|
Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List with Correspondent No 23
RESPONDENT: This is a relative quick response as the ‘gist’ of your reply has been gotten. I now adapted a policy of clarifying any suspected misunderstandings as quick as possible. And as I detected one major one, I take the opportunity to take the advantage of this medium to do so as I feel the time is now. PETER: I usually like to take advantage of this writing medium by taking sufficient time to give a considered reply. * RESPONDENT: So ... the following can be considered as the end of an investigation I like to call it a ‘peer’ review. PETER: If you insist on refusing to make your own investigations, you can only end up thinking this mailing list is about ‘peer’ review – a situation which can only result in you being a follower or a rejector, a believer or a doubter. Speaking personally, when I came across actualism I never believed anything Richard said or wrote without checking it out for myself. RESPONDENT: As you have indeed Richard as well as Vineeto available as so to speak ‘Checkpoint’ you are entirely free to use a ‘phrase’ like [you insist on refusing to make your own investigations] but yet I choose to take that as an ‘insult’ thereby pointing out that you might have misinterpreted the term ‘peer’ review. PETER: The phrase ‘you insist on refusing to make your own investigations’ was made in reference to our recent discussion about the doom and gloom beliefs of many environmentalists. I would remind you that it was you who first posted to this list saying you believed these doomsday views and yet, when the conversation continued, these were some of your comments –
If you are unwilling to take the time or make the effort to investigate your beliefs, then that is your business but I did make my experience about investigating beliefs very clear on a number of occasions during the discussion –
I also find it interesting that only now you ‘choose’ to feel insulted, and yet I said almost the exact same thing several posts ago –
Personally, I always found it fascinating when I started to observe how I could feel insulted by something someone said one day yet not feel insulted another day, or not feel insulted when someone else said exactly the same thing. For an actualist there is a goldmine of information to be gleaned from such observations because they tend to focus one’s awareness on one’s own feelings and reactions rather than on the words or deeds of others. The process of actualism continually revealed to me the utter futility of endlessly making someone else responsible for my own feelings of unhappiness and for my own feelings of anger. This act of continuously noticing or being attentive to how I am experiencing this moment was the beginning of breaking a life-long habit of ‘self’-centredness and proved to be the turning point in being able to get on with the real business of actualism – being attentive to my own feelings of sorrow and malice. RESPONDENT: Which brought back to mind a ‘flash’ of the ‘Byron incident’ as a possible reason for some level of ‘contamination’ of that word ‘peer’. Hence I will drop the term and rephrase. [So ... the following can be considered as the end of an investigation I like to call it a ‘peer’ review.] as [So ... the following can be considered as the end of my investigation as to the ‘integrity’ of the ‘owners’ of this list and hence my ‘agreement’ as to the purpose why it was ‘set up’ which was not primary intended to be a commercial enterprise as to the benefit of the ‘list owners’. To put it even more clearly each of the ‘owners of the list’ (or the AF ‘administrators’) are sincere in their intention as to make the ‘method’ world wide available. Having lived in a Virtual freedom (while applying the method as I have devised it) brings about stunning results as to the effectiveness or ‘work out’ in my daily life and indeed one comes to ‘raise the bar’ as to the willingness to ‘share’ this with ones fellow beings. PETER: Given that you have apparently discarded the actualism method and devised a method of your own, could you perhaps share with your fellow human beings on this list what you describe as a ‘a virtual freedom’ in a little more detail? RESPONDENT: Thus as [So ... the following can be considered as the end of my investigation] this might be considered as a reply to the question: Am I a dreamer? (So speaking personally) the answer is: [not any more or less then you are Peter.] PETER: Asking rhetorical questions at least serves to keep my replies short. * RESPONDENT: Yet the Death experience needed to become accepted and so it does became ‘integrated’, as being wounded/ hurt/ abused aso, (that’s the way it goes) and recorded as memory and thus these memories becomes part of the shielding and the brain settles for this as an alternative ‘me’ and starts to disown/ deny and eventually reject the condition on which playfulness freely was flowing as it assigns this condition as too dangerous; iow, I become identified with being this is how a fragmentation process is initiated. PETER: As far as I can make out you are talking of two fragmented ‘me’s’, an innate playful ‘me’ and a ‘wounded/ hurt/ abused’ ‘me’. This aligns with the traditional views of the human psyche whether it be psychological views or spiritual views. Psychology sees the illnesses of an excess of malice and sorrow as a failure to integrate these two ‘me’s’ into a more or less coherent whole that is better able to cope and fit into a malice and sorrowful society. Whilst spirituality aims to ‘disown/ deny and eventually reject the wounded/ hurt/ abused’ ‘me’ and realize that who you are is the real ‘me’, felt deep down inside as ‘me’, a spirit-only Being. Actualism is about eliminating both of the parasitical non-actual identities that stand in the way of experiencing the already always existing peace on earth. RESPONDENT: What comes to mind is that indeed when dealing with 2 discriminately distinctive basic ‘me’s or I’s, the old concept of the ‘ZEN stick’ is no longer suitable hence a rather ‘peculiar’ shaped ‘ZEN stick’ is required in order to ‘align’ with certain ‘opinions’ expressed on this list in an attempt to categorize ‘AF’ as a Zen category. As ‘AF’ appears to have similar features as to the ‘level’ of diligence and intensity ‘devotion’ with regard to practice and hence demands from the ‘aspirant’ a considerable amount of willingness to invest time and energy. Thus the shape of the stick would be ‘fork-like’ as the kind of stick I have seen been applied to catch various sorts of ‘snakes’. or even ‘crocodiles’ ^note as I have come to see that this requires a level of high expertise and the ‘catcher’ needs definitely nerves of steel to ‘pin’ the reptile, I myself wholeheartedly admit that I would not entertain in such activities ‘unless I would have had a fair training by an expert in this field. And that is just [plain common sense to me]^ so I’m offering this ‘snake caching analogy’ as metaphorically speaking (not imaginary poetry like) and applying this to Richards Case I accredit him for training ‘Super Zen teachers’. Thus he’s been fairly ‘acknowledged by me as a Super-Zen-teacher-trainer which is a more then fair ‘bid’ I assume. So ... mayhaps Peter you will deny it and that would definitely put you in the same position as Richard, because he is still assumed by some to be ‘in denial’ but hey! ... that’s OK what else can you do unless of course you agree with that ‘label’ for Richard ‘Super-Zen-teacher-trainer’ this is not to subtly ‘lure’ you into ‘agreement’ with me as for that matter I take it that you understand that my personal needs/wants/desires as to agree with you personally is absolutely zilch. PETER: It seems another short reply is in order. Perhaps I could put it this way – Zen is for dreamers interested only in their own ‘inner’ peace, whereas actualism is for those who are interested in getting real about actualizing peace on earth. * RESPONDENT: A Sequence of ‘Death shocks’ make the brain more and more ‘curb’ some instinctual inclinations/functions (which currently we now conveniently label as being malicious and sorrowful) toward what is regarded as ‘secure’ behaviour for the organism. PETER: Is this your experience or is this what you make of actualism or is this based on your spiritual beliefs and experiences? I only ask because it does seem to be somewhat of a potpourri theory. RESPONDENT: Yes I have this experience and the term ‘potpourri theory’ is being coined I have actively ‘explored’ ie, my own paranoia which was basically so to speak an attempt to ‘cope’ with the maintenance of ‘security’. In short ie, fear of going crazy when being experienced to the degree I have done which is stripped from any content now also stripped the flesh-blood-body from any redundant identity (the redundancy of identity is being recognized as so to say Quick-fixes as to the coping with an emergency situation as in Death shocks. Iow, at the occasion that the Death-shocks happened quickly a program was established to minimize the risk of being exposed to harmful or dangerous ‘feedback’ from the environment. PETER: Feelings of paranoia are no fun at all. I remember several nights of sleeplessness when I imagined that the famed Godmen were coming to ‘get me’ for daring to be a heretic. The threat of persecution, whether expressed outwardly or implied covertly, underpins all spiritual and religious belief. * RESPONDENT: Iow, strange as it may seem after all those years, Actual Freedom appears to be only the beginning, the first step so to say. For me HAIETMOBA? has turned out to be the answer to the Impossible question which was: ‘can you change without time?’ PETER: That ‘Actual Freedom appears to be only the beginning’ does sound somewhat
similar to No 12 when he spat the dummy on this list and claimed to have moved beyond actual freedom into a state he called AFF – Actual Fucking
Freedom ( RESPONDENT: Now … … Peter, I considered the name you have gotten from BSR and then I considered how you came in touch with Richard and how I came on this list as I see it: an Actual Freedom is in fact the Masters Dream (the dawn of love) and to ACTUAL see that in all your fellow beings, Wow! That’s quite something. But then again ‘imaginary poetry’ was really not your cup of tea. Yet I’d feel honoured (if I were you) and proud (not self aggrandized) to have been an architect of Osho. Now … as I have the Ace of diamonds and the ace of spades I suspect that you have the Ace of hearts and the ace of clubs. So I say lets call it even here. As for Richard, he’s first, me second – indeed a whole different Ball game, yep, but as already admitted. I am only a beginner at snooker. Regards No 23 (silence) PETER: < Snipped for length > You mentioned at the start of this post that ‘the following can be considered as the end of an investigation I like to call it a ‘peer’ review’. If you are conducting a ‘peer review’ of actualism, I suggest that the only sensible way to do this on the basis of a ‘find out for myself’ approach and, by doing so, become a practicing actualist. Otherwise you will never be open to the benefits of peer review – that you are not in this business alone, that others are doing it, that you are in no way unique, that there are people with more expertise than you and that we actualists all seek a common goal – peace on earth.
In order to be able to review your peers, or be reviewed by your peers, you need to be amongst peers of the same occupation or interests, which in the case of this list is doing something practical about peace on earth or being vitally interested in peace on earth. RESPONDENT: The point is perfectly clear, indeed there was some No 12 history intertwining in the conversation we have had so far. As the condition for an ‘AF’-review’ has be set as: In order to be able to review your peers, or be reviewed by your peers, you need to be amongst peers of the same occupation or interests, which in the case of this list is doing something practical about peace on earth or being vitally interested in peace on earth. I take it as: In order to be able to review my peers, or be reviewed by my peers, I need to be amongst peers of the same occupation or interests, which in the case of this list is doing something practical about peace on earth and/or being vitally interested in peace on earth. ^note as ‘and’ in this context is highly recommended by me as I have so to speak considerable investments and interests in not only peace on earth but POEN asap. PETER: Given your likening of actualism to Zen Buddhism in this post, is ‘POEN’ perhaps the Zen version of peace on earth? But to get back to the topic, my comments in relation to peer review was initially prompted by the following comment you made –
I took this to imply that you either knew of something or had experienced something that is beyond Actual Freedom. It was this statement that led me to assume that you were claiming to be an expert on actualism conducting a peer review of those who were only at the beginning or on the first step. Perhaps you could further explain what you meant by your statement so as to throw a little more light on the subject? RESPONDENT: I also take it that the commitment to the ‘administration’ of this list by the owners which BTW (with regard to accuracy in Archiving and maintaining the Site) can only be rated as excellent. ^it is fair to say that some progress has been made. Coffee table wise speaking I think a virtual ‘handshake’ is appropriate. PS: it seems to be the correct ‘line’ to sent this only to the ‘Freedom list’ yet that may be not so if the latter is the case then please let me know cause that’s where I take it that you have the expertise to decide what’s best as this is a matter of list administration. PETER: One of purposes of this mailing list is so that all discussions about actualism and actual freedom are freely available to all. It means there is nothing hidden, nothing censored, no secret discussions, no hidden agendas, no ‘in’ group, and no ‘administration’ other than setting up this mailing list and providing the Website. The only authority that exists in actualism is an authority in the meaning as defined by the Oxford Dictionary: ‘authority – an expert in any subject.’ Because there is no power inherent in this authority – be it psychic, psychological or physical – there is no way an actualist can convince, coerce or cajole anyone into being interested in actualism, let alone take it on as life’s work. Inherent for anyone taking on the process of actualism is that you become your own expert on the human condition – an expertise that is firmly rooted in your own experience of investigating your own psyche in action and not as a knowledge gleaned vicariously from the experience of others. This means that the process of actualism is grounded in fact, not belief or faith, and that its hallmark is sincerity, not trust or hope.
PETER: You wrote commenting on a post I recently sent to No 38, entitled ‘Resolve and intent’ – RESPONDENT No 38 to Peter: Radical shifts in perception are usually a one-way street. That’s one of the reasons they’re radical. PETER to No 38: Actualism involves much more than a ‘shift in perception’, RESPONDENT: Not quite; Vis: [Radical shifts in perception]. Q: Are we talking about revelations here? PETER: I took No 38 to mean perception as in –
As such, actualism involves much more than a shift or change in thinking, or to quote from a Jimmy Buffet song – ‘changes in latitude, changes in attitude’. In the spiritual world many people have revelations which sometimes lead to a shift in consciousness from feeling oneself to be a real-world being to feeling oneself to be a spirit-only Being – or even in some cases, an ‘actual’ spiritual Being. The pertinent aspect of a spiritual altered states of consciousness is that it results in an aggrandizement of one’s psychic identity and not an elimination, hence there is no elimination of the malice and sorrow that is inherent to one’s instinctual being. * PETER to No 38: Whilst questioning and challenging the beliefs of others is by no means a safe
and sensible thing to do, … RESPONDENT: Is this expression more or less akin to [‘not going for a walk in somebodies fantasy?’] PETER: No. * PETER to No 38: … questioning your own beliefs is safe in that the only thing you are doing is
diminishing your own miserable and malicious ‘self’. This process is utterly safe because ‘you’ are in control of the extent and pace of
the process of your own ‘self’-investigation – only ‘you’ can challenge your own beliefs, no one else can. RESPONDENT: I’d say only ‘you’ can allow your own beliefs to be challenged. PETER: Whereas my experience is that only I can challenge my own beliefs – for the process of actualism to work, I have to get off my bum and out of my comfort zone and do it for myself. This process is not like sitting in a classroom or discourse and allowing someone else to do it for me, or to me. I tried that in my Eastern spiritual years and it simply lead to belief swapping – a change in latitude only produced a change in attitude. * PETER to No 38: You can escape your fate and become the master of your own destiny – the
experience of actualism is that no one is standing in the way of you becoming free of the human condition. RESPONDENT: Indeed one becomes one’s own scriptwriter so to speak and what a fun challenge is that. PETER: And the new script is the fun of daring to challenge all of one’s dearly held beliefs – the beliefs that make the world-as-it-is feel like a grim reality and the beliefs that determine that the only escape is feeling oneself to be at one with a phantasmagorical Greater Reality. A big challenge but definitely fun, once you get the hang of it. * RESPONDENT No 38 to Peter: Gotcha. This is starting to sink in. It’s really quite a simple premise, but I’ve been amazed at the fight the ‘I’ puts up. I’ve wrestled with some issues, how to ‘fit’ this into my life, but I’m finding that that’s putting the cart before the horse. The ‘I’ insists on doing this in a controlled or deterministic fashion but it can’t be a ‘managed’ process methinks, it’s a matter of pure resolve/intent. PETER to No 38: I have just written to No 39 on this very subject –
We have recently had a History channel added to our satellite Pay-TV channels. As I have tuned into it
over the past few days, I am reminded yet again as to what a tragedy the human condition really is. RESPONDENT: Oh well great! Peter hmmm talking about painting ‘gloomy pictures’; well I think, here’s an expert painter at work (no flattery intended); so ... OK I am sometimes a bit off topic but I’m learning so ... please bear with me for a moment. {beerbreak [btw I have taken it that the virtual coffee saloon is best considered to be some sort of a Hobby. Vis Peter [there is no way an actualist can convince, coerce or cajole anyone into being interested in actualism, let alone to take it on as life’s work.] As to: [an actualist can convince, coerce or cajole anyone into being interested in actualism] One so to speak perhaps could say this is no missionary work ‘at large’. In fact no missionary work at all. PETER: You may have noticed that I am not backward about sharing my experiences as an actualist on this list, but then again it is a mailing list specifically set up to facilitate discussion about an end to malice and sorrow forever and an actual freedom for all peoples. Whilst I did indulge in a few ‘fishing expeditions’ on other mailing lists in my early days of actualism, I did not think of them as missionary work but rather as advertising the fact to my previous spiritual colleagues that there was now a third alternative available. All I got in response were objections to the prospect of devoting one’s life to becoming happy and harmless, which is why I know by personal experience that ‘there is no way an actualist can convince, coerce or cajole anyone into being interested in actualism, let alone to take it on as life’s work’. But I’m not adverse to the occasional tease or prod, particularly when writing on this list. * PETER to No 38: Apart from some programs that document the amazing history of the advances wrought by human ingenuity and common sense in the face of ancient ignorance and superstition, human history has been a on-going litany of cunning savagery and horrific acts of cruelty and torture, the likes of which is seen in no other animal species. And if this isn’t enough, this pathos-ridden tragedy is fondly imagined to be a noble struggle between copious cosmic forces of good and evil and it is never acknowledged for what it is – an impassioned instinctual battle for survival that has now well and truly reached its use-by date. Rather than some clear thinking and clear-eyed seeing of the current human situation as-it-is, what is proffered as ‘solutions’ is yet more passion, yet more confrontation, yet more self-pity and more self-love … and yet more re-runs of eons-old beliefs and concepts that have not only failed to bring an end to human malice and sorrow but have only added fuel to the tragic saga. And if this isn’t enough to fill one with despair, to top it all off, overarching all of this is that
daddy of all beliefs – that ‘you can’t change human nature’. This belief not only ensures that human beings will remain forever entrapped
within the human condition, but it also serves to perpetuate the fictitious battle between good and evil thus enshrining the ultimate power and
moral authority of the goody-two shoes spirit-ual believers. And history shows that they have often wielded this power with ruthless efficiency to
quell any who would dare to question their Divine authority. From this perspective, the human condition can clearly be seen – and on occasions be
actually experienced – to be a closed-loop, ‘self’-perpetuating psychic and psychic nightmare. RESPONDENT: As to [From this perspective, the human condition can clearly be seen] I would use the expression ‘viewpoint’ as an alternative for ‘perspective’ as perspective seems to me be more including. PETER: A viewpoint is a personal point of view or way of thinking whereas what I was offering was a non-personal perspective or overview of the human condition in general. Some of the human beings who have seen the globe of the earth from space have had a perspective of this planet that temporarily did not include borders between warring tribes, conflicts over varying beliefs and the ingrained despair that typifies human habitation on earth. From their perspective, outside of Humanity as it were, the pristine purity and the peerless perfection of this azure planet was startlingly evident, so much so that some even had life-changing religious realizations. A practicing actualist can also have the similar perspective as did those astronauts of this astounding planet we flesh and blood humans actually live on, whilst also having a down-to-earth overarching perspective of the ‘closed-loop, ‘self’-perpetuating psychic and psychic nightmare’ that is the human condition. This clear-eyed perspective of the disparity between the abundant cornucopia this planet actually is and the grim passionate battle for survival still being waged by its human habitants provides the constant fuel for my drive for an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: Also the term seems to be a bit too much to refer to history rather then actuality. PETER: Whereas for an actualist, actuality includes the history of human habitation on this planet. To deny history as an actuality is to thwart the opportunity of learning from those who have been here before us. Of course, it goes without saying that one needs to make the effort to be wary of myths, legends, fables, scriptures, doctrines, fairy-tales, misconceptions, fashionable revisionism, disinformation, propaganda, hype and impassioned viewpoints in one’s search for facts and actuality. RESPONDENT: Yet the expression of this opinion is not to be meant taken as a disagreement, rather it’s being meant to come to terms with actuality. PETER: I have always regarded our discussions as about discerning facts and actuality from belief and dreams rather than being about merely agreeing or disagreeing with each other’s viewpoints. If it were not so, neither of us would be open to learning anything new. I do realize that this form of discussion can be quite challenging, can raise emotional responses such as feeling offended, insulted or roasted, but what to do? Human beings’ stubborn insistence on holding on to, and defending, their precious beliefs has caused, and is still causing, so much human conflict and misery that it beggars description. If one is serious about bringing an end to this mayhem, then one needs to rise to the challenge and lead by example in the only way possible – become actually free of malice and sorrow. * PETER to No 38: However, it is never too late to start on the adventure of becoming free of the
human condition of malice and sorrow and the way out is both simple and direct – you devote your life to becoming both happy and harmless,
because nothing less than a 100% commitment will do in order to break free of the nightmare. Nothing less than a 100% commitment will suffice to
propel an actualist to step out of the impassioned illusionary real world and to leave his or her impassioned illusionary ‘self’ behind, where
it belongs. As you said, … ‘it’s a matter of pure resolve/intent’. RESPONDENT: Yep the more one experiences the resolvement of old believes, the more so called apperceptive caloric energy becomes available hence naivety becomes cranked up and with that the determinedness as to keep moving into the chosen direction of ‘selfemobulation’. PETER: If you mean resolve as in ‘dispel, remove, banish’, then this is what needs to be done with beliefs. But the simultaneous work that needs to be done is the active search for facts and actuality based firmly on your own experience, your own discoveries and your own apperceptive awareness. This way you can crank up your naiveté with the assurance that you are not repeating the trap of past searchers of freedom – becoming a gullible follower. BTW – what is ‘selfemobulation’? The closest to mobulation I got from the dictionary was ‘Mobutu’ and ‘lobule’ but then I thought perhaps the word was a referring to a ‘self’ doing a 60’s dance number? But I give up – is it a Dutch word per chance?
RESPONDENT: Some work I found still needed to be done first here we go... So ... the following can be considered as the end of an investigation which I liked to call a ‘peer’ review. I take the opportunity to take the advantage of this medium to do so as I feel the time is now. ^note the term ‘peer review’ was introduced by No 12 (I did not know it before) I had chosen to ‘copy’ this term as to find out whether if there was a possibility to reach agreement as to how this expression [‘peer review’] could be applied in a sensible way such as that the application of that term could be considered as to be free from ‘historical contamination.’ As such I take it that there will be no shadow of a doubt left, that in future dialogues on this virtual coffee table my opinion about No. 12’s approach (AF$ckinF) to *AF* (referred to me on this list as *VF*) has been made sufficiently clear so that the so called ‘Byron incident’ will no longer intertwine into our conversation on this list.^ PETER: As I have said before, I was not present at the so-called ‘Byron incident’, so I am
not able to comment directly about it. (A description from No 12 is to be found here RESPONDENT: ^note I am fairly aware of the fact that the expression of my opinion about the ‘byron incident’ as to the relationship with the subject ‘Facts vs. beliefs’ might need some clarification (for outsiders). As the event as happened is far from easy to understand [imagine] by people who have not a fair ‘experience’ with regard to what on this list is being referred to as Rajneeshism end note^. It is a fact that Rajneeshism can be considered to have played (as I have come to understand) a significant part as to the eventuation of this ‘Byron incident’. It is also a fact that Rajneeshism was for as well you (Peter) as your partner Vineeto and myself and possibly still may be for No 12 one of the most difficult ‘issues’ to inquire into as a rather complex believe system. Need I say how much this believe is intimately interconnected and interwoven with ‘issues’ like ‘loyalty conflicts’, ‘separation anxiety’, a fair amount of ‘paranoia thinking/feeling’ ‘cult behaviour’ and ‘brainwashing’ just to mention some of those issues that make Rajneeshism as a part of ones conditioning process extremely hard and sometimes even painful to investigate. It took me many months to enable myself to even acknowledge the fact that I was a believer and hence to admit to myself that I was caught in an extremely powerful illusion. PETER: It’s a very tough business to admit that not only are you wrong by others’ standards but that you have been made to feel a fool as well. What pushed me over the brink was a momentary glimpse that the reason that there is not peace on earth between human beings is that everyone has got it 180 degrees wrong. I had a glimpse that everyone, including me, was looking to the past for solutions, desperately running round in circles picking over the debris and flotsam of ancient beliefs and wisdom. This set me up for a two-prong approach of questioning my own beliefs based on past ‘wisdoms’ whilst simultaneously investigating the sensibility of actualism – the direction no-one had dared to look before Richard’s investigations. Personally, I found disloyalty to be one of the toughest feelings to face but, in the end, I had to admit it does make sense to desert a sinking ship. I do also remember the process of questioning and investigating my spiritual beliefs to be ‘extremely hard and sometimes even painful’ but I have no emotional memories or scars remaining from the time. One of the amazing things about beliefs is that they require effort to maintain and defend and once you stop believing you immediately feel a palpable sense of freedom from having to keep up the effort of maintaining and defending your belief. RESPONDENT: Fact is also that No 12 and me have been trained in a rather unique institution that one might call a special Rajneesh department located in Holland Egmond Aan Zee. {(for the record) When the mentioned institute started an e-conversation list humaniversity@egroups.com in the beginning of 2000 we happened to ‘connect’ (this list no longer exist) I was more then intrigued in fact I was impressed by No 12’s talent as a writer and his expertise with regard to the appliance of the internet. From day one we shared a common interest as well as a pretty good dose of scepticism and criticism as to the whereabouts, ins and outs of the mentioned institute. We started to discuss the ‘expertise’ of Staff-members and we came to find out that, we shared more or less similar experiences as to having been treated by certain staff members in ways we did not find acceptable. Yet both of us had a certain pride as to having been trained there and the special atmosphere in which this training had happened we endearingly referred to as the Humaniversity-spirit. <Snipped for third person privacy> I also had experienced several conflicts with staff members as a matter a fact I was several times dismissed from trainings or as we called it; had been ‘kicked out’ of the institute. Though in my case after a certain point things could be talked over and several times I was allowed to make a fresh start. Although neither one of us, though rather intensively trained at that place, had actually become certified as a Humaniversity-therapist or even completed a full ‘training block’ and hence were entitled to represent the institute, we nevertheless both more or less presented ourself with a status of Humaniversity Ambassador. ^note in fact what we actually where doing at that point was completely ignoring to respect the institute as to ie. The new Humaniversity way was to be created by us. From now on we would call the shots at least on this list. We took a fair space to ‘provoke’ the Staff to respond to our feedback calling it an opportunity to give them so called ‘client feedback’. The unwillingness of the staff to respond to our feedback had been made a major issue, because both of us felt that now was the time to make the staffs behaviour subject to discussion. In order to make that happen Jay had introduced the term ‘Peer review’ and kept on hammering on the importance of the coming about of such a thing specifically on this H- list. He insisted on being ‘acknowledged’ as capable and entitled to discuss Humaniversity-policies/methods and demanded to be enabled to have dialogue with Top-staff members in order to come to terms with a situation that he had called ‘incredibly difficult to stomach’ ^note As at that time it was not clear to me that what we were doing was cultivating a false sense of agreement (comradery), thereby experiencing a feeling of ‘us’ the H-rebels against the H-staff. Thus to ‘us’ it was perfectly clear that the staff’s negation of our complaints was an intolerable situation and we decided to develop a strategy that would expose their stubborn refusal to take responsibility for having made mistakes during the conduction of Group-therapy, due to lack of ‘expertise’ of the staff, iow, the ‘blaming’ game took off end note^ ^^sub note there where a couple of other people more or less to be considered as ‘fellow rebels, yet as none of them has ever been on the AF-list I don’t find it necessary to mention them by name^^ After a certain point the accusation read that there had been insufficient professional care taking and this situation had resulted in sometimes severely disturbed students i.e. me and him for that matter, and there even had occasionally been failure to diagnose a case as psychosis. Nevertheless we both also agreed that Hum-therapy was an unique opportunity to have supported Spiritual growth and if only the staff would accept our input, there could be made considerable improvement to the process. Meanwhile we started to work out the idea of giving our alternative Hum-therapy ‘on line’. ^note as gradually the way we ‘communicated’ over the heads of the other list members (the list counting a fair no. of in between 140 and 100 of subscribers yet most of them lurking) had become more and more noisy. It was only a matter of time before the list owner took the option of removing us from the list after having been given a couple of times the advise to change our way of interacting on that list. end note^. <Snipped for third person privacy> No 12 showed me around Byron and one afternoon we were having lunch at the Byron cafe, a lady showed up and walked with great determination into our direction and I immediately felt this must be some acquaintance of him. I was indeed correct about that it appeared to be your partner Vineeto, Well I guess the rest of the story is known.} So... considering the facts of this case named and referred to by me as ‘the Byron incident’. I have taken ample time to think about it as to get it in a clear historical perspective. I have come to the conclusion that ‘Rajneeshism’ has played a major part as to the eventuation of the ‘Byron incident’. Also I would like to bring to attention that whereas, though having been myself a rather determined Rajneeshee, who has played a fair part as to the eventuation of the incident and thus is partly responsible for the happening. [No 12] on the other hand can be considered as a representative of fundamental ‘Rajneeshism’ and hence his ‘presentation’ of it was in a less moderate way then I was accustomed to do. Also taking in account that [No 12] firmly believed that this was the way ‘humaniversity-therapy’ had to be practiced on the marketplace one could say that both of us simply have been ‘deluded’ victims of the brainwash program that had been applied to us hence ... I can neither for myself nor for him find a reason to be blamed for the eventuation of the incident. PETER: As I have said before, I was not present at the so-called ‘Byron incident’, so I am not able to a comment. Your feelings about this incident are your business – yours to evaluate and make sense of. And you seem to be doing a very good job of it by yourself, if I may say so. RESPONDENT: Thus I assume and correct me if I’m wrong here that in the phrase,
that as well the reference to safeness as the reference to sensibility in your statement [questioning and challenging the beliefs of others is by no means a safe and sensible thing to do] with regard to the challenging part is whole heartedly agreed with by me, as clearly the ‘Byron incident’ has showed, yet as to the questioning part my opinion is, that in the above case as for the safeness of questioning a believe, it also has showed not only to be not safe but in fact quite dangerous. PETER: So much of human conflict results from the cut and thrust of people questioning and challenging the beliefs of others and then vainly trying to ‘make peace’ afterwards. RESPONDENT: Yet for the sensible part I have come to think that sometimes one perhaps must risk to go outside the comfort zone thus I’m all to happy that Vineeto has had the courage to have done so, as for me the ‘Byron incident’ has been a great eye opener. PETER: If the ‘Byron incident’ has been an eye opener for you I would suggest it is because you ‘have taken ample time to think about it’ and not because anything Vineeto did or didn’t do. Daily life is rich with incidents that stir feelings of annoyance or anger, remorse or sadness, many people can ‘push one’s buttons’ and many events can trigger emotional memories of past hurts – the question is how to get out of being ensnared in this cycle of ups and downs, thoughtless reactions and unconscious impulses. For you the ‘Byron incident’ has obviously been one of those events that has stirred you emotionally and you have apparently been able to discover much about your beliefs and how ‘you’ tick simply by taking ample time to think about it. Once you have got the knack for milking these events for information about your beliefs, your morals, ethics, and so on, you can start to use this skill to not let the debilitating feelings such as annoyance or anger, remorse or sadness fester for so long. Once you become aware of the feelings happening you can nip them in the bud and then spend some time thinking about what triggered the feeling in the first place and then find out why you had the feeling you had. The more practiced you become at being attentive to how you are experiencing this moment of being alive, the quicker this investigative process can become and the more able you are to foster the felicitous feelings. Just the other day I had something that triggered annoyance in me and it was quite startling because it has been so long since I have felt annoyed about anything. Usually I always feel excellent lately and feeling annoyed was such a contrast that I was able to be aware of the feeling precisely as it was happening. This instantaneous awareness prevented me from reacting to, or blaming, the person who triggered my feeling of annoyance and I was soon back to feeling excellent again. The incident related to what I considered to be an unnecessary demand made by an approvals officer who was vetting some of my architectural work. It was one of those issues that fit into the category of ‘can I emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable?’ That’s another way of saying ‘can I not be annoyed when I come across something that, or someone who, is blatantly silly?’ Which brings me back to your investigations about the ‘Byron incident’ and your story about rebelling against the Humaniversity. My reaction to the approvals officer was similarly one of rebellion – a sense of injustice, a feeling of being hard done by, inwardly riling against what I felt to be pettiness. As soon as the feeling came on, I remembered what a futile waste such acts of rebellion are, how they result in conflict and discord and how such reactions only serve to keep me trapped within the human condition – a compulsive ‘battler’ in the grim psychological and psychic game of survival that is the human condition. This perpetual battling against the world as-it-is and people as-they-are is born out of the animal instinct to survive in a hostile ‘what can I eat, what can eat me?’ world. From this genetically-endowed ‘self’-centred program comes the instinctual passions of fear of, and aggression towards, the world as-it-is and people as-they-are. Because of these instinctual passions all human beings have an innate inability to recognize and treat their fellow human beings for what actually are – fellow human beings. The only way to eradicate this ‘self’-centred program is the extinction of ‘self’, the end of ‘being’, and then the instinctual- affective programming collapses for want of a ‘driver’ – to use a computer analogy. I remember recently that you called me a dreamer to which I demurred. Upon reflection, I can see where you were coming from because I refused to let go of the dream of peace on earth, so much so that I leapt at the opportunity that actualism offers to turn my dream into an actuality. In a similar vein, I always had a rebel streak in me, which I also refused to let go of by accepting second best. What I did was use this trait, not to rebel against Humanity as is common, but to do something really revolutionary – to become free of humanity, in toto. I remember thinking when I wrote my Journal that it would appeal to those rebels who were discontent with their life – not those whose identity was that of an angry rebel riling against some authority or other. Well that was a bit of a rave, but I liked what you wrote about your discoveries. It is good to see someone making the effort and devoting the time to investigating their own beliefs and exploring their own passions. It’s good to hear of you beginning to ‘push the envelope’ a bit further and starting to reap the rewards for daring to do so.
RESPONDENT: I snipped a bit and renamed the thread [No 39 Re: Sex]
As to [the programming that divides humans into two alien predatory camps] today the head administrator or so called president of the USA (Mr. G.W. Bush) is visiting Europe. I saw and heard him say to an Italian administrator ‘we both love freedom’. I suppose that was his way of trying to suggest that there is not much disagreement from the European ‘camp’ as to the policies the US is going about. I must say that I had no idea what he meant with those words ‘love and freedom’. So as to [two alien predatory camps] this is almost applicable to the new situation that is emerging yet ‘predatory’ I double quote, but alien in this context seems to be 100% correct. I heard the words Europe and USA and I said to myself I’m neither part of any. Though holding a Dutch passport I am legally entitled to call myself a European and hence most of the persons I come across can be suspected to be a ‘fellow European’; however there is no sense whatsoever of that kind of fellow beingness as far as I am concerned. PETER: My comment about ‘two alien predatory camps’ referred to the male-female divide within the human species. This divide is the primary division in that the first thing you notice about another human being is their gender. This instantaneous recognition comes with an automatic ‘colouring’ of both one’s perception and behaviour based on timeworn social programming and raw instinctual programming. However, to follow your line of thinking, there are many aspects of one’s own social and instinctual identity that create a division or chasm betwixt you and others. Apart from gender, there are divisions of age, race, nationality, religious/spiritual belief, political conviction, social status, degrees of affluence, fame and power and so on. All of this programming is a fertile field of investigation for an actualist keen to eliminate their own social and instinctual identity – the ‘he’ or ‘she’ who stands in the way of an actual intimacy with fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: When I was watching I noticed that I had some ‘reservations’ if not some ‘serious second thoughts’ or even not so friendly considerations about the person Mr. G.W. Bush, yet they where subtle and indeed surfaced as a form of covert hostility. PETER: As I remember from previous posts, you do seem to have an on-going ‘thing’ with George [Bush]. RESPONDENT: The other thing about them was that these feelings where very likely easy to be ‘swept under the carpet’ labelled as insignificant or unimportant, yet I did not do so and suddenly I realized that on some level I felt like being in the ‘European camp’ and hence perceiving Mr B. as the representative of the Enemy camp. PETER: Observation reveals that even the so-called pacifists take side with one camp or the other – dependant upon their own upbringing, beliefs or convictions. RESPONDENT: I cleverly seemed to have covered up my feelings of resentment towards the enemy, by ‘pretending’ to be not part of the ‘European camp’ [that’s where hypocrisy becomes decloaked]. Iow, I felt I was angry with him and even more angry than I was with the ‘whole bunch’ of administrators of the world who are doing it all wrong. PETER: Pretending doesn’t work, because the underlying passions always bleed through. I recently watched several documentaries about the two world wars of last century. Prior to the outbreak of both wars, there were strong peace movements in Europe but, when the chips were down, nationalism and patriotic fervour very quickly overwhelmed the ideals of the pacifists. RESPONDENT: When push comes to shove, I cannot see Mr B as a fellow being but rather as one of the aliens not much unlike the other world administrators. And basically there is only a degree in alienation yet the feeling that we belong to the same species is not there. Iow, I simply fail to recognize them as being human; only through inference I can conclude that they belong to the same category. PETER: When resentment or anger kicks in, any good feelings one might have towards others quickly dissolves. When anger turns to fury and rage, other human beings are then relegated to the category of enemies, pure evil, heathens, sub-human and so on. If these feelings persist and take root, the thin veneer of civilization can readily break down and murder and acts of terrorism, war and genocide result. The difference between the feeling of irritation and the act of genocide is simply a matter of degree. RESPONDENT: Women on the other hand generally speaking I feel indeed a quality of alienation, yet it never goes that far that indeed I would describe them as not being part of the same species I belong to. Iow, most often that is just a matter of being more or less in different camps. So... as I have noticed that for me politicians are in fact a different breed or race I wonder which part of programming is more persistently ingrained. Is it gender conditioning or, lets cut the cheese, not call it social conditioning as it is political conditioning that probably far exceeds gender or even religious conditioning? PETER: Many people in the world seem to hold the belief that the ills of humanity are due to evil political or social systems or evil political leaders. In this scenario, resentment and anger leads to protest, dissent, rebellion and anarchy. If these feelings persist and take root, the thin veneer of civilization can readily break down and murder and acts of terrorism, war and genocide result. RESPONDENT: What I am saying is that it may make a lot of a difference wether one believes (or used to believe) in a Dutch, a French, an American or Zimbabwean god, be this god Roman Catholic or Islamic and so on. To me it feels that the essence of alienation very well may be rooted in tribal conditioning; our very neighbours are in fact aliens, that has been a rather shocking revelation as I feel in fact that anyone I have ever known or been with only relatively was less alien to me; that includes my family ‘loved’ ones and acquaintances with two exceptions my niece and nephew who I find for some reason not to be alien but in fact fellow human beings, but then again the feeling of being human can only be inferred as from concluding that my parents where human so my sister must be and hence most likely my niece and nephew are also. I guess I still have to do some work... PETER: The other day I was musing about the current set of conflicts and wars on the planet. The armed conflicts that readily came to mind are those between various Christian sects, between Muslims and Christians, between Hindus and Muslims, between Jews and Muslims and between various Animist sects. There are also armed conflicts between followers of various political and social ideologies – democracy versus communism, capitalism versus socialism, environmentalism versus consumerism and ludditism versus globalisation being the more obvious conflicts. As if this weren’t enough, are also territorial conflicts and disputes, many of which have been ongoing for millennia. If one adds to this list the many inter-tribal conflicts and the ubiquitous inter-family conflicts, it is no wonder that the idea of ‘turning away’ from being here and searching for an ‘inner’ peace, or an imaginary peace after death, is so appealing. Rather than turn away and retreat ‘inside’, it makes sense to question why one believes in a God in the first place, why one feels nationalistic pride, why one favours one ideology over another, why one resents authority and why one blames others for having the exact same feelings and passions as one nurses in one’s own bosom? So, yes, it sounds as if you have discovered that you have some work to do. But what a wonderful opportunity that you have found out that you can do something about your own malice and sorrow – that there is work to do and that there is an on-line resource to aid you in your work. I thought to post a bit of my Journal because it relates to a time when I saw the work to be done literally as a mountain –
Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer |
