Creator of life, as in –
If you can manage this, your study may be indeed be useful.
If not, you are absolutely guaranteed to miss the point of what is on offer.
RESPONDENT: There is a specific interest, as is clearly evident by the questions thus far offered, that there is an interest in who or what you, as the understanding you are of the world view called actualism, have determined created animate life.
PETER: I have provided an answer for your database elsewhere, so I won’t bother repeating it here. Besides, now that you know what actualism is really about you will also know that such questions are a digression from the study of actualism. These types of questions have obsessed and tortured the minds of theoretical scientists, philosophers and spiritualists for millennia and done nothing but spawn yet more beliefs, theories and posits ... and yet more God-men espousing that only they know the Truth.
PETER: 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: It seems, does it not, that 3.1 million words is far too many to address directly a question that can be answered in six words (those words being ‘because that is what is chosen’)?
PETER: I presume you are talking of the following exchange –
If this is the case, your six words clearly have nothing to do with the writings on actualism and Actual Freedom.
There have been literally billions of words written about the spiritual ‘choiceless’ path of rising above and beyond the mortal mundane plane into an ethereal spiritual world. This practice of choosing the ethereal Divine over the material Evil has gone on for thousands of years and has done stuff all to bring peace on earth, in fact, it has done nothing but indelibly ingrain into the human psyche the prehistoric mythical concept of Divine Goodness and salvation and Earthly Evil and suffering.
Your so-called choice is an escapist fantasy of your own making which is why after thousands of years human beings are still in an almost constant state of war with each other – both in the West and in the East. What really rocked my socks was reading about the Zen Buddhists who had chosen not to be their bodies and the horrendous result of holding this belief when they went to war. (for evidence see the article on Zen at War http://www.darkzen.com/.
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: If you would, are you meaning to say that the choice to exist as anything other that perfect peace is because there is a choice? If so, the insight is applauded.
PETER: Okay. The Zen Buddhists I referred to above, like you, chose to be perfect inner peace – this is, after all, the very essence of their spiritual practice. It would however be impossible for a sensible person to either ignore or deny their malice as is evidenced by their behaviour (http://www.darkzen.com/).
But then again, all but one spiritualist I have posted the reference to seem to have successfully managed to deny or ignore the evidence, as they have never bothered to respond to it. Given your avowed interest in studying actualism, I will be interested in hearing your comment.
RESPONDENT: *deep bow*
Respectfully, if malice or sorrow and the one is aloof from, separate from, outside of, above and beyond (in other words transcendent of) malice and sorrow and there by can be considered the owner of malice and sorrow can be demonstrated please do so.
PETER: *Mind the keyboard*
I find what you are saying a trifle hard to understand. What you feel and how you deal with your feelings is your business, but your previous comments about your feelings include the following statements –
To me your first comment indicates that you now disown what you previously existed as – which indicates that you have now formed a new right thinking God-man identity, one that is dissociated from your previous wrong thinking malicious and sorrowful identity. Your second comment further muddies the waters and indicates a denial that you have ever been malicious or sorrowful, i.e. never felt angry or never felt sad.
As for your request about demonstrating this to the speaker of the words – I can only make comment and observations based on your own words and on my experience, knowledge and expertise and, as such, what you make of it is entirely your business.
In short, only you can be your own judge of what really goes on in your psyche.
RESPONDENT: Until such demonstration is made, the fact will remain that the only actual choice is to exist as malice and/or sorrow, or not to exist as malice and/or sorrow. Simple, pragmatic, and absolutely actual. If you don’t like it (existing as malice and sorrow), don’t do it, the choice is yours to make.
PETER: It is obvious that I can’t demonstrate anything to you, so I am left wondering why you keep making this challenge.
From what you write about choosing and not choosing it is apparent that at some stage in your life you have made a deliberate choice to deny your negative emotions, or should I say reject them as wrong thinking, and eventually created a new Godman identity, or Self, that is completely dissociated, not only from your previous self, but also from all your fellow human beings and the actual world you live in.
The most obvious proof that the spiritual practice of cultivating a new spiritual dissociated identity does not eliminate malice and sorrow is the mounting evidence that all of the Godmen have been reported as exhibiting anger, annoyance, frustration, sorrow, despair, jealousy, deceit and duplicity. This fact is always ignored or denied by fervent spiritual believers.
In short, the revered Shamans are conmen, playing on the heartstrings of the gullible.
RESPONDENT: If you will please excuse the digression from the study format I would like to ask; is it a premise of actualism that emotions are objective states that can be owned and manipulated?
PETER: Digress away. Personally I find your question both pertinent and incisive.
All normal flesh and blood humans born of a fertilized egg are born with a genetically-encoded set of instinctual passions, the main ones being fear, aggression, nurture and desire. These instinctual passions are experienced as deep-seated emotions, overwhelming desires or impulsive urges, and as such are not at all objective, as in unbiased, impartial, neutral, even-handed, equitable, fair, or just.
The sole purpose of these blind instinctual passions is to propagate and perpetuate the survival of the species, as they are in any form of animate life. As such, these passions are biased, erratic, irrational, compulsive, self-centred, often uncontrollable, often brutish, often debilitating and are never equitable, fair or just. To put it plainly, humans are often overcome by anger, plunged into despair, consumed by greed, compelled to seek revenge, overwhelmed by fear, driven to procreate and impelled to seek power over others.
One does not ‘own’ these passions – they are part and parcel of one’s identity, for these passions form the very core of ‘who’ every instinctual human animal being thinks and feels themselves to be deep-down inside. Thus far the best way to find relief and respite has been to ‘disown’ the undesirable savage passions of fear and aggression and identify only with the desirable tender passions of nurture and desire. However, as both ancient hand current history has clearly evidenced, this practice does not eliminate malice and sorrow – it rather institutionalizes it into a commonly accepted fairytale belief-system of good and evil, Gods and Devils.
Up until now human beings have had only two choices –
One can remain the social identity one was taught to be since childhood and attempt to suppress, control or manipulate one’s instinctual passions, lusts and drives, making the best of one’s lot in life.
If one is sufficiently dissatisfied with this normal existence, or if one is sufficiently appalled by human malice and sorrow, one can deny and dissociate from one’s savage passions and give full reign to one’s tender passions, thereby imagining one’s self to be above and beyond malice and sorrow. This cunning manipulation of the instinctual passions, propagated by the churches, Popes and priests, Godmen and shamans and their eager and willing followers, is an escapist fantasy fuelled by one’s own and other’s impassioned imagination. These spiritual/religious delusions of Grandeur would be an amusing human foible except for the fact that it does stuff all to eliminate the instinctual passions and emotions that are the very cause of human malice and sorrow.
Actualism is a new non-spiritual down-to-earth third alternative to remaining normal or becoming spiritual – a tried and tested method aimed at eliminating one’s own malice and sorrow.
RESPONDENT: The term ‘God-men’ is absurd and refers to no actuality.
RESPONDENT: Thank you, the research is a kind effort. However, the term God-man and the passage sited have no factual relationship. The facts are:
PETER: I totally agree with you the notion that a person can be both God and man is absurd, but nevertheless the East is chock-a-block full of people who think and feel they are God-on-earth. Moreover, this absurdity has now become so fashionable in the West that there are literally thousands of such deluded men, and women, who all believe themselves to be God. Of course they are not actual Gods, but they sure do really truly believe they are and they even manage to convince millions of other human beings that they are It.
I know this well for I was a believer in the power of God-men for 17 years until I saw it was but escapist nonsense given credence only by my fervent need to believe and my willingness to blindly follow.
Goodness knows what you mean by your second point. Your ‘I ... is everything’ conviction while undoubtedly feeling like a fact to you, does mean that it is incomprehensible to you that you are but one of a motley crew of many thousands of God-men who proudly claim their own Divine uniqueness or cunningly find a slot in a lineage of God-men. It is impossible to either see or think clearly while in the grip of impassioned imagination.
As an aside, I heard of an Asian God-man the other day who laid claim to being the re-incarnated brother of Jesus and he even managed to whip up a goodly following of gullible believers to support his Guru-lifestyle.
PETER: 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.
RESPONDENT: *deep bow* Respectfully, it is that the term God-man is absurd (ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable).
PETER: *Mind the Keyboard*. Would you prefer the term Creator-man? Would that be less absurd?
RESPONDENT: Moreover, since ‘A person who is both God and man’ must needs be a flesh and blood mortal human being believing them self to be God-on-Earth, that passage too is absurd.
PETER: But No 22, the spiritual world thrives on absurdity – seemingly the more absurd the better. Have you not been to India, the home of Eastern spirituality? God-men are a dime a dozen, all sorts of spirits and animals are worshipped as sacred and no belief is regarded as too absurd to be held as sacred and sacrosanct.
RESPONDENT: To compound the absurdity, the passage ‘flesh and blood mortal human beings believing themselves to be God-on-Earth’ contains the relatively prevalent mistake in category.
PETER: I can only assume the ‘mistake in category’ would be corrected for you if the passage read ‘flesh and blood mortal human beings believing that the entire cosmos is but the evidence of I’, which would presumably then make the passage no longer absurd but would then make it a profound truth.
PETER: This would be an amusing aberration except for the fact that other human beings are suckered into believing God-men are alive and well, though I hesitate to use the term ‘well’.
RESPONDENT: This is wrong thought. There has never, been, is not now, nor will there ever be God-men.
PETER: Ah, come on No 22. This is a blatant denial of the very raison d’être of the Eastern spiritual search – the very purpose is to realize one’s Essential Nature, one’s True Self, one’s Divine Spirit, to experience Oneness, Wholeness, Unity, to become Divine Love, to realize you are It, to realize you are the Creator, etc.
But then again, this could be just wrong thinking on my part ... yet again. You may well be swanning along in blessed ignorance of this fact or you may be suffering from cognitive dissonance – in hindsight, I know that I was when my intelligence was totally blinded by my fervent beliefs in my spiritual years.
PETER: 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: Wrong thought has lead to an incorrect conclusion. To wit; there may be claims of being God-men, just as there may be claims of being owners of psyches, however, this is no proof of the actuality of either God-men, nor owners of psyches or emotions.
PETER: So I take it that you are saying that although all the God-men may really, really, really think and feel and lay claim to being God on earth, they are not actually Gods, i.e. there is ‘no proof of the actuality’. If so, I agree with you completely.
Don’t you find it amazing how impassioned imagination combined with fervent belief can totally consume the human psyche, both individually and collectively, making even an absurdity feel real and even appear to be real?
RESPONDENT: Acting from the false belief of being a God-man or from the false belief of being the owner of a psyche may result in all manner of behaviour that is directly related to the respective false belief.
PETER: I see we are into the territory of true and false beliefs now. I take it that your Godship is based on true belief and the thousands of other God-men are simply wallowing in false belief. This is a very shaky and subjective line of demarcation because thousands of religious wars have been fought over which God is the true God and which God is a false God.
The nonsensical notion of true beliefs and false beliefs only strengthens the case that holding any spiritual/religious belief whatsoever does nothing to bring about peace on earth – it only perpetuates the senseless battle of the Gods and their hapless followers.
As for the ‘false belief of being the owner of a psyche’, those who truly believe that they no longer own one have in fact inflated their psyche or self to such gigantic proportions that they truly think and feel that ‘I ... is everything’.
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?
RESPONDENT: *deep bow*
An immaculate conception is an absurdity and the term immaculate conception refers to no actuality.
PETER: *Mind the keyboard*
Well, that makes the whole of Christian religions an absurdity for starters. Careful No 22, you could soon demolish every other religion in the world but No 22ism if you keep damning every other belief other than your own as being false or absurd.
But then again, that would put you only one step away from becoming an actualist – by definition, someone who is due to their own life experiences, ready, willing and eager to question their own dearly-held beliefs and cherished emotions.
PETER: 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.
RESPONDENT: No, that was not offered directly or indirectly. What was offered clearly and directly was:
PETER: Again I find this to be convoluted God-speak. Are you saying you have never felt angry and never felt sad? When someone says ‘I have never been ... the desire to harm others’ it seems a bit of a cop-out to me. Whenever I got angry at someone in my life it wasn’t necessarily that I desired to be angry at them, it was that I was overcome by the feeling of anger. Having being taught to be a good boy, I mostly suppressed the feeling but sometimes it would be too quick for me to control or too strong for me to suppress.
Human beings don’t desire to be angry, or sad – they are biologically programmed with an animal fight-and-flight defence mechanism that inevitably results in uncontrollable outbreaks of feelings of malice and sorrow. In fact, if you are willing to dig beneath your social and spiritual conditioning you will find the instinctual passions almost always continuously running.
The only genuine relief from this turmoil is when one has a glimpse of the purity and perfection of the actual world we flesh and blood humans live in, an experience of total ‘self’-lessness known as a pure consciousness experience – the very touchstone for the process of actualism.
PETER: 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.
RESPONDENT: This is wrong thought. What was offered, with no hinting, alluding to, hedging , fudging, ducking, or weaving, carefully done or no, and while actually saying exactly what was meant was ‘...it can be offered that I have never been malice or sorrow’.
PETER: Okay, I’ll retract my statement. It probably ‘contains the relatively prevalent mistake in category’ anyway. From your God-man viewpoint, you are apparently being clear, forthright and unambiguously up-front. Whereas I keep making the mistake of regarding you as a normal human being who is interested enough in actualism to make a study of it by questioning your own beliefs and investigating your own feelings.
RESPONDENT: If there are specific questions about any of the behaviours chosen (behaviours being what is commonly and erroneously referred to as an individual human being) they will be happily and directly answered. That seems, does it not, to be an indication of the behaviours generally chosen?
PETER: No specific questions from my side. I’m pretty clear that you have chosen not to be the behaviour of an individual human being, i.e. malicious and sorrowful, and have chosen to be the behaviour of the collective Cosmos, i.e. omnipotent, omnipresent and ‘Infinitely responsible’. It used to be the only choice other than grim reality but given Richard’s discovery it is hard to even rate it anywhere on a scale from one to a hundred.
What is actual is always infinitely superior to that which is imaginary.
PETER: 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: *deep bow* Thank you for sharing.
PETER: *Mind the keyboard* It’s a pleasure.
The thing I like about having to have an extensive conversation with someone who thinks and feels they are God-on-earth is that gradually their Godly feelings, views and attitudes become very clear. Despite the difficulties I find in deciphering some of your phrasing and philosophical terms, I do get the gist of what you are saying.
This type of conversation would not have been possible at any time in the past for it would be unthinkable even for a follower to have such a public, on-record, live, uncensored, one-on-One conversation – let alone for the one to be able to ask personal questions and mutually investigate the beliefs of the One.
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.
RESPONDENT: Respectfully, the statement is performative contradiction. If there was no choice, this conversation could not take place. There would be no-thing to discuss.
PETER: I’ll have to pass on this one. I looked up performative and came up with –
I started to think about performative contradictions but soon realized that you are digressing off into philosophy and/or linguistics and I have neither knowledge nor interest in either of these fields.
Your comment makes no sense to me because I had no choice but to be born as an instinctual human animal given that I, this flesh and blood body, am the direct result of a sperm fertilizing and egg.
Do you know the expression ‘before I was even a glint in my mothers eye’? Well, I did not begin to exist until my father’s sperm entered my mother’s egg and cells started to multiply as programmed by the DNA coding present both in the cells of the sperm and the cells of the egg. Nowadays scientists are even beginning to identify and track genetically-encoded common-to-all survival instincts – the automatic instinctual behaviour that we human animals share with other animals, most notably that of our closest genetic cousins, the chimps. Are you denying these biological facts?
As you well know by now, the choice that I am talking about is the choice that humans now have of becoming fully aware of all of their feelings, emotions and passions and thus bring them to the bright light of awareness where they can, with diligence and persistence, eventually disappear along with one’s whole psychological and psychic identity.
To put it plainly – the choice to eradicate every skerrick of ‘self’-ishness and every skerrick of malice and sorrow from me, this flesh and blood body.
PETER: To continue on from 17 words cont ... Pt. 1 Subreply A ...
Every human being created via the process of a sperm fertilizing an egg is born with a genetically-encoded set of survival instincts.
RESPONDENT: There are several errors in the above passage. If I may:
PETER: Yep, it’s clear you are denying biological facts. The Pope holds this same Godly viewpoint of ‘no human being is created via the process of sperm fertilizing an egg’, which is why he condemns contraception as interfering in God’s work of creating even more Catholics in order that the Catholic God can become even more powerful. The Catholic God, via his earthly spokesman, the Pope, beseeches Catholics to ‘choose’ to do God’s work in bringing forth more good Catholic spirits into the world, thus making the Catholic God even stronger and mightier. With entrenched spiritual/religious beliefs like these it is no wonder that the greatest environmental threat – overpopulation – is never squarely and honestly tackled.
The Eastern versions of human creation are a bit more convoluted but it all boils down to the same thing – human beings are really truly only ethereal spirits passing through a temporary grim nightmare-like existence on earth. In the East, the only way out of this earthly suffering is to realize that ‘who’ you really truly are is pure spirit only and as you trip off down this path eventually you may even realize ‘who’ you really truly are is God Himself or Herself.
Human beings bestowing Godship on themselves is a massive delusion that requires an equally massive denial of the facts of how human beings are created.
PETER: I see that that you have progressed from human beings being a process or behaviour to human beings being a ‘process of behaviour’. It seems that you will say anything and do anything to avoid acknowledging facts and experiencing actuality.
Just to bring things down to earth a bit. The next time you see a big dog, go up to him and kick him really hard. As he either cowers and runs away or turns and sinks his teeth in to you, you may notice that he instinctively reacted to your kick. If you did the same thing with a human being you would see the same automatic instinctual reaction. To wit: human beings are born pre-programme with the same animal instinctual reactions as other animals.
If you have had children – and if you have presumably you had to put that dangly bit between your legs to use to have them – you may have noticed that by the age of about two they started to show signs of being aggressive for no apparent reason and even to become sad for no apparent reason. These emergent emotions and behaviour are common to all children because they are genetically-encoded instincts and not, as is commonly believed, because their innocence is corrupted by being in the material world or that they have begun to forget their true God nature.
Once you find and acknowledge the root cause of a reoccurring problem you can begin to work towards eliminating it – if you continue to deny the cause of the problem the best you can do is a make-shift, work-around, make-do fix that does nothing to eliminate the problem itself.
PETER: And the trap for young players in this statement is that you have chosen not to be an individual human being because you have chosen to be a God-man. Thus, as God, you firstly chose to be ‘survival instincts’ and then you chose to remember what you have forgotten – that you really are a God-man. This does beg the question as to why you chose to be ‘survival instincts’ in the first place?
Why did you choose to waste all those years of Godship? If you are the creator of the entire Cosmos why did you play such a game with yourself and, more to the point, why do you put everyone else you have created through the same loops. After all, choosing to be ‘survival instincts’ is no fun, you know. Last century 160,000,000 ‘survival instincts’ died in wars, over 1,000,000,000 were affected by war and an estimated 40,000,000 ‘survival instincts’ killed themselves in suicides.
How many people need to pray to you before you will personally bring an end to this senseless slaughter you have created?
PETER: From the Introduction to Actual Freedom, just a little further on from the 17 words you are so fixated on –
RESPONDENT: A mistake in category, previously discussed as being addressed when it is encountered in the text under study, is evident in this passage. If I may, because this passage comes from the next section of the text to be studied, I suggest that it be pulled from this long thread and be discussed under separate post. This would give us opportunity to explore the mistake in category in detail and determine what impact it may have on the remainder of the study. If you are agreeable to this only slight digression, please post me back and we can proceed as outlined. If you have suggestions for organization of the study of the above passage, I am sure the study would benefit from them being shared. Thank you.
PETER: Okay, but you have already denied, negated or refuted everything that is written in this passage. If you feel the need to troop over it again and pretend to study it, it is your business ... and your study.
PETER: 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.
RESPONDENT: Respectfully, if a biological imperative (having the power or authority to command or control), and that which is aloof from, separate from, outside of, or above and beyond (in other words transcendent of), said biological imperative and thereby in position to be under the authority, command or control of said biological imperative can be demonstrated, please do so.
PETER: I’ll pass on this one. Your defence is rock solid – as you have repeatedly and consistently demonstrated, a belief in one’s own omnipotency and omnipresence makes one immune to common sense.
Just an aside – a biological imperative is not ‘having the power or authority to command or control’.
Therefore it can be easily understood that biology, in the form of the DNA-encoded instinctual programming, demands certain actions that must be performed in order for any animal to survive in a dog-eat-dog world.
Human beings now have the free choice to undertake to eliminate that redundant programming ... if they so desire.
PETER: 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.
RESPONDENT: Perhaps so, there is not familiarity with the Good Spirit/ Evil Spirit fairy story or any spiritual belief that relies on that fairy story.
PETER: Just a brief scan through your correspondence with Richard came up with two direct quotes of yours about good and evil –
PETER: Sounds to me like good olde-time religion.
RESPONDENT: It can be said, however, that the necessity to believe in the myth of the direct cause and effect relationship between the ill conceived fallacy of genetically encoded instinctual passions and malice and sorrow seems to be in fact the lynchpin of the world view called actualism.
PETER: Even you acknowledged a ‘direct cause and effect relationship between the ill conceived fallacy of genetically encoded instinctual passions and malice and sorrow’ in your own obtuse way – ‘the term ‘survival instincts’ and the term ‘human being’ refer to the same behaviour’. Either the behaviour of human beings is due to the genetically encoded survival passions or they are the result of good and evil – or should I say the result of good and ‘good tortured by its own hunger and thirst’?
You seem to be now fudging a bet either way as to how you created the Cosmos – depending upon which way the wind blows.
RESPONDENT: Though there is no reason to imagine anything as violent as ‘pulling the rug out from under’ any world view that depends on the myth of the direct cause and effect relationship between the ill conceived fallacy of genetically encoded instinctual passions and malice and sorrow, it does seem that with the myth exposed, there would need be an re-evaluation of that which is built around it, yes?
PETER: And not only that. You will have to tell all those scientists who are mapping the genes and establishing direct cause and effect relationships that they will need to re-evaluate, or recant, their findings as well. Religious/spiritual fanatics have always fought to discredit and dismiss scientific fact but they have always eventually lost the battle.
Denying fact is ultimately a futile exercise, but it would be foolish of anyone to underestimate the ferocity of the spiritualists’ stubborn resistance. It is both legendary and well-documented.
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.
RESPONDENT: *deep bow* The word malice is taken to mean:
The word sorrow is taken to mean:
Again, with no hinting, alluding to, hedging , fudging, ducking, or weaving, carefully done or no, and while actually saying exactly what was meant was ‘...it can be offered that I have never been malice or sorrow’.
PETER: The definitions you provide are somewhat restricted. Malice, for instance, is not a desire to be freely chosen or not chosen – it is an instinctual passion, a drive, an imperative, a compulsion that ultimately overrides any attempt at control, suppression or transcendence.
[From the Introduction]:
Peter: The history of Humanity, both past and present, is essentially a history of continuous warfare between various tribal groups on the basis of territorial disputes, religious and ethical differences or acts of retribution.
Human malice is much more vindictive and vicious than the innate aggression obvious in other animal species due to human inventiveness, cunning. Furthermore in the human animal much hatred, bigotry and spite is also passed down from generation to generation as a social conditioning that is layered on top of our instinctual animal passion for aggression.
There is no evidence that human malice is abating – quite the contrary. This last century has been the bloodiest and most savage to date. To call the brief periods of ceasefire that occur between human wars and conflicts ‘peace’ is to completely misuse the word.
These are indeed the Savage Times.
Over 160,000,000 people were killed by other people in wars in the last century ...
Over 1 billion people have been affected by warfare in the last 20 years alone. The Red Cross Society
Again your definition of sorrow makes no mention of emotional suffering and refers only to direct cause and effect circumstances whereas we all know that sorrow is a deep-seated emotion that can overtake us for no apparent reason. Again from The Introduction –
Peter: The other major feature of the Human Condition is the underlying feelings of sorrow and despair that continually threatens to overwhelm human beings. As humans, we are all subject to physical dangers, ill-health, accidents, earthquakes, floods, fires, etc. which can cause loss and pain. But to have, and actively indulge in, emotional suffering additional to the hardship is to compound the situation to such an extent that the resulting feelings are usually far worse than dealing with the facts of the situation.
To be conscious beings, aware of our emotional suffering is held as the distinction between us and the rest of the animal world. As such, sorrow, sadness and despair are accepted as an integral unchangeable part of the Human Condition, and suffering is even lauded as a noble trait. To suffer rightly or deeply is held in high esteem and often evokes a bitter-sweet feeling. Compassion and empathy – our readiness to share in the sorrow of others and willingness to feel pity for others – are also universally held in high esteem for the solace and bitter-sweet feelings evoked.
Human sorrow is based on the feelings of separation, loneliness, fear and dread and many people know only too well the sorrowful spiral downwards from melancholy to sadness, depression, despair and eventually to suicidal feelings.
These are indeed the Sad Times.
Over 40 million people have killed themselves in suicides in the last century
Murder, rape, corruption, domestic violence, retribution, despair and suicide are endemic in the human species
Murder, rape, corruption, domestic violence, retribution, despair and suicide are also endemic in our closest genetic ‘cousins’.
PETER: But I do note your important point that you ‘have never owned’ these feelings – a concise description of being in a dissociated state.
RESPONDENT: This is wrong thought. If you will please read: ‘I have never been separate from what I exist as to ‘own’ any-thing’ you will see it is absurd to offer that there is any ‘...concise description of being in a dissociated (to remove from association; separate) state.’ A concise description of a dissociated state must needs include some element of being aloof from, separate from, outside of, or above and beyond (in other words transcendent of) the state there is dissociation from.
PETER: Okay. So now what you are saying should read ‘I have never been separate from’ malice and sorrow, so therefore ‘it can be offered that I have never been malice or sorrow’ . You have also said quite clearly – ‘I have existed as fear, doubt and aloofness, although, and this is important, I have never owned what I existed as.’
I simply put two and two together and assumed that you also meant you ‘never owned’ your feelings of malice and sorrow. It was you who made the point important and I took it as being an important point that would relate to all of your feelings.
But I get your comprehensive drift now – you have never been separate from your feelings of malice and sorrow, you have never been the feelings of malice and sorrow, and you have never owned your feelings of malice and sorrow.
I can now acknowledge that seeing you as being in a dissociated state might well be wrong thinking – what you are describing does seem to be more like dissociata complexia, bordering on paronomasia.
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?
RESPONDENT: If you are asking am I responsible for being the behaviour called human, than yes, of course I am. If you are suggesting that the behaviour called human being can be responsible for any-thing, no, a behaviour can not be responsible for any action, or be the cause of any action.
PETER: This one took me a while to sort out, but I think I’ve got it. You said just above that ‘behaviours being what is commonly and erroneously referred to as an individual human being’, so I take it from this that ‘Infinitely responsible’ means that you are not responsible for individual human being behaviour ... such as your own.
This type of God-man shuffle gives rise to God-men excusing their own anger as Divine anger, their own sadness as Divine com-passion, their own wrath as the wrath of God, their own lust for power as God’s will and their own self-ish desire to ensnare loving disciples as doing Divine work.
If you take this I am ‘Infinitely responsible’ but not individually responsible position then it becomes apparent that you are making a mockery of the very word responsible.
Further you go on to say a ‘behaviour called human being’ cannot be responsible for any action, which does leave me wondering who or what causes all the murders, rapes, tortures, domestic violence, child abuse, suicides, corruption and wars on the planet ?
PETER: 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.
RESPONDENT: *deep bow*
Thank you for sharing. If you mean to suggest that the wrong thought ‘I am not responsible for peace on earth ...’ would be used, allow me to offer, no, it would not. I am infinitely responsible for peace as earth, and equally responsible for any lack of peace as earth.
PETER: *Mind the keyboard*
Okay. Your stated state is
Despite the omnipotence and omnipresence clearly implied in this grandiose declaration of Godship you now cop-out on being responsible for peace on earth, or the lack of peace on earth by bringing in a nonsensical ‘peace as earth’ concept.
Have you ever seen two rocks fighting each other? Have you ever seen a stand of trees having an argument? Have you ever seen a river blaming a cloud for not raining, or raining too much? Certainly animals cannot be said to co-exist together in peace for it is literally a dog-eat-dog world. Having struggled to the top of the food chain in a remarkable short time span, the human animal species is now at the point where it either eliminates the senseless animal instinctual survival passions that got it to the top, thus ensuring its survival ... or it will wipe itself off the face of the earth with its sophisticated weapons of mass destruction.
But then again, if you believe that you really truly are a spirit just temporarily passing through an earthly existence, you will have neither interest in, nor be at all inclined to do anything about, peace on earth.
PETER: 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: This is wrong thought. The behaviour of speaking can cause no intimidation, enthralling, enrapturing or ensnaring. A behaviour can be the cause of no action. One may choose to be intimidated, enthralled, enraptured or ensnared, but one is infinitely responsible for being that behaviour. The only cop out, as it were, is perpetrating the lie that it was the behaviour of speech that was responsible. This fact should be obvious based on the observation that it is possible not to be the behaviour of being intimidated, enthralled, enraptured or ensnared inherent in the offering; ‘...but to an actualist it only speaks of a dissociated cop-out’.
PETER: Ah, No 22. Any good spiritualist knows that the words are not the thing but that it is the feeling they convey that is important.
People don’t go to church for the words, they go for the feeling. People don’t sit in front of a Master for the words – they do it for the feel-good blessed-out feeling they get. People don’t go to a spiritual therapist for the words, they go for solace and succour.
Start talking to any spiritualist about the sense of the words that their master used and they get all defensive or evasive and eventually come up with declaring that the word is not the thing, it is the feeling or secret message that is important. This is precisely why spiritual words are couched in evasive and evocative terms such as poetry, legend, myth, fable, koan and mind-bending contradiction.
God-speak is anything but straight talking.
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? – ‘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.’ 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.
RESPONDENT: Forgive please, but perhaps you mean ‘disdain’ (to regard or treat with haughty contempt; despise) ? Distain, the word offered, is to tinge with a different colour from the natural or proper one; to stain; to discolour; to sully; to tarnish; to defile; – used chiefly in poetry. Regardless, certainly you are the freedom to regard the offerings in any manner you wish. Never forgetting, of course, that you are infinitely responsible for that regard.
PETER: I’ll pass on being tarnished with your ‘infinitely responsible’ brush.
One of the first steps an actualist must take is to become totally responsible for his or her own malice and sorrow and, even more importantly, the effects it has on the other human beings he or she comes in contact with.
RESPONDENT: If I may, it seems quite clear from the demeanour of the entire conversation there is no contempt present. As was offered at the beginning of the conversation, there will be no attack on the world view being called actualism. To study the world view called actualism is what I have been encouraged to do.
PETER: No, that is incorrect. We have been down this line so many times before I am amazed that you are still running with it. Richard’s comment was [quote]: ‘... and I thoroughly recommend a study of actualism’. [endquote]. It is you who have made your study into something other than what was recommended. Even when I pointed out to you what actualism is really about you still stubbornly keep on keeping on repeating your mistake.
Infallibility must be a bitch to live with.
RESPONDENT: Actualism’s strengths and deficiencies will be revealed without viewing actualism as an enemy to be defeated, and I will add, nor to be despised.
PETER: Given that your study has been going on for years now, can I ask if you have found any strengths yet?
If you haven’t found any by now it does seem that you are flogging a dead horse by continuing your study of ‘the world view being called actualism’.
PETER: 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’.
RESPONDENT: This is wrong thought. There has been no indication of a lack of interest, per se, or directly, offered save for the statement ‘...I have zilch interest in indulging in meaningless dialogues with recalcitrant defenders of their own personal version of Godship’. And that self-assured statement of direct lack of interest has been rendered a rather weak and uncommitted piece of puffery by the continued digressions into soliloquies on God and God-men.
PETER: Ah, No 22. You still miss the very reasons for my digressions.
The God-men and God-women have sat on their podiums and sprouted their truths for millennium and nothing, but nothing, has ever changed. Human beings are still incapable of living together in peace and none more so than the religious/spiritual people. After thousands of years people are still praying for forgiveness and salvation to mythical Gods and long dead God-men, all the while ignoring or denying the fact that it is their own dearly-held animal passions that is the root cause of malice and sorrow.
Actualism is about eliminating one’s own malice and sorrow and the first crucial step is to stop waiting for Godot ... or believing in God-men.
Far from being ‘puffery’, my ‘soliloquies’ are naught but facts sprinkled with my personal experiences of 17 years of intimate investigations of the inner workings and failings of the spiritual world.
RESPONDENT: The fact of that matter is that although it was totally unplanned for in the methodology prepared for this study, the truth of the world view being called actualism is being presented as the behaviours you are being. Certainly more questions are being answered by the behaviours that result from acting from the belief that one is an actualist than are being satisfied by directly attending to the questions as asked.
PETER: It does seem to be a massive diversion from following the recommendation [Peter]: ‘and I thoroughly recommend a study of actualism’ [endquote] to now choosing to focus your study on my behaviour, but it’s your study and your methodology. It does sound a bit like the old ‘if you don’t like the message, shoot on the messenger’ ploy, but no doubt this would only be wrong thinking on my part.
RESPONDENT: If you were referring to the offering ‘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.’ as an indication of lack of interest, that would be further wrong thought. To wit: the statement was preceded with a statement of interest, specifically: ‘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.’ In fact, there is great interest in such a demonstration and if you are feeling more willing to make the demonstration now, please do so.
PETER: That’s not a statement of unfettered genuine open-minded interest. No matter how you try to sweeten it up, that’s a heavily qualified statement that reeks of schoolboy defiance. How is it possible for anyone to demonstrate anything to you given that you repeatedly refuse to take on board what is being said and have repeatedly done so for several years now?
I already have said –
I may be naive in talking to you ... but I am not so gullible as to believe I can demonstrate anything to someone who believes themselves to be omnipresent and omnipotent. That’s a mug’s game.
To put it straightforwardly – you can stop being greatly interested.
RESPONDENT: I am the thought, however, the whole arrangement of a psyche and of one owns that same said psyche may be based on the same type of incorrect thought that results in the myth of the direct cause and effect relationship between the ill conceived fallacy of genetically encoded instinctual passions and malice and sorrow. This very same kind of incorrect thought arises in several other commonly observed behaviours.
PETER: Your comment leaves me thoughtless.
PETER: 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.
RESPONDENT: This is wrong thought. There is a great deal of sharing taking place. It is true that there is a general unwillingness or inability to provide direct answers to the questions offered, however, there is great enjoyment of the conversation and all the insight it provides.
PETER: I’ve commented on the spiritual notion of sharing elsewhere, so I won’t go into it here.
I am still of the view that if I said the sky is blue you would tell me that it was ‘wrong thinking’ and a ‘relatively prevalent mistake in category’ or ‘an ill conceived fallacy’, which leads me to repeat that we have nothing in common and little to share.
RESPONDENT: During the time of this reply there has been a re-evaluation of the methodology originally followed for this study. Trying to distil the information offered into data that will easily translate into a working database has been eliminated. In its place a more open format has been initiated. The study, rather than being a direct question and answer format with direct answers being made part of a formal, and somewhat ‘objectified’ database, will include a discussion group that will consider the behaviour that is being offered and reach general conclusions about the world view being called actualism based on said behaviour.
PETER: So, you are planning a formal group-evaluation of my behaviour. I am curious as to why this evaluation is to be a group effort? Do you seek support, confirmation, wider ranging opinions, different opinions or viewpoints, strength in numbers ...? Just curious as to your sudden change of tack.
No 12, for one, may be willing to participate in your discussion group and, as he already has reached a firm conclusion, his participation may even speed up this new study. I don’t know about any others on the list. It might be that you may even have to round up a few participants to join the list in order that they can actively participate in your discussion group.
RESPONDENT: The common assumption among the discussion group is that since there is a claim to be an expert in the process of actualism that the behaviour offered must needs be the result of acting from the belief that you are an actualist, ergo, the behaviour offered is that of an actualist.
PETER: Maybe you can even round up some psychologists, psychiatrists and therapists who are experts in behavioural studies to aid your new study?
RESPONDENT: This format will allow the digressions into extraneous material to be viewed as a resource to the study rather than a deficit to the effort.
PETER: Sounds excellent to me.
RESPONDENT: The questions that have been answered directly will be utilized and included in the resulting report and are very greatly appreciated, thank you.
PETER: So I take it you are wrapping up your study of actualism and moving on to studying the behaviour of an actualist.
This obviously means that it doesn’t matter what I say from now on about actualism because it is how I say it that will be evaluated.
That does have a familiar spiritual ring to it.
PETER: I know you are still busy starting to collect data about your invented worldview of actualism, as in – ‘the response to the question will be recorded as offered in the database component of the study’ but all of this data can easily be found on the Actual Freedom Trust website. There is even a Glossary available which specifically addresses the definition of words and terms commonly used in actualism. 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: Thank you for the suggestion. Your concern is kind.
PETER: I see my suggestion has not been taken up as you have now abandoned your personal study of actualism in favour of some sort of group inquisition. Sounds far out to me ... and getting even further out.
RESPONDENT: If I may, would you please supply your response to the above suggestion that the offering beginning: ‘From the Introduction to Actual Freedom, just a little further on from the 17 words you are so fixated on’ be segregated and taken up as a discussion of a mistake in category?
PETER: As it is only my behaviour that is to be studied from now on, it obviously doesn’t matter what we discuss so I’m happy for you to lead with whatever you want, I’ll digress as the whim takes me, and the group can score the points.
How’s that for you?
Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.