|
Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List with Correspondent No 38
PETER: Hi, RESPONDENT: I’ve spent some time lately contemplating this dissociation business, and it has turned out to be fascinating. Your post clarifies a lot for me. My intent was never to distance myself from my identity a la spiritual techniques, but somewhere along the line in my ‘self’-observation, I’ve managed to do just that. PETER: You could look at it that you were simply doing what comes naturally – human beings are born with a rudimentary self that is the very core of the ‘self’-centred survival instincts and this ‘me’ at heart is then overlaid with a social identity, an ‘I’ in the head, who is taught by his or her peers that ‘this is the way it is and this is the way it will has always been so this is the way it will always be’. Because of this it is universally agreed that ‘you can’t change human nature’ because it is human nature that makes human beings human. Thus it is that human beings keep raking through the rubbish bin of history – a bin labelled ‘humanity’s failed philosophies and fantasies’ – and keep endlessly re-running them in a vain attempt to find the meaning of life. This morbid fascination with re-running the ‘tried and failed’ simply guarantees that any of the traditional efforts to evince peace on earth between human beings is ultimately fated to fail. Those who can see this are most often reduced to having a cynical view of human existence whereas those who have yet to see or can’t see this persist in trying to impose their own pet ‘failed philosophies and fantasies’ on others. For those who can see the futility of re-running the tried and failed and have not fully succumbed to cynicism there is now a third alternative available. The opportunity has only recently arisen such that those who are sufficiently willing can now abandon the animal survival instincts that are the very root cause of all of the wars, of all of the murders, of all of the rapes, of all of the suicides, of all of the child abuse, of all of the corruption – of all of human malice and all of human sorrow. Of course to do so is an act of daring because by no longer being an instinctually-driven ‘being’ one is literally no longer a part of humanity – no longer a player in the relentlessly competitive battle for survival that human beings are instinctually-driven to wage against each other. With this in mind, it is not at all surprising that you are running on the old human programming, including that of dissociation, for up until a few years ago there was no third alternative available to the traditional grim reality of the battle for survival or the various fantasies that conjure a Greater Reality of some sort. In short, giving yourself a hard time for something that is in no way your fault makes no sense. Now that you have understood the nature of dissociation, you will be able recognize it whenever it is occurring and ‘nip it in the bud’, so that you can get on with the business of investigating what it is that is preventing you from being happy and harmless in this moment of time. Good, hey. * PETER: Careful observation will reveal that the worry response emanating from instinctual fear is not fabricated – as in made-up or manufactured – but rather it is directly associated with the automatic instinctual response. The genetically programmed thoughtless instinctual response together with its immediate feeling aftermath, whether it lasts a few minutes or a few hours, are inseparable and any attempts to intellectually separate them can only result in dissociation. RESPONDENT: In this case, I wasn’t attempting to separate them, it was merely interesting to notice that the total fear package had parts that originated in the genetic program, and parts in the conditioned response. I do have a tendency to ‘divide and conquer’, which happens to be one standard engineering practice ... I know it doesn’t work in these cases. PETER: And yet what I was pointing out that in the case of an instinctive fear reaction to physical danger, it makes no sense to divide the reaction into two parts. In my experience of observing the feeling of fear, whenever the feeling of fear kicks in, whether it is in response to an actual danger or an imaginary one, there is no two-part reaction – no discernable first stage and no discernable, fabricated or conditioned, second phase to the feeling. RESPONDENT: Understood, from a practical sense. There may still be parts of the reaction sequence that could be categorized as ‘innate’ or ‘conditioned’, but it doesn’t pertain to the task at hand. PETER: The major task at hand for those with a sincere interest in actualism is to garner the intent to entirely abandon the past and to fully commit to something that is brand new in human history – bringing an end to malice and sorrow in this body, for the sake of this body and every other body. Unless one has this intent, any attempt to utilize the actualism method will only result in even more confusion and consternation about the human condition as one aimlessly observes whilst automatically discriminating the observations in accord with one’s social identity. * PETER: It may also be worthwhile considering that the male of the human species has been conditioned by his peers to rationalize his feelings in lieu of deeply experiencing his feelings. The significant understanding for an actualist is that this tendency to rationalize or intellectualize is only social conditioning and, as such, this habitual behaviour can be quite easily abandoned. RESPONDENT: I hadn’t considered that my gender would play a significant role re dissociation, but what you say makes sense. Generally, males distance themselves from the emotions, while females wallow in them; neither is simply recognizing them with the intent of eliminating them. PETER: In a similar vein, the male of the human species, precisely because of their male gender conditioning, could well be philosophically attracted to eliminating the feelings and emotions that are part and parcel of the instinctual passions. Because of this it is vital to remember that actualism is not about eliminating feelings and emotions – a negation that could only lead to sociopathic states – but that actualism is about becoming happy and harmless – a positivity of intent that serves to expose any feelings of malice and sorrow to the bright light of awareness. * RESPONDENT: Or is my identity bullshitting me again? PETER: Speaking personally, I never saw any sense at all in splitting ‘me’ and ‘my identity’ into two parts. I had tried that in my spiritual years and saw that it was a wank. RESPONDENT: Sometimes I use incorrect terminology, all those identities, self’s, me’s, mine, I’s ... I will try to refer to the AF glossary in the future. The intent was something like: Or is my identity attempting to maintain its existence at all costs? PETER: I can only suggest re-reading the first piece I posted from my journal again and considering again the utter simplicity of the potent mix of being aware of how I am experiencing this moment of being alive combined with the single-pointed intent to change such that I become as happy and harmless as possible. RESPONDENT: That was one of the original draws of actualism, a bare-bones simple approach. I just have a tendency to drift upwards into the head a bit too easily. As I noted to No 37, this is much too important to risk letting it slip between my fingers. Back to the basics. PETER: A single-pointed intent is the only thing that can counter the natural human tendency to drift, waft or waffle, aimlessly go with the flow, compulsively run with the herd or mindlessly rebel against the herd. * PETER: You may then find that the simplest, most straight-forward, phrasing of your original question would be ‘am I bullshitting myself again?’ as opposed to ‘is my identity bullshitting me again?’ Common sense would then have it that your second question would be ‘am ‘I’ attempting to maintain ‘my’ existence at all costs?’ because actualism is about ‘self’-immolation and not the physical death of the corporal body called No 38. You might have noticed by now that I make no distinction between I and ‘I’ when I am being a normal human being. I do intellectually understand the distinction – t’is writ large all over the Actual Freedom Trust website – but the only way I, or indeed anybody else, can actually experience this distinction is when ‘I’ am not strutting the stage as it were – when ‘I’ am temporarily in abeyance during a pure consciousness experience. RESPONDENT: This helps a lot with my hitherto slippery interpretations of all the I’s, me’s, etc. PETER: I always figured my experience as a pioneering actualist would be useful to others, which is why I sat down and wrote my journal when I did, and why I often make reference to it when writing on this list. * PETER: No 37 recently put the whole issue of dissociation very succinctly –
And on that note, I might leave it at that – it’s so refreshing to hear someone call a spade a spade. RESPONDENT: No 37 hit the nail on the head with that one all right. I suggest we regroup in a year or so for another round of ‘the universe’. PETER: In the meantime, you might find it useful to contemplate on the following exchange from our conversation –
PETER: You wrote to No 21 and No 45 making a comment on our recent conversations about the nature of the physical universe. RESPONDENT: No 21/No 45: Peter and I had an ongoing dialog on this very subject not too long ago. You will save yourselves a lot of time by searching the site for terms like universe / infinite / theory etc. You will find an unequivocal stand on the nature of the universe which rejects all questioning. PETER: I took the opportunity of reviewing our dialogue on the subject of the universe and I found no instances that I have an unequivocal stand on the nature of the universe nor that I rejected all questioning. In fact if you recall, our most recent dialogue on the subject began when I wrote to you pointing to a scientific theory that questioned the current fusion/gravitational model of the physical universe. The very reason I did so was because I like it when theories I took to be fact are brought into question and I particularly liked this new theory because much of what I read made sense to me – albeit that I have what could be called a layman’s knowledge about such matters. I fail to see this as ‘an unequivocal stand on the nature of the universe …’ As for rejecting all questioning, when I re-read our discussions I could not find anywhere where I had rejected your questions – rather I found that I had addressed all of the points you raised and answered all of your questions, very often supplementing my answers with quotes from scientists who do not hold to the creationist model of the physical universe. For example –
Rather than rejecting all questioning, I actively question the plethora of theories of those scientists who propose that the physical universe was created out of nothing, or evolved out of nothing, is either expanding or contacting and will eventually disappear or somehow cease to exist. I have heard it often said that the empirical evidence that the universe is not infinite and is not eternal will be found someday, but until this happens the creationist theories about the universe remain but theories that should be subject to questioning – and the beliefs in other-than-physical worlds remain but spirit-ual beliefs that should be subject to questioning. Whilst this may appear to you to be ‘an unequivocal stand’, for me as an actualist, it simply made sense to question all of the cosmologist’s creationist models of the universe as well as all of the spiritualist’s beliefs in a Creator, by whatever name … and to keep doing so until I discovered the facts of the matter. To settle for a state of ‘not knowing’ was simply not good enough. I have previously made clear the reason that an actualist needs to question these theories and beliefs –
Or to put it another way, it is impossible devote one’s life to becoming happy and harmless in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are – to put all of one’s eggs in one basket – if you cling to any beliefs that the physical world is other-than-it-is – infinite and eternal – or if you cling to any beliefs that human beings are other-than-what-they-are – corporeal and mortal.
PETER: You wrote to No 21 and No 45 making a comment on our recent conversations about the nature of the physical universe. RESPONDENT: No 21/No 45: Peter and I had an ongoing dialog on this very subject not too long ago. You will save yourselves a lot of time by searching the site for terms like universe | infinite | theory etc. You will find an unequivocal stand on the nature of the universe which rejects all questioning. PETER: I took the opportunity of reviewing our dialogue on the subject of the universe and I found no instances that I have an unequivocal stand on the nature of the universe nor that I rejected all questioning. RESPONDENT: I’m rearranging your response a bit ...
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but this sounds like it’s impossible to be happy unless one believes that the universe is infinite and eternal. That is an unequivocal statement. PETER: My statement about the method of how to become free from the human condition is ‘an unequivocal statement’ because it is a fact. I shan’t comment on your re-interpretation of my statement, as it is not what I said. The other relevant point is that what I originally said was –
and I went on to provide evidence that this is so in the part of my response that you deleted in your rearranging. I have never denied that I have an unequivocal stance on the process of actualism – I have always made it clear that I do. I not only know that the actualism method works, I know why it works and how it works. I also know that the method is universally applicable to anyone who has the genuine intent to become free of the human condition in toto. RESPONDENT: You will, of course, correct my use of the word ‘believe’ in that statement as you have direct experience of the infinite / eternal nature of the universe, and your common sense tells you so. PETER: Indeed, and the reason I have had many direct experiences of the infinitude of the physical universe is that I stopped believing the cosmological theories and spiritual fantasies that propose that the physical universe is other than infinite and eternal. And it was not ‘my’ common sense that told me so – it was common sense itself that led me to experientially discover that it is so. RESPONDENT: While one can have direct experience of the universe, I think that applying characteristics to it (e.g. eternal, created) is a subjective action of the neo-cortex, rooted in ‘common sense’. PETER: If you have a direct experience of the physical universe, you will inevitably have a direct experience of the infinitude of the physical universe because there is no ‘I’ or ‘me’ extant in a PCE to hold or maintain any belief whatsoever that it should be otherwise. As for ‘I think that applying characteristics to it (e.g. eternal, created) is a subjective action of the neo-cortex’ it is useful to look at the meaning of the word ‘subjective’ when used philosophically –
When one uses the word subjective in this sense, then ‘a subjective action of the neo-cortex’ invariably produces ‘self’-centred impassioned imagination – exactly that which has produced the plethora of fantasies that have infiltrated much of the cosmological theories about the characteristics of the physical universe. RESPONDENT: Common sense is context-specific and hardly infallible, merely a handy tool to sort out dis-incongruous inputs. PETER: We have had a discussion before about the disparity between the term common sense as you use it and how the term common sense is used in the actualism writings and what it means to an actualist.
RESPONDENT: Historically, it has been used to rationalize that the earth is the centre of the solar system, the earth is flat, etc. By extrapolation, how is your common sense more accurate? PETER: We have also been down this path before and I’ll repost my reply as it is equally pertinent to your current question –
RESPONDENT: No 45 quoted David Bohm recently:
You may argue David Bohm’s ‘spiritual’ bent, but I maintain his statement is valid. We can’t see UV for instance, so how do we know that there is not important information being presented to us at those wavelengths? PETER: I find it telling that those who propose such statements as ‘95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’ most often resort to the example of electromagnetic radiation, as though this specific case provides proof of the existence of invisible and unperceivable phenomena. Whilst it is a fact that we cannot see electromagnetic radiation in the ultraviolet spectrum with our eyes – the spectrum of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation thus far detected ranges from 103 HZ to 1022 HZ and the unaided human eye is only capable of detecting the visible light portion within the 1014 HZ to 1015 HZ range – we are nevertheless able to sensately perceive UV as warmth on our skin and we are able to detect it and measure it with instruments that are mechanical extensions of our senses. In short, we know by sensory observation that UV exists as a fact, that it is a thing in itself, that it is physical in nature. Similarly, anyone who has stood near an infrared lamp can sense infrared electromagnetic radiation, anyone who has eaten food cooked in a microwave oven can see and taste the effects of microwave electromagnetic radiation. Anyone who has listened to radio or watched television can sensately experience the results of encoded information being sent via the longer wave frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. Anyone who has had an X-ray in a hospital can not only see and touch the machine that produces the electromagnetic radiation but they can also see and touch the resultant picture produced by the X ray electromagnetic waves. Perhaps you could offer another example other than the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation in support your stance that David Bohm’s statement is valid. In doing so, you may well find that Mr. Bohm is using the word phenomena in the philosophical sense –
– in which case he is talking of objects of perception that have neither substance nor physical existence – in other words, he is talking of phenomena that are meta-physical, as in –
While you say ‘you may argue David Bohm’s ‘spiritual’ bent’, there is no need for me to
do so because his spiritual bent is a matter of fact – well-publicized, well-known and readily verifiable. ( RESPONDENT: So, making absolute statements about the nature of the universe is presumptuous and smacks of a belief system. PETER: And yet, earlier in this same post, you have maintained that Mr. Bohm’s absolute statement about the nature of the universe – ‘that 95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’ – is valid. I take it from this that you do not regard his statement as being presumptuous nor do you regard it as smacking of a belief system. Whilst you have said in the past –
you are, yet again, coming out of the ‘not-knowing’ closet and championing yet another meta-physical theory about the nature of the physical universe. RESPONDENT: But that’s just my opinion... PETER: Having an opinion about something that you do not know to be a fact is but another way of saying I believe this to be so solely on the basis of what I hear other people have to say about the matter. If I can refer you back to your claim that you hold no beliefs about the nature of the physical universe, I’ll take the opportunity of reposting my response –
I don’t know whether it has occurred to you in the course of our conversations but those who value ‘not-knowing’ do in fact hold to many opinions based solely on what they have heard other people say and they do in fact stubbornly cherish many beliefs – principal amongst them the belief that some type of ‘Unknowable’ forces and energies permeate the physical universe.
PETER: This response has been delayed due to my dipping back into the dog-eat-dog world of business recently. By choice I left this world many years ago to become self-employed whereupon I could do business on my terms – favouring harmony and consensus in preference to aggression and competition. By circumstance, I found myself temporarily back in the grim reality I left behind when I went tripping off into the spiritual world and it has been a good reminder that both worlds suck. RESPONDENT: We’ve been around this block too many times already, and it’s clear we’re not going to agree. I’ll respond one last time, then we can put this to bed as it’s providing rapidly diminishing returns. PETER: Yes. But others have moved the thread on somewhat so I thought to reply to your post as it makes yet another contribution to what is a most fascinating topic to contemplate upon. Personally, I find the topic not only fascinating but somewhat scary as such contemplations can literally knock one out of one’s normal ‘self’-centred viewpoint such that the magnificence of the actual world we live in is temporarily revealed. * PETER: You wrote to No 21 and No 45 making a comment on our recent conversations about the nature of the physical universe. RESPONDENT: No 21/No 45: Peter and I had an ongoing dialog on this very subject not too long ago. You will save yourselves a lot of time by searching the site for terms like universe | infinite | theory etc. You will find an unequivocal stand on the nature of the universe which rejects all questioning. PETER: I took the opportunity of reviewing our dialogue on the subject of the universe and I found no instances that I have an unequivocal stand on the nature of the universe nor that I rejected all questioning. RESPONDENT: I’m rearranging your response a bit ...
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but this sounds like it’s impossible to be happy unless one believes that the universe is infinite and eternal. That is an unequivocal statement. PETER: My statement about the method of how to become free from the human condition is ‘an unequivocal statement’ because it is a fact. RESPONDENT: Well, that’s the end of that discussion. PETER: It is only the end of the discussion if that is the end of your questions about actualism. Actualism is completely upfront in that is both non-spiritual and down-to-earth – this is what it says at the top of the very first page of the Actual Freedom website and this is reconfirmed countless times throughout the website and in all of the correspondence. My ‘unequivocal statement’ that you seem to regard as a conversation-ender says no more and no less than –
When I first came across actualism I quite naturally regarded it as yet another spiritual teaching and Richard as yet another Guru despite the fact that he was upfront in saying otherwise – I say quite naturally because prior to actualism there was no alternative to the ‘self’-imposed grim reality or the ‘self’-imposed fantasy of a Greater Reality. As time passed and my interest grew, it gradually dawned on me that Richard was sincere in what he was saying about actualism being non-spiritual and then I realized that I needed to abandon my spiritual beliefs and meta-physical concepts if I was to ever understand what an actual freedom from the human condition is and how actualism works. By taking this step I was able to ask questions in order to make clear what he was saying, rather than object to what he was saying because it did not fit with my spiritual beliefs or meta-physical concepts. * PETER: I shan’t comment on your re-interpretation of my statement, as it is not what I said. RESPONDENT: No reinterpretation needed – ‘it is impossible devote one’s life to becoming happy and harmless in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... if you cling to any beliefs that the physical world is other-than-it-is – infinite and eternal’. There is nothing ambiguous about your statement whatsoever. PETER: I realize that an ‘unequivocal statement’ about the process of actualism by a practicing actualist is an anathema to someone who passionately holds to an agnostic stance as in –
By definition an agnostic is someone who will always reject any ‘unequivocal statement’. It would be a matter of principle to always do so, regardless of the facticity of the statement. An agnostic, holding the conviction that nothing can be known for certain, maintains his or her own feeling of superiority by invariably dismissing everything that everyone says as being ‘their belief’. * PETER: The other relevant point is that what I originally said was –
and I went on to provide evidence that this is so in the part of my response that you deleted. I have never denied that I have an unequivocal stance on the process of actualism – I have always made it clear that I do. I not only know that the actualism method works, I know why it works and how it works. I also know that the method is universally applicable to anyone who has the genuine intent to become free of the human condition in toto. RESPONDENT: Granted. PETER: I am at a loss as to what it is you are granting. I was making the point that I know what I am saying about actualism is a fact because I know that the actualism method works, I know why it works and how it works, in other words I am saying that I have the expertise necessary to make an unequivocal statement about the process of actualism. If you are granting that, then it makes it apparent that your objections to my statement are more a matter of principle rather than an objection to the content per se. As I said above, when I first started to become intrigued with actualism –
It is pertinent to note that agnosticism has its roots in Gnosticism and that cosmogony and much of cosmology is rooted in Creationism. * RESPONDENT: You will, of course, correct my use of the word ‘believe’ in that statement as you have direct experience of the infinite / eternal nature of the universe, and your common sense tells you so. PETER: Indeed, and the reason I have had many direct experiences of the infinitude of the physical universe is that I stopped believing the cosmological theories and spiritual fantasies that propose that the physical universe is other than infinite and eternal. And it was not ‘my’ common sense that told me so – it was common sense itself that led me to experientially discover that it is so. RESPONDENT: How can you possibly ‘experience’ that the universe is infinite and eternal? PETER: In a pure consciousness experience the universe is experienced as-it-is, infinite and eternal, boundless and happening in this very moment. In a pure consciousness experience, temporarily there is no ‘I’ present, which means the consciousness of this body is no longer ‘self’-centred, which means that there is no ‘me’ present to be the centre of ‘my’ world. This means that I, this flesh and blood body, is bereft of an affective point of reference … then, the experience is that this body is no-where in particular in boundless space and no-when in particular in perpetual time. It is an experience of unparalleled freedom for it is a direct experience of the infinitude of the peerless actual world we flesh and blood humans live in. RESPONDENT: Can you sensately experience its lack of bounds? PETER: From my experience, I would say that what is experienced in a PCE is a lack of a centre, as in ‘self’-centred feelings or thoughts, which results in the sensate experience that the actual world has no bounds i.e. is in fact boundless. In a PCE the actual world is also experienced as eternal in that it can only ever be experienced now (and it is always now). And further, the actual world of the physical universe is experienced as perfect in that it is without peer, and it is experienced as pure in that it is without comparison. T’is little wonder that a PCE is sometimes referred to as a mind-blowing experience. RESPONDENT: Did you travel back in time far enough to know that there was no beginning? (Don’t bother responding to these questions... I’ve heard it before.) You suggest that maintaining an open mind about the nature of the cosmos smacks of spiritualism or metaphysics, but to me your stance sounds much more that way. PETER: If I may point out it is you who are asking rhetorical questions and then telling me not to bother to answer as you have heard it all before, in other words you demonstrating that you are unwilling to change your mind no matter what my response. This means that rather being open minded as you claim, you are being closed minded to even considering the possibility that the physical universe is both infinite and eternal. You have also made your close-minded stance clear in the past –
To maintain that nothing is ever true is to remain closed minded to the possibility that something may be true or that something you dismiss as being a belief may indeed be a fact.
To maintain that you ‘don’t believe either that the universe is finite or infinite’ is to be closed-minded to even entertaining the possibility that it might be in fact infinite. RESPONDENT: All the cults made the same kinds of final decisions, and any questioning thereof is off-limits. This sounds just the same. PETER: Being a member of a cult necessitates that one always believes what the cult authority says to be the truth, which in turn means that one always rejects what non-cult members believe to be the truth as being mere beliefs. The process of actualism on the other hand involves an actualist setting aside all of his or her own beliefs in order to be able to clearly see and understand the facts of the matter, no matter what the consequences. Actualism is not about believing others, actualism is about finding out by oneself, for oneself. * RESPONDENT: While one can have direct experience of the universe, I think that applying characteristics to it (e.g. eternal, created) is a subjective action of the neo-cortex, rooted in ‘common sense’. PETER: If you have a direct experience of the physical universe, you will inevitably have a direct experience of the infinitude of the physical universe because there is no ‘I’ or ‘me’ extant in a PCE to hold or maintain any belief whatsoever that it should be otherwise. RESPONDENT: If you say so... PETER: I am not just theorizing or indulging in philosophical tit-for-tat discussion, I know that it is so because I have had many PCEs since becoming a practicing actualist. * PETER: As for ‘I think that applying characteristics to it (e.g. eternal, created) is a subjective action of the neo-cortex’ it is useful to look at the meaning of the word ‘subjective’ when used philosophically –
When one uses the word subjective in this sense, then ‘a subjective action of the neo-cortex’ invariably produces ‘self’-centred impassioned imagination – exactly that which has produced the plethora of fantasies that have infiltrated much of the cosmological theories about the characteristics of the physical universe. RESPONDENT: Common sense is context-specific and hardly infallible, merely a handy tool to sort out dis-congruous inputs. PETER: We have had a discussion before about the disparity between the term common sense as you use it and how the term common sense is used in the actualism writings and what it means to an actualist. <Snip> RESPONDENT: Then I shall be careful to use the term only in the way as defined in actualism, or by you. PETER: Maybe you missed the recent conversations on this list on the topic of the sensibility of using words as they are used to mean in the actualism writings in order to facilitate clarity in communications on this list. I realize that some people object to this as though it is a sign of toeing some imaginary party line, but to me it simply makes sense. * RESPONDENT: No 45 quoted David Bohm recently:
You may argue David Bohm’s ‘spiritual’ bent, but I maintain his statement is valid. We can’t see UV for instance, so how do we know that there is not important information being presented to us at those wavelengths? PETER: I find it telling that those who propose such statements as ‘95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’ most often resort to the example of electromagnetic radiation, as though this specific case provides proof of the existence of invisible and unperceivable phenomena. Whilst it is a fact that we cannot see electromagnetic radiation in the ultraviolet spectrum with our eyes – the spectrum of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation thus far detected ranges from 103 HZ to 1022 HZ and the unaided human eye is only capable of detecting the visible light portion within the 1014 HZ to 1015 HZ range – we are nevertheless able to sensately perceive UV as warmth on our skin and we are able to detect it and measure it with instruments that are mechanical extensions of our senses. In short, we know by sensory observation that UV exists as a fact, that it is a thing in itself, that it is physical in nature. Similarly, anyone who has stood near an infrared lamp can sense infrared electromagnetic radiation, anyone who has eaten food cooked in a microwave oven can see and taste the effects of microwave electromagnetic radiation. Anyone who has listened to radio or watched television can sensately experience the results of encoded information being sent via the longer wave frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. Anyone who has had an X-ray in a hospital can not only see and touch the machine that produces the electromagnetic radiation but they can also see and touch the resultant picture produced by the X ray electromagnetic waves. Perhaps you could offer another example other than the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation in support your stance that David Bohm’s statement is valid. RESPONDENT: I’m not sure why it’s ‘telling’ that this example gets trotted out. PETER: Because it seems to be the only example of that people can think of in order to justify the claim ‘that 95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’. That you have avoided my invitation to offer another example is but further evidence that the claim lacks credibility. RESPONDENT: So, yes, you’re right about the different ways we sensately experience UV radiation. Does that imply that is the sum total of the characteristics of the radiation? No, it’s only what we are sensing. Humans’ experience of UV is defined by and limited by the nature of our senses. To suggest that there aren’t other ways of experiencing UV, ways that are off-limits to us, is short-sighted. PETER: Okay, seeing I lack the benefit of long-sightedness, what are the other characteristics of electromagnetic radiation that we are not sensing? What other ways are there to experience, measure or detect electromagnetic radiation? Given that you are making these claims, it is up to you to substantiate them. RESPONDENT: And, Bohm’s statement is validated by the historical record. Time after time, something has been decided to be a ‘fact’, only to be refuted when additional information becomes available. Why is now any different? PETER: A good deal of the electromagnetic spectrum has always been able to be detected by the unaided human senses – even a Neanderthal man could see the sun and sensately experience its UV radiation as heat on his skin. The invention of instruments that extend the range of human sensory perception, particularly in the last hundred years, has revealed a good deal more of the extent and range of electromagnetic radiation. During this same period of rapid scientific growth we have made similar leaps in our ability to perceive, observe, quantify and understand both the extent and range of the physical matter and physical energy that make up the physical universe. Apart from discoveries that have expanded the extent and range of that which we know exists by way of our senses, perhaps you could offer some examples of new discoveries of new phenomena to support your claim that Mr. Bohm’s alleged statement that ‘that 95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’ is validated by historical record. * RESPONDENT: So, making absolute statements about the nature of the universe is presumptuous and smacks of a belief system. PETER: And yet, earlier in this same post, you have maintain that Mr. Bohm’s absolute statement about the nature of the universe – ‘that 95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’ – is valid. I take it from this that you do not regard his statement as being ‘presumptuous’ and nor do you regard it as smacking of a belief system. RESPONDENT: It is most decidedly not a belief system... quite the opposite – a rejection of all belief systems. To be sure of the nature of the universe is a belief system. PETER: Am I missing your point here? I take it that when Mr. Bohm says ‘95% of the phenomena are invisible and not perceived from our senses’, he makes this statement because he is sure of the nature of the universe. I also know from your previous comments that you are also sure that his claim is valid –
Just to make things clear, in a conversation about the nature of the universe you maintain that our perception of the nature of the universe ‘may be constrained by our sensory apparatus to only those detectable inputs’. If you are sure about this, and you seem to be arguing strongly that this is so, then by your own principle – ‘to be sure of the nature of the universe is a belief system’ – you are supporting a belief-system. However, in order to be faithful to your agnostic stance you would have to be sure that you are not sure, i.e. you would have to maintain that everything was a belief, including Mr. Bohm’s alleged statement. It must be a tough business having to reject everything on principle. * PETER: Whilst you have said in the past –
– you are, yet again, coming out of the ‘not-knowing’ closet and championing yet another meta-physical theory about the nature of the physical universe. RESPONDENT: My statement does not suggest any speculation about the nature of the universe, metaphysical or otherwise. It suggests quite the opposite. And, yes, I am in the not-knowing camp, and no, I am not championing any theory, metaphysical or otherwise. You are very quick to trot out the metaphysical/spiritual warning flag when it suits you. Whitewash. PETER: I am simply taking your statements at face value. When you say such things as ‘I still maintain we may be constrained by our sensory apparatus to only those detectable inputs’ you are not saying ‘I maintain it cannot be known’ or ‘I do not know’, you are saying you maintain there may well be something that is unknowable to our physical senses. From where I come from, that which is unknowable to our physical senses, i.e. that which can by its very nature never be known to the physical senses and therefore can never be physically detected, is described as being meta-physical, as in other-than-physical. I don’t know how much whiter I can make the wash. * PETER: If I can refer you back to your claim that you hold no beliefs about the nature of the physical universe, I’ll take the opportunity of reposting my response –
I don’t know whether it has occurred to you in the course of our conversations but those who value ‘not-knowing’ do in fact hold to many opinions based on what they have heard other people say and do in fact stubbornly hold to many beliefs – principal amongst them the belief that ‘Unknowable’ forces and energies permeate the physical universe. RESPONDENT: This is an accurate statement... those who ‘value’ not-knowing are working in a belief system, and do ascribe powers to those unknowable forces. PETER: I am at somewhat at a loss as to your reply as you have previously said in this post ‘yes, I am in the not-knowing camp’. Correct me if I am wrong, but I take it that you are saying that while you are ‘in the not-knowing camp’ you do not ‘value’ not-knowing. By value I mean hold dear, feel strongly about, or identify with as in regard it as part of your identity. If it is the case that you do not value not-knowing then it is indeed good news because it means you will have no difficulty in abandoning the not-knowing camp and coming over and joining those of us who are dedicated to finding out the facts of the matter. As for ascribing ‘powers to those unknowable forces’ – if one stops believing in unknowable forces and energies then the belief in unknowable powers, by whatever name, collapses as well. It’s a bold step to forsake the accrued wisdom of a blighted humanity but the sense of freedom that results is both palpable and life changing. I can highly recommend not only abandoning one’s cherished beliefs (or disbeliefs) but abandoning the very act of believing (or disbelieving). RESPONDENT: This is indeed the stuff of fairyland. It is most assuredly not the stuff of the inquisitive scientific mind. PETER: Yep. Once I had decided to stop stalling, it was curiosity that led me to want to find out if what Richard had discovered was repeatable by anyone else – anyone else being me. RESPONDENT: To summarize: It completely baffles me how proponents of AF can be so adamant about what they call facts. PETER: Well, it is you who have set up camp with the not-knowers of the world. If you insist on remaining in that camp, how do you ever expect to join the ranks of those who are curious enough to find out what an actual freedom from the human condition is and whether actualism works in practice? RESPONDENT: In my limited PCE experiences, the universe has indeed been a wondrous and complete-as-it-is place, but never has it been obvious that it had certain characteristics such is infinite size, timelessness, etc, whereas in yours it obviously does. PETER: I can only suggest that next time you have such an experience that you take a good look around in whatever place you happen to be at the time for some evidence that the universe is finite in space and time. I would be interested as to what you find. RESPONDENT: From over here, I also have a difficult time comprehending how you can be so sure about its fundamental nature. Down through history, there have been many instances of falsehoods that have been rationalized by logical/scientific processes, later to be overturned. Those people were equally convinced, and given what they knew at the time, often rightfully so. PETER: Yep. Those who have been gullible in the past invariably fall back on being cynical. I have seen it happen to so many of my former spiritual colleagues. I refused to believe that ‘life’s a bitch and then you die’ and it’s prudent to make sure you have ‘a good bank account in heaven’, as Vineeto puts it, just in case there is an afterlife. The lure of experiencing peace on earth in this lifetime rekindled my somewhat dormant naiveté. RESPONDENT: I still maintain that it doesn’t matter what constitutes the universe. In my educated guess, that is not pertinent to the real essence of AF, and in fact dilutes it. PETER: I am reminded of someone who was interested in actualism but insisted that he maintain his belief that ‘love is the answer’. He insisted that a real freedom should contain love. He eventually abandoned his pursuit of an actual freedom from the human condition and went back into the real world in pursuit of fulfilment of his dream. I take it from your comments that the ‘real essence’ of an actual freedom from the human condition is one that accommodates your particular beliefs and convictions. Does this not strike you as a somewhat ‘self’-centred view of what is on offer in actualism – a universally-applicable freedom from the human condition in toto, an actual freedom that is freely available for everyone who so desires it?
PETER: This response has been delayed due to my dipping back into the dog-eat-dog world of business recently. RESPONDENT: My condolences. I’ve had a fair share of it recently too. PETER: No condolences necessary. I had great fun for 99.9% of the time – and this was made even more obvious by the fact that I was the only one who was having fun. The 0.1% not-fun time was another reminder that the business of actualism is not over whilst ‘I’ still lurk about in the shadows. * PETER: By choice I left this world many years ago to become self-employed whereupon I could do business on my terms – favouring harmony and consensus in preference to aggression and competition. By circumstance, I found myself temporarily back in the grim reality I left behind when I went tripping off into the spiritual world and it has been a good reminder that both worlds suck. RESPONDENT: Just out of curiosity, would you mind sharing your recent experiences? PETER: Not at all. By the time I was in my early thirties it was apparent to me that there was no happiness to be had in the pursuit of materialism and that those who rose to the top of the heap usually did so at the expense of others. This understanding was experiential in that I had given it a good bash but then circumstance led me give it up entirely and leap into the spiritual world. When that petered out I came across Richard and started to become interested in what he was saying. Pretty soon I began to see the folly of the spiritual world and I soon found myself abandoning that world as well. Simultaneously I instigated some substantial changes in my life. Being no longer in the spiritual world meant that I lost my client base for my design-and-build business so I took the opportunity to stop building – by about age 45 the physical work of construction had become increasingly physically tiring – in order to do design work only. I also decided that I wanted to work less as I wanted to devote as much time to actualism as possible. Working less meant spending less so I reduced my overheads as much as possible. I sold my truck, which helped a good deal and not working full-time meant my expenses reduced dramatically. Perhaps one of the major changes in this period came when something Richard said stuck in my mind – ‘learning to do nothing really well’. This struck a chord because I saw that everybody is driven to ‘do’ something and if they are not ‘doing’ something then feelings of boredom rapidly set in – the swing of human emotion goes from manic at one extreme to stressful through to listless to boredom and on to depression at the other extreme. This is typified by the question that people often ask – ‘are you busy?’, the implication being that it is good to be busy. I took ‘doing nothing really well’ to be a challenge because I knew that the issue of boredom had to be tackled if I was ever to be unconditionally happy and it also suited me to work as least as possible – as I have a wonderful companion who is a delight to live with 24/7, I have no need to take my own space or escape by having a career. So, my recent experiences were a reminder of the dog-eat dog business world that I had found so vicious all those years ago and that I have sensibly managed to circumvent almost entirely since becoming an actualist. I also found that I can be both happy and harmless in the dog-eat-dog business world should circumstances require, but it makes sense to me to seek out the most comfortable and harmonious way of earning my living expenses. For a long time I had the notion that actualism had to work ‘in the market place’ but I confused being a participant in the real-world battle for survival with doing whatever was sensible in order work to get money to pay for my living expenses – a world of difference. RESPONDENT: It’s an element of the AF process that I’ve touched on in the past: how does a practicing (VF) actualist relate to the ‘real’ world? PETER: Many of my former spiritual friends divide the world they live into two realms – the outer real world and their own inner world, and seemingly the current wisdom has it that it is good to be seen to be successful in both. I watched bemused as those who I saw as committed spiritualists started playing the stock market or the real estate market, became highly-paid therapists and pseudo-gurus, and franticly competed with each other for status, wealth and security. This idea of having a foot in each world – ‘trust in Allah but make sure you tether your camel’ as someone advised me at the time – seemed to me hypocritical to say the least. I, for one, couldn’t go back to pursuing happiness via materialism because I had seen that it didn’t work. When I started pursuing happiness via actualism my remaining affective connections to both the grim real-world materialism and the fantasy-world of spiritualism increasingly dropped away, so much so that I am nowadays rarely affected by either world – either as feelings of repulsion or feelings of desire. Materialism and spiritualism is simply what other people believe in and feel passionately about – neither are my cup of tea because I have checked them both out thoroughly in my lifetime and both pursuits are decidedly weird. So to answer your question, I do not relate to the ‘real’ world, meaning that I no longer have strong meaningful affective ties to the grim reality that both materialists and spiritualists feel – no grim reality, no need whatsoever to believe in a Greater Reality. The affective ties that do remain are now so weak that they rarely cause me to feel animosity towards, or pity for, others for what they think and feel, do or don’t do, or are supposed to have done or not done. I take this to be a sign of the very tangible freedoms gained on the path to an actual freedom. I’d like also to pass on something that I personally found useful, nay essential, to contemplate upon. There is a world of difference between the world as-it-is – the actual world of people, things and events – and the veneer or veil of grim reality that ‘I’ impose over the actual world. Every human being knows this by experience because every human being at some stage in their life – very often in childhood but often later in life – has experienced the perfection and purity of this actual world we live. It is vital to understand that actualism is not about leaving the spiritual world and going back to, and making the best of, the real world, grim reality, the normal world, everyday reality, or whatever other name one calls it. Actualism is about stepping out of both the real world, and the spiritual world, into the actual world and leaving your ‘self’ behind – and the actualism method is specifically designed to facilitate this. RESPONDENT: Richard states that if he were locked in a prison with nought but bread and water, it would not affect his happiness and harmlessness one whit. I suspect that he is not blowing smoke, based on everything else he has written. PETER: Not that he would choose to do so, or be so silly as to get himself into a situation where he had broken the law of the land. But yes, he is not blowing smoke. Both Vineeto and I have observed him very closely over a period of 6 years and he is what he says he is and he does what he says he does. You don’t need to believe me that this is so because everyone has had a glimpse of what Richard says he is – a flesh-and-blood body sans identity – and how he experiences being alive, because everyone has had at least one self’-less experience of the utter purity, the consummate stillness and the peerless perfection of the actual world. In other words, it is possible to verify what Richard is saying by your own experience – there is no need to rely on belief. RESPONDENT: However, as one who lives in virtual freedom, did you find that the conditioned and/or instinctual passions re-emerged to some degree? Your statement perhaps hints at such. Did anger still rear its head? PETER: I make no claims whatsoever that a virtual freedom from malice and sorrow is an actual freedom from malice and sorrow. The comment I made about ‘dipping back into the dog-eat-dog world of business recently’ was not meant to indicate that I went back to participating in the battles that inevitably go on, it was rather that I had an in-my-face reminder of why I exited the battleground all those years ago. I was surprisingly unaffected by the emotional goings on that people went on with, but I was occasionally perplexed by the level of both covert and overt animosity that human beings feel towards each other. By deliberate choice, I have been living in effortless harmony with another human being for so long now, I am somewhat bewildered that other people not only find it impossible to do so, but that many aren’t even interested in making the effort to do so. I always took consideration for one’s fellow human beings to be a given. I suspect that this is why I found actualism irresistible. * I might send this part off now, as this post is already long. I’ll respond to the second half at another time as a host of other pleasures beckon.
RESPONDENT: Back to the meat of the matter ... I was about to respond to your post line by line, but I had written in my last post:
I had better stick to my guns as this could start to look like a pissing contest to those who are not aware that we actually have a reason for this other than puffery. PETER: Some issues require stubborn persistence in order to really get to the bottom of things. Even after I launched myself into actualism I can remember desperately hanging on to particular beliefs that ‘I’ cherished, values that ‘I’ held in esteem, rights that ‘I’ held to be true, things ‘I’ believed were worth fighting for and things I felt to be unfair. Given that a PCE confirms everyone has got it 180 degrees wrong, an actualist has a lot to unearth in the human condition. I’d also like to add a comment to your recent comment to No 21 –
Although the Actual Freedom Trust website has sufficient information in itself for anyone wanting to become free of the human condition, this mailing list affords the opportunity for anyone to engage in a dialogue with others about the subject matters addressed on the web-site. Personally I found it invaluable to discuss the nature of the human condition and how to become free of it with others. By talking with others, I was often forced to explore things that were outside my comfort zone or to look at issues I would rather have left under the carpet. That’s why I continue to respond. RESPONDENT: I have been labelled, and admitted to being, an agnostic. (BTW, I am delighted to have provided some of the material for several new selected correspondence pages on the subject of agnosticism). PETER: As you would have noted, any correspondence from this list that is posted in the selected correspondence is done so anonymously, as it is the topic of conversation that will be of interest to others, not ‘who’ the correspondent is. The same thing happens when I write – I know full well that I am writing to a fellow human being but it is the topic of the conversation that I focus upon, not ‘who’ is writing it. By what you say, if we did happen to meet one day we would have a chuckle over what others may see as a nit-picking attack-defence argument but what I regard as a sincere attempt to get to core of this topic. RESPONDENT: Webster’s defines agnosticism:
and I guess the shoe fits (excepting the bit about deities). PETER: Being a little playful, I could re-word the second part to read –
RESPONDENT: You maintain surety of the infinite nature of the universe, a surety I haven’t shared. It’s not that I hold agnosticism as a banner or philosophy, I just haven’t proved to myself this particular fact. And proving such matters to myself is one of the high tenets of AF, with which I heartily agree. While I think the universe is likely infinite, I just don’t have the direct experience, and it’s a puzzle how one ever could, even in a PCE. That said, I do see how this concept is fundamental to AF and I’d best keep myself open to it. PETER: Speaking personally, I never remained open to anything Richard said, I assumed that what he was saying was fact –because it was clear to me that he was free of the human condition. Given his expertise, I figured he might know a thing or two about becoming free of the human condition which meant I had a lot to learn from him if I wanted to become free from the human condition. If you want to find out something then it makes sense to listen to someone who has done it before. This meant that I had to put ‘my’ views and previous failed efforts to one side for a while whilst I concentrated on, and contemplated upon, what he was saying. In other words, with the resolve of questioning my own beliefs, I acknowledged that my views on the matter under consideration may well only be beliefs, no matter how many other people held to the same view. Just to make the point again – I didn’t remain open to the fact that Richard might be right – I assumed he was right and remained open to the fact that ‘I’ might be wrong. I am well aware that taking such an approach can be seen as being foolish or being gullible – it definitely contravenes the principles of agnosticism – but I fail to see how anyone can take the necessary action to determine whether something is a fact or not if he or she continues to remains ‘open’ to it not being so. Because of what he said he had discovered – a way to become actually free of the human condition – I never took the approach of trying to prove him wrong, I took the approach of trying to find out if he was right, a vastly different approach. In this vein, something you wrote to Vineeto recently caught my eye –
I think you have got to the hub of the matter we have been discussing – for an agnostic, actualism can only be seen as foolishness and the actual world can never be proved as existing in fact.
In other words, anyone who holds to the doctrine of agnosticism has to, as a matter of principle, remain open to ‘an unseen world’ … because its existence cannot be disproved. Agnosticism is directly contrary to actualism – actualism is firmly rooted in the actual world, it has nothing whatsoever to do with any ‘unseen world’.
When I saw that becoming an actualist meant going down a path that everyone else labelled foolish – ‘do not enter’ – I set off in that direction. I did so because is considered sane to live in the real world and it is considered wise to fantasize about ‘personal Deities and unseen worlds’ ... and I was totally dissatisfied with both real-world sanity and spiritual world wisdom. * RESPONDENT: Tangentially, Vineeto wrote to No 45 recently:
PETER: Just a point of correction here, I am told that it is more accurate to say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics works to describe a closed system – which means that it cannot apply to the universe as a whole given that an infinite system is, per definition, not a closed (as in finite) system. RESPONDENT: This is interesting, particularly in light of the recent dialog between No 37 and myself. To synopsize that ... No 37 made a compelling case for the lack of reference points in an infinite universe, which implies that all points are the same, and the universe perceives itself through my senses. That I grasp. Yet, I can clearly walk in to the wall, which is a most specific reference point, and which doesn’t jibe directly with the previous statement. Walking into the wall sounds like it describes a ‘local event’ and doesn’t ‘apply to the universe as a whole’. PETER: I think the point that No 37 was making was that in an infinite universe any reference points are purely arbitrary, hence one is always nowhere in particular. Similarly in an eternal universe there are no reference points – no beginning, middle or end of time – which means this moment is always no-when in particular. I’ll give you a practical example of being no-where in particular – one that I found useful to contemplate upon because it is a down-to-earth example, i.e. it doesn’t require imagination nor does it depend on mathematical logic. As I take it, you and I are presently located somewhere on the planet. Now depending entirely on where one determines ‘up’ to be you may well be on the top of the globe whilst I may well be hanging off the bottom of it, or vice versa, or you may be hanging off one side of it and I the other. And whilst you look at the sky above and call it up, I look at an entirely different sector of the sky and call that up. I remember laying on my back in a field one day and looking ‘up’ into the sky but then I started to think about the fact that I could well be looking ‘out’ sideways at the sky, or if I was on the bottom of the earth, I would be looking ‘down’ into the sky. In my twenties, when I went to live on a different part of the planet, the sun was always in the sector of sky called ‘south’, whereas I was born in a part of the planet where the sun was always in a part of the sky called ‘north’. Despite the fact that I lived in that other part for years it still seemed strange to me – it was as though the sun had moved relative to me, not the other way round. In one part of the world when I faced the part of the sky where the sun tracked it rose from the right and set to the left whereas another part of the planet it rose to the left and set to the right! To take this lack of reference points further – we are on a planet that is hurtling through space, whilst orbiting a star which is one of billions of stars that make up what is called a galaxy of stars which in turn is but one of a cluster of galaxies … ad infinitum. Now what do you use as a point of reference in this limitless vastness – the centre of a cluster of galaxies, the centre of the galaxy, the biggest local star or sun, the moon, the earth, the magnetic field of the earth, the gravitational field of the earth, your living room, my living room? This is not the stuff of intellectual theorizing or meta-physical fantasy – this is matter-of-fact thinking about the physical universe. Personally I found that such thinking eventually led me to intellectually understand that I was no-where in particular and this in turn led me to intellectually understand that ‘my’ view of the universe was, and could only be, ‘self’-centred. Needless to say this then led to an experiential liberation from my normal ‘self’-centred thinking and feeling … and a PCE was the result. RESPONDENT: Similarly, the universe could exhibit red shift, to be interpreted by some as evidence of the big bang (the ‘local event’), while still being infinite, eternal, placid, static. Different ‘views’ depending on the present frame of reference or model of perception? PETER: Human beings, being ‘self’-centred, can’t help but having a ‘self’-centred perception of the physical universe which in turn leads to them thinking and feeling all sorts of weird things about the physical universe. RESPONDENT: How does one perceive of oneself as the very stuff of the universe and still manage to make it through the doorway. I know this is a bit abstract, but I think there’s something in there that might help me understand the gap between our POVs. PETER: If you start to think and feel you are the universe then all sorts of megalomaniacal thoughts and feelings follow. One can even imagine one’s ‘self’ to be so huge that one can suffer an altered state of consciousness whereby ‘I’ think and feel that ‘I’ am the universe, or that ‘I’ am the creator of the universe – which in turn leads to ‘me’ thinking and feeling that ‘I’ am infinite, as in omnipresent … and that ‘I’ am eternal, as in immortal. Such people have no difficulty making it through the doorway – they waft through the doorway as their feet never ever touch the ground – unlike us mortals. If you want to understand the gap between us, I can only suggest what worked for me – keeping my contemplations more down-to-earth and less ‘self’-oriented. When ‘I’ stop thinking, feeling and believing that ‘I’ am the central reference point of the universe, ‘I’ then allow the possibility that something utterly magical can happen – ‘me’, at the core of my being, can disappear from commanding centre-stage and, as if a veil has been lifted, the splendour and wonder of the actual world can become vibrantly apparent. It is as though one enters another world, a fairy-tale like magical world, but it has a familiarity to it because it has always been here – right under my very nose as it were. In the actual world of the senses, there is a direct and sensuous experience that matter is not merely passive – that there is a palpable life-force that permeates all the matter of the universe … and it is further patently obvious that this life-force is a physical life-force … and not a meta-physical force. Nice to chat, again. I appreciate your persistence.
RESPONDENT: I’m suspecting that fear is the psychological construct as a response to the underlying survival mechanism. Did the original caveman feel fear or did he just simply protect himself and his brood? Fear has been taught to us. PETER: If the homo sapiens who lived in caves did not feel fear, in contrast to the other
sentient animals
Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom
Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
