PETER: Just a few comments on matters unresolved from our previous discussion –

*

PETER: Given that have said you welcome feedback, I’ll just round off with a comment on – ‘it seems that mental effort automatically implies a division we experience as ‘self’’. If I read you right, this supposition seems to be a hangover from Eastern religious belief wherein the ‘self’ is believed to be a thinking-self or ego-self only and a spurious feeling of freedom is gained by abandoning common sense thinking in an attempt to become a feeling-self only.

As you know by now this is old archaic thinking – superstition based on ignorance of fact and empirical observation. To suppose that one can become free of being a psychological and psychic ‘self’ without ‘mental effort’ does not make sense. After all, ‘who’ you think you are is the result of thousands of years of cultural and social programming and ‘who’ you feel you are is the end result of billions of years of the genetically-sequenced struggle for survival of life on this planet. To become free of all of this programming in order for intelligence to be freed from these brutish instinctual passions is no easy task – to abandon thinking in favour of feeling is to forsake this task in favour of ‘self’-preservation.

RESPONDENT: I’m not sure if my comment on ‘mental effort’ is a hangover from Eastern religious belief – I don’t think so since it stems from my own experience.

PETER: I don’t know what your particular social programming has been but where I live Eastern religious belief has well and truly permeated all levels of society. Western religions have absorbed many of these beliefs, rednecks spout spiritual psittacisms, schools teach that the ills of the world are due to the evils of materialism and technological inventiveness, the mind-less escapism of meditation is lauded as being the panacea of the stress of a ‘Western’ lifestyle and the popular press and the entertainment industry is awash with spiritual wisdom. Eastern religion and philosophy has gone beyond being a fashionable alternative and has become mainstream respectable. Indeed a whole industry founded on Eastern religious belief has been formed with practitioners, teachers and masters offering cures, healings, therapies, retreats, meditations, and so on.

From observation, the same seems to be the case in almost all western countries, the US included. I only need to tune into Oprah Winfrey in order to comprehend that not only has the US mainstream taken Eastern religious belief to heart but that many have done so by perverting the famed Eastern pursuit of spiritual ‘self’-aggrandizement into an equally selfish pursuit of real-world ‘self’-aggrandizement.

If you have managed to escape from all of this influence, then you start the actualism method from a different point than I did. I spent years believing much of Eastern spiritual belief, in spite of my doubts. It was only when I came across Richard that I found that there was now a third alternative to both materialism and spiritualism.

RESPONDENT: Maybe a little clarification can help here. I’m certainly not saying that one could do the actualism method ‘effortlessly’ or that it doesn’t take effort. More specifically, my observation is about seeing how the emotional effort of belief, hope, trust, etc creates a division where ‘I’ identify with the ‘good’ and try to ignore the ‘bad.’ This kind of mental effort is normally an indication that ‘I’ am hanging on to a wish, dream, hope, or self-image.

PETER: Whereas it is my experience, and the experience of all of the practicing actualists on this list, that it takes stubborn effort – and a certain amount of intestinal fortitude – firstly to become aware of, and secondly to abandon all of the beliefs, hopes, dreams, wishes, morals and ethics that make up ‘me’. This programming does not take effort to sustain, it is ‘self’-sustaining by its very nature. This programming is ‘who’ I think and feel I am and as such it obviously it takes effort to remove.

This programming doesn’t create a division – such that when it is removed I feel union – this programming is the very substance of ‘me’. Only when this programming is incrementally removed does one realize the penalty one paid for being a believer – provided one is sincere in one’s efforts what results is an incremental and tangible down-to-earth freedom, not a feeling of union.

*

PETER: In a PCE – provided you resists the atavistic temptation to start swooning in rapture at the beauty of it all or indulging in ‘self’-aggrandizing fantasies (or else it deteriorates into an ASC) – you can readily discern that the only reason you are experiencing the sensual delight and utter peacefulness of the actual world is because ‘you’ have temporarily left the stage.

From this experiential realization pure intent can arise to devote one’s life to the task of becoming happy and harmless – to actively dismantle my ‘self’, to dare to question the veracity of ‘my’ precious beliefs, to want to really come to understand both the nature and the source of the peripheral feelings of ‘self’ and sense of ‘being’ and to not stop until the process is finished and the very source of ‘me’, ‘me’ as a feeling ‘being’, is permanently eliminated, expunged.

Then, when the PCE wanes and you return to being ‘normal’ again, back in normal everyday reality, ‘you’ find yourself with something to do. ‘You’ then have a reason for being, a life goal, a task, a job, and a fascinating one at that. And I can vouch that there is no more fascinating and rewarding thing you can do with your life than to devote your life to the task of becoming happy and harmless for this is the path to actual freedom.

RESPONDENT: I find that I spend a good deal of time wanting to sort of ‘jump’ into actual freedom. In other words, it does seem ‘daunting’ at times what’s between here and now and the goal of this process – which seems to bring a kind of ‘self’-loathing – but this must be some sort of cop-out – a refusal to put forth the required effort.

It’s possible that the ‘self’-loathing is related to the feeling of ‘not being here’ when I’m not feeling good – so that is probably a good area for investigation.

PETER: Yeah. Morals and ethics – the social programming that produces feelings of guilt and shame if you fail to repress or deny your feelings of malice – are part of what I came to experience as ‘the guardians at the gate’. Guardians in that they prevent you from opening the gate to investigating the brutish animal instinctual passions that each and every human being is genetically-encoded with.

I only made substantive progress towards becoming harmless when I dared to allow myself to acknowledge the full extent of my instinctual passions and then to dig deep enough to experience them – to feel them in action.

A few examples from this time might be useful in order to explain the down-to-earthness of this process –

[Peter]: ... ‘Here I was with a willing woman, to whom I was sexually attracted, and there was this drive in me that prevented me from being with her as a real woman. When I was with her sexually I would be thinking of other women, and I knew this to be a common male situation. When I saw other women I would be sexually attracted to them and fantasise about them. Facing this squarely in myself and contemplating it led me to a devastating conclusion. This sex drive within me is not concerned with me being happy with one woman; in fact, it is actively conspiring to prevent it! Nature, or more accurately blind nature, wants only reproduction – the survival of the species – and it doesn’t give a damn for my happiness. The physical enjoyment of sex and the euphoric orgasmic climax is a by-product of the reproductive process itself. As a male animal I am programmed with a sexual instinct which drives me to impregnate as many women as possible. Crudely put (for it is indeed crude): find woman, fuck woman, move on; find woman, fuck woman, move on… The sex drive, when coupled with the instinctual passion of aggression, produces the rapist. In all the wars, the soldier’s spoil at the end of battle was rape. And despite the attempt to ‘keep a lid on it’ with morals and noble ideals, this blind instinctual passion lies at the very core of man’s sexual behaviour. At last I had the bugger by the throat: the very instinctual passion that prevented my free enjoyment of sex with this woman.

It is very interesting what happens with this method of ridding oneself of beliefs and instinctual passions. It actually works! I had been around the spiritual/therapy world for years, had probably heard parts of this before, done ‘work’ or groups on the issue before, but here I was able to go straight for the jugular. This was the core of the problem, it was in the road between us, and I needed to be free of it! After all, it was preventing my happiness and enjoyment of life now! I recognised the behaviour and feelings in myself, saw the appalling consequences both to my happiness and that of others … and then they simply disappeared. The complete and total understanding of a belief and its accompanying emotions actually results in their elimination. It took a little time, a lot of diligence, introspection and plain ‘self’-obsession – and the will to keep going, to find out. It was often very fearful and I found myself not only dealing with my fears but also with the fear of all humans now and who ever have been. And then, as though by magic, one day I realised I was no longer driven. It had been a gradual process but it had come to an end – it worked. The sex drive, or instinctual passion, had virtually disappeared from my life.

It was extraordinarily freeing to no longer be led around by my dick, to no longer revert to fantasy and imagination, to no longer eye off other women. And I am free of the seductive power of women, that ultimate power that women exert over men. Of course, it was not merely an intellectual understanding and it translated gradually over the months into a free enjoyment of sex with Vineeto. With fear, guilt, imagination and blind nature no longer interfering, the physical act of sex reveals its delights – with a real woman, lustily sexual, eyes open, delicious, tactile, sensual, immediate, body-tingling pleasure. The actual physical pleasure of sex revealed was to far exceed the imaginative and fantasy world of sex I had previously lived in.’ Peter’s Journal, Sex

And another –

[Peter]: ‘Malice is a bit different as it is generally not upheld as a human virtue and most people even manage to deny it in themselves. It is always someone else who is cruel, jealous, vindictive or violent and I am simply responding to their malice! It was amazing to see in my own children unprovoked and unlearned acts of aggression. The idea that children are born innocent is just an idea, not a fact. I have some memories, even as a kid, of plotting revenge against someone – but of course most of the actual malicious actions were condemned. One didn’t break things, hit people, or say certain things – I was taught to behave ‘properly’. The trouble is, all the malice was then forced into cunning, clever and subversive actions that were to persist in my life. The willingness to tell a tale on someone as a subtle revenge is a classic. We call it gossiping, to disguise the maliciousness. I remember a few times actually having to will myself to stop, biting my tongue. The worst situation, of course, is in ‘relation-ship’ (or ‘battle-ship’) with a woman.

The malice often took the form of withdrawal – an insidious revenge, but also a self-inflicted pain; a terrible price to pay in the long run. I came to see a lot of New Age-spiritual-therapy behaviour as only thinly disguised malice. ‘I have to be honest with you’ or ‘I would like to share something with you’ is usually the opening line of someone who is about to take revenge or be spiteful. Again much of what we humans regard as entertainment is but our pleasure at witnessing malice and violence inflicted upon fellow human beings. Competitive sport is another arena for malice to be played out, whether watching or participating. A few times in my life the lid would really fly off and rage would surface, quickly followed by shame.

In particular I remember a time when we were working with some Indian stonemasons in Poona. One of the workers was doing something wrong despite my having just warned him. Well, I gave him a full serve of rage, only to discover afterwards that he really was doing it right all along. I was deeply ashamed, not only that I had lost my temper, but that I had done the typical thing at the time – chosen an Indian as my victim. A few months ago I even felt the thrill of what it would be like to kill someone, after reading a newspaper article about a murder, and that really brought malice home to me. To experience it in me that intensely was shocking indeed. Peter’s Journal, ‘Intelligence’

I remember another investigation had a shattering effect on me, but as this post is already long, I’ll just post the link. The Milgram experiment is what I am talking about but the whole chapter is relevant to the necessity of digging deep into the human condition in order to bring an end to malice and sorrow.

To feel self-loathing, shame or guilt in the face of the fact that you – along with each and every other human being – is programmed with instinctual fear, aggression, nurture and desire – through no fault of your own or anyone else – is to remain bound within the straightjacket of societal morals, ethics, values and beliefs. Anyone interested in actualism will inevitably come across this social conditioning – the ‘guardians at the gate’ – and will become aware of, and experience, the feelings this conditioning is intended to provoke.

If I read you right, you seem to be discovering that these feelings are what initially prevents one from ‘jumping in’ to actualism and doing what is necessary in order to become happy and harmless. This business of actualism is the challenge of a lifetime and to be a pioneer in the business is utterly thrilling.

2.2.2003

PETER: Given that have said you welcome feedback, I’ll just round off with a comment on – ‘it seems that mental effort automatically implies a division we experience as ‘self’’. If I read you right, this supposition seems to be a hangover from Eastern religious belief wherein the ‘self’ is believed to be a thinking-self or ego-self only and a spurious feeling of freedom is gained by abandoning common sense thinking in an attempt to become a feeling-self only.

RESPONDENT: I’m not sure if my comment on ‘mental effort’ is a hangover from Eastern religious belief – I don’t think so since it stems from my own experience.

PETER: I don’t know what your particular social programming has been but where I live Eastern religious belief has well and truly permeated all levels of society. <snip> From observation, the same seems to be the case in almost all western countries, the US included. I only need to tune into Oprah Winfrey in order to comprehend that not only has the US mainstream taken Eastern religious belief to heart but that many have done so by perverting the famed Eastern pursuit of spiritual ‘self’-aggrandizement into an equally selfish pursuit of real-world ‘self’-aggrandizement.

If you have managed to escape from all of this influence, then you start the actualism method from a different point than I did. I spent years believing much of Eastern spiritual belief, in spite of my doubts. It was only when I came across Richard that I found that there was now a third alternative to both materialism and spiritualism.

RESPONDENT: It’s true that Eastern spiritual belief has permeated the US mainstream, but for many it’s still at a rather superficial level. My programming growing up was Christian – specifically Mennonite. Mennonites are known for their anabaptism and pacifist stance. ‘Anabaptism’ being the doctrine that one should not baptize infants like the Catholics – rather wait until a person can personally accept Jesus Christ as their ‘savior.’ The pacifist stance is the more popularized trademark of being a Mennonite. I was registered a ‘co’ (conscientious objector) – which at 18 I hadn’t thought about what that meant so much, just that I was glad that I had an easy card to play to get out of going to war for my country – should that situation arise.

PETER: From what you write, we seem to have had very common experiences. Both born into Western monotheistic belief, found that unsatisfactory, moved on. Both checked out Eastern polytheistic beliefs, found them unsatisfactory, moved on. Both found actualism, checked it out, liked what we read, dug in deeper.

So when you say

[Respondent]: ‘It’s true that Eastern spiritual belief has permeated the US mainstream, but for many it’s still at a rather superficial level’, [endquote].

it does seem to have had more than a superficial influence on your life.

The reason I made the point in the first place is that is was my experience that it took me a good deal of time and effort to divest myself of all of the aspects of polytheistic beliefs I had taken on board over my years of treading the spiritual path. And, as I did so, I was astounded to discover how much these once alternative beliefs had been absorbed into mainstream life, particularly over the last half century.

The other revealing aspect of my investigations into my beliefs was that I also discovered my underlying Christian beliefs emerging as I began to peel away the layers of Eastern religious beliefs. This made me realize that in my spiritual years I had simply layered a new set of beliefs over my original beliefs – and a slightly revised set of morals and ethics layered over my original programming.

*

RESPONDENT: Maybe a little clarification can help here. I’m certainly not saying that one could do the actualism method ‘effortlessly’ or that it doesn’t take effort. More specifically, my observation is about seeing how the emotional effort of belief, hope, trust, etc creates a division where ‘I’ identify with the ‘good’ and try to ignore the ‘bad.’ This kind of mental effort is normally an indication that ‘I’ am hanging on to a wish, dream, hope, or self-image.

PETER: Whereas it is my experience, and the experience of all of the practicing actualists on this list, that it takes stubborn effort – and a certain amount of intestinal fortitude – firstly to become aware of, and secondly to abandon all of the beliefs, hopes, dreams, wishes, morals and ethics that make up ‘me’. This programming does not take effort to sustain, it is ‘self ‘-sustaining by its very nature. This programming is ‘who’ I think and feel I am and as such it obviously it takes effort to remove.

RESPONDENT: You are correct that it doesn’t take effort to sustain – it operates all by itself just fine. Nevertheless, if I try to form a new belief or hope though – I notice it takes effort – first to push away my doubt and to accept the new belief – so that there is a mental straining involved – which creates painful sensations in the body – whether it be tension in the neck, shoulders, and head – or tightness in the stomach or whatever. I don’t know how to resolve the apparent contradiction here – I’m just saying this is how I experience it.

PETER: Yeah. Once I started to divest myself of my old beliefs I was astounded at how gullible I had been. Once I understood this, it made no sense whatsoever to accept any new beliefs at all. This is when I started to become fascinated with the business of abandoning belief and relying only on fact.

And each time I dared to question one of my cherished beliefs, I experienced all sorts of fears and anxieties – including the bodily sensations that accompany them.

RESPONDENT: The best I can say is there is an active and a passive side to it – both – and it appears that you are talking about the passive side and I’m now referring to the active side.

PETER: No. In the context of the actualism method, I am talking about the active side.

It’s easy to stay a believer – to remain as you are is to be passive. To assimilate a new set of beliefs is to be passive.

To change requires you to be active, i.e. it effort and action. To abandon belief and rely only on fact requires you to be active.

RESPONDENT: This can be seen by thinking about the difference between dreaming at night (normally passive) and visual imagination or fantasizing (which is often active). Another way to put it is that there is both the involuntary process of believing, hoping, trusting, etc – and the voluntary – and ‘mental effort’ I am referring to is only the voluntary aspect. This is not to deny what you are saying though, since the program runs automatically (involuntarily).

PETER: Maybe we could agree that it takes a voluntary effort to overcome an involuntary inertia.

RESPONDENT: The tendency of believing, hoping, trusting etc does operate automatically so it takes effort to undo that automatic tendency. Now this automatic tendency doesn’t take effort to maintain, but when a particular belief comes up for review – it’s corresponding doubt is also present so that one must again push away the negative (doubt) and identify with the positive (belief). So it’s much like one is pushing in two different directions at the same time – which I normally experience as suffering of some sort.

PETER: Personally I find nothing positive at all about any belief, be they old beliefs or new beliefs.

Beliefs have been the bane of humanity since time immemorial. If you see actualism as being a new belief then you seem to be missing the whole point of what is on offer in actualism. The very thing that attracted me to actualism is that the process made sense – actualism is rooted in fact. The very process involves abandoning the uncertainties of belief, trust, faith and hope in favour of relying on the certainty and surety of matters of fact, common sense and down-to-earth sensate awareness.

*

PETER: This programming doesn’t create a division – such that when it is removed I feel union – this programming is the very substance of ‘me’. Only when this programming is incrementally removed does one realize the penalty one paid for being a believer – provided one is sincere in one’s efforts what results is an incremental and tangible down-to-earth freedom, not a feeling of union.

RESPONDENT: The division I’m talking about is not between ‘me’ and the external world of things and people such that ‘when it is removed I feel union’. That would indeed be a remnant of spiritual belief. The division I’m referring to is between belief and doubt, compassion and hate, morally good and bad – where ‘I’ try to create a good image of myself. The penalty one paid for being a believer is the constant effort and stress and strain for having to maintain that belief against oneself and others. Again, I’m not talking about feeling a union – I’m talking about recognizing how the self struggles to maintain the good – in the face of denying the bad. The ‘effort’ I’m referring to is the stress and struggle required to maintain a particular belief, trust, hope, etc.

PETER: As for interpreting and implying, I only go by what you have written and, given that we are talking about the actualism method in practice, I always relate what you are saying to my own experience as a practicing actualist. What I read you are saying is –

[Respondent]: ‘being a believer is the constant effort and stress and strain’ [endquote].

and

[Respondent]: ‘Nevertheless, if I try to form a new belief or hope though – I notice it takes effort – first to push away my doubt and to accept the new belief – so that there is a mental straining involved – which creates painful sensations in the body – whether it be tension in the neck, shoulders, and head – or tightness in the stomach or whatever.’ [endquote].

Taking your words at face value I can relate to what you are saying. When I first became interested in actualism, I began to become aware of, and actively questioned, ‘who’ I thought and felt I was. As I did so ‘I’ started to feel the stresses and strains involved in being ‘me’ and, more importantly, the stresses and strains that being ‘me’ invariably imposed on others – most noticeable those closest to me.

In the course of becoming aware of ‘me’ in action, feelings of fear and anxiety also came up at the thought of changing – of abandoning ‘a particular belief, trust, hope, etc.’ that was dear to me. Whilst I found I didn’t like what I was discovering about ‘me’, the thought of doing something about it was daunting and the feelings that arose were alarming.

It felt as though I was between a rock and a hard place and the dilemma wouldn’t go away, nor could I run away from it – I was damned if ‘I’ didn’t take up the challenge and yet ‘I’ was doomed if I did. I remember immediately after the first decisive act of change – when I let go of my first cherished belief – that the relief was palpable and the feeling of freedom tangible, so much so that it made the abandoning of my next belief somewhat less daunting – and so on down the long line of beliefs.

It’s a fascinating business to start to get in touch with one’s feelings as they are happening. This is what actualism is about.

*

PETER: In a PCE – provided you resists the atavistic temptation to start swooning in rapture at the beauty of it all or indulging in ‘self’-aggrandizing fantasies (or else it deteriorates into an ASC) – you can readily discern that the only reason you are experiencing the sensual delight and utter peacefulness of the actual world is because ‘you’ have temporarily left the stage. From this experiential realization pure intent can arise to devote one’s life to the task of becoming happy and harmless – to actively dismantle my ‘self’, to dare to question the veracity of ‘my’ precious beliefs, to want to really come to understand both the nature and the source of the peripheral feelings of ‘self’ and sense of ‘being’ and to not stop until the process is finished and the very source of ‘me’, ‘me’ as a feeling ‘being’, is permanently eliminated, expunged.

Then, when the PCE wanes and you return to being ‘normal’ again, back in normal everyday reality, ‘you’ find yourself with something to do. ‘You’ then have a reason for being, a life goal, a task, a job, and a fascinating one at that. And I can vouch that there is no more fascinating and rewarding thing you can do with your life than to devote your life to the task of becoming happy and harmless for this is the path to actual freedom.

RESPONDENT: I find that I spend a good deal of time wanting to sort of ‘jump’ into actual freedom. In other words, it does seem ‘daunting’ at times what’s between here and now and the goal of this process – which seems to bring a kind of ‘self’-loathing – but this must be some sort of cop-out – a refusal to put forth the required effort. It’s possible that the ‘self’-loathing is related to the feeling of ‘not being here’ when I’m not feeling good – so that is probably a good area for investigation.

PETER: Yeah. Morals and ethics – the social programming that produces feelings of guilt and shame if you fail to repress or deny your feelings of malice – are part of what I came to experience as ‘the guardians at the gate’. Guardians in that they prevent you from opening the gate to investigating the brutish animal instinctual passions that each and every human being is genetically-encoded with. I only made substantive progress towards becoming harmless when I dared to allow myself to acknowledge the full extent of my instinctual passions and then to dig deep enough to experience them – to feel them in action. <snip> To feel self-loathing, shame or guilt in the face of the fact that you – along with each and every other human being – is programmed with instinctual fear, aggression, nurture and desire – through no fault of your own or anyone else – is to remain bound within the straightjacket of societal morals, ethics, values and beliefs. Anyone interested in actualism will inevitably come across this social conditioning – the ‘guardians at the gate’ – and will become aware of, and experience, the feelings this conditioning is intended to provoke.

RESPONDENT: Though the self-loathing that comes from shame and guilt is definitely present at times and something that requires detailed examination – I am actually referring to the feeling that ‘I’ don’t want to be ‘me’ anymore. In other words – a strong urge to self-immolate – being depressed at times about the human condition. I’m not really referring to ‘self-esteem’ issues here. Rather, the recognition that ‘I’ cause suffering can bring on the desire to get rid of ‘me’ –as quickly as possible. It could be compared to the resentment that can happen when a PCE is over and one is going back into the ‘real’ world. Maybe what I’m referring to would be better called ‘resenting the self’ as to distinguish it from the moral connotation of ‘self-loathing.’

PETER: I have noticed that a lot of people give themselves a hard time – they continuously berate themselves for not being good enough, etc. It’s not an infliction that I particular suffered from but Richard has noted that self-loathing is turning malice in on oneself. I don’t know if you can relate to that.

For me, one of the major hurdles I had to overcome at the start of actualism was pride and there is no greater blow to one’s feeling of pride – or pride’s alter ego, one’s spiritual humility – than to realize how gullible one has been in being a believer in fairy tales and nonsense. The other blow to my pride was that after all my years of searching I had not a clue about the human condition, let alone had I ever been really aware of, let alone understood, how ‘I’ had been programmed.

I’ve included a piece I wrote in my journal on the topic of pride as it may well be useful to any who have trod the spiritual path for a time and are now faced with having to abandon all their cherished spiritual wisdom.

*

PETER: If I read you right, you seem to be discovering that these feelings are what initially prevents one from ‘jumping in’ to actualism and doing what is necessary in order to become happy and harmless. This business of actualism is the challenge of a lifetime and to be a pioneer in the business is utterly thrilling.

RESPONDENT: Hmm. I think your reading depends on thinking that I was talking about the ‘self-loathing’ relating to feeling guilt and shame – which is not as big of a problem for me – since I gave up belief in ‘free-will’ years ago.

PETER: Feelings of guilt and shame arise from the morals and ethics that every human being is invariably inculcated with during our childhood years. Maybe you could expand on your ‘belief in free-will’ as I don’t quite understand the connection with feeling guilt and shame.

RESPONDENT: I’m pretty much past that particular gate – and I’ve been benefiting from the amorality of actualism for quite a while.

PETER: As actualism is not a belief system, a teaching or a philosophy, actualism cannot of itself be moral, immoral or amoral.

Actualism is a process that only starts to operate when someone devotes his or her life to the task of becoming happy and harmless. In the process of becoming happy and harmless, it is par for the course that the societal morals and ethics will be exposed as being not only contradictory and hypocritical but also unliveable and unworkable. As one becomes more happy and more harmless, these ‘tried and failed’ morals and ethics fall by the wayside in favour of common sense and consideration for one’s fellow human beings regardless of who they think and feel themselves to be.

To put it simply, the unliveable morals and unworkable ethics designed to curb human malice and sorrow become utterly redundant when replaced by the sincerity, naiveté and the genuine intent to become actually happy and actually harmless.

RESPONDENT: The biggie for me now is the down and dirty aggression, rage, fear – all those instincts we try to repress and cover over with good feelings. The other major investigation is catching the tender emotions in action just as they arise and to see how they ‘hurt’ – which is much more subtle.

PETER: Yes. This was the first major concern for me as well – and hence the first area of investigation as well. I do find it somewhat bewildering that so few people have been interested in taking up the challenge of becoming harmless. For me it was such an obvious thing – something I always put first because happiness follows from it. You can’t have one without the other, in fact. It seems that despite all the ‘stop making war’ noises, despite all the ‘good’ and ‘loving’ people in the world, only a small percentage of those who have come across actualism are interested enough in peace on earth to stop being angry, to stop making war with their partners, to stop hurting others, to stop blaming others, to stop beating themselves up, to stop riling against having to be here, and so on.

The way I see it, tackling aggression must be the first biggie for any actualist – it has to be numero uno. And the hardest thing for many who have trod the spiritual path is to firstly acknowledge that they do get angry, let alone allow themselves to fully feel the feelings.

It’s good to remember that actualism is not about not feeling. Actualism is specifically designed to get one in touch with the full range of one’s feelings for the first time in one’s life, and this is impossible if repression and denial are allowed to rule the roost.

2.12.2003

RESPONDENT: A statement you made to No 59 recently caught my eye... Here it is in context:

[Peter]: By the way, one of the reasons I came to see Buddhism as being as silly as Christianity was the fact that there is no evidence that a Mr. Buddha existed as a flesh-and-blood-body person other than in the stories in the Buddhist religious texts, exactly as there is no evidence that a Mr. Jesus existed as a flesh-and-blood-body person other than in the stories in the Christian religious texts. I then came to dismiss them both as being nothing but the mythical creations of an impassioned human imagination. Peter, The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, No 59

There is in fact, independent evidence that Mr. Jesus ‘existed as a flesh-and-blood-body person other than in the stories in the Christian religious texts.’ The Jewish historian, Josephus, made reference to the personage of Jesus independently of the Christian religious texts in his ‘The Antiquities of the Jews’ – written in the latter part of the 1st Century. There is other evidence independent of Christian religious texts, but the reference by Josephus may be the best known.

Even though one can certainly debate whether the reference by Josephus constitutes valid independent evidence for the existence of Jesus, still to say as you have here that ‘there is no evidence that a Mr. Jesus existed as a flesh-and-blood-body person other than in the stories in the Christian religious texts’ is not correct.

PETER: I stand corrected. If I reworded the statement to read –

[example]: ‘There is very little evidence that Mr. Jesus existed as a flesh-and-blood-body person other than in the stories in the Christian religious texts themselves, and what evidence there is subject to dispute, even amongst Christian scholars’. [end example].

would you see that as being technically correct?

The reason I made the comment was that I had heard in my youth that there was no mention in the Roman historical records of the existence of a crucified saviour called Jesus, nor of any of the events that are the central thrust of Christian belief. I was reminded of this recently as I watched several documentaries in which both Christian and Jewish archaeologists and anthropologists were searching for any tangible evidence of the epic events contained within either the Old or the New Testaments. That is about the extent of my knowledge of the subject but, if as you indicate, the writings of Josephus is the best evidence then my comment would be that his writings are littered with obvious mythological events and supernatural beings. I personally found the book ‘Sixteen Crucified Saviours’ very revealing in that it puts Christian belief into a wider context.

I have also heard someone make a similar comment about the lack of historical evidence with regard to the actual existence of a flesh and blood Mr. Buddha and it somewhat jolted me at the time as I found it amazing that two of the major religious faiths in the world could well be founded upon the legendary exploits of completely fictitious characters. That the exploits of these characters are legend and not fact is accepted in some quarters nowadays … but to dare to question that the central characters in theses legends are fictitious creations is heresy writ large.

I don’t know about you but I like it when I come across some information that reveals what I had previously accepted as being true was all of a sudden understood to be not necessarily so. When I started to dare to question the truths that I had accepted as being facts it was scary stuff, sometimes it felt as though ‘my’ whole world was collapsing, as though ‘I’ was being torn apart – but once I got over the initial fears the thrill of discovery took over.

Becoming free of beliefs is such good fun, as is becoming free of the need to believe what others believe.

17.12.2003

PETER: I have also heard someone make a similar comment about the lack of historical evidence with regard to the actual existence of a flesh and blood Mr. Buddha and it somewhat jolted me at the time as I found it amazing that two of the major religious faiths in the world could well be founded upon the legendary exploits of completely fictitious characters. That the exploits of these characters are legend and not fact is accepted in some quarters nowadays … but to dare to question that the central characters in theses legends are fictitious creations is heresy writ large.

RESPONDENT: I have had similar experiences to what ‘jolted’ you, but I might add that most scholars today take the existence of Mr. Jesus as historical fact, not merely legend. The Gospels are generally considered to be historical documents as well, though they are also embellished with legend, folklore, and mythology. You may be familiar with the ‘Jesus Seminar?’ Basically, the scholars in that seminar attempted to separate fact from fiction – of course, even their project is open to dispute, but one gets a general idea of the state of the ‘search for the historical Jesus’ by reading what they produced.

Having said that, I do remember the shock – having been raised a Christian – when I discovered that even the very existence of Jesus was subject to dispute. I’ve heard the same about Mr. Buddha repeated in academic corners, but never cared enough to take the time to sort out the evidence – since it didn’t matter one bit to me at the time as to his historical existence.

PETER: Yes. Being able to see the folly of other people’s beliefs is one thing, but daring to question one’s own beliefs is quite another. The world is awash with pundits and sages who seek to lay claim to the moral high ground largely by denigrating the beliefs of others, whilst steadfastly refusing to question their own dearly held beliefs. This futile exercise in grand standing is most definitely not what being an actualist is about – this is hypocrisy, not sincerity.

If one is sincere in wanting to become free of the human condition of malice and sorrow, then this sincerity itself demands that one actively questions one’s own beliefs and then takes whatever action one needs to take in order to become free of one’s own beliefs. To put it bluntly, daring to question one’s own beliefs is but the first stage of becoming free of them.

I’ll just give you a brief run through of what I have just said as it related to my personal experience because what I said is not a philosophy that I hold to … it is a down-to-earth description of how to become free of all of the beliefs that sustain the human condition of malice and sorrow.

My first attraction to Eastern spirituality came about by reading the words of an Indian philosophy teacher turned Guru who had much to say about the folly of monotheistic religions and the emptiness of purely materialistic pursuits. I took what he said to be great Wisdom, a sign that he was an all-knowing sage, and I was so besotted by his aura of all-knowingness that I turned a blind eye to the fact that he tolerated no questioning of his teachings by his followers – the demands of faith and loyalty inherent in spiritual belief put paid to that.

Nevertheless one day, not long after his death, I had a clear-eyed glimpse of the fact that I had allowed myself to be suckered into a religious cult – having dismissed religious belief as being silly in my youth, I had fallen for it – hook, line and sinker – in my mid-thirties. Eventually I found that to continue believing what I had been believing, and doing what I had been doing, was no longer an option that I was comfortable with.

Sincerity demanded that I abandon my beliefs, which in turn meant leaving the spiritual group I had belonged to for some 15 years. I then found that by ridding myself of my own religious and spiritual beliefs I could no longer feign being tolerant of the religious and spiritual beliefs of others. Religious and spiritual belief has wrought so much misery and mayhem that to be tolerant of it is an affront to intelligence and to integrity – be it tolerant of other’s beliefs, and more importantly, tolerant of holding to any such beliefs myself.

What this meant in practice was that after I had given up Eastern spirituality, I then had to abandon the ethics and morals that were part and parcel of my Christian conditioning, the ethics and morality that were part and parcel of the geo-theistic beliefs of Environmentalism, the morals and ethics of Puritan health beliefs, the morals and ethics of Pacifism, and so on. The list of beliefs that sustain human malice and sorrow is a formidable one but if one sincerely wants to become free of malice and sorrow then the time and place to start is now, with whatever belief you find you are holding on to right now.

Being no longer tolerant of religious and spiritual belief does mean that I am sensible in my interactions with others. If the discussion turns to the topic of religious and spiritual belief then I simply point out that I am a thorough going actualist – I do not believe in a creator God or Goddess and nor do I believe that there are Good and Evil spirits anywhere permeating the physical actuality of the universe. I am very well aware that human beings are passionate about their beliefs – for I was once passionate about my beliefs – and because of this I am sensibly cautious in what I talk to others about the nature of beliefs in general. People are wont to take offence if they feel their beliefs are being challenged and history has shown that taking offence can very easily turn to seeking retribution and taking vengeance. Which is why I do like talking about these matters from the anonymity of my suburban lounge room on a mailing list which is specifically set up for this very purpose.

So just to recap, being able to see the folly of other people’s beliefs is one thing, but daring to question one’s own beliefs is quite another. If one is sincere in wanting to become free of the human condition of malice and sorrow, then this sincerity itself demands that one actively questions one’s own beliefs and then to take whatever action one needs to take in order to become free of one’s own beliefs. It is my experience thus far that sincerity and altruism are the motivational forces of the genunine intent to rid oneself of malice and sorrow.

8.2.2004

PETER: Sorry I haven’t got back to you earlier but I usually only write about 2 posts a week. As you might have gathered my writing style does not suit the usual rapid-fire mailing list repartee and by the time I do get around to replying very often correspondents have moved already on to another topic or have headed off down another alley of the same topic.

RESPONDENT: One of Peter’s latest posts to No 60 has occasioned me to write a couple of things to ‘set the facts straight’ so to speak. I want to address 3 main ideas that are false in Peter’s and (possibly) other actualist writings.

PETER: In order to give a considered response, I will have to break this down and respond to each of the points that you raise – no wonder I only get around to writing a few posts a week.

RESPONDENT: Peter’s false ideas: 1) The ‘big-bang’ theory is ‘creationist’ cosmology.

The facts: Just because the ‘big-bang’ theory originated with someone who was a ‘theist’ does not mean that it is necessarily tied to belief in God.

PETER: Indeed not, and this is why I said the following to No 60 –

[Peter to No 60]: When I looked into cosmology I came to understand it is, as it says it is, the branch of science devoted to studying the ‘evolution’ of the universe. As birth and death is essential to the evolutionary process it became clear to me that cosmology is the branch of science devoted to the study of the birth and death of the universe.’ Peter to No 60, Metaphysics, 1.2.2004

Now whilst some cosmologists are upfront in saying that a God, by whatever name, had a hand in the supposed ‘Big bang’ event that created the universe, others are less circumspect, yet others make no mention at all of a creator God and yet others make no mention of a creationist event.

I came across an example of this last category when I typed the word Cosmology into the Encyclopaedia Britannica search engine –

‘The cosmology, as it was systematized by later Buddhists, included three different realms, all of which were within the confines of samsara (the ongoing cycle of birth, death, and rebirth) and were regulated more or less strictly by the law of karma, according to which good and pious deeds are rewarded while evil and impious deeds are punished. At the top of this universe is the arupa-dhatu (‘realm of formlessness’), which has no material qualities. This realm is inhabited by extremely long-lived brahma deities who are absorbed in the deepest levels of yogic trance.’ Encyclopaedia Britannica 1998

– an example of cosmology with out a God. (Mr. Gautama Buddha supposedly gave no answer as to how the universe was created.)

When I looked up Greek cosmology as a matter of interest, I came up with the following –

‘The cosmogonies (dealing with the origins of the world) and cosmologies (dealing with the ordering of the world) of the Hellenistic period centred around the problem of accounting for the distance between this world and the Beyond, or on accounting for the evil nature of this world and its gods.’ Encyclopaedia Britannica 1998

This then led me to think that I should have used the word cosmogony instead of the words ‘creationist’ cosmology in reference to the Big Bang theory. But then I came across the term relativistic cosmology in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and lo and behold the article clearly and unambiguously explained that the ‘Big Bang’ theory came out of Einstein’s relativity theory … so my use of the term cosmology does seem appropriate according to at least one authoritative reference source. Are you hanging in with me on this? I just needed to check if I had used an appropriate term when I used the term creationist cosmology to describe the Big Bang theory.

So back to your point, yes I would agree with you that the ‘Big Bang’ theory is not necessarily tied to the belief in God. In fact I made the following statement to No 60 so as to leave God out of the ‘Big Bang’ theory altogether –

[Peter to No 60]: ‘the ‘Big Bang’ theory – a theory that would have us believe that the matter that is this universe is not constant, as in being in a constant state of change and transformation, but that it ephemeral – i.e. was born (apparently out of nothingness) due to a miraculous thus-far-inexplicable event and will therefore eventually die (apparently into the very same nothingness again), again due to a miraculous thus-far-inexplicable event.’ Peter to No 60, Metaphysics, 1.2.2004

RESPONDENT: Peter’s false ideas: 1) The ‘big-bang’ theory is ‘creationist’ cosmology.

The facts: Some other factor must be established like for example that belief in God is a necessary part of the ‘big-bang’ theory.

PETER: If I said that the ‘big-bang’ theory is ‘Creationist’ cosmology (with a capital C) then I would be clearly making a statement that the belief in God is a necessary part of creationist cosmology, whereas I used the term creationist to mean that it was created – as in it had a beginning, it originated, it was produced, it came into being. Now for me a ‘miraculous thus-far-inexplicable event’ that is said to have created the universe at the very least requires it to be a metaphysical event in which, whilst one doesn’t necessarily have to believe in a creator God, at least one has to believe in miraculous thus-far-inexplicable forces.

RESPONDENT: The facts: There are plenty of physicists who do not believe in God – and not agnostic – but are atheists – who also think the evidence (red-shift, 3K radiation, etc) for the big-bang is overwhelming. This demonstrates that there are plenty of physicists that are led to endorse the big-bang theory based upon the evidence (as they see it) rather than using belief in God as evidence.

PETER: You would probably be aware that I am on record as saying that Richard was the only thorough-going atheist on the planet, so we are going to get bogged down on this point straight away. Stephen Hawkins, a self-declared atheist when asked if he believed in God is on record as saying ‘I do not believe in a personal God’ – a somewhat equivocal statement, and Einstein is on record as saying ‘I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings’ and I can think of none of the major players in the formulation of the Big Bang theory who did not believe in some form of mysticism or did not have some type of spiritual or religious belief.

I guess the only way one could establish that your fact is a fact is if one conducted in-depth interviews with each of the ‘plenty of physicists’ that you know to be atheists to determine whether they are thorough-going atheists, i.e. that they hold no metaphysical, mystical, spiritual or religious beliefs whatsoever. But then again, when I say that the Big Bang theory is creationist cosmology I am not saying that the formulators or supporters of the theories all believe in a creator God, for to do so would be silly. As an example there may well be Buddhist scientists who support the theory and I have heard Buddhists declare themselves to be atheists in that they do not believe in a Christian God.

RESPONDENT: Peter’s false ideas: 1) The ‘big-bang’ theory is ‘creationist’ cosmology.

PETER: My ‘false idea’ that the ‘Big Bang’ theory is a creationist cosmology is based on the theory being what it says it is, and this is how I translated the theory into down-to-earth terms –

[Peter to No 60]: ‘the ‘Big Bang’ theory – a theory that would have us believe that the matter that is this universe is not constant, as in being in a constant state of change and transformation, but that it ephemeral – i.e. was born (apparently out of nothingness) due to a miraculous thus-far-inexplicable event and will therefore eventually die (apparently into the very same nothingness again), again due to a miraculous thus-far-inexplicable event.’ Peter to No 60, Metaphysics, 1.2.2004

That the Big Bang theory has its roots in Albert Einstein’s relativity theory, he who believes in Spinoza’s God, and was championed by George LeMaître, a Catholic cleric, is of but anecdotal interest for those on the list who might be vitally interested in the extent to which religion, spiritualism and mysticism continue to permeate and influence the world of science. In fact as I recall, I never mentioned Einstein or LeMaître in connection with the ‘Big Bang’ theory to No 60, the only person I did mention was Paul Davies and I only did so because No 60 had raised the issue. In other words, I never used the evidence in my posts to No 60 that you claim I used in making the point that I didn’t make that you now claim to be false.

As for Charles Darwin, what I find telling is that he agonized for years about publishing his discoveries because he thought he would be damned by other theists – as he was, and still is in some quarters. In fact some education establishments still refuse to teach the evolutionary process, whilst mainstream society have adopted the evolutionary process as being a sign of God’s work.

RESPONDENT: The facts: It is reasonable to note that beliefs (specifically belief in God) can influence theory, but that is far from establishing in each instance that it actually has.

PETER: But then again it would be sensible not to let this reasoning get in the way of allowing that beliefs have influenced theories in a particular specific instance.

If this is the summary of your statement of fact it appears you are using this reasoning to establish that beliefs have not influenced theory in this particular instance as a ‘fact’ – thereby proving ‘my idea’ to be false. From where I stand this reasoning is far from impartial – as far as I can ascertain you are establishing a rule of reasonableness and saying that what I am saying is false because it does not fit your rule.

*

RESPONDENT: Peter’s false ideas: 2) The ‘big-bang’ theory proposes the universe was ‘created out of nothing.’

The facts: 2) I’m sure there are those that propose that the universe was created out of nothing – and they may be rightly termed ‘creationists.’

PETER: I take this to be a qualifier to ‘the facts’ you presented when you made the case in 1) that the ‘big-bang’ theory is not ‘creationist’ cosmology. If I can just summarize your case to date, your position now is –

[example]: the ‘big-bang’ theory that says the universe was created out of nothing is ‘creationist’ cosmology (using creationist with a small ‘c’ so as to leave the belief in God completely out of it). [end example].

I just want to get this clear as I find that I have to stop and think through what the other person is really saying if I am to make sense of what it is that they are really saying.

RESPONDENT: The facts: I know of no scientist who excludes God as part of their cosmology – who thinks the universe came ‘out of nothing.’

PETER: Which of course is not to say there aren’t any such scientists. I say this because you made the case for another point you raised on the basis that ‘there are plenty of physicists who …’

RESPONDENT: Rather, it is normally proposed that ‘prior to the big bang’ there existed great energy – that is hardly nothing.

PETER: Most of what I have read of cosmology theories seem to me to concentrate on imagining how the Big Bang could have happened and I haven’t come across many theories that concentrate on what supposedly existed prior to the Big Bang. If it is normally proposed that ‘great energy’ existed prior to the Big Bang out of which all of matter of the entire universe was created, I would ask the scientists if this was a non-material energy as in a metaphysical energy or if it was a non-matter material energy?

To give you a down-to-earth example we both can relate to – let’s take a computer mouse, and I presume you can see one in front of you as I can. Now what these scientists are telling me is that it is possible to instantaneously create matter such as this out of a ‘great energy’. In other words, an instant before there would be no matter and an instant after there would be matter. Hmmm….

But then again, if I remained open that this was possible, I would ask the theorists: did this supposed ‘great energy’ that all of the matter of the entire universe was created out of always exist – was it eternally existing prior to the coming into being of matter, or did some prior event cause this great energy to come into being? If so, what caused this ‘great energy’ to be created in the first place? Was this ‘great energy’ infinite or was it limited in size and scope in some way?

I have just taken a break from this post and put my feet up for a bit and skimmed through a book from Paul Davies, who achieved an international reputation for his ability to explain the significance of advance scientific ideas in simple language. I came across this –

[Paul Davies]: ‘At this stage it is worth recalling the point made in the previous chapter that the big bang was not the explosion of a lump of matter into a pre-existing void, but the sudden explosive appearance of space and matter out of nothing. <…> As explained in Chapter 7, the expanding universe is not the dispersal of galaxies away from some centre of explosion, but the inflation of space itself’. p 159 The Edge of Infinity. Paul Davies

and further on …

[Paul Davies]: ‘If the above model of the big bang is taken seriously, and the mathematical progressions pushed right back to infinite density and zero model, then we cannot continue back beyond that point. When infinity is reached in physics, the theory stops. Taken literally, space has disappeared, along with all matter. Whatever lies beyond, it does not contain any places, or any things in the usual sense of material entities. We seem to be on the very edge of existence once again …’ p 159 The Edge of Infinity. Paul Davies

If I take this on board, I can only assume that the ‘great energy’ that you say is normally proposed as having existed prior to the Big Bang would have to be a formless (there being no space existing before the big bang), spaceless (there being no space existing before the big bang) and timeless (there is no time existing before the big bang) energy.

And I say timeless because Paul Davies says –

[Paul Davies]: ‘… for the creation of a universe at a finite time in the past does not necessitate the assumption that there was a time when nothing existed. Time itself can be created …’ p 168 The Edge of Infinity. Paul Davies

and further on …

[Paul Davies]: ‘If the universe did really emerge from a singularity, then the singularity itself cannot be considered as belonging to spacetime – it represents, as discussed in length in the preceding chapters, a breakdown of the spacetime concept. If the singularity is not part of spacetime then it is not an event and did not ‘occur’ at ‘a moment’. p 168 The Edge of Infinity. Paul Davies

From what I make of what Paul Davies is saying it also appears that I am wrong in saying that the Big Bang theory proposes the universe was ‘created out of nothing.’ because nothing existed prior to the Big Bang (as in no space, time or matter existed prior to the singularity) and not only that but the Big Bang was not an event and did not happen at a particular moment in time because the event did not occur either in a place in space nor at a moment in time (as in no space, time or matter existed prior to the singularity).

After re-reading some of this book, I knew why I regarded relativistic cosmology as being absurd when I first started trying to make sense of it … but I digress.

To get back to the practicalities of your statement, when you say this ‘great energy’ that existed prior to the supposed Big Bang is ‘hardly nothing’, what do you mean? Do you mean it is ‘hardly nothing’ because it is a cosmological theory or ‘hardly nothing’ as in it is a bona fide energy that had, or has, a real existence? I ask because I am interested in what sense you make out of these theories, not as philosophical sense but as down-to-earth sense.

RESPONDENT: The facts: Also, there are those that propose that the universe actually expands and contracts and may go through a series of big-bangs – so this particular bang did not come out of nothing at all.

PETER: Yeah. I have read of many theories, amongst my favourites being the oscillating universe, a universe that is cyclic in nature, and many books have been written pointing out that this particular model is consistent with Hindu and other Eastern cosmologies of a cyclic nature (the reincarnating universe model?). There is also the time reversing model, wherein in each successive cycle, time oscillates between running forward and running backwards. There is also ‘the universe creates itself’ model, the ‘Mother and Child’ universe model, the ‘many universes’ theory, the Darwinist Cosmology model and so on. From what I gather, most of these theories are not big bang theories but are theories that have evolved in order to avoid the difficulties inherent in the mathematics of the Big Bang theory – seemingly not only does time, space and matter disappear in a singularity but also mathematics itself gets somewhat lost.

If I can just summarize, the point you appear to be making is that my idea that ‘the ‘big-bang’ theory proposes the universe was ‘created out of nothing’’ is ‘false’ because it is a fact that there are also other theories that propose a series of ‘little bangettes’ as alternatives to the Big Bang theory. From where I stand, it would be misleading to call these subsequent theories ‘the big-bang’ theory. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I can’t follow the logic of your refutation.

*

RESPONDENT: Peter’s false idea 3) That ‘Einsteinian physics’ relies on ‘an a priori principle that the universe was created out of nothing.

3) Fact: Einsteinian physics – if by that you mean relativity (special and general) by no means relies on ‘an a priori principle that the universe was created out of nothing.’

PETER: This is the full text of the passage you are referring to –

[Peter]: Einstein’s physics has no relevance at all to the actual objective observation of either the matter that is this actual universe or to the qualities of that matter and this glaring anomaly is explained away by Einsteinian physicists with the glib dismissal that Einstein’s physics do not apply to locally-observable phenomena’ …

[Respondent No. 60]: So what’s the problem? The theory states that it does not apply to locally-observable phenomena, and you take this statement of the limits of its relevance to be a refutation?

[Peter]: Perhaps if I put it this way, the disclaimer to cosmological theories that they do not apply to locally-observable phenomena struck me as an indicator of how far-out-there their thinking.

I don’t have a ‘problem’ at all, as you put it, I simply offered the observation because for me this was yet another reason to dismiss Einsteinian physics as being irrelevant to me as I live in a world were the empirical science of Newtonian physics explains and makes sense of the objective observation of the matter and explains and makes sense of the qualities of that matter that is this physical universe. To create a whole set of theories based on subjective mind-game scenarios, abstract thinking and conceptual mathematical theorems, all of which are based on an a priori principle that the universe was created out of nothing seemed to me at the time to be the antithesis of what I understood science to be. Nowadays it is simply an absurdity, and a widely accepted absurdity to boot. Peter to No 60, Metaphysics, 1.2.2004

Yep. You have got me nailed on this one. Loose terminology and sloppy thinking. The conversation with No 60 had been shifting around between discussing creationist cosmology and Einsteinian physics, so much so that I obviously lost the plot a bit.

In hindsight, t’would have made much more sense and would have been much more accurate if I had have said –

[example]: The theory that the universe was created out of nothing was based on an a priori principle based on a subjective thought game that led to a mathematical theory that the space of the universe is expanding which lead to a mathematical process of regression whereby the universe was assumed to have had a beginning point, and this whole set of theories based on subjective mind-game scenarios, abstract thinking and conceptual mathematical theorems seemed to me at the time to be the antithesis of what I understood science to be. Nowadays I know it is simply an absurdity, and a widely accepted absurdity to boot. [end example].

RESPONDENT: Fact: Einstein’s theories were proposed around the turn of the century – a good 25-30 years or so before big-bang theory got its start. In my readings about relativity, I have never read that Einsteinian physics relies on creation out of nothing. I can agree that ‘creation out of nothing’ is absurd – but the notion that Einsteinian physics (relativity) relies on such an absurd idea may be even more absurd.

PETER: Yep. I did put the cart before the horse – it was Einstein’s theories that led to the Big Bang theory (hence the term relativistic cosmology) and not the other way around. My statement was, as you rightly said, absurd.

Thanks for your correction. At least it shows that someone is trying to follow this discussion and is trying to make sense of the subject.

As I said in my post to No 60 (Metaphysics 3.1.2004) I only needed to do a bit of reading about relativistic cosmology to come to the conclusion that I did – that relativistic cosmology was a metaphysical science and not an empirical science. It is only because other people have called me to task over the issue that I have been made to do a little more reading on the subject and this further reading only confirms my initial observations.

So your correction is welcomed because no doubt the issue will be raised again and again over the coming years and whilst I continue to be asked to write yet more on the subject I obviously need to not only get my terminology right but also to avoid sloppy thinking.

*

PETER: I would like to add a postscript to this post as something you recently said to No 53 struck a chord with me. You talked about how you came to no longer believe in the Christian God. I’ll just repost it again for reference –

[Respondent to No 53]: ... maybe a little personal background might be helpful here. I was raised a Christian – a Mennonite. I swallowed it all, hook, line and sinker for the first 20 years of my life or so. I even did a missionary trip to the Dominican Republic. During that time, I learned intimately the ins and outs of what it was to live a Christian life. I began to have doubts about the actual existence of the ‘lord’ as you are apparently referring to Jesus.

So I began to read – history, philosophy, religion, science – anything I could get my hands on. As I recall, one of the largest barriers to keeping my faith in Jesus was that I actually started to READ THE BIBLE FOR MYSELF.

I learned about the various contradictions in the Old Testament – the savage Old Testament God – Jesus’ insanity (dressed up as sanity – the man was willing to send the greater part of the human race to Hell) – the whole thing just didn’t make sense. There are 2 versions of Christianity – one from the Bible (which hardly any Christian believes) and another which is the ‘digested’ form preached from the pulpits where you simply look up certain verses and passages for support of what you want to believe. For most educated people, though not all, it’s only possible to remain a Christian if you don’t go straight to the Bible and ask questions. The more I learned, the more I realized that the reasons I thought were good reasons to believe in God and Christianity were simply mistaken. Not only that, but most people conspire out of wishful thinking to make the ‘evidence’ for God, Jesus, miracles, etc much better than what it actually is. Two examples of what I’m talking about are faith healing and glossolalia.

So, to directly answer your question – I have no Archimedean point from which I can say there is no God – no ‘absolute certainty’ and so forth.

But I do have the practical knowledge that any claim for the existence of a God is mere fluff – and relies completely on imagination and/or wishing it to be true. For me, that practical knowledge is what matters.

You could just as easily ask me how I know that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. The way I know is by the nature of what Santa Claus is – a fabrication.

Same goes for the ‘Lord.’ To No 53, How do you know, No 37, 3.2.2004

What struck me about this is that it is a straight forward matter-of-fact description of how you came to the conclusion you did. This was what I was trying to explain to No 60 in my post about how I came to understand that the belief that the universe is ephemeral, i.e. that it had a beginning. is nothing but an impassioned fabrication, a fantasy.

If I can be a little cheeky, I would like to juxtapose my conclusion about metaphysics into your words and the reason I do so is that it might help you in understanding how I have come to the conclusions I have.

[example]: ‘Maybe a little personal background might be helpful here. I was raised at a time when popular science still regarded the universe as being infinite and eternal. I took this to be the case for the first 30 years of my life or so. Then I fell for Eastern spirituality and I even took up wearing the orange robes. During that time, I learned intimately the ins and outs of what it was to live a spiritual life. I began to have doubts about the actual existence of the metaphysical world and then I came across someone who said that the metaphysical world is a fantasy.

So I began to read – history, philosophy, religion, science – anything I could get my hands on. As I recall, one of the largest barriers to keeping my faith in the metaphysical was that I actually started to read relativistic cosmology for myself.

I learned about the various contradictions in relativistic cosmology – Einstein’s subjective ‘gedankenexperiment’, – his suspension of sensible down-to-earth objective thinking – the man was willing to imagine that space was bent and that time could flow backwards – the whole thing just didn’t make sense. There are 2 versions of creationist cosmology – one from the Bible (which hardly any Christian believes) and another which is the ‘digested’ form, taught in the schools and championed in the popular press where you simply watch certain television programs or read certain books and articles that support what you want to believe. It’s only possible to remain a believer in metaphysical theories and realms if you don’t make your own investigation into metaphysics yourself and come to your own conclusions as to its sensibility. The more I learned, the more I realized that the reasons I thought were good reasons to believe in metaphysics were simply mistaken. Not only that, but most people conspire out of wishful thinking to make the ‘evidence’ for all things metaphysical much better than what it actually is. Two examples of what I’m talking about are creationist cosmology and the so-called relativity theory.

So, to directly answer your question – I have no Archimedean point from which I can say there is no such thing as metaphysics – no ‘absolute certainty’ and so forth.

But I do have the practical knowledge that any claim for the existence of metaphysical realms or of the facticity of metaphysical theories is mere fluff – and relies completely on imagination and/or wishing it to be true. For me, that practical knowledge is what matters.

You could just as easily ask me how I know that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. The way I know is by the nature of what Santa Claus is – a fabrication.

Same goes for anything metaphysical’. [end example].

The reason I have juxtaposed my position re: metaphysics to your position re: the existence of God is that it may help you to appreciate that I too have no ‘Archimedean point’ (whatever that is) from which I can say there is no such thing as metaphysics. I simply put my initial understanding down to my practical life experience and the application of common sense … and it was this common sense thinking that led to the conclusion that then opened the way to me having an experiential understanding based on the direct experience of the infinitude of the actual universe which one has in a pure consciousness experience.