|
Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List with Correspondent No 33
PETER: Hi, I thought to make a comment given that something I wrote in the glossary was recently quoted in your conversation with Gary.
Indeed there is an inconsistency in the glossary and as I am the author of most the glossary terms and this one in particular, it is my mistake. Thinking and affective feeling are distinctive activities and the evidence of their difference is readily apparent in a pure consciousness experience when all of the affective feelings such as fear, anger, resentment, sorrow, awe, love and any notions of God or a higher authority disappear, as if by magic. What remains in a pure consciousness experience is a direct sensuous experience of actuality wherein the ability to sensately experience, think and reflect all operate freely and effortlessly, unimpeded by any affective feelings whatsoever. In ‘normal’ experiencing however, the affective feelings are both impulsive and compulsive and are instinctively ‘self’-centred which means they are so predominant and intrusive that they not only create a feeling entity, ‘who I feel I am deep down inside’ but they also permeate one’s thinking to the extent that they create a thinking entity, ‘who’ I think I am, which then overlays one’s primal instinctive-feeling entity. This permeating and corrupting of intelligence is why most people tend to say what they are thinking rather than being able to distinguish and express clearly what they are feeling. Therefore it would have been much more accurate for me to have written that ‘feelings are most commonly expressed as emotion-backed thoughts’, rather than ‘feelings are emotion-backed thoughts’ as they are two distinct activities. An example of this confusion between thinking and feeling is when someone is worrying about something they usually regard this as a thought, whereas worry always has a feeling component, i.e. if someone is worrying why his or her spouse or companion is late, at the root of this worry may well be the feeling of jealousy. I use this as an example as it was such an incident that enabled me to see the folly and destructive nature of my feelings and to instantly break free of jealousy itself. Some Eastern spiritual teachings advocate ‘right’ thinking as a way of repressing or transcending unwanted or undesirable thoughts, but because they fail to understand that feelings are commonly expressed as thoughts, what they are really advocating is ‘right’ feeling as a way of suppressing unwanted or undesirable feelings. The East religions and philosophies therefore abound with ethical principles and moral platitudes as to what is right and wrong and what is good and bad equally as much as Western religion and philosophy. Contrary to all of humanity’s wisdom it is affective feelings that are the bane of mankind whereas it is the ability to think clearly – an ability actively cultivated by freeing one’s native intelligence from the shackles of affective instinct-based feeling – that offers the means to become free from the clutches of the human condition. * I like it that this particular inconsistency in the glossary has come to the surface because one of the things that launched me into actualism was my inability to totally suppress my feelings. I remember being shocked one day on the building site when all of a sudden anger bubbled up in me and I was unable to stifle it in time, as I was usually able to do. I had been in the ‘goody two-shoes’ school of spiritualism as opposed to the ‘let-it-all-hang-out’ school and consequently this flare up of anger left me bruised and bewildered. This recognition that suppression of feelings does not work was one of the facts that stimulated my interest in becoming actually free of malice and sorrow. Given the inaccuracy that has come to light, I shall amend the glossary entry accordingly. * Perhaps it might also be appropriate to explain the history of the glossary at this point. After my initial successes with actualism I wrote my journal in order to provide a personal account of the successes of practicing actualism. When it was finished I then took on another project that I thought may be of use to anyone interested in making sense of what actualism is about – a glossary of terms that are commonly used in the actualism writings so as to define their meanings and point out where they differ from common spiritual meanings. I did this because when I first came across actualism, my own cognitive dissonance – my inability to understand new concepts due to a lifetime of programming of real world and spiritual world beliefs – meant that I initially understood actualism to be another form of spiritualism purely because I was incapable of considering, let alone understanding, anything so new and radical. Writing the glossary was a considerable challenge at the time because I have always attempted to write in my own words, independently of Richard. In fact, from the time I started to write my journal, I deliberately made a decision to stop reading Richard’s writings because I wanted to suss things out for myself, understand for myself, be able to describe actualism and actuality in my own words and from my own experience. It was also obvious that it was useless to merely parrot Richard’s writings and regurgitate them as ‘my’ wisdom, as is common practice with the ‘do as I say but not necessarily as I do’ spiritual teachers and famed Gurus’. This is why I term myself a practicing actualist – I can stand by what I write because I write from lived experience and not from wishful thinking, plagiarized theories or impassioned imagination. Some of the phrases and terminology I used in the glossary, and indeed in all my writings, are those that Richard uses and I use them because they are concise, to the point and very well thought about. Some sections of the glossary are also direct quotes of Richard’s because they were topics where I was out of my depth as it were, i.e. I lacked the understanding and direct experience of the subject to write authoritatively on the subject. I make no bones about acknowledging Richard’s superior expertise – he has not only spent far longer studying the human condition than I have but also he is actually free from the human condition – he writes from the ongoing, 24 hours a day, experience of a flesh and blood body sans identity. Writing for me is a way of being able to cultivate clear thinking about the human condition and, like all first-time activities, a lot of trial and error occurs and a lot of nutting out has to be done in the process. I am a practicing actualist and the practice of actualism is to strip away the beliefs and passions that constitute the human condition in me so as to experientially unearth the facts of what it is to be a human being. The way I did this initially was to read the words of the only person thus far free from the human condition, and check out whether what he was saying made sense, i.e. was it factual, and then get on with the job. But nowadays a world wide dissemination of actualism is happening and this is where reports from practicing actualists about the difficulties encountered, the issues that commonly arise and the successes achieved are equally important and useful to someone genuinely interested in actualism. If someone only reads Richard’s writings and ignores the rest of what is offered on the Actual Freedom Trust website and this mailing list, the natural tendency will be to remain an armchair theoretician, forever dreaming of change or to regard Richard as some sort of non-spiritual, spiritual Guru and clip on a bit of actualism terminology to their borrowed spiritual wisdom. It is in this light that the two sections of the Actual Freedom Trust website – the Third Alternative and Actualism – should be understood. Richard writes of a brand new alternative in human experience – to be actually free of the human condition as distinct from the spiritual delusion of Freedom – whereas the practicing actualists write to verify that this possibility can only be actualised by doing it yourself. You may have already noticed that some fervent spiritualists hold Richard in high esteem, lauding him for his Wisdom and writing style, whilst simultaneously deriding whatever the practicing actualists have to say on this list . Being a believer and believing in a Guru is far, far safer than finding out for oneself, because that involves both stubborn effort and actual change. You can see the same propensity played out all over the planet – spiritual believers are amongst the most passionate resisters to change. Their held to be sacred wisdom is firmly rooted in the dim dark past when it was believed that the world was flat and inhabited by good and evil spirits, when life was indeed a grim and desperate battle for survival. To continue upholding and defending these primitive beliefs and superstitions is plainly nonsensical in this emerging post-spiritual era. Due to Richard’s discovery, there is now available a practical means for anyone with sufficient motivation to become actually free of the human condition of malice and sorrow. And due to the reports of practicing actualists, this way is now becoming easier and easier to understand and follow as more and more is written about the human condition. I liken this supplementary information and reports to ‘trampling the long grass’, so as to make the path easier to follow for others.
PETER: You wrote the following to Richard – RESPONDENT: The questions related to LeDoux’s work are to know how
much of what is stated on PETER: You may find a recent post on the subject of the
RESPONDENT: The social identity stuff I discovered yesterday is an amazing stuff. When I ran Richard’s question ‘Can we emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable’ it lead me to the guardian angel at the gate with chemical weapons – which uses these painful emotions to punish one for doing/having done/will do behaviour – much like the police but acting internally (and the punishment is always feeling bad, fearful etc. – iow feeling unhappy). Probably I learnt to do this in my childhood – I am always controlling myself with the shoulds and nots – though a lot of the values I picked up later and seem to be not so run of the mill – albeit working on general principles of wanting to be ‘an ideal member of the society’. PETER: It’s good to hear that your investigations are bearing fruit. Just a comment – it’s not that ‘probably I learnt to do this in my childhood’, every human born on the planet is taught by a process of carrot and stick to control the emergence of the instinctual passions. Indeed the whole notion of good and bad and right and wrong comes from this childhood training. RESPONDENT: What a relief not be doing so – having a clear intent to be happy and harmless, it is now possible to live without controlling oneself – I am not talking about expressing, but about ‘not repressing/suppressing’. PETER: I remember having had a similar feeling myself and it was a very palpable sense of freedom. This is how I described it soon after –
And to think all this came about as a consequence of deciding that I would make being happy and harmless the most important thing in my life. In hindsight, I hadn’t eliminated my social identity at this stage because whilst one’s identity has two aspects – instinctual and social – they are intermeshed such that they form one entity, but rather what happened was that ‘I’ gave myself a new job to do. No longer was ‘I’ involved in the confusing and fearful business of being the controller, ‘I’ now was busy with being aware of how I was experiencing this moment of being alive with the aim of being as happy and as harmless as possible. Hence the palpable sense of freedom from having to be perpetually on guard was replaced by the thrilling business of being attentive to how I was experiencing being here in this moment of time. I don’t know if this makes sense to you at this stage but I would be interested in your comments if you feel like replying. RESPONDENT: I used to think that I didn’t have beliefs and values and controls – that I am a rational person who arrives at conclusions out of reasoning – but I discovered that I do have beliefs and values when I control my internal behaviour (I couldn’t discover them by simply asking ‘what is my belief’ – the inquiry into why I am feeling bad uncovered it). PETER: Yep. If you have a belief then for ‘you’ it is a truth and you are then obligated to hold on to your truths no matter what the facts of the matter are. The only reason that one would want to give up one’s beliefs was if one had something better to do with one’s life – and what better thing than eliminating malice and sorrow from one’s life. RESPONDENT: I feel bad for various things I think and feel. Without all these controls, I am free to feel/think without unduly controlling and punishing myself (even anticipatorily)… and I can apply common sense to clear away stupidities… the punishing pattern only sustains the underlying tendencies never ending it (compare it with the crime and police) – the Krishnamurti saying that this is so because ‘the controller is controlled’ rings bells somewhat – but isn’t deep enough to provide an understanding of the whole process. PETER: The remarkable aspect of being attentive with the intent to eliminate both malice and sorrow is that it is an objective awareness in the sense that it is equally attentive to both the good and bad emotions – unlike the spiritual practices and teachings which focus one’s attention only on the so-called bad emotions. It makes no sense to do half the job, as has been the tradition, if one wants to be free of the human condition in toto. RESPONDENT: Though much has been written about the social identity and why it is important to focus on this aspect (rather than going to instinctual passions at the beginning of the investigation), I should admit that I really didn’t understand this at all (as it can be said that I was in denial/ignorance/unclear that I indeed was made up of these values and feelings) – it seems to be a great breakthrough having found this. That ‘social identity’ is overlaid on the ‘rudimentary self’ etc. makes sense only now. This seems to be a crucial step to me. PETER: Based on what you have written, it does seem that you have made a great breakthrough. The reason I have written that it is important to focus on the social aspects of one’s identity is that this was the way I made my first breakthroughs. First came the intent to be happy and harmless – in my case I wanted to be able to live with at least one person in utter peace and harmony – and then came developing the unnatural habit of attentiveness necessary to discover what was preventing me form doing this. And lo and behold, I discovered that it was my social identity – ‘my’ beliefs, morals, ethics, principles, and values – that were the outer layer that I had to tackle in order to become more happy for more of the time and less antagonistic for more of the time. RESPONDENT: I should ask those who are doing this kind of investigation whether they have found such a clear sense of identity (a heavily feeling being) which acts as the controller and shapes our thinking, feeling and hence (?) behaviour. PETER: I posted a bit from my journal above that seems to align with your discovery. You may also find a lot of what I have written in my journal to be of use to you at this stage because it is all about the hands-on business of becoming virtually free of malice and sorrow with only passing references to the theory of it. RESPONDENT: In my assessment (too early – L ) I should think that the steps after this identification (and elimination – in my case identification easily led to seeing the silliness of having such an enforcer as common sense is a much better benevolent mechanism to conduct one’s business) are quite straightforward; and as to having the intent to be harmless and happy – that itself seems to be a straightforward application of common sense. PETER: Well said. And yet it seems that this common sense is an uncommon sense and no more so than amongst the goody-two-shoes spiritualists or for that matter amongst the real-world nihilists and anarchists. And just to pass on a tip, you may well find that patience and perseverance are what is now required if you want to build on your successes. RESPONDENT: But once again I clearly acknowledge that the adventure would not have been possible without the map – required reading and understanding so much of the material – once again great thanks to Richard, Peter, Vineeto and the rest (I cannot thank enough) – because if not for the writings here, it is easy to justify and sustain the social identity (the necessity of the values, beliefs, controls and so on) that is oneself – after all one will be in a good (in number L ) company – in not questioning it let alone ending it in oneself. PETER: I fully acknowledge I would be still bumbling about in confusion and wafting along aimlessly if I had not serendipitously come across Richard and his discoveries, which is why I am always pleased to have the opportunity to pass on my experience and expertise as an actualist to others.
PETER: It’s good to hear that your investigations are bearing fruit. Just a comment – it’s not that ‘probably I learnt to do this in my childhood’, every human born on the planet is taught by a process of carrot and stick to control the emergence of the instinctual passions. Indeed the whole notion of good and bad and right and wrong comes from this childhood training. RESPONDENT: The ‘probably’ usage was due to the fact that I could not exactly tie my memories of how I learnt to the fact that I was exhibiting such behaviour now. Because of this childhood amnesia, it appears as if the current me is self made and is not a product of environment. PETER: If you get the chance it is fascinating to observe very young children and how they are
taught what is good and bad, right and wrong and how they themselves learn to ‘play the game’. Although I parented two children myself, I
remember being fascinated at having a clear-eyed look at other parents interacting with their very young children and how very young children
interact with each other, as well as realizing that much of this process is occurring before the any substantive cognitive memory capacity
is formed and prior to the onset of the theory of mind * RESPONDENT: What a relief not be doing so – having a clear intent to be happy and harmless, it is now possible to live without controlling oneself – I am not talking about expressing, but about ‘not repressing/suppressing’. PETER: I remember having had a similar feeling myself and it was a very palpable sense of freedom. This is how I described it soon after –
And to think all this came about as a consequence of deciding that I would make being happy and harmless the most important thing in my life. In hindsight, I hadn’t eliminated my social identity at this stage because whilst one’s identity has two aspects – instinctual and social – they are intermeshed such that they form one entity, but rather what happened was that ‘I’ gave myself a new job to do. No longer was ‘I’ involved in the confusing and fearful business of being the controller, ‘I’ now was busy with being aware of how I was experiencing this moment of being alive with the aim of being as happy and as harmless as possible. Hence the palpable sense of freedom from having to be perpetually on guard was replaced by the thrilling business of being attentive to how I was experiencing being here in this moment of time. I don’t know if this makes sense to you at this stage but I would be interested in your comments if you feel like replying. RESPONDENT: Yes it makes sense now... ‘I’ am trying to busy myself with the moment and avoid all the excuses to fritter away this second. ‘I’ am not extinct, but have taken upon a new job which has a good instantaneous as well as long term pay :). PETER: Yeah. Instead of wafting through life hoping things will get better or searching for a quick fix or a quick get-out, ‘I’ gave myself something to do each moment again, no matter what I was doing, or where I was at the time. I would simply ask myself ‘am I enjoying this moment of being alive, am being harmless, do I feel happy?’ I had in fact ‘taken on a new job’. RESPONDENT: Probably fuelled by your comment above, recently I discovered that though I thought I was practicing actualism, I had distorted it a bit. Instead of staying and enjoying the moment, I was involved in a search and destroy mission, so I would go hunt for memories with bad feelings and try to dissect them. This resulted in missing out on the moment and as a methodology a failure – as I could never enjoy the moment and the pile that needs to be investigated was growing without resolution. But now I have my priority right and when I cannot enjoy the moment due to the emotion, I investigate in order to get back to enjoying the now. PETER: It is good to remember that actualism is a trial and error process – although others have trod the path, you will still need to run your own trials to see if they work as well as make your own errors in order to confirm what doesn’t work. The tendency to go looking into childhood hurts and wounds or past traumatic events in order to seek to justify one’s anger or to validate one’s sorrow is not only habitual and ‘self’-serving, it is also lauded as being of therapeutic value. As a rule of thumb, I found that any investigation of an event that triggered my current feeling of being annoyed or feeling melancholic that occurred more than 24 hrs ago was futile, if only for the unreliability of memory. You will find as you hone your ability to be attentive to how you are experiencing this moment of being alive you will eventually get to the stage that you can notice cause and effect as it is happening as in ‘I immediately felt … the moment she said this’ and not ‘I have just noticed that I am feeling … and it appears that it is because she said this yesterday’. When this starts to happen you know you are developing a vital interest in this business of being alive. Again this is simply a matter of practice combined with intent – a level of expertise to work towards to. The benefit of being this quick in being aware of your feelings is that you can more quickly feel any non-felicitous feelings as and when they are happening, label them and then get back to feeling good as soon as possible – rather than become overwhelmed by feelings of antagonism or sadness for hours or even days at a time. This then means, as soon as is practically possible, that you are able to have a clear-eyed look, free of any feelings of antagonism or sadness, at what happened and inquire into why it happened. RESPONDENT: I used to think that I didn’t have beliefs and values and controls – that I am a rational person who arrives at conclusions out of reasoning – but I discovered that I do have beliefs and values when I control my internal behaviour (I couldn’t discover them by simply asking ‘what is my belief’ – the inquiry into why I am feeling bad uncovered it). PETER: Well said. The actualism method is extraordinarily simple in principle and ruthlessly effective in practice. As an example, when I became aware of how protective I felt when others spoke disparagingly about the spiritual convictions I held, and the spiritual experiences I had, I became aware that I was passionately defending my spiritual beliefs. Similarly, when I became aware that I was continually annoyed by, or angry at, the conservative political party or the capitalist business community, I discovered that I held socialist and anti-materialist beliefs and similarly when I felt myself emotionally siding with the Environmentalists against the materialists I discovered that I held pantheist beliefs. Discovering my beliefs and acknowledging them was the start of what was often a long process of enquiry into both the underlying passions that give credence to these beliefs as well as the disinformation I blithely took to be true and the hypocrisy I invariably indulged in, in order to be seen by my peers as an avid supporter of these beliefs. * PETER: Yep. If you have a belief then for ‘you’ it is a truth and you are then obligated to hold on to your truths no matter what the facts of the matter are. The only reason that one would want to give up one’s beliefs was if one had something better to do with one’s life – and what better thing than eliminating malice and sorrow from one’s life. RESPONDENT: This explains why it is so difficult to find these beliefs! PETER: I wouldn’t recommend anyone to try to simply abandon all of their beliefs willy-nilly because there is a high risk that one would simply end up repressing or denying one’s beliefs and run the risk of feeling depressed – the hope inherent in most beliefs are often antidotes to despair. The only reason for daring to enquire into the efficacy and sensibility of one’s own beliefs is if one had a clear over-arching motive for doing so – the ‘new job’ of eliminating both despair and antagonism from one’s life. * PETER: I fully acknowledge I would be still bumbling about in confusion and wafting along aimlessly if I had not serendipitously come across Richard and his discoveries, which is why I am always pleased to have the opportunity to pass on my experience and expertise as an actualist to others. RESPONDENT: Your writings as well as Vineeto’s are great to read as well as extremely helpful. In fact, I was browsing the responses to my questions that I had asked years ago – the responses make so much sense now and I wonder how I missed understanding them at that time! It’s called cognitive dissonance and until a crack in the door opens up and you get a glimpse of the sincerity of what’s being talked about here, a natural world-weary and world-wary cynicism actively prevents understanding. It takes a good dose of naiveté and good deal of well-meaning intent to want to prise the door open sufficiently to begin to not only intellectually understand but also to experientially understand the radicality of actualism. Isn’t it great to have found a new job to do?
RESPONDENT: Hi Peter/Vineeto/Richard: Any recommended reading/videos on instinctual passions? PETER: I can’t recommend any specific reading material on instinctual passions apart from what is on the Actual Freedom Trust website but I thought to reply to you anyway. As you would have gathered from my journal, I found some of the research of social psychologists conducted in the 1960’s to be interesting reading and I remember at the time being particularly struck by Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience to authority. The series of experiments were eventually stopped on ethical grounds because they produced such shocking results but there was another experiment conducted where a group of volunteers were split up into two groups, one group playing prison guards, the other prisoners. The experiment had to be stopped after a few days because the supposed role-playing soon became very serious as instinctual behaviour came to the fore – I have lost the reference to the experiment but if you are interested I will try to hunt it down. The only other experiential evidence I found useful was the work of Joseph LeDoux and his team in experimentally determining that the instinctual fear reaction caused a primary instinctual affective reaction which kicked in before the any signal reached the neocortex – that the feeling of fear kicks in before the cognitive awareness of fear kicks in. In other words, feeling is primary, thinking is secondary. This simple experiment puts paid to the myths of ancient Eastern philosophy that has it that thinking gives rise to feelings and if one only stopped thinking then one could stop feeling what one didn’t want to feel. When looking through the general writings of sociology, psychology, psychiatry and neurobiology I have found nothing of substance and relevance apart from these few experiments. It is pertinent to remember that all of the studies, theories and conclusions within the current status quo of the human condition are predicated on instinctual behaviour being necessary for survival and the only possible solution within the human condition is to ensure that the good instincts (nurture and desire) operate such that they can subdue the bad instincts (fear and aggression) – the eons-old view that the human existence is inevitably a perpetual battle between good and evil. Nowhere have I ever I found anyone saying that it is possible to change human nature – as in it is possible to become free of malice and sorrow – what I found were studies, theories and conclusions based on being able to better cope with the excesses of the instinctual passions. I found many people still believing the Tabula Rasa myth and laying the blame for the human malaise on childhood conditioning and childhood trauma, I found others advocating the benefits of ‘Talking Therapy’ despite its century-long failure to produce substantive results, I found that Eastern philosophy has permeated much of psychology and psychiatry such that many theorists and practitioners now advocate meditative therapies based on cultivating a denial of one’s own instinctive malice and sorrow and actively practicing dissociating from the actual world of people, things and events. In short, what I found were fellow human beings trying to work out ways of coping with the human condition – no where did I find people talking about becoming free of the instinctual passions that underscore the human condition, let alone even wondering whether this is possible let alone even considering that this is desirable. Having said what I discovered in my reading, I don’t want to discourage you from doing your own reading for yourself – far from it – and the subjects you read about will be those that are of interest to you on the path. As a tip, I found it useful to start with reading books or articles that give an overview of the subject, preferable those written in terms a layman can understand, and then to get into details if you want to. I did a good deal of my initial research before I had a computer and I went down to the local second-hand book shop and bought about a dozen books covering a range of topics in sociology, psychology, consciousness studies, spirituality, mysticism, cosmology, environmentalism and human biology – in short, the status quo viewpoint of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being. It was a good exercise because what it did was get me thinking for myself again – something I had deliberately neglected to do in my spiritual years. I hindsight this was quite natural because in all spiritual practices one is encouraged not to think for oneself for it is essential that one believes what one is told, that one trusts what one is told, that one has faith in what one is told, and that one feels what one is being told is the truth. I wasn’t going to be that gullible again, which is why I checked out what Richard was saying by myself, for myself and part of doing this was undertaking a clear-eyed investigation of the current status quo views on life, the universe and what it is to be a human being. And this was far from an aimless investigation because what I wanted to do was to determine for myself what were the facts of the matter and what was mere cultural belief, theory, assumption, rumour, disinformation, tradition, folklore, legend or myth. As for videos, any video rental shop is jam-packed with videos whose entertainment value is based on instinctual passions – the horror, thriller and adventure sections cater for those who find entertainment in fear; the drama, action and humour sections cater for those who find entertainment in aggression; the animal and fairy-tale section caters for those who find entertainment in nurture; and the erotic, love story and escapist fantasies sections cater for those who find entertainment in desire. Take your pick. I didn’t bother about renting videos, as all this is available on television anyway, albeit often in a form watered down for general consumption. I found watching the news on television or reading the local newspaper gave me a better insight into the instinctual passions in operation – as a reality and not as a fantasy. We have a history channel on television and I particularly found the first-hand accounts of men who have fought in wars to be amongst the most telling accounts of the horrors of the instinctual passions whenever ‘the thin veneer of civilization’ breaks down – as it has done so regularly amongst all cultures throughout human history. I found this a necessary refocus as I had turned away from the horrors of the human condition in my spiritual years when I had deliberately dissociated from it in my own selfish pursuit of an ‘inner peace’. What I found by allowing myself to become sensitive to the instinctual passions – as I had been as a
teenager – was that I was able to tap into the intent I had in my youth in wanting to find a way of living with my fellow human beings in peace
and harmony … and by doing so I was able to once again get in touch with the naiveté I once had that this must be possible * But to get back to your question, whilst I found a reading investigation provided an essential intellectual overview of the universality of the instinctual passions, it is no substitute for hands-on knowledge based on my own experiential observations of when, how and why the instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire operate in this body and that they are intimately and inexorably intertwined with ‘who’ I think and feel I am. It is one thing to condemn another for being a killer or to philosophize or theorize about or find
excuses as to why human beings kill each other, it is quite another to experience the lust to obliterate another in oneself and want to be free of
it come what may. It is one thing to feel sorrow for others who are so despairing that they end their own lives or to philosophize or theorize
about or find excuses as to why human beings kill themselves, it is quite another to experience the very same depths of despair in oneself and want
to be free of it come what may. It is one thing to feel sorrow for others who are suffering the heartbreak and pain of nurture or to philosophize
or theorize about or find excuses as to why love inevitably comes hand-in-glove with dependency and disappointment, it is quite another to
experience the very same feelings in oneself and want to be free of them come what may. It is one thing to feel envy for others who are powerful,
rich and famous or to philosophize or theorize about or find excuses for ‘self’-centred desire I have got into a bit of a rave about the actualism method again and yet this is something that you seem to have a good grasp on by now … and something which you will know from your recent PCE is the necessary path to an actual freedom from the human condition. But then again what I have written may well be of use to others on the mailing list who are interested in actualism. One of the pleasures I get out of writing to the mailing list is in seeing how I have answered a question at the end of a post. It’s a bit like seeing how the design of a house comes out at the end. I never know at the start what is going to come out at the end, it is always a house for the people I am designing it for but I always keep in mind that different people will no doubt live in it one day so I try to make it the best I can for anyone who might live in it. That’s also how I respond to questions on this list – a specific answer to a specific question but answered in such a way that it may well be useful to all. After all, despite the fact that each human thinks and feels they are a unique ‘being’ – each of us is in fact a fellow human being.
RESPONDENT: Hi Peter & No 37, I am following Peter as I understand says PETER: Normal human experiencing of the physical universe is that ‘I’, as a non-physical entity parasitically residing in a physical body, thinks and feels the physical universe to be an alien and fearful place (contrary to anthropocentric/ geocentric thinking, the physical universe is not limited to what is out there, it includes this planet and its oceans, clouds, earth, trees, animals, human beings, rivers, cities, buildings and so on). It is only because human beings think and feel themselves to be separate from the physical world of the senses that they have long imagined and felt that there is an underlying reality the physical world – an underlying reality that is metaphysical in nature. When you take this on board it is clear that Einsteinian subjective relativity is but the latest in a long line of mathematical/ philosophical/ mystical theories that propose that there is a metaphysical underlying reality (a timeless, spaceless and formless reality) to the physical matter and space that is this infinite and eternal universe. RESPONDENT: Moreover, everybody in these circles have tried to fit common sense with these models and seem to have failed and only ask us to abandon the common sense and use principles of logic and experimental evidence(?), not imagination based on common sense (that which we use to conduct our everyday life). PETER: I take it from what you have written that you have had a pure consciousness experience whereby you have directly experienced the infinitude of the actual universe. If this is the case, you would know by your own direct experience that it is only ‘me’, the parasitical entity, who thinks and feels himself to be separate from, and alien to, the physical universe … and when ‘I’ am temporarily absent in a PCE all feelings of separation and alienation disappears. Perhaps I can put it this way – a PCE is the direct sensate experience of the actuality of the physical universe because ‘he’ of ‘she’ who desperately seek a metaphysical underlying reality to the physical universe, is temporality in abeyance. This is the antithesis to an altered state of consciousness whereby the supposed underlying metaphysical reality of the universe is imaginatively and passionately revealed because ‘I’ think and feel myself to be a part of the illusionary underlying metaphysical reality (or in some cases even the creator of this Reality). RESPONDENT: As a layman (outsider to the understanding of intrinsic nuts
and bolts of how these works), one is concerned here how it translates to this everyday world... I am not particularly interested in how well the
foundations are supported using logic and mathematics. PETER: Nor am I. Whether people think this underlying reality is religious or mystical or mathematical in nature does not interest me at all. It’s their fantasy after all. What is on offer on this mailing list is an actual freedom from the human condition including a freedom from all of the fantasies that propose that there is an underlying metaphysical reality to the physical universe. And the very first step in becoming actually free of the human condition is to abandon all of these religious or mystical or mathematical fantasies and start to come down-to-earth to the world of the senses where we humans actually live. RESPONDENT: Back to me: If I have understood the line of thought somewhat correctly, I am also in favour of that currently as it relates to my quest for direct experience. I had realized long ago when I corresponded to Richard that I was defending science based on my strong belief in scientists (no other discipline relies on objectivity and explicitly stated goals and experiment as the final arbiter) and decided to step out of my defence till I understand them myself to a great detail (I have good mathematical and scientific training and I have the toolkit to expand my knowledge if I find it necessary). PETER: A very sensible approach – and this is the approach I took. When I first came across Richard there were many things that jarred with ‘me’ but it soon became obvious that the only way I could find out if what he was saying was factual was to conduct my own investigation as to the nature of the human psyche (including its innate cunningness to do whatever it can to survive) – otherwise I was relying on either believing what others say or rejecting what others say, pathetically dependant upon ‘my’ own beliefs and predilections. RESPONDENT: My intrigue though (loosely stated objections and not strongly felt):
And then comes a stage where one says: Logic and Mathematics have succeeded where a common sense approach have not (in explaining subatomic stuff and fast moving stuff). Therefore I will buy the consequences of Logic and Mathematics even if it means that I have to lay down my common sense. I will use the same principles that helped me to get beyond in the subatomic and fast-moving universe and extrapolate and apply to this everyday world (and probably justify my spiritual fantasies). This is where Richard says (I think): Direct experience of the everyday world if you are willing to lay down in favour of your success in micro-worlds, you land up in imaginary world justified by mathematics and logic. The current models may be great in predictions but they are useful models... that’s all... do not justify one to jump to imagination sacrificing the common sense. Moreover these models that are based on logic and mathematics themselves use common sense at some level and nothing is just a standalone ‘logic and mathematics’ (as in there is no God that is running the world according to ‘logic and mathematics’). I have just written my thoughts and let me see how all this goes... will refine these stuff based on what you think. I know I am talking a lot out of my hat :) but after some great successes in actualism, I have become much more cheerful and talkative :). PETER: Einsteinian relativity theory relies upon imagining that time is a fourth dimension to the three dimensions of space, thereby allowing that time can be an abstract entity (t) having a hypothetical numerical value in abstract relativistic mathematics. A PCE experientially reveals that time is not an abstract dimension because a pure consciousness experience is the direct experience that this very moment is the only moment that is happening and that this very moment is perpetually happening. Whilst past moments did happen and future moments will happen, only this moment is actual – one is perpetually locked into this seamless moment of time as it were. It is always this moment of time, one cannot actually experience any other moment of time but this very moment. This is not an esoteric or philosophical wisdom as one can also become aware of this fact in one’s normal daily life – in fact the actualism method is specifically designed to bring one’s attention to this fact as an on-going experience. As an example, if you care to remember back to the moment when you first opened this post and began to read it, it is obvious that when you did so you could experience that the opening of the post was happening in this moment and now that you are reading these words it is also this moment. As Richard puts it – this very moment is the arena in which actual events happen. To keep with this practical observation, if you look at the computer monitor that you are reading these words on you will see that it has three spatial dimensions – width, length and depth – and that your observation of this is happening in this moment. The very spontaneity and instantaneity of this very moment gives vibrancy to the things and events that one sensately experiences in this moment of time. In short, in actuality, time is not a fourth dimension, space and time are not a continuum, space is not bent, nor is it expanding – all of these concepts and theories are nought but impassioned (subjective) fantasies. To get back to your comment, I take it that you are aware that the theoretical subatomic particles described in quantum physics are mathematical suppositions that have no material existence. Quantum physics deals with abstracted models of hypothetical subatomic realms in exactly the same way that relativistic cosmology deals with abstracted models of hypothetical universes that have no material existence. For me, once I understood that much of science masquerades theory as being fact and imaginary models as being things that actually exist, I also understood the absurdity of calling an internally-logical subjective theory an objective scientifically-verifiable fact. But then again, I have no emotional investment in supporting relativistic theory because I was not indoctrinated into believing that it is true, and nowadays I know by direct on-going experience that there is no underlying metaphysical reality to the universe. My ongoing objective attentiveness reveals that this is the only moment I can experience and this objective observation itself makes a nonsense of Einsteinian relativistic subjective observations and theoretical calculations. The actuality of the infinitude of the physical universe compared to the fantasies of metaphysical beliefs is such a good subject to contemplate upon. Who knows, it may even provoke the males of the species to get out of their heads and in touch with their feelings – after all taking such a step is an essential prerequisite to beginning to become free of the insidious grip of the instinctual passions.
RESPONDENT: As long as ‘I’ live, Richard is a liar. ‘I’ cannot imagine how an identity can die! How can I take Richard’s words that ‘Richard’ died? I need an extraordinary proof. As long as ‘I’ live, I think there will be doubt. To totally admit that ‘Richard’ vanished will be the end of ‘me’ I think! ‘I’ think ‘Richard’ is very much around. ‘Richard’ is lying. Extraordinary Proof 1.7.2005 * RESPONDENT: Or maybe Richard is not a liar but he is fooling himself. And fooling others as a side effect (but not No 58 – no, he can’t be fooled!). To summarize, these are the possibilities:
Which is actually true?/ This is a life or death question to ‘me’. I can’t go by trust or a general sense that I get by reading other writings of his that he maybe genuine. All these indirect inferences don’t have much value in deciding this final question./ Let me sleep over this stuff. The question of death 1.7.2005 PETER: I thought to write to you to let you know that I am currently working on a project that will put paid to your inference that Richard does not exist as a flesh and blood body. Whilst I am under no illusion that there are those who will dismiss a video image as being proof of existence (given that there are those who dismiss the beamed-to-earth images of men walking on the surface of the moon as being a hoax) I know that many will find it assuring that a fellow human being has written, and is still currently writing, of his experiential knowledge of the human condition and of his experience of how to become free from it. As for your other list of doubts, I am reminded of a time when similar doubts would swirl around in my mind. The particular question that I remember that arose for me was ‘what would happen if Richard disappeared’ – packed up and left, disappeared over the horizon, as it were, never to be seen or heard of again. Upon reflection I realized that what he had written and said made sense to me – and far more sense than anything I had read, heard or experienced in the spiritual world – and that I actually begun to become more happy and more harmless by simply being attentive to whenever I was feeling unhappy or feeling resentful or feeling antagonistic towards any of my fellow human beings. It then struck me that both of these factors meant that I already had the confidence to not have to rely on Richard but that I was, in fact, already beginning to stand on my own two feet as it were. Of course, I was no fool – I made sure I had a hard copy of Richard’s writings in the form of his journal as a guide for my own investigations into the human condition – but this particular time sticks in my mind as being significant in that it marked the end of my futile attempts of settling for being a faithful follower and the beginning of my journey to an actual autonomy, and all that that entails. Whilst I am writing to you I’ll just mention another thing that might be helpful to you as it also relates to the issue of doubt. In my early days of actualism I was often taken aback by the attitude of others whenever I happened to mention that I had given up my spiritual search and had decided instead to devote my life to becoming happy and harmless. Not only were some of my spiritual friends affronted by my decision, even to the point of calling me ungrateful, but even those who had never trod the spiritual path would often cast doubts and make disparaging comments on my aspirations to become happy and to be harmless. As I investigated each of these objections to being happy and harmless – for that is indeed what these comments were in fact – what I found was that the objections invariably fell into predictable categories – moral and/or ethical objections based on various religious and/or sectarian dogmas, objections based on inculcated beliefs that suffering and fighting are necessary in order to ‘survive’, objections based on the fact that ‘the world’ (read ‘my’ world) is indeed a miserable place, objections rooted in the fear of change and of moving too far from the herd or, when all else failed, visceral reactions of either head-in-the-sand denial, head-in-the-clouds piousness and even on occasions outright hostility. I remember many a time being astounded at the reactions of others to what seemed to me at the time – and still does, of course – an eminently sensible and completely do-able goal in life – to become actually free of malice and sorrow, in other words to become actually free from the human condition. However I never allowed either the objections or the objectors to get me down for long as it was just plain silly to take on board the words, or allow myself to be cowered by the vibes, of those who are in essence doing nothing but disparaging those who dare to pursue radical change whilst they at the same time offer nothing other than a defence of the human condition and/or a championing of the status quo. Anyone who dares to set their sights on becoming happy and harmless, particularly in this early pioneering phase, is bound to experience the same reactions from their fellow human beings who have decided for whatever reason to stay ensnared within the human condition. It is after all no little thing to abandon humanity, to cease battling it out with one’s fellow human beings who remain instinctually driven to do battle with each other, often in the name of some spurious cause or other on the basis of a compulsive yet phoney ‘need to survive’. I would like to finish by making a comment on something you wrote several weeks ago as it seems relevant to your current questions.
What occurred to me when I read of your experience is that such experiences are best left as one-off experiences, i.e. one such experience can be said to have been a learning experience, a repeat of such an experience can be said to be silly if one is at all cognizant that one is indeed slipping down the same slippery slope again. I remember having an experience of absolute dread in my early years of intimately exploring the human psyche in action and the experience left me literally bruised and battered for days. Whilst the experience was revealing in and of itself, to experience first-hand the horrors of the hellish realm that is the root of dread is not something that I recommend to anyone and it was certainly an experience that I never wanted to repeat for myself – if ever there is a dead end, then the feeling of dread is it. The point I am making is that even if the opportunity presented itself for me to go down that path again, I would have declined and declined emphatically. As you have probably guessed by now I am suggesting to you that it may well make sense for you to do the same, given the nature of the experience you had last time and given that it appears to me that you could be at the start of the same slippery slope to the same experience. I do realize that I could well be wrong in my assumptions (which is why I very rarely offer personal advice to anyone) but I thought I would pass on my personal experience as it may well be of use to you – after all, the human condition is a condition that is common to all human beings. * PS: Vineeto has suggested that the following links might be of interest as they relate to the issue of doubt, as well as the issue of confidence –
 ../actualism/peter/list-af/gary-a.htm#16.7.2000
../actualism/peter/list-af/gary-c.htm#21.10.2000
../actualism/peter/list-af/gary-e.htm#doubt
PETER: Following our recent conversation as to your flights of fantasy as to whether there is an
actual flesh and blood body known by the name of Richard, I would point you to the following link which may be of interest: As you can see the video dialogues ‘Conversations about the human condition and how to become free of it’ are coming soon but we thought to post a sample excerpt of one of the conversations as a preview of what is to come.
RESPONDENT No 82: If the AF Trust has made a conscious decision to limit its publications to Microsoft-only document formats, it is of course none of my business. PETER to No 82: There are many computer operating systems in the world ranging from the popular/domestic to the obscure/specialist but a multitude of other factors come into play as well – there are apparently over 300 media players available and at least 11 different video formats, 33 different video codecs not to mention at least 27 different audio codecs. The approach I took when considering producing videos for the Actual Freedom Trust was to chose a video format that offered the best quality that I could afford which would play on a freely available mainstream media player on an operating system that was the most widely used in order to make the information available to as many people as possible. I was well pleased when I found that I could afford to film in the newly emerging HDV (High Definition Video) format that is currently replacing the previous DV format as not only is the quality superior to DV but it also provides a degree of future proofing for the videos. If one follows your line of reasoning about the Actual Freedom Trust ‘making a conscious decision
to limit its publication’ because the Trust happens to chose to offer the video conversations in the best consumer quality currently
available able to be played on a freely-available media player that is compatible with the most widely-used computer operating system currently
used throughout the world, the very same objection could be made that the writings happen to be in the English language which – although it is
rapidly becoming the de facto universal language on the planet – does mean that the Actual Freedom Trust publications are in fact limited to
those who can read and understand words written in the English language. RESPONDENT: True some practical decisions have to be made ... PETER: T’was not a practical decision, t’is just the way it is – the authors of the writings of the Actual Freedom Trust happen to be English speaking. RESPONDENT: But the analogy breaks here: PETER: I was not making an analogy, I was merely demonstrating the down-to-earth process of following a line of reasoning through to its end point such that one is then able to see whether a proposition is sensible or whether it is silly – in this case the proposition that the Actual Freedom Trust makes conscious decisions to limit its publications. RESPONDENT: There is no common language that can be understood by everybody. PETER: Indeed, and yet English is the most widely spoken language amongst the many countries on the planet. However, following the line of thinking of the correspondent I was replying to, the fact that the Actual Freedom Trust writings are in the English language means that its publications are limited to those who can understand written English. Of course. RESPONDENT: But there are some open standards and free software that works in most if not all OS; so choosing them would enable everybody to work with these. PETER: You have lost me here. In my investigations as to the best, easiest and most widely accessible format to offer the video conversations what I continually came across was the seasoned advice of long time practitioners in the field of videography who apparently had no axe to grind as it were – which is why I choose to do what I happened to choose to do. Personally I have no knowledge or interest in ‘open standards’ nor any interest in learning about them and nor do I think the average person would … which leaves me at a loss in trying to follow your line of thinking, let alone the point you are making. RESPONDENT: Also another point: English to all the language conversions will be time consuming and impractical ... PETER: But then again there are a multitude of English-to-other-language dictionaries available, many of which are but a few mouse clicks away. RESPONDENT: But locating software that converts one format (this WMV) to other formats... particularly some open formats maybe practical (particularly if the software that plays WMV in other OS is not to be found). I can try to help with those who genuinely face this problem; please let me know if your OS doesn’t have facility to view it. And also, if the viewer is not free. I shall try to locate information regarding this. PETER: When I used to run building sites, I was the one who everybody turned to whenever a problem arose. After a while, rather than resent the fact that everyone came to me with their problems, I came to understand that not only was this my job on the site, but also that problem solving was something that I was good at it. Eventually it came to the point where I liked the challenge of finding the best way to do something within the parameters of the given circumstances, so much so that I would I would say to the tradesman ‘We haven’t got a problem, we have got a creative opportunity’. Pretty soon those same tradesman were doing their own thinking about the problems and challenges that inevitably arose such that they did their own thinking about what was the best solution prior to coming to me to check it out whether I had a better idea in mind. In due course I realized I had became redundant as it became clear to me that I had passed on all that I knew to my co-workers about thinking a problem through whilst taking into account all the pertinent aspects of the particular situation. With regard to the comments thus far about difficulties that some people have with the format and with the quality of the videos my bottom line is … if someone really wants to watch them then they will find a way to watch them. Have you not noticed that interest begets intent and that it is intent that begets the means?
RESPONDENT: I would like to ask Peter and Vineeto to write about some difficulties they found in this part when they practised this method initially. PETER: Although I will answer your questions I suggest that it would be best to read what I have written previously when I was in the throws of making these investigations as what I wrote then was more pertinent in that it was written closer to the events. RESPONDENT: What does one do when one feels bad? PETER: Get back to feeling good as soon as possible as nothing good that can be said about feeling bad – and I say this despite the fact that many people laud the bitter-sweet feeling of sorrow. RESPONDENT: How much of study is required? PETER: None at all if one realizes that nothing good can be said about feeling bad. Having said that, it is generally not that easy because not only is feeling good disparaged within the human condition – the ultimate Catch-22 put-down being that feeling good about being here means that one is uncaring or even callous because one is not feeling bad for those who are feeling bad – it is also the default instinctual condition given that the prime instinctual passions are those of fear, aggression, nurture and desire, all of which contribute to ‘feeling bad’. RESPONDENT: Just the right amount to get back into feeling happy and harmless once again? PETER: Yes – with the proviso that if one finds oneself repeatedly feeling bad when a similar event happen or in similar circumstances then it obviously makes good sense to get to the bottom of why it keeps happening so as to not have feeling bad happen again when a similar event happens or in similar circumstances. RESPONDENT: If one has 100% intent can one just look at the feeling and get back to being happy and harmless instantaneously? PETER: Yes – with the proviso that this is often difficult to do initially as one discovers that one has had a life-long habit of being angry – of holding a grudge against someone, of feeling righteous about something or another, of blaming others for doing something or of not doing something that I believe they should be doing or not be doing and so on – or of feeling sad about my lot in life, of being envious of others, of feeling resentful of others, of feeling as though I don’t belong and so on. RESPONDENT: Is the amount of work that is needed inversely proportional to the amount of pure intent to be happy and harmless? PETER: Does it not make sense that unless one has a 100% intent to do something then one will never be successful in doing what it is that one wants to do? RESPONDENT: And is it inversely proportional to one’s grip on the method? PETER: As for ‘one’s grip one the method’, the main difficulty with the method is its simplicity and straightforwardness – denial and obscuration being the main tricks a social/instinctual identity employs in order to evade exposure. The good thing is that attentiveness combined with sincere intent allows you to understand and experience this aspect of the human condition in action and thus prevent it from getting in the way of your being happy and harmless. RESPONDENT: When I look into the feeling – there is the cause of the feeling and there is the effect of the feeling and there is no clear boundary in between ... at least in the beginning. PETER: It’s good to keep in mind that many a person is in prison solely because of the effects of a feeling, be it anger, jealousy, envy, resentment, greed and so on. They are locked up away from mainstream society for many and varying reasons of course and the courts by and large take note of the varying causes in order to determine what are called mitigating circumstances but by-and-large they are there because of the effect of a feeling. RESPONDENT: The effect (the expression and evolution) of the feeling dominates the cause. One may feel irritated because his boss said something about him and might discharge that irritation on his child’s undone homework thinking that it is the cause. I guess more attentiveness reveals the actual cause. But is there always a cause? How about when one deals with instincts? Is there a cause or trigger? PETER: Given that I have written millions of words on this subject I am reluctant to track over it again … other than to say that if you are being attentive of the consequences your feeling irritated has on your own wellbeing and on the wellbeing of those upon whom you inflict your irritation and this is not enough of an incentive to stop feeling irritated, then no amount of musing about cause and effect will help. I am reminded of those who argue about the possible link between violent videos and violence and whether or not one is the cause of the other, all the while blithely ignoring the fact that both are expressions of violence and that violence is and always has been endemic to human nature. The current popular argument is about the ‘causes’ of terrorism, a by and large diversionary argument that completely avoids the fact that such acts of senseless anarchical violence are part and parcel of the human condition and always have been part and parcel of the human condition. I am in no way discouraging you from doing all you can about eliminating malice and sorrow from your life – it is the very best practical contribution that one can make towards ending all the wars, rapes, murders, child abuse, conflicts, despair and suicides that plague humanity – but when all is said, and all is done, an actual freedom is only to be had by stepping out of the real world and into the actual world.
RESPONDENT: It looks like there are different modes of me ... sometimes I find that the ‘me’ is not willing to investigate or it is doing a fake job. My question is that can the ‘me’ ever have a goal to be happy and harmless...? It seems to have its own agenda. The present person that is typing this mail doesn’t have any agenda but clearly acknowledge that happy and harmless is a sensible goal to have. But then when there is this inner ‘me’ (a different mode) starts working, it is either spoiling the moment in its worst and in its best, it is trying to conflict with itself in the name of actualism ... distorting everything and just mechanically fighting with its own projection. Was this ever your experience? Vineeto said once (in a mail to No 60?) that she integrated different parts of her ‘self’ in the very beginning. IOW. can the ‘me’ have a clear purpose of becoming happy and harmless? Or it will be always a lip service and there is some other part of oneself which becomes manifest when the ‘me’ (feeling part) becomes minimized that has to go about it? PETER: My immediate response would be … what better purpose in life but to find the meaning of life? You might have noticed that I recently had a conversation with No 86 about the fact that by about my mid-twenties I discovered that for me the meaning to life was not to be had in materialism. Finding no meaning there, I was ripe for searching for the meaning of life in spiritualism and after a long and in-depth investigation I eventually found not meaning but non-sense. Then, as you know, I serendipitously came across actualism, which offers a third alternate to both materialism and spiritualism. I have no idea what your aspirations in life are, let alone your life experiences but what you want to do with your life is ultimately your own decision. I have often looked at others and been amazed at what they choose to do with their lives – for instance I have always been impressed with the single-mindedness and dedication of medical researchers who literally devote their lives to finding a way of eradicating one particular disease from the many that cause illness or even death to the human body. Whilst I admire such endeavours, I never had the interest to do such things. My interest has always laid in the reasons for the persistent inability of human beings to live together in peace and harmony and it would seem in hindsight that this abiding interest meant that I could not ignore the intrinsic challenge that is at the core of actualism – can I prove by living example that it is possible, in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, to live with my fellow human beings in utter peace and harmony? Needless to say the first step I had to take was to get my head out of the clouds and start to become aware of the world as-it-is and people as-they-are … in order to gather sufficient motivation to begin to become aware of ‘me’ as-I-am. The reason I am saying this is that I recently had a conversation with a woman who is just beginning to pay attention to many of the feelings and emotions that she had in the past either glossed over, denied, suppressed, detached from, dis-identified from or attempted to transcend. She was starting to come across some very unpleasant things to say the least but – for whatever reason – she does seem to have both the motivation and the determination needed to push on. I do realize that I haven’t answered the specific question you raised simply because it is a question that only you can answer. I remember realizing at some stage that nobody can make me happy and harmless – only I can do that. Curiously with this realization came the requisite impetus to really stand on my own two feet for the first time in my life. As I thought about the fact that my happiness and my being harmless is totally in my hands alone I came to understand that this also meant that nobody could make me unhappy or antagonistic – only I can do that. These series of realizations led on to one of the essential things that I needed to fully understand – that the only person I need to change is me. And when I say fully understand I don’t mean an intellectual understanding, nor do I mean change as in turning away from the world and adopting a cynical attitude to life or cultivating a spiritual goody-two-shoes persona – I mean radically changing as in setting about eradicating ‘I’ as ego as well as ‘me’ as soul.
RESPONDENT: I believe that Peter wrote the following:
I am interested in the evidence for the empirical discoveries from the scientific literature. If possible, can you please provide the literature that points to/or infers 1 & 2? PETER: I gleaned the information regarding the first aspect from watching many television documentaries on the functioning of the brain, not from scientific literature. I have seen images of the functioning of the brain in response to various stimuli be they physical or imaginary, I have seen and heard reports of cases where, after an accident or illness affected certain areas of the brain other areas were activated and took over the disabled functioning, I have seen and heard reports of the functioning of the brain at a microscopic level via neural pathways known as synapses and have seen and heard reports that experimentation has revealed that these connections are electrochemical in nature and that repeated ‘firing’ of these connections causes the connection to strengthen and that neglect of these connections causes them to weaken. All of this makes sense to me, in particular the effects that chemicals such as adrenaline, serotonin and dopamine have on the brain’s function as it directly accords with my own observation and experience as to how this brain operates – the effort it takes to get new connections up and running automatically, as well as the effort it takes to break a connection once it has become so strong as to be habitual, as well as the observation and experience that once a connection is no longer utilized for a period of time it eventually ceases to function. With regard to the second aspect, the empirical evidence has been from the study of animals and the sole extent of reading that I did was LeDoux’s research on mice – as you would appreciate it is somewhat problematical to conduct such invasive investigations of the human brain in action. Despite this, LeDoux himself has no difficulty in translating the results to the workings of the human brain and recent research has revealed that the functioning of the human brain is substantially influenced by an array of chemicals that are triggered off by the amygdala in response to the limbic region of the brain. As for the comment about genetic adaptations and alterations in the lifetime of the species, again this
information was sourced from a documentary of a scientist moving same species frogs to varying altitudes and noting their adaptations to a markedly
changed environment. I went looking for documentary evidence of his research some time ago but could not find it, so I have since amended the
wording (it being part of the Introduction to Actual Freedom that I penned several years ago) to reflect a more cautious wording In my early days of writing I was much more cavalier in my approach but since then I have come to realize that many people focus on the details rather than the gist of what I was saying at the time. Upon reflection I did take their point on board – what I write should be subject to scrutiny and with a fine tooth comb if necessary – but I bulked at going over all of my writing and reviewing it for technical correctness, not to mention political correctness. My interest in actualism has always been, and always will be, experiential and I have little regard for intellectualism for intellectualisms sake – common sense is more my area of interest and to me what I have written above makes sense, both in relation to empirical scientific discoveries as well as my own experiential investigations as to how my brain operates and how it has progressively changed in it’s operation since first becoming an actualist.
PETER: All of this makes sense to me, in particular the effects that chemicals such as adrenaline, serotonin and dopamine have on the brain’s function as it directly accords with my own observation and experience as to how this brain operates – the effort it takes to get new connections up and running automatically, as well as the effort it takes to break a connection once it has become so strong as to be habitual, as well as the observation and experience that once a connection is no longer utilized for a period of time it eventually ceases to function. RESPONDENT: It is very useful to have what you have written there and it makes sense to me too. But it will be good to have the statements backed up with evidence in the form of scientific literature as it appeals to the ‘empirical discoveries’ so that the reader can judge for themselves. PETER: I would suggest that another alternative would be that the reader do their own reading on any subjects that they find to be contentious in order that they do their own thinking on the subject so as to make up their own mind – if they want to break the habit of believing what others say. The Net can be a good source of such information because at least it provides a forum for voices other than the fashionable/ popularist spiritual/ scientific theories that are currently held to be truths – for example actualism would not have a world-wide uncensored voice were it not for the Net. It is just a matter of keeping one’s wits about oneself and looking for what makes sense and what doesn’t make sense, after all what the brain does – if not impeded by emotions and passions – is make sense of the world of the senses. RESPONDENT: Like you, Richard, Vineeto back up your statements about other’s mails using their own words from their own mails. PETER: By and large, the reason for doing so, is to attempt to keep the conversation sensible and on track. The value of written conversations is that they can be concise and to the point whilst in verbal conversations a lot is said that is contradictory and/or vague and the tendency is generally to stay away from or steer away from uncomfortable or too close to the bone topics. RESPONDENT: I am very interested in watching documentaries like this... so if you have any information regarding this (or any other documentaries you found useful), I would see if I can get it in the form of DVDs to watch. PETER: There is very little I can recommend in the way of reading or watching, given that actualism draws a line through all of which humanity has regarded as being the truth with regards to the human condition (spiritual teachings, consciousness studies and the like) and the universe (Mother Earth beliefs, cosmological theories and the like). However, I had a similar request from a local man who has become interested in actualism and I lent him two books that I found useful more for the well-researched information they contained rather than the conclusions they came to. The first was a book entitled ‘The Myth of Male Power’ by Warren Farrell which I found interesting reading at the time I was investigating the social conditioning as well as the instinctual imperatives that caused ‘me’ as a male to feel separate from and fundamentally different to the ‘other half’ of the species. I can’t remember anything about the book, but the man who read it reported that he also found it thought-provoking so much so that he set about making some pragmatic changes in his life and particularly in his relationship to his companion. The other book I have mentioned before on this list – ‘The Sceptical Environmentalist’ by Bjorn Lomberg – and again the man who I leant this book to found it thought-provoking, particularly in its exposé of the extent to which the eco-fanatics are prepared to use disinformation, misinformation and outright lies in order to justify their passionate causes. Two other books that also gave me food for thought, as well as some empirical information about the human condition in action, were ‘Obedience to Authority’ from Stanley Milgram, which I mentioned in my Journal and ‘The Dark Side of Man’ from Michael Ghiglieri, which I have previously mentioned on this mailing list. * PETER: With regard to the second aspect, the empirical evidence has been from the study of animals and the sole extent of reading that I did was LeDoux’s research on mice – as you would appreciate it is somewhat problematical to conduct such invasive investigations of the human brain in action. Despite this, LeDoux himself has no difficulty in translating the results to the workings of the human brain and recent research has revealed that the functioning of the human brain is substantially influenced by an array of chemicals that are triggered off by the amygdala in response to the limbic region of the brain. RESPONDENT: But he says that his results apply only to ‘fear system’ not the other emotions. In his book ‘the emotional brain’. PETER: The inherent problem with scientists’ interpretations of empirical data is that scientists are, like everyone else, passionate human beings and as such their interpretations are biased and impaired by the beliefs and passions of the human condition. As a question to someone who has some hands-on experience, not to mention some awareness, of the human psyche and the human condition in action – is it your experience that fear is the basic root instinctual passion and if so, don’t you find LeDoux’s conclusion somewhat dubious? The reason I asked is that it is important to check, compare and verify what others are saying by your own experience, which is why it is so vitally important to make your own investigations of the human condition in action in the only person you can do this – ‘me’.
Peter’s & Richard’s Text ©The
Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
