|
Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List with Correspondent No 22
PETER: Hi, You posted the following article to the list without any comment form you –
I then responded to the article’s summary – The author’s ‘suggestion’ does beg the question as to why the most watched offerings of the entertainment industry – be they films, books, television, games, sport, music or the like – are those that portray violence and conflict as well as those that convey sorrow and loss? Does this not say much about the human condition that malice and sorrow is popular entertainment? RESPONDENT: Before speculating about the reasons ‘why the most watched offerings of the entertainment industry – be they films, books, television, games, sport, music or the like – are those that portray violence and conflict as well as those that convey sorrow and loss?’ Does this not say much about the human condition that malice and sorrow is popular entertainment?’ There are two quick questions. If I may please, is this offering intended as a serious response to the article? PETER: I must admit I did not check the bona fides of the authors of the article. Was the article not meant to be serious? RESPONDENT: The article was offered as it was found. Not knowing the intention of the article, it is impossible to say whether or not it was serious. The question, however, was the response to the article intended to be serious? It will be assumed that the continued additions to the conversation indicate that the question is answered affirmatively. Thank you. PETER: Trying to have a sensible straightforward conversation with you is somewhat akin to attempting to walk across a vat of treacle in bare feet. Why did you post the article to this list if you have no idea of the intent of the article? And you claim this despite it’s clear title and then say you do not know whether or not it was serious. A reasonable man or woman would assume that anyone posting an article to this list would be either offering something up for discussion or was using it to try to make a point, in other words that they knew the intent of the article. * RESPONDENT: And if in fact it is intended to be a serious response, why did you choose to title the communication ‘Blaming Others’? PETER: Because the title of my comment was appropriate to the author’s thrust in the article. RESPONDENT: Ahhh! Because an answer to the above question was dependent on the original response being serious, the assumption of seriousness can be supplanted with surety that it is so. Thank you. PETER: A pleasure, No 22. Asking someone if their response is serious can sometimes be seen as sarcasm, but in your case it seems that you find difficultly in taking whatever I write at face value. I am being sincere for I found the topic of the article ‘Are Human Beings Killers?’ worthy of sincere in-depth discussion, which is why I made comment about it. RESPONDENT: In response to the conclusion that the authors’ thrust was in some manner related to blaming others, would you please assist me in seeing from where the conclusion is drawn? I have re-read the article and leave it with the impression that the authors’ thrust was to discuss the alleged wide discrepancy between the actuality of battlefield attitudes and those played out in productions of the entertainment industry. As an example we can look at a portion of the quote you have included for reference:
If there is interest, would you also include some further explanation whom you conclude is being blamed, and whom is doing the blaming? Thank you. PETER: I don’t see how I can assist you at all in this matter. If you can’t see the relevance, then no amount of words on my part will help. * PETER: I see from your comment to Gary that your interest in this topic has already waned but I would add the following comment for others who may be interested in the topic. RESPONDENT: You do? In exactly which topic do you see that my interest has waned? Respectfully, if you re-read the offering you refer to, you will perhaps see that the comment to Gary was about a very specific topic. PETER: Indeed it was very specific, even to the point of being pedantic. To quote the very specific topic you were interested in pursuing –
I can see why you lost interest in the topic. * PETER: Every human being is genetically encoded with an aggressive instinctual passion and every human being is taught to keep a lid on this passion by a combination of reward for being good or punishment for being bad. Those who succeed in repressing their aggression are then deemed to be good whilst those who fail to repress their aggression within socially acceptable levels are deemed to be bad or evil and are then punished for erring. Any gross failure in repressing this innate instinctual aggression results in punishment by laws ranging from fines to imprisonment and even execution in some societies. What I did was dig beneath my social programming and discovered my instinctual animal lust for aggression. By doing so I was able to confirm by direct experience the fact that, at core, the human condition of malice and sorrow is entirely the result of the instinctual passions – and not some mysterious evil force or spirits as is commonly believed. Many people have experienced, at some time in their lives, a lust to kill or maim – be it in a fit of jealousy, a desire for revenge or retribution, the urge to obliterate – but most do not physically act on the urge. But even if the passion remains repressed and not acted upon, any malicious feelings that one becomes aware of are the tip of an iceberg – signs of the repressed instinctual passion for aggression bubbling to the surface of awareness. The authors of the article imply that only very few people – four percent of men in their opinion – have a lustful passion for aggression whilst the rest have a ‘different nature from the one portrayed in war films’. This conclusion can only have been reached by someone who has yet to either acknowledge or investigate his or her own malicious feelings and thus experience what is in fact at the root of the evil that has forever blighted humanity. RESPONDENT: It can? Would you please help me to see the mutual exclusivity of ‘acknowledging or investigating his or her own malicious feelings’ and the acceptance of presumed facts about the battlefield attitudes of others? And, if there is interest, would you please provide more details about whom, or what investigates; and whom or what is investigated in the offering: ‘acknowledge or investigate his or her own malicious feelings’? Thank you. PETER: Again, I don’t see how I can be of help to you. I was simply making a comment about the broad thrust of the article – malice in human beings – whereas you only want to steer the conversation into very specific topics, topics very specifically of your own choice. I’ve been down this track with you before and experience tells me that the conversation only leads further away from being a sincere in-depth discussion and very rapidly gets bogged down in non-sensical semanticism and doctinarial pedanticism. I also know from experience that many people suffer from what could be described as spiritually-induced aphasia and that no amount of appeals to common sense can entice them to take off their rose coloured glasses, put their dearly-held beliefs aside for a bit, and have a straightforward conversation about what it is to be a human being. * PETER: Whilst I admit it does take a certain courage to dare to examine one’s own dark side, at the very least it may help one to break free of the craving to self-righteously blame others for all the evil in the world. RESPONDENT: Ahhhh! There is, as I remember, a refreshing feeling that accompanies the recognition of the foolishness of blaming others for the experience one is being. I do not, however, remember any particular courage necessary to develop the recognition. Courage, as I remember, was more necessary to the effort to face each day before recognizing the said foolishness. A pleasure to communicate with you Good Friend Peter. Be well. PETER: That’s all very well, but you are speaking of the spiritual recognition of the Truth whereby a shift of identity happens and a new re-born identity now feels itself to have transcended the afflictions that other mere mortals suffer from. I agree with you that it doesn’t require any particular courage to do this, it’s merely the common and garden cop-out offered by Eastern spiritualism. As a rough rule of thumb, spiritualist’s have only ever experienced a few passions deeply, usually those of despair and fear. These experiences then scare them so much that they instinctually clutch for the traditional social elixirs, the feelings of hope and bliss. Provided they remain fanatical about suppressing and/or denying their dark side they can eventually ‘ see the Light’ on a some-what regular basis, or in some rare cases, even become ‘the Light’ themselves. To expect someone who is so immersed in, and identified with, such altered states of consciousness experiences to have an interest in examining the dark side of human nature is foolish because it takes a certain courage to dare to examine one’s own dark side. The first step in being able to examine one’s own dark side is to be able to acknowledge that you have a dark side – something we have been taught by carrot and stick never, never, ever to do. For those who have a hefty personal investment in being Good, or in being God – be it kudos, fame, glory, or simply making a living out of it in some way – the idea of backtracking can be quite daunting because they fear they will only end up in despair and fear again – the very feelings they sought to escape from. This fear is unfounded because what actualism offers is a method of coming here to the actual world, a paradisiacal world of sensual pleasure, innocence and delight. Everybody has briefly experienced the actual world at some stage in their lives. Often in childhood, despite our own instinctual malice and sorrow, we had occasional glimpses of the magic and purity that is this physical world we humans live in. In hindsight, I can recognize that as I became an adult I always had an unquenchable yearning for those innocent experiences of perfection that had sometimes occurred in childhood – sometimes as flashes of intimate mateship with another or sometimes as what is termed nature experiences. When I came across Richard and discovered that he lived this innocence, but with all his adult sensibilities fully intact, I was intrigued. When it became clear that the belief that we are born innocent and only corrupted by our parents, evil forces, or the like, or that suffering and evil are essential parts of some Grand Plan, was based on ancient ignorance and superstition, I was fascinated. When Richard talked about the purity and perfection of the actual world, it rang a bell with me because I remembered having had similar experiences myself – and when he explained how it was possible to live that experience as a constant on-going experience, I knew I could never settle for second best, no matter what. I do acknowledge that what goes on in one’s own head and the heart can be tough stuff to sort out. All human beings, through no fault of their own, live their lives either trapped within the real-world or within the spiritual world ... or within both, which is most often the case. Actualism offers a way out of being imprisoned in these psychological and psychic worlds and all the help you need to become free is available on the Actual Freedom Trust website. If you want to discuss the process of actualism or the delights of the actual world, you have my ear, but if you come to this list not to listen and discuss but to preach and pontificate the virtues of the spiritual world, I’ll pass, because I’ve been there and done that and found it to be rotten to the core.
PETER: With reference to the text you forwarded to this list which was sourced from the Creation Evidence Museum,
I am left wondering why you are now posting posts from a fundamental Christian group’s virulent crusade against scientific fact. Have you converted to Christianity, perchance? It took the Catholic church some 400 years to begrudgingly acknowledge the fact that the earth revolves around the sun and some 150 years to again ignore the Bible, reluctantly accept the facts and declare that evolution could be seen as the way in which God goes about being creative within the world. The Creationists in the U.S., however, choose to take what the Bible says to be literally true and insist that the Christian God created the world in 6 days, some 6,000 years ago. The Christian Church succeeded in prohibiting the teaching of anything that contradicted the Bible in most American schools until the 1960’s but common sense eventually prevailed as the biological, geological, anthropological and archaeological evidence to the contrary became so overwhelming. Nevertheless, the fundamentalists were in no mood to compromise, as the Catholics did, and instead they cooked up a pseudo scientific Creation Science, demanding that it be taught in schools and universities alongside the physical evidence-based sciences. This challenge went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where it was decided that the science curriculum could only include evidence-based teachings and that Creationism did not fit this criteria. The battle between faith and science is a fascinating on-going battle. Much of scientific theory is heavily influenced by faith – as can be readily seen by the influence of Eastern mysticism on the theoretical sciences of quantum physics and cosmology – and much of faith has bent over backwards to either accommodate and/or assimilate evidence-based science into their ancient beliefs and we have even seen spawning of many new pseudo-scientific religions. All this conflict, compromise and confusion is but the current episode in an eons-old attempt reconcile the irreconcilable – faith and facticity, belief and common sense, passion and intelligence, the super-natural and the natural. This battle on-going has always been fought solely on the spiritually-led agenda of good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, spiritualism vs. materialism, meaning vs. meaningless, hope vs. despair, consciousness vs. ignorance, and so on. And the battle is even more complicated by the fact that there are over twelve hundred reported Gods and untold spiritual faiths on the planet, each with their own version of the Truth. This plethora of spiritual belief in itself is the cause of yet another battle that wages between human beings – exactly which Good is best, whose Right is right, whose Meaning is more meaningful, whose Love is more loving, whose Compassion is more deep, and whose Truth is the one and only. In the midst of this madness and conflict, it is no wonder that most people choose to sit on the fence, quietly going about their lives, occasionally indulging in a bit of feel-good spirituality – in whatever form – when things get too tough. What has been lacking up until now is a genuine alternative – a way of living that cuts through all of the faith, superstition, belief and calenture that has held human beings captivated since time immemorial. A way of living that is sincere in that it is rooted in facticity, common sense and intelligence and that, if pursued with pure intent, leads to the eventual elimination of the animal instinctual passions that are the root cause of all of human malice and sorrow. As you have posted the text to the list without any personal comment from yourself, it is impossible to precisely know your motives. I can only assume that your intent mirrors that of the Creationists – that you too are desperately trying to reconcile the gulf between faith and facticity, belief and common sense, passion and intelligence, the super-natural and the natural. Given that the world is so awash with pseudo-scientific spirituality, it would have better served your purpose to have selected a less transparent example other than a fundamental Christian group unwilling to follow the well-worn ploy of confusion, compromise or assimilation.
PETER: You posted the following article to the list without any comment form you –
I then responded to the article’s summary – The author’s ‘suggestion’ does beg the question as to why the most watched offerings of the entertainment industry – be they films, books, television, games, sport, music or the like – are those that portray violence and conflict as well as those that convey sorrow and loss? Does this not say much about the human condition that malice and sorrow is popular entertainment? RESPONDENT: Before speculating about the reasons ‘why the most watched offerings of the entertainment industry – be they films, books, television, games, sport, music or the like – are those that portray violence and conflict as well as those that convey sorrow and loss?’ Does this not say much about the human condition that malice and sorrow is popular entertainment?’ There are two quick questions. If I may please, is this offering intended as a serious response to the article? PETER: I must admit I did not check the bona fides of the authors of the article. Was the article not meant to be serious? RESPONDENT: The article was offered as it was found. Not knowing the intention of the article, it is impossible to say whether or not it was serious. The question, however, was the response to the article intended to be serious? It will be assumed that the continued additions to the conversation indicate that the question is answered affirmatively. Thank you. PETER: Trying to have a sensible straightforward conversation with you is somewhat akin to attempting to walk across a vat of treacle in bare feet. Why did you post the article to this list if you have no idea of the intent of the article? RESPONDENT: Respectfully, it seems perhaps you are preferring flights of fancy to having a sensible straight forward conversation? If I may, and again with the utmost respect for the choices being made, I believe that the questions I am asking could be answered most easily, however, if your intention is in fact to answer them sensibly and straight forwardly, the behaviour of imagining ‘... walk(ing) across a vat of treacle in bare feet’ and is not appropriate for achieving providing such answers. I find experience much simpler and painless if behaviour reflects an honest effort toward the ends intended. I wonder if you would agree that much of the frustrations created as today’s society are the result of intending toward certain outcomes and then choosing behaviour that is directly contradictory, or in the least, inappropriate for achieving the intended goal? PETER: No. All of human frustrations can be sheeted home to the fact that humans really have no free choice as to how they behave, think or feel. Up until now there have been only two socially acceptable choices within the human condition – be a normal being or become a spiritual being. Choosing either alternative still leaves one firmly ensnared within the status quo because neither choice leads one to be free from being driven by the instinctual passions that are the root cause of human malice and sorrow. This is why the traditional path of choosing good over evil has done nought to eliminate human malice and sorrow after thousands of years of largely well intentioned effort. * PETER: Why did you post the article to this list if you have no idea of the intent of the article? RESPONDENT: I posted it because that is what I intended to do. The same reason you responded, the same reason Good Friend Gary responded, the same reason you are reading this word now. It is what you intended to do. PETER: I take it that your answer is that you did it because you did it. * PETER: And you claim this despite its clear title and then say you do not know whether or not it was serious. A reasonable man or woman would assume that anyone posting an article to this list would be either offering something up for discussion or was using it to try to make a point, in other words that they knew the intent of the article. RESPONDENT: Perhaps, but then again, I think you are no stranger to the difficulties created by what are generally described as reasonable men and women and their assumptions, yes? PETER: I see my fellow human beings daily struggling with the difficulties of being instinctually driven beings, desperately trying to reconcile the unbridgeable gulf between faith and facticity, belief and common sense, passion and intelligence, the super-natural and the natural. But I never lost my naiveté that somewhere, sometime, someone would find a way for human beings to live together in peace and harmony. Actualism is the inevitable result of the continuing emergence of facticity, common sense, intelligence and the natural processes of the physical universe which will eventually result in the disappearance from the human species of blind faith and unquestioning belief in all things supernatural, along with the animal instinctual passions that are the cause of human malice and sorrow. Reasonableness, co-operation, concessus and harmony will then be the hallmarks of all human interactions. RESPONDENT: As was offered above, the article was posted because that was what was intended, no assumptions of any kind were involved. Certainly it has been a great pleasure to discuss with you and Good Friend Gary the particular perspectives offered in response. So there is no questions about the intentions of this post, it is being offered because that is what is intended. It is being written as it is, no assumptions of what point may or may not be seen from and particular perspective. In fact, there is not even an assumption that it will be read, or even reach a particular destination. PETER: Your reply does seem to fall into the ‘I am but a hollow bamboo’ category used by Eastern wise men in order to firstly deny any responsibility for their actions and secondly to claim some sort of Divine connection and authority. * RESPONDENT: And if in fact it is intended to be a serious response, why did you choose to title the communication ‘Blaming Others’? PETER: Because the title of my comment was appropriate to the author’s thrust in the article. RESPONDENT: Ahhh! Because an answer to the above question was dependent on the original response being serious, the assumption of seriousness can be supplanted with surety that it is so. Thank you. PETER: A pleasure, No 22. Asking someone if their response is serious can sometimes be seen as sarcasm, but in your case it seems that you find difficultly in taking whatever I write at face value. RESPONDENT: Please allow me to assist. There is in fact no difficulty at all in taking whatever is offered at face value. It is easily done, and in fact is being done. There is a further fact that the face value of what is offered gives rise to questions that are offered in response. Interestingly, it is the questions being offered in response to the face value of your offerings that are approached from a perspective that indicates a great deal of imagination and/or convulsed thought. For example, it was asked if the original response to the article was serious, rather than either answering yes or no, the following was offered:
As you may see, if a reasonable and straight forward conversation is intended, the behaviour of making reasonable and straight forward, and not imaginative or inappropriate offerings will greatly enhance the likelihood of realizing that intention. PETER: So if you ask me if my response to the article was serious and I ask you if the article was meant to be serious, I am seen by you to be ‘making imaginative and inappropriate offerings’ and ‘approached from a perspective that indicates a great deal of imagination and/or convulsed thought’? All this cut and thrusting and you have yet to make any comment in regard to the article you posted to this list, nor in regard to the comments I posted about the article. * PETER: I am being sincere for I found the topic of the article ‘Are Human Beings Killers?’ worthy of sincere in-depth discussion, which is why I made comment about it. RESPONDENT: In response to the conclusion that the authors’ thrust was in some manner related to blaming others, would you please assist me in seeing from where the conclusion is drawn? I have re-read the article and leave it with the impression that the authors’ thrust was to discuss the alleged wide discrepancy between the actuality of battlefield attitudes and those played out in productions of the entertainment industry. As an example we can look at a portion of the quote you have included for reference:
If there is interest, would you also include some further explanation whom you conclude is being blamed, and whom is doing the blaming? Thank you. PETER: Perhaps another quote may throw some light on the thrust of the author’s intent –
* PETER: I don’t see how I can assist you at all in this matter. If you can’t see the relevance, then no amount of words on my part will help. RESPONDENT: I am sorry to read of your lack of confidence. Please allow me to assist you in seeing how you can assist me? If you read the request carefully, you may see that what is requested is easily provided. You might provide a quote, or quotes, from the article that include(s) the authors blaming others (as you can see, a quote was provided to illustrate the perspective I am offering). You may also provide some specific information to the specific question –
I wonder if you would agree that providing the material requested would be appropriate for achieving the intention of having ‘... sincere in-depth discussion’? PETER: You have already shown a disinclination for sincere in-depth discussion in your correspondence with Gary on the subject matter of this article –
This example exemplifies your approach to discussion, an activity which you regard as ‘Great Sport’ Respondent to No 13, 8.4.2001 You have similarly avoided offering any opinion on the article you posted to this list, nor on my original response to the article. Your ‘Great Sport’, as you call it, consists of no more than continually shifting the goal posts of the discussion so as to avoid keeping to one subject and responding to this subject – in this case, malice in human beings. * PETER: If you can’t see the relevance, then no amount of words on my part will help. RESPONDENT: This is most untrue Good Friend. In fact, if evidence of the article’s thrust being to blame others exists, an amount, and not a large amount at that, would be sufficient to demonstrate it. For whatever reason, there is simply reluctance to do so. PETER: A statement from the article –
Does a statement like this not beg the question as to what the rest of humans do while the very few are induced to kill? And does it not also beg the question as to who or what does the inducing? Statements such as this in the article lead to the impression that malice in human beings is solely confined to a few evil individuals – a claim made most loudly by the pious and righteous good men and women of God. * PETER: I see from your comment to Gary that your interest in this topic has already waned but I would add the following comment for others who may be interested in the topic. RESPONDENT: You do? In exactly which topic do you see that my interest has waned? Respectfully, if you re-read the offering you refer to, you will perhaps see that the comment to Gary was about a very specific topic. PETER: Indeed it was very specific, even to the point of being pedantic. To quote the very specific topic you were interested in pursuing –
I can see why you lost interest in the topic. RESPONDENT: Certainly there is nothing ‘pedantic’ about the material being discussed, or in the manner in which it was being discussed. Good Friend Gary had offered a personal opinion that may have been based on preconceptions that may have been similar to those that give rise to the alleged discrepancy between actual battlefield attitudes and those produced by the film and television industry (the thrust of the article offered). Such matters of personal opinion and relativity would be most offensive to true formalistic thought, and as you may see, neither the topic being discussed, or the manner in which it was being discussed had the least to do with book learning and/or formal rules. I am to think, that in fact, the questions and discussions that would follow from the above offering to Gary would well please an interest in an in-depth and sincere discussion. PETER: And yet it was your interest that waned such that any form of conversation never eventuated. This is a ploy you constantly use in. Whenever anyone offers personal opinion, personal experience or relativity, as you term it, you fail to pursue an in-depth and sincere discussion but dismiss it as interesting speculation, or the like. For example –
I don’t know whether you have observed the great sport that a cat has in playing with a mouse but such games are a far cry from what could be called conversation. * PETER: Every human being is genetically encoded with an aggressive instinctual passion and every human being is taught to keep a lid on this passion by a combination of reward for being good or punishment for being bad. Those who succeed in repressing their aggression are then deemed to be good whilst those who fail to repress their aggression within socially acceptable levels are deemed to be bad or evil and are then punished for erring. Any gross failure in repressing this innate instinctual aggression results in punishment by laws ranging from fines to imprisonment and even execution in some societies. What I did was dig beneath my social programming and discovered my instinctual animal lust for aggression. By doing so I was able to confirm by direct experience the fact that, at core, the human condition of malice and sorrow is entirely the result of the instinctual passions – and not some mysterious evil force or spirits as is commonly believed. Many people have experienced, at some time in their lives, a lust to kill or maim – be it in a fit of jealousy, a desire for revenge or retribution, the urge to obliterate – but most do not physically act on the urge. But even if the passion remains repressed and not acted upon, any malicious feelings that one becomes aware of are the tip of an iceberg – signs of the repressed instinctual passion for aggression bubbling to the surface of awareness. The authors of the article imply that only very few people – four percent of men in their opinion – have a lustful passion for aggression whilst the rest have a ‘different nature from the one portrayed in war films’. This conclusion can only have been reached by someone who has yet to either acknowledge or investigate his or her own malicious feelings and thus experience what is in fact at the root of the evil that has forever blighted humanity. RESPONDENT: It can? Would you please help me to see the mutual exclusivity of ‘acknowledging or investigating his or her own malicious feelings’ and the acceptance of presumed facts about the battlefield attitudes of others? PETER: I made no mention of ‘the acceptance of presumed facts about the battlefield attitudes of others’ in what I wrote, so your question makes no sense to me. If you have never felt a lustful passion for aggression, then it will be impossible for you to understand what I am saying. RESPONDENT: And, if there is interest, would you please provide more details about whom, or what investigates; and whom or what is investigated in the offering: ‘acknowledge or investigate his or her own malicious feelings’? Thank you. PETER: This line of questioning has a name in the spiritual world – it is called the Advaita Shuffle. I don’t know if you have hung out with Advaita-ists at all, but they play a game of dismissing any unwanted or undesirable feelings by asking ‘who’ is feeling sad, ‘who’ is feeling lost, ‘who’ is feeling annoyed, etc. and always come to the conclusion they are taught to come to – it’s not me feeling ... that’s just the illusionary ‘me’, not the real ‘Me’. It’s the spiritual equivalent of musical chairs, except there is only one person in The chair in each game played. When one other person gets ‘It’ he or she goes on to play the game with yet another hall full of people, the only difference being this time the person who claims to have got ‘It’ now gets to sit in The chair. The major problem with the game is that it is like pyramid selling, eventually the game runs out of gullible players as more and more people try and make a living out of fewer and fewer customers. * PETER: Again, I don’t see how I can be of help to you. I was simply making a comment about the broad thrust of the article – malice in human beings – whereas you only want to steer the conversation into very specific topics, topics very specifically of your own choice. RESPONDENT: Very Good. The offering will be considered then ‘a comment’. Respectfully, the assumption that (I) ‘only want to steer the conversation into very specific topics, topics very specifically of your own choice’ is most incorrect. There is no wish to steer the conversation in the least. Where this is interest in doing so, questions are asked. There is not the least concern that the questions will go unanswered or avoided. Where there is interest, comments are offered. That the comments are not responded to, or even read, is of no concern what-so-ever. PETER: It may have escaped your attention. but when I stated that the broad thrust of the article was malice in human beings and made comment and gave my personal experiences on this you have now shifted the topic of the conversation into a discussion about ‘the acceptance of presumed facts about the battlefield attitudes of others’, failed to make comment on what I wrote, and failed to relate any of your own personal experiences. RESPONDENT: Further, the intention to steer the conversation seems more manifest in offerings such as:
As you may see, this offering states clearly what the conversation shall entail if it is to exist at all. PETER: Are you perhaps blind to the fact that you are writing on a non-spiritual list, set up as an adjunct to the Actual Freedom web site? Not only am I attempting to keep the conversation on the rails but I am also attempting to keep it within the territory of this mailing list – actualism and an actual freedom from malice and sorrow – and even this you complain about. RESPONDENT: And...
As you may see, the above comment dictates the direction of the conversation by devaluing one side of the conversation. PETER: Perhaps you are blind to the fact that you have deliberately chosen to write to a non-spiritual mailing list solely in order to proffer your spiritual wisdom. To then complain that an actualist devalues your side of the conversation does strike me as a hollow bamboo in search of someone to blame. RESPONDENT: Respectfully, the intention to have a sincere and in-depth discussion, on any topic, may be more easily realized if assumptions about one’s fellow correspondent are excluded. The activity of assuming the characteristics of one’s fellow correspondent may better serve an intention to win an argument or score points in a debate. PETER: So, I’m to have a sincere in-depth conversation with you but I have to exclude any assumptions about your intent, your perspective, your point of view, your beliefs, your ideology and so on. This does seem a trifle restrictive. I have personally witnessed several occasions when God-men have publicly humiliated disciples for daring to question their intent, perspective, teachings, points of view, beliefs or ideology. It was an effective means of stifling questioning particularly when combined with the subsequent ostracization by the faithful mob. * PETER: I’ve been down this track with you before and experience tells me that the conversation only leads further away from being a sincere in-depth discussion and very rapidly gets bogged down in non-sensical semanticism and doctinarial pedanticism. RESPONDENT: There is no familiarity with the word ‘doctinarial’ and it was not found in the resources available. May I please ask you to assist me in understanding what is represented by the word? PETER: Oops. I made the word up and in doing so left out an ‘r’ – it should read doctrinarial and its root is doctrine. RESPONDENT: In consideration of your further offering, thank you. Need it be said that you may of course communicate as wish and the histrionic descriptions of conversational misfortune are not appropriate for realizing the intention of having a sincere and in-depth conversation? PETER: Does your use of the word ‘histrionic’ in relation to my description not contradict your previous statement further above –
To which you could then reply that your use of the word ‘histrionic’ was not referring to my character but to the descriptions I used. Need it be said it’s great sport, hey. * PETER: I also know from experience that many people suffer from what could be described as spiritually-induced aphasia and that no amount of appeals to common sense can entice them to take off their rose coloured glasses, put their dearly-held beliefs aside for a bit, and have a straightforward conversation about what it is to be a human being. RESPONDENT: Thank you for sharing your experience. PETER: You may have noticed I am not shy about sharing my experiences on this list – which is
why I made comment on the article you posted to this entitled ‘Are Human Beings Killers?’ (whole article * PETER: Whilst I admit it does take a certain courage to dare to examine one’s own dark side, at the very least it may help one to break free of the craving to self-righteously blame others for all the evil in the world. RESPONDENT: Ahhhh! There is, as I remember, a refreshing feeling that accompanies the recognition of the foolishness of blaming others for the experience one is being. I do not, however, remember any particular courage necessary to develop the recognition. Courage, as I remember, was more necessary to the effort to face each day before recognizing the said foolishness. A pleasure to communicate with you Good Friend Peter. Be well. PETER: That’s all very well, but you are speaking of the spiritual recognition of the Truth whereby a shift of identity happens and a new re-born identity now feels itself to have transcended the afflictions that other mere mortals suffer from. RESPONDENT: Respectfully, nothing offered has the least to do with transcendence of any variety, nor would such inanity as to who is and to who is not ‘mere mortals’ even be considered. If I may please, such imaginative attempts at vilification of one’s fellow correspondent is not in the least reflective of an intention to have a sincere and in-depth conversation. PETER: So you feel that I am not only devaluing your side of the conversation but that I am now attempting to vilifying you. Why, as a spiritualist, do you come to a non-spiritual mailing list and then proceed to blame an actualist for attempting to vilify you personally because he makes comment about the Truth? Given that you are the resident God-man on this list I have always been up-front about using the opportunity to pass on to the other members of this list my knowledge about the true nature of God-man speak as well as the ploys they use to avert and/or subvert any questioning of themselves and/or their teachings. RESPONDENT: Such tactics are more appropriate for winning arguments and or self-justifying reactions such as anger and loathing. PETER: Anger and loathing, hey? RESPONDENT: If you will allow me to assist you to avoid needing to make such mistaken assumptions in the future, I will offer an expanded elucidation of the early offering. The recognition spoken of is this and this alone: it is utterly irrational to maintain the experience that others or other things are responsible for the experience one is being. PETER: Yes, but that is the traditional spiritual viewpoint. An actualist recognizes the substantive and substantial genetic and behavioural evidence that it is the instinctual passions instilled by blind nature and set in concrete by one’s social conditioning that are responsible for the malice and sorrow one is feeling. An actualist sensibly acknowledges the natural process of cause and effect – a process that you have recognized as utterly irrational. RESPONDENT: If you will read carefully you may notice that there is no mention of transcendence and no mention of who may be a ‘mere mortal’ nor of any afflictions reserved for ‘mere mortals’ alone. Further, transcendence is the imagery of a dualistic world-view and of no interest here. The offering ‘mere mortals’ sounds like the vernacular of either Shakespeare or the King Arthur stories, and there is no interest here in living the experience its imagery represents. PETER: I must admit to not knowing what experience you are currently living, but you are on record as living the experience of being more than a mere mortal –
And whilst I acknowledge your denial of transcendence, I’ll stick to the literal definition of the word –
* PETER: I agree with you that it doesn’t require any particular courage to do this, it’s merely the common and garden cop-out offered by Eastern spiritualism. As a rough rule of thumb, spiritualist’s have only ever experienced a few passions deeply, usually those of despair and fear. These experiences then scare them so much that they instinctually clutch for the traditional social elixirs, the feelings of hope and bliss. Provided they remain fanatical about suppressing and/or denying their dark side they can eventually ‘see the Light’ on a some-what regular basis, or in some rare cases, even become ‘the Light’ themselves. To expect someone who is so immersed in, and identified with, such altered states of consciousness experiences to have an interest in examining the dark side of human nature is foolish because it takes a certain courage to dare to examine one’s own dark side. The first step in being able to examine one’s own dark side is to be able to acknowledge that you have a dark side – something we have been taught by carrot and stick never, never, ever to do. For those who have a hefty personal investment in being Good, or in being God – be it kudos, fame, glory, or simply making a living out of it in some way – the idea of backtracking can be quite daunting because they fear they will only end up in despair and fear again – the very feelings they sought to escape from. This fear is unfounded because what actualism offers is a method of coming here to the actual world, a paradisiacal world of sensual pleasure, innocence and delight. Everybody has briefly experienced the actual world at some stage in their lives. Often in childhood, despite our own instinctual malice and sorrow, we had occasional glimpses of the magic and purity that is this physical world we humans live in. In hindsight, I can recognize that as I became an adult I always had an unquenchable yearning for those innocent experiences of perfection that had sometimes occurred in childhood – sometimes as flashes of intimate mateship with another or sometimes as what is termed nature experiences. When I came across Richard and discovered that he lived this innocence, but with all his adult sensibilities fully intact, I was intrigued. When it became clear that the belief that we are born innocent and only corrupted by our parents, evil forces, or the like, or that suffering and evil are essential parts of some Grand Plan, was based on ancient ignorance and superstition, I was fascinated. When Richard talked about the purity and perfection of the actual world, it rang a bell with me because I remembered having had similar experiences myself – and when he explained how it was possible to live that experience as a constant on-going experience, I knew I could never settle for second best, no matter what. I do acknowledge that what goes on in one’s own head and the heart can be tough stuff to sort out. All human beings, through no fault of their own, live their lives either trapped within the real-world or within the spiritual world ... or within both, which is most often the case. Actualism offers a way out of being imprisoned in these psychological and psychic worlds and all the help you need to become free is available on the Actual Freedom Trust website. If you want to discuss the process of actualism or the delights of the actual world, you have my ear, but if you come to this list not to listen and discuss but to preach and pontificate the virtues of the spiritual world, I’ll pass, because I’ve been there and done that and found it to be rotten to the core. RESPONDENT: Thank you, Peter. It is always a pleasure. Be well. PETER: And yet another example of your refusal to engage in any conversation about the subject at hand – malice in human beings. But then again, I noticed the following from your exchange with Richard –
With a belief like this, t’is no wonder that you, in common with all the other spiritualists, have no interest discussing in peace on earth between human beings.
PETER: I have several times looked over your last posts to me but have always come to the same conclusion – we have nothing in common to talk about. We are poles apart in that you have apparently retreated so far from the actual world of people, things and events that you think and feel this world to be completely illusionary. You have written thousands of words over several years now and have consistently demonstrated that you have no interest in actuality at all. I can only presume that you are perfectly happy with your life as-it-is, whereas a prerequisite for an interest in actualism is a burning discontent with one’s life as-it-is – both one’s spiritual life and one’s real-world life. As such I shall end this thread, as there are other conversations on this list that I have more interest in contributing to.
PETER: I have several times looked over your last posts to me but have always come to the same conclusion – we have nothing in common to talk about. RESPONDENT: No? Seems that there were several question related directly to actualism wanting to be answered. With you being a self acknowledge expert in actualism, and the questions being directly related to your area of expertise a common interest is strongly established. PETER: What I said is we have nothing in common to talk about. You may have an interest in asking questions but you have already made it quite clear on this list, and unambiguously in this comment you made to No 13, that actualism and No 22-ism have nothing in common –
The full quote reveals that the ‘facts’ you offered are your solipsistic view that material objects, flesh and blood human beings and the physical universe do not exist in fact.
As you well know, solipsism is the very antithesis of actualism, which may well explain your persistent objections and chameleon-like yet totally transparent attempts to hi-jack the words of actualism for your own purposes. * PETER: We are poles apart in that you have apparently retreated so far from the actual world of people, things and events that you think and feel this world to be completely illusionary. RESPONDENT: If I may please, I suggest you look over the post at least once more and in doing so find a way to change the erroneous conclusion thus far reached. There has never been, nor will there ever be a retreat from actuality. PETER: The meaning of the words actual and actualism –
Compared with your version of ‘actual’ taken from the above quote to No 13 –
In other words, you feel and think that what is actual does not exist. – and I use the real meaning of the word actual as opposed to your misappropriation of the word. And yet again, from a post to No 12 –
In other words, you think and feel that human bodies do not actually exist. And very recently –
Given your persistent and perverse persecution of plausible prose and perspicacious perception, I’ll pass on your suggestion that I find a way to change my conclusion that we are poles apart. * PETER: You have written thousands of words over several years now and have consistently demonstrated that you have no interest in actuality at all. RESPONDENT: This is, of course, mistaken thought. The fact is the only interest is in actuality. Perhaps the lack of interest in adopting the conclusions and dualistic metaphysics of ‘actualism’ has been mistaken for non-interest in actuality? PETER: Given your misuse of the words actual, actuality and actualism, your comment makes no sense whatsoever. You are not alone in this custom of deliberately misusing words and contriving them to mean something they clearly do not mean, for this is symptomatic of all spiritual teachings. * PETER: I can only presume that you are perfectly happy with your life as-it-is, whereas a prerequisite for an interest in actualism is a burning discontent with one’s life as-it-is – both one’s spiritual life and one’s real-world life. RESPONDENT: You are of course free to fantasize and imagine what ever you wish Good Friend, however, in the instance that there is an interest in what is actual it would be an absolute absurdity for one to go about imagining that ‘I’ am ‘happy with MY life’ as it is or other wise. PETER: It may have escaped your attention but I used the word ‘presume’ and made no mention at all of imagining. There is a significant difference between the two words. I also see that my presumption was correct as you go on to say further on in your post that [quote]: ‘I am the happiness and harmlessness that actualism spends so much brave effort trying to imitate’ [endquote], which I take it is your way of saying you are perfectly happy as you are. RESPONDENT: There is happiness as life and that happiness is in no small way associated with the recognition that the fantasy that there is some ‘I’ that is other than life and thus capable of being happy with ‘its life’ is the basis of unhappiness. I am what I am doing (being) and that is all, and that recognition Good Friend is the essence of happiness. Sans the duality of ‘me’ and ‘my life’ the struggle ends, the threats disappear, and the justification for angry, defensive behaviour evaporates. I am happiness Good Friend. As a matter of fact, I am the happiness and harmlessness that actualism spends so much brave effort trying to imitate. PETER: You have already posted your recipe for ending malice and sorrow, in other words your recipe for becoming happy and harmless –
As I pointed out before, your recipe for bringing an end to malice and sorrow is but a facsimile of the tried and failed spiritual recipe that has been running for thousands of years now, has been arduously practiced by millions if not billions of practitioners and has done nothing but spawn thousands of god-men, god-women and GOD[s] who then do nothing but teach the same twaddle to yet another generation of gullible supplicants. Your recipe can be summarized as follows –
Given point 3 of your recipe, attempting to have a sincere conversation with you is nonsensical because your avowed aim is to ignore, dismiss and deny any information that would cast doubt on you being GOD. Or, to put it another way, your door is not only firmly closed but latched and triple locked. * PETER: I can only presume that you are perfectly happy with your life as-it-is, whereas a prerequisite for an interest in actualism is a burning discontent with one’s life as-it-is – both one’s spiritual life and one’s real-world life. RESPONDENT: As observed before, the dualistic fantasy of ‘me’ and ‘my life’ is the cornerstone of the brave quest/fantasy of actualism. PETER: Whereas GOD does not have a life, as in –
Given that you are GOD and ‘omnipotence is the package’, why do you bother publishing your ‘recipe for bringing an end to sexual abuse, rape, child abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse, depression, corruption, despair and suicide...’ – why not simply bring an end to all the malice and sorrow on this planet? Of course if you did, then there would be no malice and sorrow in the world, no need for the antidotal feelings of love and compassion and no need for gods, goddesses or GOD – so I can only assume the reason why you haven’t omnipotently brought an end to malice and sorrow has to do with the very real threat to your identity. Actualism is a newly-emerged actual and active threat to all the imaginary gods, goddesses, gurus and god-men – their days are numbered and they will eventually go the way of the belief that the earth was flat.
RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘Smart chimps use stone hammers to open tough nuts, study shows’ Associated Press, Published May 23, 2002 ‘WASHINGTON -- A band of chimpanzees in West Africa routinely swing crude stone hammers to crack open nuts, a sophisticated use of tools the apes have been teaching to each new generation for more than a century.’ <snip rest of article> PETER: Smart human sends simultaneous messages in binary code via world-wide communication network to other human beings living on other continents saying –
Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer |
