Please note that Peter’s correspondence below was written by the feeling-being ‘Peter’ while ‘he’ lived in a pragmatic (methodological), still-in-control/same-way-of-being Virtual Freedom before becoming actually free.

Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List

with Correspondent No 23

Topics covered

Godship and solipsism of No 22, ‘how am I living my life’ vs. ‘how am I experiencing this moment’, trusting and doubting, facts, harmless, spiritual belief, Self-Love, ‘Actualogy’, one man is free from the Human Condition, No 23 excluded from Human Condition, AFF, ‘waitresses waxers and waners’, thinking * Utopia, Actual Freedom Trust, method, unmoderated list, tender instincts, psychological and psychic entity, his actual meeting with Vineeto, faith and method, discussion on how to bring peace on earth * following Gurus (Rajneesh), Rajneesh on anger, his legacy of superior special follower releasing their pure anger, peace means investigation into facts * The New Brotherhood ruled by a God or Goddess?, acknowledging the facts meant that I had to abandon ‘my’ precious beliefs, the  dark underbelly of Humanity is indeed diabolical, I can assure you that Richard does in fact exist, this temporary ‘self’-less sensual experience of perfection and purity is what is known as a PCE, Richard acknowledged the failure of all previous human endeavour to find peace on earth, to believe that Richard is a Messiah is to miss the whole point of actualism, modern scientific empirical discoveries of neuro-biology and genetics with regard to the human brain, both guru and disciple know that the game they are playing is false, the Tibetan Lama-rama, there is in fact nothing good at all about spiritualism * monosyllabism * one can be sensately aware of one’s hand without affective feeling, the physical universe is infinite and perfect, one’s innate intelligence * looking forward when something happens to someone else only postpones the immediate opportunity you have for being happy and harmless right now



PETER: You wrote in response to my post to No 22 –

You certainly have an opportunity and right to study actualism – this is the very reason that The Actual Freedom trust has set up the web-site – to allow the unrestricted opportunity for anyone to read about actualism and make up their own mind whether what is on offer makes sense. This reading has lead some people to come to a prima facie conclusion that actualism is worthy of further investigation and some have begun to utilize the method in their daily lives. Some have even begun the difficult and painstaking work of actively investigating their own cherished beliefs, indoctrinated morals and ethics in order that they may become aware of both their repressed or sublimated savage feelings as well as their precious dearly-held tender feelings.

However, to get to the stage of applying actualism in daily life it is essential that the person has a burning discontent with their life as it is – both their normal worldly life and their spiritual other-worldly life. Having ‘nothing left to lose’ was the expression I used in my journal. In your extensive previous correspondence with Richard you have shown not a skerrick of being discontent with either your life or your exalted state of Godship. This does leave me wondering if you have come to this list to enquire and discover or whether you have come merely to attack actualism and defend the spiritual status quo. Peter to No 22, 28.12.2000

RESPONDENT: Pardon for cutting in here. Hi Peter and No 22. Being a member of the actual freedom list I follow these discussions. I like to cut in somewhere (notice I am not a recalcitrant or actual freedom list terrorist who is defending whatever or attacking anyone or thing). Wondering mmh, sounds like not really mmh what (would it not be more correct to say I doubt whether – wonder brings a sense of beauty or at least the sound of eagerness to understand don’t it?) how much sincerity can be recognized. I would call it being on a condition of doubt whether to take this person (is it Peter? hello) as sincere and treat him like a human being with basic respect and care OK) or basically assume that there is no sincerity?

PETER: I would think that anyone who had read No 22’s extensive correspondence with Richard would be left wondering – as in curious – as to why he would be writing on this mailing list. As such, I am left wondering at to why he has come to this list. Further it is clearly evident from this correspondence that No 22 persistently adopts the spiritual form of questioning or enquiring which is to discover that there is nothing to be known about, or be concerned about, the physical world we live in, for it is an illusion and the only reality is one’s self. This form of questioning is anything but sincere and genuine for it does nothing but make a virtue out of not even wanting an answer as in ‘not knowing’ and does nothing but make one’s ‘self’ so real as to become Real, True or Absolute.

Some quotes from No 22’s mailing list correspondence with Richard may help you understand why No 22 finds it impossible to question either his spiritual beliefs and or his current solipsistic state.

[Respondent No 22]: We are the creator ... We are the Absolute ... You are it! ... There is indeed Peace on earth and it is here as me now. The experience of God’s Love is being God’s Love for all God is. God is All. Agapé exists, but it is not received, it is realized. It does not come to you, it comes from you. Peace on Earth exist here, now, as me. No 22 to Richard, 28.2.1998

Phooey! I is not inside anything – it is everything. I create what is by becoming what is. I am the intelligence that rearranges itself endlessly. This body, that body, the entire cosmos is but the evidence of I. No 22 to Richard, 1.11.1998

There is no objective standard defining real/unreal ... There is no objective anything. No 22 to Richard, 9.11.1998

Objective reality is pure solipsism. No 22 to Richard, 28.2.1998

What is to suggest that there is a belief that anyone is being written to?  No 22 to Richard, 26.7.1998

I know not what No 22 is, nor do I know what imagination is. No 22 to Richard, 26.7.1998

So then, believing that this word means this word, which in turn must needs mean some other word is supposed to establish something other than the utter futility of believing that any-thing can be established as fact? No 22 to Richard, 26.7.1998

From here, there is nothing gained thinking one way or another about it, but I am happy to listen to your imagined outcomes. No 22 to Richard, 21.10.1998

To make freedom the result of effort, i.e. ‘a peculiar pig-headed stubbornness to proceed against all odds’ makes freedom the result of conditions – thus not freedom at all. No 22 to Richard, 1.11.1998

A grumpy person is ‘the perfect purity of this moment and place.’ If the moment is being a grumpy person, then the moment is perfectly that. There is no moment outside of that grumpy person waiting discovery, there is only the Cosmos as it is as that moment. No 22 to Richard, 1.11.1998

Freedom must needs include its own denial, lest it would not be freedom, but something other that exists only on conditions, the exact antithesis of the actual freedom we are. Bodies, at their most, are borrowed elements. In actuality, a body has never existed, for the body is not other than what it is doing whether that is being the worm that eats it or doing the thought that is there now. No 22 to Richard, 1.11.1998

Do you now see why it is nye on impossible, for someone who is absolutely convinced he is God on earth to sincerely question his exalted state of Godship. How could someone who thinks and feels they are God ever admit that he was wrong? God is never ever wrong about anything.

I say it is nye on impossible for No 22 to question his own altered state of consciousness, for this is exactly what Richard did for 11 years after he became Enlightened. However if No 22 stubbornly dismisses Richard’s reports of his Enlightenment experience, I see no point at all in me indulging in pedantic debates with No 22. Which is why I said to No 22 –

[Peter to Respondent No 22]: ‘Should you have any questions regarding the process of actualism I would be only too pleased to share my expertise but I have zilch interest in indulging in meaningless dialogues with recalcitrant defenders of their own personal version of Godship’. Peter to No 22, 28.12.2000

RESPONDENT: Is he welcome? I heard a very friendly song here. (Peter you ain’t no blissninnie that I can tell)

PETER: Further in this post you have also said –

[Respondent]: ‘Who from the actual freedom trust is going to decide whether a person is sincere or not in his response(s)?’ [endquote].

Only you yourself are qualified to make up your own mind as to who you think is being sincere or not. I would, however, suggest that this is best done on the basis of conducting at least a bit of research as to the facts of the situation rather than rely on your feelings, as in having gut feeling, intuition, opinion, viewpoint or belief.

RESPONDENT: Maybe actualism is not the only method to so called freedom of the Human condition or could there be something beyond this actual freedom?

PETER: Maybe God will come down from heaven and make it all okay, or maybe all those people busy ‘raising human consciousness’ will bring peace on earth? I simply stopped waiting for Godot and gave actualism my best shot and write on this list to let my fellow human beings know that it works. What they do with my reports is their business entirely. I wanted to get rid of doubt from my life, for being constantly racked by doubt is such a debilitating feeling.

RESPONDENT: That human condition is ‘Malice and sorrow’ and why would we not include some other candy like horror and torture or is that all included?

PETER: Are you serious or don’t you watch the news on television. If you do you will see the horror of human beings torturing each other. Haven’t you read any of the Actual Freedom web-site? Do you know anything about the range of passions that make up the human condition? Have you not felt the rage to kill? Have you not experienced the fury of jealousy? Have you not plumbed the depths of despair? Have you not felt the urge to escape into fantasy? Have you not yearned for peace?

RESPONDENT: Where is my pleasure, my fun, my laughter?

PETER: Have you not noticed that your pleasure, fun and laughter are but fleeting and begun to ask yourself why?

Four years ago I found myself with every comfort and pleasure I needed in life and yet I had to acknowledge I was neither happy nor harmless. I also found the traditional escapist fantasy of the spiritual world to be nothing other than an utterly self-centred escapist fantasy of my own making, which was indeed shocking. It was then that I serendipitously met Richard. Serendipity is, after all, what happens when you take the opportunity that comes along.

RESPONDENT: Least thing one might CONSIDER is that actualism is one of the other forms of a methodological approach to this problem of ‘suffering from being human’

PETER: Consider away to your heart’s content, but a little investigation will confirm that thus far there have only been two approaches to being a human being on earth – stay normal or become spiritual. Normal means ‘Life’s a bitch and then you die’, spiritual means ‘Let me out of here, there’s a better life ‘somewhere else’’. Unless you have discovered another approach worthy of consideration, that is?

RESPONDENT: And maybe just very, very maybe (right this is meant slightly ironic asking) there are other ways?

PETER: Yes? Do you have a suggestion or are you just ‘maybe-ing’, as in keeping your options open in the guise of pretending to enquire?

RESPONDENT: It is a good start to doubt from doubt one may arise to trust if something works it works.

PETER: If you say so, but I find that it does no good at all in trusting whether my computer works properly or not. If it does it does, if it doesn’t it doesn’t. Trust plays no part in whether something works or not. Trust is only needed if you wish or hope something will work that doesn’t work. It still won’t fix the computer, nor will putting your trust in Gurus or God-men do anything at all to fix up the mess we find ourselves born into here on this planet. These guys are so far up themselves they couldn’t give a stuff what happens on earth – they believe and propagate the message that –

  • the actual physical world we live in is an illusion, and there is a paradise ‘somewhere-else’ for one’s spirit after death.
  • our suffering is necessary because ‘to be human is to suffer’,
  • our suffering is good for us because somehow it is part of God’s plan or God’s Creation.

From this message it can be seen that the spiritual path is deeply rooted in denial of the innate malice and sorrow that is the current human condition we all find ourselves born into, through no fault of ours.

RESPONDENT: ‘How am I living my life this moment?’

PETER: Does this question relate to your earlier question – ‘Where is my pleasure, my fun, my laughter?’ If you stop remodelling the actualist’s essential question to suit yourself and start asking ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’, you may well discover what it is that is preventing you from being happy and harmless now. Only if you want to, that is.

Just a hint if you are wont to try it – don’t ignore the harmless part of happy and harmless for it is impossible to be sincerely happy unless you are genuinely harmless.


RESPONDENT No 22: In as much as it is likely that ‘Godship’ (it was not found in the dictionary at hand) must needs be part of the vernacular of the world view being called actualism, and in as much as I am, at this point, a newcomer to the world view being called actualism and not familiar with that vernacular, whether or not there is a personal version of ‘Godship’, or whether or not there will be support, justification, or an explanation for that personal version of ‘Godship’ will be revealed in the study you have warmly agreed to assist with. If, however, there is anything offered that qualifies to meet your interest in not indulging in meaningless dialogues with recalcitrant defenders of their own personal version of Godship, I am the understanding of your withdrawal from any conversation we create.

RESPONDENT: Sounds to me respectful, Peter. Whatever comes from persisting human endeavour (however twisted it may become through misunderstanding) has the right to be examined with respect in the way it shows up into the world (this creation of virtually and actual free human beings and considerable amount of study material on the internet).

PETER: Spiritual and religious belief has had some 3,500 years to come up with the goods – peace on earth – and has not only failed miserably but the endless procession of popes and priests, Gurus and God-men, dogma and doctrine, legends and myths, impassioned feelings and escapist fantasies have done nothing but contribute to the on-going human tragedy that is fondly call Civilization. I have zilch respect for spiritual/ religious beliefs for it is all puerile. As for No 22 sounding respectful, if you read No 22’s posts to Richard on the other mailing list, you will see that No 22’s respect for others is but No 22 respecting his own creation –

[Respondent No 22]: ‘I create what is by becoming what is. I am the intelligence that rearranges itself endlessly. This body, that body, the entire cosmos is but the evidence of I’. No 22 to Richard, 1.11.1998

This is called ‘Self-love’, or even ‘Self loving Self’, as in –

[Respondent No 22]: ‘There is indeed Peace on earth and it is here as me now.’ No 22 to Richard, 17.3.1998

[Respondent No 22]: The experience of God’s Love is being God’s Love for all God is. God is All.’ No 22 to Richard, 17.3.1998

The common term for self-love is narcissism, the common term for Self-Love is Enlightenment.

RESPONDENT: I would say actualism needs to be fairly inquired into as valid or not valid for whatever purpose. In such light there will be a need of a form of Actualogy, hence there will need to be actualogists who test the method.

PETER: If you are planning to start a study group called ‘Actualogy’, it is already a somewhat crowded market. Thus far 95% of the correspondence on the Actual Freedom Trust website has been devoted to ‘actualogists’ who insist on making a fence sitting academic-only evaluation of actualism. Most correspondence fairly quickly degenerates into either a defence of the human condition or to rabid objections to the possibility, or even the desirability, of becoming happy and harmless themselves.

Just to reign in your fantasy about actualogists a touch, an actualist is someone who totally devotes himself or herself to practically testing the method of actualism.

RESPONDENT: The moment a person sincerely makes a contribution to this discussion (or makes a sincere attempt), shouldn’t he not be honoured for his participation rather then he’d been suggested that his contribution is ‘merely unwanted recalcitrant behaviour’.

PETER: In the interest of accurate use words in quotation marks as though they were the verbatim words of another. I have never used the expression of ‘merely unwanted recalcitrant behaviour’.

No 22 has yet to make any contribution to this discussion other than exemplify the extreme position that can result from following Eastern religious practices. There is a way out for No 22, for Richard managed to escape from the clutches of Enlightenment, but it yet remains to be seen if No 22 is willing to listen to what is really being said rather than merely pontificate from on High.

RESPONDENT: Who from the actual freedom trust is going to decide whether a person is sincere or not in his response(s)?

PETER: Looks as though you are going to take on the position by default. Fair enough, but I do suggest reading up on your subject a bit lest you fall into the trap of shooting yourself in the foot.


PETER to No 22: The purpose of this mailing list is to question beliefs, investigate feelings and uncover the facts appertaining to the human condition we all find ourselves born into, absorbed by and totally identified with. Peter to No 22, 28.12.2000

RESPONDENT: Except those who are actually free or virtually free so this WE, seems to me is to be confusing here.

PETER: ‘We’ means everyone, currently every one of the estimated 6 billion or so humans beings that have been born with genetically-encoded instinctual passions and moulded into obedient social identities by their parents and peers. To deny this does not make it any less of a fact. To rebel or rile against it does nothing to change the fact, nor does escaping into an inner fantasy world of your own making.

RESPONDENT: There is at least one person being Richard (the assumption has been made to accept this as a hypothesis). He was born like us, absorbed like us and being identified like us (that’s all the you’s and me) but that is no longer valid for this person. So he is outside that US.

PETER: Yes, Richard has stepped out of Humanity, which is apparently why so many people get pissed off with him.

Not only do his writings affirm that he is free of the human condition but I can also affirm this from over 3 years of close scrutiny and observation. But believing me is of no use at all – it is something you can only do by yourself, for yourself, by reading the website and by remembering your own pure consciousness experiences – the times when, as if by magic, you found yourself in this magical sensual actual world, free of any fear or dread or feelings of grandeur and beauty.

RESPONDENT: Well that is interesting isn’t it? I say I don’t believe that this is true.

PETER: So much for your ‘the assumption has been made to accept this as a hypothesis’.

RESPONDENT: I say this in sincerity, meaning I don’t know whether this is true or not – it may be true, still I just don’t know how do I find out?

PETER: Might I suggest ‘reading the instructions’? There is a wealth of information on the web-site, much of it laid out by subject for your convenience. See if it makes sense to you and make up your own mind. Nobody else can do that for you unless you keep up the practice of believing what you have been taught is the truth ... or the Truth ... about the meaning of life. The only way to dispel the need for either doubting or trusting is to unearth the facts of a situation and this is something only you can do ... if you are interested.

RESPONDENT: Who else does not believe that of the actual freedom trust list?? Does that make any difference?

PETER: Not to me it doesn’t. I gave up believing a long while ago. It is far too shaky a way to live. You never know what to believe or who to believe.

Give me a fact any day.


PETER to No 22: The purpose of this mailing list is to question beliefs, investigate feelings and uncover the facts appertaining to the human condition we all find ourselves born into, absorbed by and totally identified with. Given that the human condition is exemplified by malice and sorrow, the function of this enquiry and investigation is to become free of malice and sorrow – to become free of the human condition in total. Peter to No 22, 28.12.2000

RESPONDENT: I would say to start off with a little more humbleness.

PETER: You mean like No 22?

RESPONDENT: Is it possible for ME to be free of MY human condition and do I really want that freedom?

PETER: And why not? You are as admirably qualified as anyone else. You have found your way to a tantalizing opportunity.

Serendipity is, after all, what happens when you take the opportunity that comes along.

RESPONDENT: What does it mean, how does it feel to be actual free, be actual free like Richard?

PETER: Many people ignore the first paragraphs of each chapter in his journal where he describes the everyday, moment to moment experience of being actually free of the human condition – free of the Land of Lament as he calls it. By reading these descriptions you may well recall similar carefree experiences you have had yourself of the sensual delight of being alive on this paradisiacal planet. When an unspoken YES to being here is so evident that you found it incomprehensible that only moments before you felt resentful, confused, driven, frustrated, peeved, angry, despairing, etc. It is as though you have entered another world – which it is – for it is not the psychological and psychic world ‘you’ as an entity normally dwell in. These brief experiences of the sheer delight and utter peace of the actual world we live in are known as pure consciousness experiences and everyone has had them at some time in their life.


PETER to No 22: This list is for sincere enquiry into the human condition in total – both the real world and the spiritual world. As such, it is meaningless to participate in this list unless you are eager and willing to enquire into the psychic nature of the spiritual world and the narcissistic nature of your spiritual beliefs and feelings. Peter to No 22, 28.12.2000

RESPONDENT: Who will decide this validity and how can one be sure about one’s responses? Is one clear to recognize a sincere voice to participate in this list unless .... <here I’d like to say we instead of you> ‘you are eager and willing to enquire into the psychic nature of the spiritual world and the narcissistic nature of your spiritual beliefs and feelings’.

PETER: I think I have made my position very clear in my response to No 22, namely –

[Peter to No 22]: ‘Should you have any questions regarding the process of actualism I would be only too pleased to share my expertise but I have zilch interest in indulging in meaningless dialogues with recalcitrant defenders of their own personal version of Godship’. Peter to No 22, 28.12.2000

I have also pointed out why No 22 has exempted himself from being able to make a sincere enquiry, namely that he believes in spiritual enquiring and that he is totally convinced that He is the Creator of all that is.

In your statement from below you seem to have already decided the validity of what I wrote –

[Respondent]: ‘If I need to inquire into my beliefs and feel invited to do so or feel encouraged to do so, the least thing that can be done is to respect a viewpoint as being such. Hence you can exclude me also from that above Generic we created by a presumptuous mind. I cannot and will not include myself with that at this point.’ [endquote].

PETER: I always assume other human beings to be sincere unless I they prove by their words or actions to be otherwise.

RESPONDENT: And from this inquiry a worldview like actualism cannot be excluded.

PETER: I see you are picking up on a bit of No 22’s wordings here. To treat actualism as a worldview beats the grim materialist worldview hands down and is so much better than retreating into a worldview of one’s own making – the spiritual la la land. You simply miss the main event that is on offer by adopting actualism as a philosophy or worldview – life is to be lived, not philosophized away or retreated from.

Those who have bothered to read about actualism know full well that actualism is a method and not a worldview.

RESPONDENT: I agree with the suggested inquiry into the below statement as to be a true or untrue statement. I ... we (all<*> find ourselves born into, absorbed by and totally identified with (the human condition).

PETER: You have lost me here. What I said was –

[Peter to Respondent No 22]: The purpose of this mailing list is to question beliefs, investigate feelings and uncover the facts appertaining to the human condition we all find ourselves born into, absorbed by and totally identified with. Peter to No 22, 28.12.2000

Are you saying you want to enquire as to whether this is a true or untrue statement as to the purpose of this list? Maybe I can save you a lot of needless enquiry by stating that it is a statement of fact. This is the basic purpose of this list.

RESPONDENT: That the human condition is exemplified by malice and sorrow are in fact true, will be the function of the study, or as you have put it ‘...sincere enquiry into the human condition’, yes?

PETER: Yes and this is a study only you can make. There are two approaches to this study of the human condition – one is to conduct the study of the human condition as it is evident in one’s fellow human beings. This is seeing violence, anger, aggression, annoyance, resentment as well as sadness, loneliness, desperation, melancholy, etc. in others. This is a relatively easy observation although in many cases tender feelings or your own self-interest can obscure a clear-eyed observation of another’s behaviour. The real difficulty occurs in the second approach – undertaking a clear-eyed observation of these same feelings and behaviour in operation in yourself. All sorts of social conditionings, instilled beliefs, moral judgements and ethical views stand in the way of this action of ‘self’-awareness, so much so that there is great resistance to running the simple question – ‘How am I experiencing this very moment of being alive?’

RESPONDENT: Is or are there any people excluded from this ‘we’, in other words is this true or not? I find the way that this is put out a bit insinuating or at least suggestive in any case upfront assumptions as a presentation to the reader. As such, it is bypassing the reader’s opinion <viewpoint> and hence a disrespectful approach to him/her with regard to that viewpoint.

PETER: If you don’t want to bypass your opinion/ viewpoint that is entirely your business, after all it is your own. You seem to be missing the point that there is no one here telling you what you should or shouldn’t do. I make suggestions based on my experience and successes in using the actualism method. If you don’t agree with the statement, then fine. If you have been born outside of the human condition or off the planet then fine. However, if you want to find out whether it is true or not – as in is it factual – then this is something only you can do by your own investigations.

RESPONDENT: If I need to inquire into my beliefs and feel invited to do so or feel encouraged to do so, the least thing that can be done is to respect a viewpoint as being such. Hence you can exclude me also from that above Generic we created by a presumptuous mind. I cannot and will not include myself with that at this point.

PETER: That investigation was almost as short-lived as your hypothesis that Richard was actually free. You are moving on fast. You will get rid of all your doubts very quickly this way. Now it is clear that you are saying you were not born into, absorbed by or totally identified with the human condition. I can only assume that by denying that you were born into, absorbed by or totally identified with the human condition that you are now free from the human condition. This sounds very similar to No 12’s approach to instant AFF – actual fucking freedom.

RESPONDENT: However, if actual freedom proves to make a contribution to the well being of the rest of humanity in anyway whatsoever, I like to witness this list and keep on enquiring into the validity of the actual freedom method.

PETER: Well, don’t hold your breath because so far the waiters, waitresses, waverers, witnesses, watchers, wailers, wallies, wanters, wannabes, wasters, wastrels, wearifulls, waxers and waners, weavers and weirdos by far outnumber those who are willing to stick their hand up and say ‘Peace on earth, in this lifetime? – Sounds good to me’.

As for ‘enquiring into the validity of the actual freedom method’, I can only suggest leaving a little more time between enquiring, making a hypothesis, asking yourself a question and coming to a conclusion. Sometimes this process can takes weeks, months ... or even years. It is no little thing to become free of the human condition of malice and sorrow. As with becoming free of any affliction, the starting point is acknowledging the human condition in oneself.

The instant knee-jerk reaction of denial leaves no time to engage the brain for the essential activity of thinking.


PETER: I see you are picking up on a bit of No. 22’s wordings here. To treat actualism as a worldview beats the grim materialist worldview hands down and is so much better than retreating into a worldview of one’s own making – the spiritual la la land.


PETER: History is littered with the failed Utopian dreams of Gurus and God-men who have seduced gullible disciples into attempting to put their Messianic megalomania into practice. Thousands of these isolationist, elitist religious/spiritual Utopias have come and gone over thousands of years to no avail whatsoever. To be a follower or disciple of a Guru or God-man is the very antithesis of freedom and autonomy – it is an appalling form of psychic enslavement and emotional dependency.


PETER: Those who have bothered to read about actualism know full well that actualism is a method and not a worldview.

RESPONDENT: I am not into nitpicking about whether the Actual freedom trust as an organization, which is open for participation to anyone who can get access to the internet facilities that are required to have this access, supplies a worldview or a method; to me this view provides a way of looking at the human condition.

PETER: The Actual Freedom Trust is not ‘an organization, which is open for participation to anyone’ – it is simply a statuary legal entity. There are no public meetings, there is no Master or Guru, there are no followers or disciples – no matter how hard some imagine it to be otherwise, or fervently wish it to be otherwise.

And finally, a worldview is not a method. Holding a worldview or personal view – as in a philosophy, theory, belief, concept – is only necessary until one discovers the facts of the situation. Actualism is a method of ‘self’-investigation. To treat it as a worldview is to miss the opportunity of discovering peace on earth – bringing an end to your own personal malice and sorrow.


RESPONDENT: Just to set the record straight ;-). At this point I find it neither necessary nor desirable to respond in a personal way (meaning addressing any members <finding them either supporting or not supporting the worldview currently presented as ACTUALISM>). The basic goal and purpose to establish (becoming happy and harmless while living a life in which there is no denial whatsoever of any bodily functions or qualities attributed to what is generally referred to as the human body) has been agreed upon as to be possible beneficial.

PETER: If I may point out something both from my own experience of spiritual years, and from observing others, that may be relevant. If you run the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ and come up with the answer ‘I am being angry right now’ or ‘I am feeling sad right now’ then you have something to investigate. If, however, you adopt the spiritual approach of ‘there is anger arising (in my body)’ or dissociate from the anger by asking ‘who is being angry right now?’ – as though it was someone else but you being angry – then you are indulging in the spiritual practice of denial and cultivating a new, holier than thou, dissociated identity.

The simplicity of running the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ with sincerity is not an easy exercise, but for someone who dissociates from their feelings it is impossible.

RESPONDENT: Hence my participation in anyway I choose to do for my own responsibility in my own tempo (be it writing on this mailing list or studying pages of the Actual Freedom material). I however will not respond to any pressure that is put out as to express my findings (through reading or experimenting with methods) I have done so far, unless I find that the question are genuine human interest based and not any invitation or provocation to compete with any member.

PETER: You may not have noticed but there are no rules and regulations on this list, it is unmoderated. Anyone is free to respond in whatever way they see fit, or not. Investigating the human condition is tough stuff – uncomfortable, unnerving and sometimes very daunting or even threatening. It is the threatening aspect that causes the fight or flight reactions to automatically kick in, such that any further investigation is thwarted.

RESPONDENT: Qualities like gentleness or tenderness, which can be revealed by a certain way of expressing in a careful way, I value highly. (These btw can be attributed to the mammal brain).

PETER: Do you also value highly the expressions of ‘gentleness and tenderness’ revealed in all animals with mammalian brains – until that same animal is threatened, or feels threatened, when fear automatically causes savageness and ruthlessness to kick in? The animal instinctual passions are a complete and inseparable package of both the tender and savage passions.

The documented history of human savagery is testimony to the fact that no matter how much vaunted, valued, emphasized or sanctified the tender passions are by human beings, the human condition has always been, and still is, exemplified by the overarching dominance of the savage passions. Highly valuing some passions while ignoring or denying others is the traditional failed approach that can never bring an end to malice and sorrow.


RESPONDENT: If I need to inquire into my beliefs and feel invited to do so or feel encouraged to do so, the least thing that can be done is to respect a viewpoint as being such. Hence you can exclude me also from that above Generic we created by a presumptuous mind. I cannot and will not include myself with that at this point.

PETER: That investigation was almost as short-lived as your hypothesis that Richard was actually free. You are moving on fast. You will get rid of all your doubts very quickly this way. Now it is clear that you are saying you were not born into, absorbed by or totally identified with the human condition. I can only assume that by denying that you were born into, absorbed by or totally identified with the human condition that you are now free from the human condition. This sounds very similar to No 12’s approach to instant AFF – actual fucking freedom.

RESPONDENT: Also to insinuate that I would be allied with any member or ex-member (consider member to be a participator in this experimenting with ACTUAL freedom) or be conspiring with any member or ex-member <to purposely undermine or be disruptive to the work of the people from the actual freedom trust I do not like>. The fucking actual freedom approach (a name No 12 has been mentioned) being a different World view has not yet been proved to be either less or more valid than the clear actual freedom approach. However, from personal experiences speaking, there has been some evidence that it cannot completely ruled out to have benefit in certain circumstances.

PETER: There is nothing here to be a member or ex-member of – either you are experimenting with the method of actualism or you are not. You clearly have already decided not to as you have firmly resisted every opportunity to investigate the human condition thus far – and have even gone so far as to state that you ‘will not include yourself’ as being inflicted by the Human Condition.


PETER: As for ‘enquiring into the validity of the actual freedom method’, I can only suggest leaving a little more time between enquiring, making a hypothesis, asking yourself a question and coming to a conclusion. Sometimes this process can takes weeks, months ... or even years. It is no little thing to become free of the human condition of malice and sorrow. As with becoming free of any affliction, the starting point is acknowledging the human condition in oneself.

The instant knee-jerk reaction of denial leaves no time to engage the brain for the essential activity of thinking.

RESPONDENT: The so-called knee jerk reflex, which is attributed to a state of denial, may be helpful in certain life threatening situations or even as a way to take position in a situation where one needs to show his/her point of view very clearly for whatever security purpose(s).

PETER: The instant knee-jerk reaction is not an attribute of a state of denial – it is an attribute of the genetically-encoded instinctual animal survival program. These automatic reflex actions are evident in all animals as a fight or flight response. Human beings are unique amongst the animal species in that these instant knee-jerk reactions are not only evident in life threatening or life taking situations but are evident whenever ‘I’, as a psychological and psychic entity, feel threatened – which is almost always, if you have noticed.

Currently 6 billion humans are all busy passionately defending their own point of view and passionately attacking the points of view of others in a grim and instinctual battle for survival. The first attribute needed for anyone wanting to cease being a combatant in this ongoing ‘self’-centred war is to cease denying they are, through no fault of their own, one of these combatants. This is very simple stuff, not complicated at all.

RESPONDENT: Nevertheless I can understand that this reflex which is basically originating from a primitive part of the brain, the Ganglia, from a neo-cortical point of view is being interpreted as primitive instinctual reactive behaviour and therefore undesirable and unwanted or needed.

PETER: I can only suggest that by running the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ you may come to an experiential understanding of how undesirable and unwanted these primitive instinctual reactive passions and behaviour really are.

RESPONDENT: Hence in the light of actualism there needs to be a disconnection from this part of the brain. The neo-cortex needs to take over, so now the neo-cortex is in a state of denial assuming that this is actually possible. Now I wonder is that actually possible? (There is an intimate physical connection between those parts of the brain the neo-cortex and Ganglia (or reptilian brain).

PETER: There is an enormous dare in actualism – for the only way to find out if what is on offer is actually possible is to actually try it out on yourself. There is a world of difference between a theorist and a practitioner.

RESPONDENT: So I like to say a word of caution to people who have a firm belief in the way of Actual freedom – maybe the experiment Richard (in which actually happened this disconnection of the two brain parts) is in some other form of denial namely being completely living and responding from the neo-cortex. And hence depriving himself and his fellow beings from ordinary humanness.

PETER: I see you have already assumed the role of warning others off actualism. Is this what you call being an actualogist?

Any new enterprise that has bought progress to human beings has been greeted by fear and trepidation. The first steam trains were preceded by a man walking along waving a red flag to warn people of danger and evil. When the first escalators were installed, a man with a wooden leg was employed for months to go up and down on them, to prove to others that they were safe.

RESPONDENT: From my point of view I know the neo-cortex has tremendous abilities and possibilities to communicate a state of being (among other qualities maybe yet to discover). Yet the other part(s) of the brain require a certain stimulation that cannot be done by merely neo-cortical activity, hence the physical presence of a person is required in order to optimize communication.

PETER: If you mean it requires a psychological and psychic entity to feel psychological and psychic fear, I agree with you. Fear is a feeling, not a fact. Hence most of what passes for communication between humans is fear based, psychologically expressed as personal viewpoints or psychically experienced as intuitions, or gut feelings.

RESPONDENT: Now Richard as I have found was not willing to acknowledge this as far as I could see (he did not accept a friendly invitation for sharing a drink). In this way he deprived himself and me and a person named No 12 from a possible valuable experience namely an actual meeting, rather then the kind of, however not entirely pointless and at times learnfull, challenging and even entertaining, poor substitute for flesh and blood, of virtual communication. This is where doubt came in for me.

PETER: And did you find your actual meeting with Vineeto ‘learnfull, challenging and even entertaining’ when she approached you and No 12 for an actual meeting and was told to ‘fuck off’? There does seem to be somewhat of a credibility gap between your highly valuing ‘gentleness and tenderness’ and what occurred in your ‘actual meeting’ with an actualist.

Personally, when dealing with such touchy subjects as human malice and sorrow and peace on earth, I find internet communication much more convivial than being subject to the ‘ordinary humanness’ of someone riled by the words of actualism.

RESPONDENT: As far as Actual freedom being a method in which one chooses to have faith because certain benefits have been achieved in following this method (this means it works until otherwise is being proven), I do not see any difference in trusting* (a quality* that seems to be dismissed by Peter) a higher authority like god or intelligence or putting faith in a method that promises to gradually bring about a change into that what is currently perceived or/and experienced as oneself.

PETER: Firstly having faith in a practical method is useless. A method is something you try out to see if it works or you don’t try, in which case you will never know. Faith has bugger all to do with method.

Faith: Reliance, belief, esp. without evidence or proof.

Method: pursuit of knowledge, mode of investigation. Oxford Dictionary

Faith is what spiritual/religious people have when trusting in a higher authority like God or Intelligence (the supposed intelligence of God) to make their life magically better for them ... or at least no worse. Despite billions of humans over thousands of years trusting God or Intelligence to bring an end to human conflict and misery, the conflict and misery still goes on unabated.

An actualist is someone who acknowledges there is no higher authority, let alone a Higher Authority, that is preventing him or her from getting on with the job of becoming happy and harmless. As such, one of the first things to investigate is the whole issue of fervently believing in, or desperately needing to rely on, a higher authority.

RESPONDENT: Therefore I cannot say that I find his remarks bringing about any changes in my original viewpoint and or motives to be present here.

PETER: Given that you have already exempted yourself from the human condition of malice and sorrow in a previous post you would obviously find Richard’s writings totally inapplicable to you personally, which is why your personal viewpoint will always remain unassailable. Vis:

[Peter to Respondent No 22]: The purpose of this mailing list is to question beliefs, investigate feelings and uncover the facts appertaining to the human condition we all find ourselves born into, absorbed by and totally identified with. Peter to No 22, 28.12.2000

[Respondent]: ... you can exclude me also from that above Generic ‘we’, created by a presumptuous mind. I cannot and will not include myself with that at this point. (30.12.2000)

As you have already dodged the question as to your motives of being here on this list, I shall avoid repeating the question.

RESPONDENT: Because I noticed that it is not uncommon on this list to discuss, evaluate, criticize the contribution or participation of ‘members’ with regard to the question whether there is any value or benefit coming from that contribution and/or participation. I have stated my viewpoint here this way.

PETER: How to bring about peace on earth between human beings is no little thing to discuss and evaluate. To dare to challenge all the truths and Truths, sanctimonious morals, unliveable ethics, dearly held beliefs, cherished feelings, the shame and guilt at having savage feelings – in short, to conduct a thorough investigation of one’s own being, is not for the faint of heart. As such, the discussions on this list are often robust and often tackle subjects and issues that are universally regarded as best not spoken about, too hot to handle or too close to the bone. Personally, I relish the discussion on this list because there is nothing holy, sacred or taboo in this type of sincere inquiry into the human condition.

It is apparent that those who are either disinterested or offended by a no-holds barred inquiry into the human condition are those who have not yet suffered enough from the human condition ... and who are not yet appalled enough at inflicting suffering on others.


RESPONDENT: I find that a discussion (however I prefer to say dialogue) is not entirely impossible because I sense a sense of genuine human interest and care about a fellow human being, yet I still think/ feel/ assume that there are some misunderstandings or misinterpretations (that I mainly attribute to the nature of this medium by which we make and effort to communicate).

PETER: Given that English is not your first language, you are doing well. I have had little trouble in understanding you. You are not alone in thinking/ feeling/ assuming that you are being misunderstood or misinterpreted. Of the 150 or so correspondents from various mailing lists thus far on the Actual Freedom Trust website this is a common objection, i.e. they complain that it is words that are the problem and not their own unwillingness to make the effort to understand what is being written. What is also common to all these same correspondents is that they don’t realize that what is on offer here is a non-spiritual, actual freedom – 180 degrees opposite to the traditional spiritual path of blindly following a Guru ... or desperately seeking to become a Guru.

When I came across actualism I soon realized that I was either not ‘getting’ what was written or was busy trying to fit it into my spiritual perspective. It eventually dawned on me that I had once been a normal identity and then had adopted a new spiritual identity and if I could change course once – why not twice?

But getting back to the subject of words – I do understand your confusion, which is why I put together a glossary ( so as to explain the difference between the traditional spiritual meanings and the actual meanings of words and terms. You may find it a useful reference and aid to overcoming any misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

RESPONDENT: I just had a nice shower and a few things came to mind (not that I was diverted from the pleasure of that shower). One was a quotation of one of the so-called Head spiritual leaders namely Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (BSR) I know that became later Osho and I respect that also but I like (BSR) better – just a matter of personal viewpoint [which I also would be happy to elaborate on how these different viewpoints one Being <BSR> and the other being <OSHO> on one ‘master/teacher’ have been generated. Yet as for now I assume that this is not interesting or relevant information to this (discussion/ dialogue) ... please be clear if you agree here].

PETER: As you have yet to start a discussion/dialogue, I can’t comment on whether this is interesting or relevant.

RESPONDENT: Yes, Peter there is still respect for some teachers which I get the impression that you assume that they are to blame for having done what they did (playing the role of Guru) <*> [please be clear if you agree here]

PETER: You may find my review of Paul Lowe’s book useful as it provides an actualist’s detailed response to the typical sermons of an Eastern spiritual teacher.

RESPONDENT: Now the following is a quotation of BSR – ‘Don’t believe anything, because I said so’. Does this make any sense to me? Yes it does, hence I conclude that even if <BSR> did not purposely make this statement (just being a victim of the ‘guru-illusion’), would you agree or admit, Peter that {vis ‘To be a follower or disciple of a Guru or God-man is the very antithesis of freedom and autonomy – it is an appalling form of psychic enslavement and emotional dependency.’} this statement has about the same significance?

PETER: What you regard as significant or not is entirely your business. I stand by my statement as it is a fact, whereas Mr. Rajneesh makes a virtue of never standing by anything he says, as your quote well illustrates.

If you are interested in my experiences as a follower of Mr. Rajneesh, I suggest you read the following chapters of my Journal – ‘Spiritual Search’ and ‘God’.

RESPONDENT: When analyzing first ‘Don’t believe anything’ (*a warning to not believe) second ‘because...’ – and here comes the opportunity to misinterpret or interpret conveniently to one’s desire what it might mean ‘I SAID SO’. Do I stop believing just with a snap of the finger (someone tells me not to believe because if I do ... then what...)? Now what kind of authority is involved here?

OR do I take the full statement {DBAbiss} now what happens to authority here? (Can you hear an implicit warning to question any authority (that includes the one who is putting out that statement)? IS not authority anything that you accept either as an outward or inward force that is able to somehow exercise power over me (be it beneficial, be it destructive)? So that <BSR> quote contains the invitation to question both belief and authority, are you with me so far?

PETER: Sort of ... but I am left wondering what relevance this line of questioning has to our previous discussions/dialogues. If I may bring us back to the pertinent issue we had begun to discuss –

[Respondent]: That the human condition is exemplified by malice and sorrow are in fact true, will be the function of the study, or as you have put it ‘...sincere enquiry into the human condition’, yes? [endquote].

Now that you have introduced Mr. Rajneesh’s views into the discussion, let me quote his views about anger – the human feeling of malice commonly directed towards other human beings –

[M. Rajneesh]: Anger as a flare up once in a while has its own function, has its own beauty, has its own humanity. A man who cannot be angry will be spineless, will not have guts. A man who cannot be angry will not be able to love either – because both need passion, and it is the same passion. A man who cannot hate will not be able to love; they go together. His love will be cold. And remember a warm hate is far better than a cold love. At least it is human – it has intensity, it has life, it breathes.

And a man who has lost all passion will be dull, stale, dead, and his whole life he will be angry. < snip > Whenever anger is expressed, you are released from it. And after the anger you can again feel compassion; after the anger you can again feel the silence of love. There is a rhythm between hate and love, anger and compassion. < snip > When I say replace perfection with totality, I mean when you are angry be totally angry.

Then just be anger, pure anger. And it has beauty. And the world will be far better when we accept anger as part of humanity, as part of the play of polarities. Osho, The Revolution. Chapt. 2. The Sacred soul makes music. Q.2.

From this quote it is very obvious that if someone believes Mr. Rajneesh is a fountain of Wisdom and Love, then in no way will they be interested in eliminating their own anger. His legacy to Humanity is an utterly self-centred flock of disciples and believers who relish their own special-ness, strut their superiority and are ever-ready to ‘release’ their ‘pure anger’ on others.

Rajneesh’s legacy is as sick and perverse as that of any of the other long dead God-men who have strode the earth – proclaiming themselves to be the ultimate goody-two-shoes while preying on the vulnerability of others in order to quench their insatiable lust for adulation. Desperate in their need for people to love them and be grateful to them, they have roamed the planet for millennia, peddling their snake-oil feel-good message and the ‘truth’ of an after-life paradise to any lost, lonely and frightened souls willing to listen.

No doubt you will either be offended by what I am saying or dismiss it as Guru-bashing, however the only way to discover the already existing peace on earth is to abandon the ancient belief that peace is only possible by turning away from the world and retreating inwards to find an ‘inner’ peace. Anyone who continues to believe in these spirit-ual fairy tales can never be free of the human condition of malice and sorrow.

RESPONDENT: So that <BSR> quote contains the invitation to question both belief and authority, are you with me so far? Because: here I find that responding any further to your below reply would be rather pointless as I found that you seem to have many assumptions about me and/or my willingness to inquire, my ability for to be contributive to ‘peace on Earth’.

PETER: I can only suggest that if you are sincerely interested in peace on earth it may well be useful to continue questioning why you revere Mr. Rajneesh and his Wisdom. You may well find the answer to your own question – ‘Is not authority anything that you accept either as an outward or inward force that is able to somehow exercise power over me (be it beneficial, be it destructive)?’

You need to find the answer to this question otherwise you will live your life simply believing or accepting what others tell you is ‘the truth’ or you may end up humbly prostrating yourself before another human being because he/she proclaims he/she knows the Truth, is living the Truth or is the Truth. As I said before –

[Peter]: ‘To be a follower or disciple of a Guru or God-man is the very antithesis of freedom and autonomy – it is an appalling form of psychic enslavement and emotional dependency.’ (2.1.2001)

A sincere question is a question asked in order to get a definitive unequivocal answer. Not a good answer, not a right answer, not the answer I already know, not a feel-good answer, not a commonly accepted truth, not a comfortable answer, but the obvious facts of the matter.

As the detective said in the movie – ‘give me the facts ma’am ... nothing but the facts.’


RESPONDENT: Re: No 12 Re: Leaving the table ...

Sorry Peter for having changed the thread name. I’m sure you will treat this mail in a way that it will be presented as is meant to be so if you receive this as personal only please make sure that is available to all subscribers of AF.

PETER: By the very nature of this list anything posted to the list is sent to all subscribers and everyone then has the opportunity to read or not, reply or not and make comment or not on the matters being discussed regardless of whether it is addressed to them or not. The list is also uncensored, as you may have noticed.

Given that the post was addressed to me I have taken the opportunity to reply at length and in detail to the points you raised. To flag a warning, there is much in this post ‘you’, as a social and instinctual being, will not like, but it does offer food for thought as to how radically different actualism is to spiritualism.

RESPONDENT: Having rather closely watched the conversation between No 20(R) and Richard, I like to respond to what I have perceived so far.

Although it’s not really my concern, I just share my observation and conclude that there seems to be a failure to acknowledge (I’d say failure in reception.) I know it’s common ground among new age blissninnies to believe that this new age is going to bring the long awaited brotherhood and everything is going to be all right, however clearly this may be a possibility it is far from an actuality.

PETER: The idea that this New Dark Age is someday going to bring peace on earth is the equivalent of perennially waiting for Godot.

The first major question that would need to be confronted would be whether the New Brotherhood would be ruled by a God or Goddess? Would it be politically correct to call it a Brotherhood? What about a Sisterhood or a Neuter-hood or perhaps a Celibacy-hood? Would human beings worship only One God or many Gods? Would there be a Western New Order or an Eastern New Order or both? Is Buddhism going to win the battle of the religions, or Hinduism, or Taoism, or Christianity? Which branch of which religion will become the unifying faith and what then happens to the believers of other religions or will kathenotheism be the rule? If so, what about all the other theisms?

Is the New Order going to eventuate by an apocalypse, in whatever form, thereby obliterating all bar the ‘chosen ones’ and, if so, which group of ‘chosen ones’ will be ‘saved? Or is some Enlightened Being going to wave a magic wand and everybody will simultaneously see the light? And if so, which light? Will a Messiah return and, if so, which Messiah or will a spacecraft land with the Message and if so what is the Message and where will it come from?

If you are still holding on the belief that the New Dark Ages will bring forth salvation and redemption, these questions need definitive answers. Then, if you are at all sincere about spiritualism, you would need to throw your lot 100% in with whomever is going to bring ‘the long awaited brotherhood.’

I remember thinking as a kid what nonsense religion was but, true to form, as middle age came along and the real-world failed to bring any satisfaction or have any meaningfulness whatsoever, I ended up being sucked into religion – albeit of the ‘new’ Eastern variety. This act of surrendering to God is what is commonly known as acceptance – in desperation for an answer to the meaning of life I abandoned all common sense, pulled a blanket of denial over my head and accepted, or simply gave in, to believing what everyone else believed.

The action of surrendering one’s will to a mythical God – in whatever form and by whatever name – is the very antithesis of freedom.

RESPONDENT: Recently Mr. Bush (US president) visited Europe to announce his change in direction with regard to the ‘solution’ to some urgent problems in the world today. While I was watching him making this announcement I found myself jumping out of my chair screaming no!, you sob mf.

Though initially feeling rather comfortable with that powerful feeling, later on I realized that I had not by a long shot looked and understood why I jumped up and went into some freak-out like this and then suddenly it took me many hours of processing keeping using the 8-word sequence as to come closer to this eventually I discovered that this expression of my dislike was in fact a covering up of my sense of powerlessness...

PETER: For a comment on the curse of power and/or subservience see      ‘Authority’ in the Glossary. You will also find it illuminating as to Richard’s role in the business of actualism.

RESPONDENT: Anyway at that point I had not yet received the correction of Vineeto.

PETER: You may well consider one day that Vineeto was not correcting you but was simply pointing out some facts. Not ‘her’ facts, but facts. If you feel you have been corrected, as in being right or wrong or good and bad, pretty soon you will not like feeling as though you are being always corrected and sullen resentment and anger will be the inevitable result. The only way to avoid this pitfall, which has sent many scurrying away from actualism, is to check out for yourself whether what is being written is a fact. If you don’t think it is a fact, then there is something further to discuss or investigate. If it is a fact then it is obviously silly to get upset or angry about a fact, after all actualism is about being happy and harmless given the facts of life as-they-are.

This is exactly how Vineeto and I came to live in peace and harmony, we stopped arguing as to whose point of view was right and whose was wrong – we put the issue on the table, thoroughly investigated it and came up with the facts. Seeing and acknowledging the facts meant that I had to abandon ‘my’ precious beliefs if I wanted to live with her without currying conflict and harbouring resentment. This is what is meant in practical terms by the phrase replacing beliefs with facts and the result of this process is an incremental demolishing of your social identity.

Just another point that may be worthwhile considering. What Richard said in regard to actual freedom in the Authority passage that I mentioned above, equally applies to Vineeto in regard to virtual freedom – she is an authority on virtual freedom, an expert, a trail-blazer.

RESPONDENT: These problems (mentioned by Bush) roughly can be summarized as dealing with security and pollution on a global scale. Considering that these problems are the fruits of humanity’s endeavour to survive on this planet throughout history.

PETER: All the problems that blight humanity can be sheeted home to the instinctual animal survival passions, genetically-encoded by blind nature in each and every human being. Security is only a problem because human beings are driven by fear, aggression, nurture and desire, and pollution is only an issue because of the relentless and senseless drive to procreate and proliferate, come what may. The seeing and understanding of this is one thing, the next and obvious question is – what am ‘I’ going to do about it?

RESPONDENT: Also considering that some collective ‘property’ i.e. the development of the formulae E=mc2 was done by one person Einstein. ... I said to myself could it be that?

PETER: You lost me there.

RESPONDENT: The fleshbodybrain or bio-organism <Richard> goes through a series of sequences in order to extend itself by using a fully integrated apperceptive experience of the tool language using the internet as an extension. In this process the medium is the message if the medium is understood the message is received (added to the collective human consciousness as a new probability) ... (I’m not going into that, it’s too complicated).

PETER: If I have got it right, I think what you are saying is that you have read on your computer-screen some of what Richard has written, either on this mailing list or perhaps on the Actual Freedom Trust website as well. The medium is not the message, the words are the message and the words mean what they say. There is no hidden agenda here – the agenda is upfront and unambiguous. There are no psychic powers or psychic vibes hidden behind the words or transmitted through the words. The words convey a simple and direct message – that it is now possible to become actually free of the human condition and this freedom, being actual, has nothing to do with the metaphysical feeling of freedom engendered by following the traditional spiritual path.

As for ‘the message’ adding a new probability to the collective human consciousness – Humanity’s collective consciousness is already overflowing with probabilities, faiths, concepts, ideals, promises, viewpoints, hopes, fantasies and fairy tales. The collective human consciousness is simply the aggregate of all of the malevolence, suffering and utter despair of Humanity, of all the people on the planet and all those who have ever been. This dark underbelly of Humanity is indeed diabolical and is typified by the hellish realms that underscore all of the religious and spiritual myths and legends, not only in the West but also in the East. This abyss of endless suffering has spawned countless fairy-tales of otherworlds and metaphysical realms, Heavens, Paranirvanas, Maha-Parinirvanas and Further Shores.

Thus, from a universal human experience of the fiendish nature of the savage instinctual passions, was born the belief in a counter force of Goodness and Godliness – a universal belief fuelled by the tender instinctual passions. As a consequence the fictitious battle betwixt Good and Evil and Right and Wrong has raged for millennia – each imaginary force dependant on the other, both inexorably intertwined in the human psyche, both collectively and individually.

The message of actualism is about how to become free of this collective human consciousness. Actualism is about ridding oneself of all the beliefs, morals, ethics and psittacisms that sustain and support this ongoing mindless battle – all that one has been taught in order to make one an active participant, forever taking a side in the battle against ‘others’. Actualism is not about taking the Good or Godly side in this ongoing passionate war, but about leaving this passion-fuelled war behind entirely by aiming for the felicitous feelings such that eventually both the savage passions and the tender passions wilt on the vine, as it were.

It is impossible to get very far in the actualism method without examining one’s own cherished spiritual beliefs because sooner or later one will find oneself being offended when someone inevitably steps on one of them. Then one will feel far from felicitous and a vital decision will have to be made – to continue defending one’s precious beliefs or ditch them and make one’s sole aim in life to become happy and harmless, no matter what the cost.

RESPONDENT: Do I have reasons to doubt Richard as such an extension?

PETER: For what it is worth, I can assure you that Richard does in fact exist and he does in fact type all of his words – with two fingers. Richard is not extending himself through his words with some psychic energy if that is what you mean by ‘such an extension’. The words mean what the words mean, i.e. they convey information ... for anyone who is interested. There is no mystical message behind the words or coming through the words or hidden in the words.

There is only a message from some fellow human beings to say you can stop fighting now, the struggle is over. It’s time to step out of the real world, and the spiritual world, and leave your ‘self’ behind where it belongs. It’s time to bail out, desert the ship if you will. We are not saying go back to grim reality, we are saying come here to the actual world.

Every body has had a glimpse of the actual world at sometime in their life. It might just have been a sudden sensation of déja vu – a heightening of the senses when you suddenly become aware of the sensation of the wind on your skin or suddenly become are of the sounds all around you as though the volume was suddenly turned up. During such heightened awareness every thing is perceived as being crystal clear and crisp, as if a veil has been removed.

There is a freshness to everything and everyone, as if you are here for the first time. There is also a friendly familiarity and an immediacy that is a recognition that I, this flesh and blood body, belong in this actual world – whereas ‘he’ or ‘she’ – ‘who’ I thought and felt I was only moments before – can only ever be alien to this actual, physical world. This temporary ‘self’-less sensual experience of perfection and purity is what is known as a pure consciousness experience.

In a ‘self’-less experience there is a comfortable ease and an intimate sensuousness to being here. The experience is sensate-only, sensational in fact – the feel of the air on your skin, the flamboyant colours, the sounds all around you. There is a bare awareness of being here. There is an intimacy with one’s fellow human beings for they are precisely that – fellow human beings. Life in all its forms on this planet becomes fascinating, an inexplicable wonder.

There is a crystal clear clarity, a vibrant physicality to things. Objects are seen to be not passive, dead or dull, for they are all fashioned from the material of the universe and fashioned by the only intelligent life forms in the universe – human beings – and one marvels at the ingenuity of that intelligence. Not only do things become things to wonder at, but everyday events have an unrehearsed spontaneity that is fascinating to be a part of.

It is as though you are suddenly seeing and experiencing the world as it actually is, when there is no ‘me’ to prevent this sensual experiencing from happening. ‘He’ and his worries and moods are left behind as it were, it is as though a burden has been lifted from one’s shoulders, as if one has woken up from a bad dream or nightmare and as though you have entered another dimension – the actual sensate-luxurious world that this world really is.

The ongoing richness of sensate experiencing, be it touching, hearing, seeing, tasting or smelling, confirms the actuality of this world. This universe is perfect, it is incomparable in its majesty, being infinite it is unsurpassable, being eternal it is peerless. Being benign it is faultless, without malice. Being fascinating it is enchanting, without sorrow. It is the ongoing 24 hrs a day, every day, experiencing of the actual world that is on offer on this list, complete with a method to make this possible.

If this is of interest to you, then it pays to read what is written carefully, to make the effort to understand in order that you can take the necessary action such that you can become virtually free of malice and sorrow ... because it is obvious that it is impossible to become actually free from the human condition whilst nursing malice and sorrow in one’s bosom. If one is unwilling to make this level of ‘self’-sacrifice, then forget the whole business.

The process of actualism is pragmatic and down-to-earth and in no way theoretical, imaginary or spirit-ual. Actualism is about becoming happy and harmless in the world as-it-is, with people as-they-are.

RESPONDENT: And my answer is, after having gone through some heavy-duty paranoia thinking no, not anymore so... From that perspective I recognize and therefore can acknowledge the actual freedom method as presented as is, as: ‘the fruit of the collective endeavour of our species human beings.’

PETER: The collective human endeavour to find a way to end the incessant warfare between human beings has born no fruit whatsoever – you only need to watch the world news on television for a while to confirm this as a fact, take a look around you at relationships between people, and examine your own attitudes and actions towards your fellow human beings. Do you see peace and harmony, co-operation and consensus, equity and equanimity?

What Richard did was acknowledge the failure of all previous human endeavour to find peace on earth – including his own – and set off to discover exactly why it had failed. In that sense the method he discovered to eliminate malice and sorrow can be seen as the fruit of the failures of the collective endeavour of the human species. This also explains why those who still passionately believe in the failed ‘old ways’ find it nigh on impossible to comprehend that there is now something new on the planet and that it that works.

One of the most pathetic aspects of spiritual belief is that, deep down, nobody believes that peace on earth is really possible. Thus the spiritual path is not only totally ‘Self’-centred, it is also profoundly cynical about peace on earth between human beings ever eventuating.

RESPONDENT: Not only that I also acknowledge the fact that he as the first one in human history has realized actual freedom as a human possibility (brought to earth).

PETER: Could I ask where you imagine it, or he, has been ‘bought to earth’ from? A meta-physical otherworldly realm or some intergalactic address of some sort? As far as can be reasonably ascertained, there is no intelligence in the universe other than human intelligence and to believe in a Supreme Intelligence, in whatever form and by whatever name, is to regress into the traditional folly of believing that we are but pawns on God’s chess set.

To believe that Richard is a Messiah, or an alien from outer space, is to completely miss the whole point of what is on offer in actualism.

RESPONDENT: Therefore he can be considered as the missing link in human evolution hence it would be helpful to realize for any individual that lands on that AF-site to take notice of the significance of the message and to inquire into the validity of the suggested method.

PETER: Hmm. Perhaps the first step would be to thoroughly understand the nature of the message, lest you start looking for a Significance that does not exist.

It might be helpful to read the illustrated Introduction (here) which also has some useful schematics that attempt to diagrammatically illustrate what has been clearly stated countless times both on the web-site and on this mailing list – that actualism has nothing at all to do with the traditional Eastern spiritual path of denial and sublimation.

RESPONDENT: I.e. running of the sequence <How am I Experiencing this moment of being alive> (9 words, 40 characters) keeping in mind that this is an altruistic action that aims at eradication of any experience as me (being an entity in any whatsoever form as a result of self-centred activity of the brain.)

The analogy of the computer with the human brain is stunning.

PETER: Yep. Both only function the way they have been programmed to function. In the case of the computer I am using, it is programmed to function as a word processor, an e-mail processor, a web-browser, a photo editor, a CAD drawing producer, etc, i.e. it only functions the way it has been programmed to function.

With regard to the human brain, modern scientific empirical discoveries of neuro-biology and genetics have revealed two very fascinating aspects as how it is programmed –


  1. That the brain is programmable in the same way a computer is programmable. The program is formed by physical connections or pathways between neurons, and this program is mostly formed after birth. These pathways (synapse) are also capable of being changed at any time. The old connection simply ‘dies’ for lack of use and a new one is formed.
  2. That the human brain is also pre-programmed, via a genetic code, with a set of base or instinctual operating functions, located in the primitive brain system which causes automatic thoughtless passionate reactions, primarily those of fear, aggression, nurture and desire, to be transmitted via chemical messages to various parts of the body including the neo-cortex. Physiological alterations that could eliminate this crude programming, as a biological adaptation to changed circumstances, are well documented within the animal species.

This is good news because it means freedom from this programming is in our hands and our hands alone, provided you ditch the notion that there is a God running the show.


  • The first discovery accords with the practical experience of being able to radically change one’s social identity – the program instilled since birth that consists of the morals, ethics, values and psittacisms that make up our social identity. It stands to reason that a psychological identity that is malleable to radical change is also susceptible to total elimination.
  • The second discovery accords with the practical possibility of eliminating one’s very ‘being’ – the emotive source of the instinctual survival passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire. This blind and senseless survival program is now well and truly redundant for many human beings and can now be safely deleted, for the human species has not only survived … it is now beginning to flourish. Introduction to Actual Freedom, Actual Freedom 1

RESPONDENT: From that perspective the logical consequence of the availability of a program line that actually is working as a tool to reprogram the brain in such a way that although, fully capable of functioning with regard to survival-functions of the human being <as a highly vulnerable to outward circumstances organism>, it is able to preform without the necessity to generate a me as an experiencer of I as Ego or Soul.

PETER: The availability of a method to reprogram one’s own brain is one thing – daring to use the method on an ongoing basis is quite another.

One would need to willingly acknowledge the futility of continuing to follow the traditional failed ways and most people, thus far, are too proud to even be open to the possibility that they may be wrong ... let alone freely and willingly acknowledge that they are.

RESPONDENT: Needless to say that as the very essence of the problem is also present in the sequence <H?A(I)ETMOBA> There maybe the danger of an I that is seeking gratification *or glorification*.

PETER: Unless you totally abandon your previous spiritual conditioning, it is absolutely certain that ‘I’ will still be ‘seeking gratification and glorification’ , as in God-realization. To paraphrase a saying ... ‘Seek and ye shall find ... the Power and the Glory’.

To merely replace the letter ‘I’ with the letter ‘i’ in the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ does bugger all to reduce ‘the danger of an I that seeking gratification or glorification .’ In fact it is apparent that those who use the term ‘i’ are the very ones who are seeking gratification and glorification for the big ‘I’ inside.

RESPONDENT: The desire/need for either one of these <**>, needs to be recognized as qualities being rooted in the basic need for love (love being here dismantled as a survival strategy that has proven to be insufficient to realize actual freedom.

PETER: The desire for gratification and glorification is not driven by the need for love as is commonly believed – it is a blatant and not-at-all subtle lust for power over others and for glory for oneself. How better to lord it over others than to have them believe you are God-on-earth with all the accompanying trappings of divine powers and celestial connections ... and how more glorious than to feel one’s self to be that, omnipresent, omnipotent and immortal God.

RESPONDENT: As love is strongly dependent on gender condition hence rooted in a rather primitive part of the brain.

PETER: As gender conditioning is primarily a result of our socializing process, it is best to do first things first and begin to investigate one’s own social conditioning as a male or as a female, and all that entails, before leaping to any theoretical conclusions. Actualism is not about book learning theory, actualism is about carefully reading the instructions and applying the method in the everyday world of people, things and events.

RESPONDENT: It takes indeed nerves of steel to really question this world wide ages-old highly cherished belief in love as a solution.

PETER: People have been busy questioning the human condition from the time the ability to think and reflect materialized in the human species – estimated by some to be in the order of ten thousand years. Questioning is relatively easy. You only need to rely on your own life experiences and observe what is going on around you in order to begin to question. Finding answers that work requires nerves of steel because you will find yourself on a path headed in the opposite direction to those still believing in the old solutions.

A life spent in endless questioning is a wasted life, whereas it is answers to questions that an actualist seeks – and down-to-earth experiential answers to boot.

RESPONDENT: Undoubtedly the first step in this sequence is fundamental; that’s why there needs to be a fundamental understanding of this first part of the sequence. In other words, the word HOW needs to be understood as the basic capability of the human brain for inquiry. YET how needs to be vitalised by one’s own apperceptive experience which seems to me one of the difficulties that may occur when confronted with the challenging sequence <H?A(I)ETMOBA>. Although I have no doubts that when practiced with pure intend this method is failsafe even if the first part of the sequence is not fully understood. The job will be done in time but the question is how long need one to experiment in order to stabilize the PCE, from which one starts off to arrive at ‘virtual Freedom (99% of one’s day) one has the experience of feeling great.

PETER: I would suggest the first question is not ‘how long need one to experiment’, but if one is going to start at all.

RESPONDENT: As soon as I discovered that the demand for effortlessness is a myth and can be a great hinder as it may dismiss oneself from self-responsibility and postpone immediate action, I realized that I needed to redefine ‘effort’. As the only effort is simply picking up the sequence (this can be hardly called effort).

PETER: You certainly have redefined the word effort ... all the way back to being effortless. However, redefining the word does not alter the fact that actualism requires effort. Not wanting to dampen your enthusiasm at all, perhaps we could re-visit the issue in say six months time and you can report on how much success you have achieved relative to how much effort was required.

It’s called giving a practical report, compared with offering a theoretical conjecture.

RESPONDENT: In doing so there is an artificial GAP created between the observer and the observed and the brain becomes attentive to that, that the apperceptive process is not, or only very little distorted so that it is easy to answer the question in terms of: I am this or that i.e. {<a (German, Aussi, Dutchman)> angry, horny, spiritual, loving, happy, resentful}.

PETER: If you are creating a GAP between the observer and the observed you are practicing dissociation as in ‘I am not that’. ‘I’ then create a new disembodied observer identity, dissociated from or separated from ‘my’ unwanted attributes, as in ‘(German, Aussi, Dutchman) angry, horny, spiritual, loving, happy, resentful’ , by the creation of an artificial GAP.

The whole point in running the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ is to become aware of how you are experiencing the world ... as a flesh and blood experiencer, and most definitely not as a dissociated observer. If you run the question sincerely you will find that most often you will be having an affective or cerebral experience – as in resentful, annoyed, frustrated, bored, worried, anxious, sad, melancholic, distanced, aloof, ecstatic, blissed out of it, etc.

The aim of actualism is to become a happy and harmless player in the delightfully sensual game of being alive, not to become a disembodied observer watching ‘my’ body-mind going through the motions of being ‘angry, horny, spiritual, loving, happy, resentful and so on’.

RESPONDENT: From my own experience I can say that bliss experiences or ASC (enlightenment) are in fact temporary (not lasting) distortions of the apperceptive process.

PETER: A bliss experience or ASC is a temporary distortion of grim reality, whereby ‘I’ feel get to feel divine rather than normal human.

Apperception is not a process. Apperception only operates in a completely ‘self’-less state. As such, apperception only occurs for the interim of a PCE or as an ongoing experiencing in Actual Freedom. Apperception is to know by direct experience that grim reality is an illusion and that any spiritual experiences are a delusion – a further fantasy-world illusion, ‘self’-created in order to escape from the nightmare of the primary illusion.

RESPONDENT: This AF-method can be applied virtually everywhere at any time that is in bed or even in the supermarket.

PETER: Given that what you have described above is not the ‘AF method’ but a method of dissociated observation, your comment is baseless.

RESPONDENT: Needless to say that these ASC (experiences although highly pleasant at times, can be the source of self glorification and also can and will work out destructive in relationships with fellow beings as they may give rise to the sense that I am/(have the ASC-experience) and you are/have it not. Which is indeed obvious because ‘I’ has entered a state of self-delusion (though highly pleasant) that does not allow for a sense of fellow beingness because in some way there will be a game of guru disciple set in motion. When this is triggered it eventually will result into all kind of unconscious interaction (mutual delusion). Archetypal bondings.

PETER: ‘Self’-centred spiritual experiencing proves not only to be ‘destructive in relationships’ between spiritual people and normal people, between spiritual people of different faiths and beliefs, between gurus and disciples but also between gurus and gurus. There is, in fact, nothing good at all that can be said about spiritualism.

Given that a picture is supposedly worth a thousand words, Vineeto fashioned a little diagram that clearly delineates the spiritual process. (here )

RESPONDENT: Even worse is the fact that in this process the possibility of looking deeper at one’s own social, cultural, racial, religious aso conditioning is destroyed because one thinks one has arrived whereas one rather has become completely blind to one’s own contribution to malice and sorrow on this planet. In fact there has been a (persistent) disowning of, or suppressing, certain qualities which one carries in oneself.

PETER: Whereas in actualism, it is essential to not fall into the trap of thinking that one knows everything and is arriving, or has arrived, before really understanding that the very first step is to acknowledge that one knows nothing about actualism. The only way you can know what is on offer in actualism is to have a memory of a PCE and then you will have experiential first-hand knowledge and experience of the paradisiacal nature of the actual world.

The process of actualism is brand new in human history, so one can’t know anything about actualism unless one firstly sits down and makes the effort to read in order to understand and secondly, then diligently applies the method until thirdly, one experiences the results. Even if you can’t remember a PCE before starting using the method you are bound to facilitate a PCE by your own ‘self’-investigation process. Then you have a first-hand experience of the actual world and you know that actualism works by first-hand experience.

Actualism is not a belief-system, it is a practical down to earth process.

RESPONDENT: As this game is basically a rather immature way of relating and rooted in the need to be special in some way or another, it can and need to be de-masked as in essence to be a power-play, in which one has entered into a self-sustaining illusion, in other words, a false sense of security. As this illusion is mutual it is virtually impossible to wake up from it.

PETER: And yet both guru and disciple know, deep down inside, that the game they are playing is false. Why else do spiritualists need to maintain their trust in the face of doubt, uphold and defend their faith in the face of adversity, keep hoping so as not to despair, remain surrendered so as not to feel resentful and keep believing in the face of the continued failure of spiritualism to deliver peace to a distraught Humanity?

What I did was turn around and act on my doubts about the spiritual path, which soon woke me up. I didn’t go back to into grim reality for that would be silly, but what I did was aim my sights at becoming virtually free of malice of malice and sorrow, i.e. happy and harmless, as an entrée, as it were, to becoming free of the human condition in toto

It simply depends whether one really wants to wake up, ‘get real’ and start living for the first time ... or continue on dreaming the spiritual dream.

RESPONDENT: Incidentally, as it has been more or less customary (on this list among others like i.e. <k-lists> to nitpick on spiritual leaders.

PETER: I would say wipe the floor would be a more apt description than nitpick.

What people miss is the fact that the spiritual teachers are mere pawns in the spiritual game – they have literally sold their soul to become mouthpieces for some mythical God. To question the teachers as in ‘this one’s better than that one’, or ‘my teacher’s a true teacher and your teacher’s a phoney’ is to completely miss the main issue – to question the revered spiritual teachings themselves.

It is the notion that there is a super natural God, Intelligence, Force, Power, or Essence running this universe that prevents human beings from taking the necessary steps towards eradicating their own malice and sorrow ... and that is why the sacred spiritual teachings need to be questioned first before one can begin to eradicate one’s own malice and sorrow.

RESPONDENT: The Dalai Lama comes to mind in this context as the top of the nowadays Spiritual Hierarchy. Although not having met him personally, I know that his spiritual authority is acknowledged by all lamas as such, which brings to mind a memory of a meeting in Amsterdam where I listened to a lama of which I don’t recall the name. He explained the meaning of the expression FULL is empty and empty is full, yet after a certain point one comes to realizes that full is full and empty is empty. Once that has been done one has understood/attained enlightenment. Indeed I experienced enlightenment for a few days.

PETER: Which only goes to prove that the only way to feel Godly is to abandon common sense, as in the spiritual saying ‘leave your mind at the door.’ Or in this case ‘empty your mind and feel FULL of your ‘self’.’

RESPONDENT: Also he mentioned that Buddha was long ago and if Buddha could do it then, it must be a piece of cake for us nowadays to reach that point in fact we should go much further and manage it to do it quicker. This I found rather encouraging and challenging so from that I conclude that even among genuine spiritual leaders there maybe a sense that the teachings are subject to doubt to produce the desired result.

PETER: The term ‘genuine spiritual teacher’ is oxymoronic given that spirits, be they good or evil, Godly or Demonic are but figments of one’s own imagination reinforced by one’s own cultural conditioning.

For some, the Jesus of Nazareth was the only Son of the only God while for others Gautama Siddhartha is a legendary figure of authority, and yet the only reports we have of either of them ever having existed as flesh and blood humans are contained within the hand-me-down fairy stories of those who believe the mythology to be genuine. This closed-loop, nature of the various cultures’ spiritual beliefs is so incestuous that it defies credibility.

The only way to maintain one’s own particular faith in lieu of credibility is to invent categories such as good and bad beliefs, right and wrong religions, genuine and false teachers, real Gods and phoney Gods, etc. This self-centred prejudice then necessitates the need to practice tolerance lest personal prejudices bubble over into anger and resentment and inter-faith rivalries, hostilities and violence break out. And on and on the cycle has been going for millennia, actively perpetuated by those who fervently believe in spirituality.

There is, in fact, nothing good at all that can be said about spiritualism.

RESPONDENT: From an AF perspective it is obvious that these monks are merely a result of a mixture of their religious/social condition and do not come to the point of questioning the issues that are touched at AF.

PETER: No, it is not ‘an AF perspective’ but a fact that someone who is brought up to be a Buddhist believes that Gautama Siddhartha actually existed as a person and that his supposed teachings are infallible. Likewise someone who is bought up to be a Christian believes that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed as a person and that his supposed teachings are infallible. Similarly, a Hindu will believe in the actual existence of all the Hindu Gods and Goddesses and their fairy-tale stories and accept them as being Wisdom.

Even as a child I thought the notion that there were so many competing Gods on the planet to be patently silly. I just got suckered into spirituality for want of being able to follow something better ... simply because the process of actualism hadn’t been discovered at the time.

RESPONDENT: Nevertheless, if one seeks enlightenment one might try to come in touch with the Dalai Lama as this spiritual source has not been corrupted unlike the present Neo or new age movement where all kinds of so called spiritual mumbo jumbo is being displayed, advertised or sold.

PETER: If you are saying the older the belief the better you are treading on very thin ice.

Tibetan Buddhism is steeped in primitivism, animism, evil, ignorance and fear. The Dalai Lama was both God and King to the Tibetan people and he lorded it over a superstition-ridden populace who mostly lived in abject poverty whilst the lamas lived a life of consummate luxury. All of the wealth of the country was drained into the coffers of the monasteries, so much so that the bodies of the dead head lamas were coated in gold.

The Lama-rama not only sucked the country dry, they left it utterly defenceless. When push came to shove, the God-King and his entourage took the money and fled, leaving his people to suffer their own fate. Tibetan Buddhism is arguably the most despotic of all the religions and the Dalai Lama is arguably the most hypocritical of the God-Kings.

Now if you are feeling offended by what I write, you may well ask would you have been offended if I had said the same thing about the Church of Rome and the Holy Father, the Pope. If not, then you may consider that passionately holding such a selective and subjective viewpoint is what fuels all of the religious wars that have ever been and are still being fought on this fair planet. The only sensible way to cease being culpable is to cease being prejudiced and the only way to do this is to stop believing in a God, in whatever form and by whatever name.

It’s so palpably delicious to be free of believing in Gods and God-men.

RESPONDENT: Also the late Krishnamurti needs to be accredited for that (being an uncorrupted spiritual teacher) because he never wanted to charge money, even the meals at meetings were for free if I remember well.]

PETER: And yet the same J. Krishnamurti was reliably reported as having a long-standing secret affair with his best friend’s wife and was involved in a bitter court battle aimed at preventing his letters to her from ever being made public. The term ‘uncorrupted spiritual teacher’ is oxymoronic, unless one believes the legends and ignores the facts.

The Actual Freedom Mailing List archives are littered with correspondents who have been initially attracted to some straight talking about spiritualism but who have turned tail when their own favourite teacher, Guru or belief is not exempted. The willingness to question the spiritual teachings per se, without prejudice, is the litmus test as to one’s sincerity in being interested in actualism.

RESPONDENT: So inquiring into the first part of the sequence HOW and using the H? as an abbreviation I found a way to vitalize this ie: <H(eroin) (appiness) (orny) (oly)> ^note0^  It is interesting to consider that heroine (not that I have experience with this drug thank god) when straight injected into the vain produces (that is for a junky) immediate results. In that way the AF sequence can be also considered as an immediate quick-fix. One can do it immediately. ^note1^  There is no linear order in this sequence (<H(eroin) (appiness) (orny) (oly)>) H is a centre and around that centre the words are constructed (currently I write this on the wall) ^note2^  I’m not making any suggestions here I mainly report what I have done and found so far. And I heartily welcome any comments or suggestions from serious respondents.

PS.  As the header reads ‘to all’ I leave it to anybody who has taken the ‘trouble’ to bear with me so far to consider what it means to be a serious enquirer/ explorer into AF and as such may find this message worthy to respond to or not.

PETER: It is impossible to become an actualist whilst remaining a spiritualist. One has to fully understand that actualism is diametrically opposed to spiritualism and all it stands for. See diagram.

While actualism is available for anyone, it is really only for those who already have some substantive doubts about the efficaciousness of the spiritual teachings in toto, doubts that are firmly rooted in their own life experience at having experienced failure first hand. The most difficult issue for anyone who has an initial attraction to actualism is to recognize and be able to freely acknowledge the insidious nature of spiritual belief. Unless one is prepared to ditch the old habitual traditional ways of doing things, it is impossible to learn anything new.

I am certainly not out to dampen your enthusiasm, but you need to be clear that actualism is not a spiritual-type belief to be learned and clipped-on to one’s other favourite beliefs. However, should you, upon further exploration, come to the conclusion that it is time to abandon all spiritual belief, then you will find that the actualism method does work – it produces tangible, verifiable and repeatable results, as is testified by the practical reports from actualists on this mailing list.

As I said, some food for thought ...


RESPONDENT to Vineeto: Monosyllabism – HUH? found no match for monosyllabism.

PETER: I liked your sense of humour

Monosyllabism – The quality or condition of being monosyllabic; addiction to the use of monosyllables. Oxford Talking Dictionary

HUH ... ... Peter


RESPONDENT to No 33: The question ‘Is there a type of thought and thinking that is entirely without any emotional investment or emotional involvement?’ I’d say yes there may be. You might like try to do the following:

Look at one of your hands, while understanding that you use the word hand as a pointer to focus your vision on it. [This is not a thought experiment you really need to do it actually.] Next use the word thumb as a pointer to focus on an aspect/fragment of that which you are looking at. Then find out if you can observe the difference between seeing (this visual quality of it) the thumb and feeling it. If you do this you find out that you can shift focus. I think when words are solely used to point or label experienced qualities this kind of thinking is without any emotional investment or emotional involvement.

PETER: Just a comment about your observation that may aid the ‘coming to one’s senses’ that is aim of actualism. Firstly it makes no sense to separate the word hand from the object it is describing just as it makes no sense to separate the words computer monitor from the object it is describing. The word is a description of the object and in that sense they are one in the same thing. The moment I read the word hand I knew what it was you were describing. There is a common psittacism that floats around in philosophical circles that the word is not the thing, which is but a clever ruse designed to give credence to intellectual-only discussions devoid of any down-to-earth meaning or factual evidence.

It is also common in Eastern philosophy and is used as intellectual support to that ultimate dissociative mantra – ‘I am not the body’. You will have noticed that this is the whole basis of No 22’s philosophy of denying the existence of anything physical in order to argue that only that which is meta-physical is real.

It is possible to look at something and appreciate the visual quality of a thumb without thinking the word thumb but this does not mean that it is not a thumb. Similarly you can touch your thumb with your other thumb and feel the warmth and texture of the skin without thinking the word thumb or having any affective feeling about your thumb.

One can be sensately aware of one’s own hand without an affective feeling operating and if you then contemplate upon exactly what it is you are seeing can even give you a glimpse of the fact that what you are is the flesh and blood body. I mention this because I well remember the experience of first really looking at my hand and seeing the corporeal nature of it. It was physical in the sense that it is matter, albeit animate matter, and it was also actual in that it was not merely passive, it grew from matter, it is sustained by the input of matter, it is now showing signs of aging and decaying and it will inevitably die and decompose and the cells that are left will again become the inanimate matter of the earth.

I’ll post a bit that I wrote a while ago which might give a clue as to the delights of sensate-only experiencing as distinct from one’s normal experiencing that is both constantly pre-empted and totally dominated by affective feelings –

[Peter]: ... ‘Recently someone said of Richard’s writings: ‘Why is he talking of everyday things?’ Well, when I wallowed in the world of emotions, feelings, energies and spirits, it was a full-time neurosis, and I couldn’t savour the delights of food, sex, conversation, doing ‘nothing’, playing FreeCell, reading a book, walking, sitting and watching the sky (or the ceiling). Now increasingly I do. Having nothing meaningful or useful or significant or urgent or exciting to do, day after day: and yet experiencing every day, each moment as near-perfect. Everyday life, everyday things. It has to be lived to be fully understood.

We rent a small flat, television, video, a couple of computers, two couches, a balcony with another couch and a couple of comfortable chairs, and a kitchen stocked with our favourite foods. In short, there is everything I need in life, and I live life in this flat almost as I did on the yacht those nights, many years ago. The physical ordinary things of life in this house are as actual, as extraordinary, as the wonders of nature. The universe has done a wonderful job in providing me with all the necessities I require for a delightful life, and I only need to work a little to earn sufficient money to pay the bills.

I remember about twenty years ago there was a lot of talk about the future, when automation and computers would reduce the amount of boring, repetitive and dangerous work humans did. And that then we would all work less and have increased leisure time. Well, that time has come, and suddenly we are calling it unemployment and a crisis! A few years ago I took on a young lad on the building site and he has turned out to be a good carpenter, so I figure he can take my place in the workforce – I’ll take the leisure time. And as for ‘Sustainable’ communities and ecology, I see them as nothing else but sustainable already – they already exist! And in constant change of course, as that is the nature of things. That the universe exists involves no effort on my part. When I get up in the morning I am aware it is here and doing well again. After all, there is no one in charge – there is no-one running this show – it is actually self-sustaining.

The physical universe is infinite and perfect – the ‘stuff’ of the universe being defined as animal, vegetable and mineral. The ‘energies’ of the universe are purely the physical forces of the universe, regulating the ‘stuff’ of the universe. And I, as a human being, am made of the same stuff as the universe. Undeniably, I am the product of the meeting between a sperm and an egg. I remember once looking at my hand and it was obviously the claw of an animal, and a sexual one at that.

I was not here before birth and I will not be here after death. I already know from my peak experiences that there is nothing ‘inside’ me as this body or separate from me to continue after I die. As a physical animal in the physical universe I have made it my aim to be happy and harmless, and the universe will do it’s ‘universe thing’ to aid in the creation of the best possible.

I remember pondering this one day while walking along a country road and seeing a tree that had seeded beneath a log. It had bent around the log and then grown out at a steep angle towards the light. It only grew limbs on one side of the trunk so as to maintain its balance and strength. To say there is a God who looks after every tree, giving instructions, is plainly ridiculous. It is a life-force, if you like, but the tree was growing in the best way possible.


Another image that struck me was a showing the beginning of the formation of a human foetus. It showed the growth in the first days when the main activity is the fervent multiplication and creation of new cells. The cells lined up to form an ever-thickening line which was to be the child’s backbone. As the cells began to form the beginnings of limbs and a head, a sack formed in the chest area, and a pulsing motion could be seen. All in the first few days! Astounding to see, and so extraordinary, that to put a God or anything else in the way was to entirely miss seeing the physical universe in operation. To call life ‘sacred’ is to completely miss the point. Removing God, energies, emotions and feelings is seeing and experiencing the actual world free of a skin or film layered over the top.

That I, as this body, am a collection of pre-programmed cells that forms a whole, which is sensate, mobile, able to think, reflect and communicate with others, and that this whole bundle eventually wears out and dies is so extraordinary, so amazing!’ Peter’s Journal, The Universe

Maybe this is of use to you in understanding the striking difference between sensate-only experiencing and affective feeling.

Another way of understanding the process of actualism is that if one makes a conscious effort to distinguish, separate and eventually remove affective feelings from one’s sensate experiencing of the physical world then one can more and more sensually experience the delight that this actual world really is.

Similarly, if one makes a conscious effort to distinguish, separate and remove affective feelings from one’s thinking then more and more one’s innate intelligence – down-to-earth common sense – is able to operate freely.


PETER: You wrote regarding two comments I made recently –

[Peter]: It is not for nothing that Richard termed his instinct-deleting discovery ... Actual Freedom. Peter to Gary 15.12.2001

[Peter]: The writings of actualists will no doubt be picked over, scrutinized and taken to pieces line by line over time, as they should be. The writings will be the fuel for many an academic debate as well as providing a rich source of plagiarism for spiritualists. Peter to No 16 15.12.2001


PETER: You may doubt but I don’t. Do you really think human beings will forever continue to ignore the obvious direct connection between their own malicious and sorrowful feelings and the genetically-encoded instinctual passions? Do you really think that human beings will forever continue to believe the ancient fairy tales that malice and sorrow is caused by Good and Evil spirits?

From where I come from – an almost constant experiencing of the paradisiacal perfection of this planet we live on – it is cynical to doubt that intelligence will not eventually supersede blind instinctual passions and archaic superstitions.

RESPONDENT: Let’s be a little realistic. Only time will tell whether actualism will have great impact on the course of human history.

PETER: Actualism is not about changing the course of human history – it is a do-it-yourself method designed solely for individual change. The world is full of people hoping that someone else, or something else, will somehow change the course of human history, all the while being despairing realistic about the prospect of a mass miracle happening. It is an essential prerequisite for an actualist to fully realize that the only person one can change is oneself.

If enough people take up the challenge of being an actualist then the course of human history may well change in the next millennia or two. What ‘I’ realized was that if that was to happen then it was up to ‘me’ ... for I was one of the very few people who had serendipitously come across actualism, i.e. ‘I’ could only either be a pioneer, an objector or a fence sitter.

I realized the buck stopped with me, as they say – and integrity meant I couldn’t keep on passing the buck, nor the blame, on to others.

RESPONDENT: First of all we can observe that change comes only very slowly, i.e. radical change. Self-immolation the like I understand Richard talks is yet to happen to any second person in human history.

PETER: Change does indeed come slowly. It is now over one hundred and fifty years since Charles Darwin’s publication of his theory that it was genetic mutations, and not God, that spurned new animal species. His findings were but the beginnings of a radical change in understanding the evolution of animate life and their publication was met with vitriolic hostility from all spiritualists.

It took the recent discovery and mapping of DNA to provide the final irrevocable proof of his theories and to cement the general acceptance by scientists that human beings are indeed genetically-encoded animals by nature. And the spiritualists are still fighting a desperate, and often vitriolic, rear guard action in order to avoid the full repercussions of this radical change in human understanding taking root.

Given human beings’ eons-old obsession with believing the ancient fairy stories of Good and Evil spirits and their narcissistic fascination with self-aggrandizement and God-realization, it is a great leap forward to find some down-to-earth people who are daring enough to investigate how that animal instinctual passions operate in humans in general and themselves in particular.

RESPONDENT: Virtual freedom (99% happy and harmless) seems to be achieved by some of the current actualists, yet I wonder would 100% not be a completely different ballgame.

Just a thought.

PETER: If you are acknowledging that the incremental process of eliminating one’s social identity and instinctual identity seems to be successful, then I take this as good feedback. I, for one, daily reap the rewards of my own efforts – which only leaves me wondering why the majority of people, who have so far come across actualism, either ignore it, sit on the sidelines or vehemently reject it.

As for ‘a completely different ballgame’ – personally I find the experience of being 99% happy and harmless to be extraordinary compared with how I was when I was normal or spiritual.

RESPONDENT: Is it not so that one is either part of humanity or not part of it?

PETER: No. The process of actualism is incremental – you progressively extricate yourself from humanity by progressively eliminating the beliefs and passions that bind you to humanity. Becoming free of the human condition does not happen effortlessly in a blinding flash of light – an actual freedom from malice and sorrow is earned by one’s own efforts, otherwise one would end up being obliged to, or grateful to, Something or Someone for one’s freedom. You could hardly call such a state of bondage freedom, though many do.

The bottom line of being virtually free of malice and sorrow is that 99% is not 100%, but 99% is a darn sight better than zilch. Unlike the all or nothing approach of spiritual freedom – either becoming so deluded that one feels like God-on-earth or humbly surrendering and accepting that life on earth is essentially a suffering existence –actualism delivers the goods incrementally – one becomes incrementally free of malice and sorrow.

RESPONDENT: It might just be that this 1% is crucial to come to realize that I as an ego or I as a soul are both illusions of the mind. Likewise is the entity that thinks that he can change that however that is a rather pleasant illusion.

PETER: ‘I’ as ego can be experienced as an illusion of the mind but ‘me’ as soul is a different story. ‘Me’ as my soul or my instinctual ‘self’ is a very passionate entity that is given both credence and substance by the hormonal chemicals that surge through the brain and other organs. These chemical surges are a function of the crude animal survival and propagation program and, as such, are triggered in the primitive part of the human brain. It is these chemical surges that humans experience as deep feelings, emotions, passions and instinctual drives – ‘I’ am these feelings and these feelings are ‘me’.

The difference between actualism and spiritualism is that spiritualist aim to suppress, sublimate or transcend their instinctual fear and aggression and thereby create a new, holier than thou, identity centred upon their instinctual nurture and desire, whereas an actualist aims to progressively eliminate his or her social identity as well as his or her instinctual identity.

The experience of living in virtual freedom means that ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul are so weakened that they very rarely interfere with experiencing the perfection and purity of the actual world. The proof for me that this change is not ‘a rather pleasant illusion’ is that the chemical flows that give credence and substance to me have also weakened to the point of being rarely experienced in day-to-day normal life.

RESPONDENT: So I’m looking forward to the day that someone else other then Richard will speak from experience and say now I have realized ACTUAL FREEDOM so it is really possible for more than one person. Who is it going to be, Peter or Vineeto or perhaps ... ... Gary?

PETER: You have raised this point before in your correspondence to this list. Given that you seem to be dismissive of the ground-breaking advantages of living virtually free of malice and sorrow, I am left wondering what difference another person, or persons, being totally free of malice and sorrow will make to your interest in actualism?

What I found was that turning my initial interest in actualism into action was totally up to me. It was clearly my decision, and my decision only, to prove that life on earth is not essential suffering, as spiritual belief would have it, and to prove that it is possible for human beings to live together in peace and harmony.

Looking forward to the day when something happens to someone else can only postpone the immediate opportunity you have of doing something about being more happy, and more harmless, right now.



Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity