|
Peter’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 59
PETER: Hi, I thought to answer this post as well given that you have already dismissed Richard’s reply before he replied – RESPONDENT: Here are some quotes from a book ‘Living Zen’ by Robert Linssen published in 1958 Grove Press. It makes for interesting reading in conjunction with the Actual Freedom website. There seems to be a remarkable similarity in concepts. No doubt Richard will focus his high powered linguistic microscope on tiny shades of meaning and become lost in the minutiae of stylistic differences. He will tell us that actual freedom from the human condition is not the same as Satori and that no Zen Master has ever trodden his path. I’m sure Richard will be able to invoke other schools of Zen thought that back up his objections but not all Zen is the same. Those of us who realise that language is inherently limited and noisy in meaning, especially in non-dualistic discussion, can broaden our focus and see remarkable similarities: PETER: I see you are using the old ploy of offering up an argument whilst simultaneously denigrating the answerer – so much for having a sincere discussion. And just to add a little oomph to your stance you invoke the support of the royal ‘us’ – those whose focus is so broad that they blithely redefine the meaning of any words to suit their own purposes and fit their own beliefs – so much for having a sensible discussion. I have tried to have sensible discussions with several Zen Buddhists and always found it to be an impossibility as their perch is so lofty that they can’t help but be condescending … and if one attempts to talk sensibly to them they retreat to a position of dismissing anything that is contrary to their beliefs by disparaging the very idea that having a clear-cut and meaningful conversation about such matters is at all possible – so much so that you can almost see the shutters go down. RESPONDENT: The author uses the term ‘I-process’ to highlight the illusory character of identity, seemingly unchanging but borne of process. PETER: It’s pertinent to point out that ancient Eastern spirituality teaches that the illusionary identity (‘I’ as ego only) is borne exclusively of the process of conditioning … whereas actualism establishes by observation and experimentation that the social/ instinctual identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is borne of the genetically-encoded instinctual passions. To summarize these differences –
A world of difference. RESPONDENT: Chapter XI Memory Habits and the Birth of the ‘I-process’
PETER: Not a word to be seen in this quote about the crucial role that the instinctual passions play in both forming and sustaining the parasitical entity that inhabits the flesh and blood body – rather the author says that ‘an entity has been built up on what was a simple impersonal non-individualized process of pure perception’. This is a clear reference to the notion that the identity, ‘a thinker’, is made up of memory accumulations aka conditioning and if one dis-identifies from this conditioning then the ‘pure perception’ (aka state of innocence) that we were supposedly born with will miraculously emerge. The myth of Tabula Rasa, the belief we human beings born pure and innocent, flies in the face of overwhelming scientific and anecdotal evidence that all human beings are born with a genetically-encoded array of survival instincts – primary impulses that are passionate in nature and that are experienced as feelings and emotions. In other words ‘the thinker’, or ego-self, is but the thin layer of icing on the cake of ‘the feeler’, the instinctual self – ‘me’ at my very core. There is a vast difference between what the Sages believed and the facts of the matter. This whole issue of instinctual passions was one of the things that really got me interested in actualism – I didn’t have to believe that the instinctual passions were genetically-encoded, I knew by my own experience that this was fact. I had children of my own and I had observed with my own eyes the emergence of unprovoked reflexive outbursts of antipathy as well as spontaneous bouts of sullenness, and I saw that this was common to all children. I could also clearly see the instinctual passions at work in adults and in humanity at large – indeed in the whole of the animal world, in all sentient creatures. The final clincher came when I started to be attentive to the instinctual passions in action, in myself, in real-time – be it fear, aggression, nurture or desire. Both the obligation to believe and the impulse to dis-believe went out the window as I was confronted with the choice of continuing to believe what the Sages believed or rolling up my sleeves and getting stuck into the immediate task at hand of ridding myself of malice and sorrow – in other words, daring to be happy and harmless in the world as-it-is, with people as-they-are. RESPONDENT: Chapter XX Characteristics of Satori according to the Zen Masters Page 169:
PETER: And thus a delusion is born out of an illusion, for according to the Zen Masters, Satori ‘is realized in the heart of a pseudo-identity’ and ‘it’s very reality is drawn from infinite and impersonal source in the depths’ – in other words ‘me’ at my core. The subsequent ‘elimination of all thought, all imagery, all memory-automatism of the past’, results in an identity that is so aggrandized that it imagines itself to be infinite and impersonal and thus feels itself to be God-like. In short, this is narcissism writ large, albeit carefully masqueraded as humility so as to gain the plaudits of the masses. You might notice that I am not focussing my ‘high powered linguistic microscope on tiny shades of meaning and become lost in the minutiae of stylistic differences’, but rather I am focussing on the broad and fundamental differences between spiritualism and actualism – in this case that spiritualism teaches the possibility of realizing that very reality of ‘me’ at my source is an ‘infinite and impersonal’ being, whereas actualism points out that ‘me’ at my core is an instinctive ‘being’ – a ‘being’ that will literally do anything, and believe anything, in order to survive. RESPONDENT: This interesting quote is taken from Comedie Psychologique by the writer Carlo Suares, apparently without reference to Zen thought. It is reproduced in ‘Living Zen’, chapter XX, page 172:
PETER: A classic description, if ever there was one, of the extreme act of dissociation that is necessary for anyone who aspires to become ‘supremely conscious’ in order that they can realize that they are ‘the Eternal’. You might notice that I’m not nit-picking words because the author has twice used phrases that unambiguously point to dissociation –
I’ll leave you to find out the difference between this quote that you offer as proof of the ‘remarkable similarity’ between spiritualism and actualism, and what actualism is about, after all it’s your presumption. All you need to do is go to the Actual Freedom home page, click on ‘How to Search the Web-site’, follow the instructions and type in the word ‘dissociation’. You will find a myriad of links that will reveal the unassailable gulf that exists between the spiritual practice of dissociation and the actualism method of becoming free of malice and sorrow in the world as-it-is, with people as-they-are. You might care to pause to read the last phrase again ‘in the world as-it-is, with people as-they-are’ – diametrically opposite to ‘‘me’ … ‘disassociating itself from everything’.
PETER: I thought to answer this post as well given that you have already dismissed Richard’s reply before he replied –
I see you are using the old ploy of offering up an argument whilst simultaneously denigrating the answerer – so much for having a sincere discussion. And just to add a little oomph to your stance you invoke the support of the royal ‘us’ – those whose focus is so broad that they blithely redefine the meaning of any words to suit their own purposes and fit their own beliefs – so much for having a sensible discussion. RESPONDENT: Well, Mr Peter-come-lately, since you’re late to the thread, I’ll explain something to you – I’ve already had my sincere discussion with Richard. He has unfolded his position and I find it totally unconvincing. I posted the ‘Living Zen’ quotes, not to engage in further discussion with Richard (pointless for both of us) but to inspire healthy doubt about Richards self proclaimed, historically unique claim to being the first human to ever achieve an actual freedom from the human condition. Mission accomplished. Adios! I’ve replied briefly to a few of your points but I’m not interesting in continuing further. PETER: It was clear from the start that you had but one mission on this list – and now that you see your mission accomplished you are out of here. Your idea of having a sincere discussion is somewhat different to mine. * PETER: It’s pertinent to point out that ancient Eastern spirituality teaches that the illusionary identity (‘I’ as ego only) is borne exclusively of the process of conditioning … whereas actualism establishes by observation and experimentation that the social/ instinctual identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is borne of the genetically-encoded instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: Big deal about nothing – instinctual passions are still conditioning. Evolutionary conditioning, in fact. There are others who say much the same thing. Read writings by David Bohm, for example. PETER: A quote will reveal what David Bohm saw as being the root cause of human malice and sorrow –
And another quote reveals the apparent source of this conviction –
I cannot find anywhere that David Bohm has mentioned the words ‘evolutionary conditioning’ or anything like these words let alone where he indicates that the instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow – all I could find made it patently clear that he lays the blame for the ills of humankind on thinking and not feelings. Given that you have made the claim, perhaps you could provide the evidence that any of the spiritual teachings mention ‘evolutionary conditioning’ … or did you just coin the term on the fly, as it were? * PETER: To summarize these differences – Eastern spirituality is archaic and superstition based, actualism is contemporary and scientifically based, RESPONDENT: Scientifically based? Being a scientist, I can’t say many scientists would agree. PETER: In matters that concern the search for the meaning of life every person, no matter what their culture, gender, inclinations or indoctrinations, remain convinced that the only alternative to materialism is the archaic superstition-based wisdom of spiritualism. * PETER: Eastern spirituality dabbles in the superficial layer of the social identity, actualism tackles the fundamental issue of the instinctual identity, RESPONDENT: Well I don’t take that at all from my readings from various sources. I take conditioning to mean all kinds of conditioning including that endowed by evolution. PETER: I await the evidence from your various sources to substantiate your claim that the spiritual teachings tackle the fundamental issue of the instinctual identity and that they propose eliminating the instinctual passions that are part and parcel of the genetically-encoded survival program. By the way, this survival program is not conditioning endowed by evolution over time – it is genetically encoded as an indivisible package in each and every human being born, i.e. it is not a progressive conditioning, it is an instantaneous condition. The instinctual program is the (human) condition and it is universal to every human being whereas social conditioning is individual in that it has slight cultural and gender variations. Whilst you can fiddle with conditioning, and if you become a practicing actualist you can eliminate practically all of it – the only way to end the condition itself – as in, become free of the human condition – is to cease being an instinctually-driven ‘being’. * RESPONDENT: Chapter XI Memory Habits and the Birth of the ‘I-process’ Page 116:
PETER: Not a word to be seen in this quote about the crucial role that the instinctual passions play in both forming and sustaining the parasitical entity that inhabits the flesh and blood body – RESPONDENT: I wouldn’t expect there to be. I can’t imagine that the writer would list every type of conditioning there is for this brief outline and nor would I expect him to use your particular terminology. PETER: Your argument would be more convincing had not the author specifically said that ‘consciousness of self is nothing other than a ‘secondary current’ formed by the ‘accumulation of memory’ and from this process ‘a ‘thinker’ is born’. In other words what he is saying is clearly not what actualism is saying. Why would he, along with all the other Sages and teachers and pundits, waste his time and his words skirting around the edge of the crux of the issue if indeed he did know ‘the crucial role that the instinctual passions play in both forming and sustaining the parasitical entity that inhabits the flesh and blood body’? * RESPONDENT: So if Satori is realized in the heart of a ‘pseudo-entity whose superficial aspects are personal and finite, the essence of its inspiration, of its very reality, is drawn from the infinite and impersonal source in the depths.’ PETER: And thus a delusion is born out of an illusion, for according to the Zen Masters Satori ‘is realized in the heart of a pseudo-identity’ and ‘its very reality is drawn from infinite and impersonal source in the depths’ – in other words ‘me’ at my core. RESPONDENT: How do you get ‘me’ at my core out of that? The quote says that the very reality is drawn from impersonal sources but realised in the heart of a pseudo-identity. PETER: Okay. I’ll rephrase my comment –
heart – ‘(The seat of) one’s inmost thoughts and secret feelings; the soul. (The seat of) spirit.’ Oxford Dictionary In an effort to make it more clear, what I am saying is that both the soul and the ego are illusionary. The soul however is significantly more substantive in that it is an instinctual program – it is species-specific which means that it is impersonal (at heart ‘I’ am humanity and humanity is ‘me’) whereas the ego is individualistic (‘I’ as persona or social identity exist only in relationship to other ‘beings’). To abandon an illusion in favour of a more substantial illusion is an act of delusion. * PETER: You might notice that I am not focussing my ‘high powered linguistic microscope on tiny shades of meaning and become lost in the minutiae of stylistic differences’, but rather I am focussing on the broad and fundamental differences between spiritualism and actualism – RESPONDENT: I still think it’s style over substance. You’re not very convincing. PETER: I’m not trying to convince you of anything. It is you who have come to this list with a mission to convince the list members that actualism is nothing but a new style of spiritualism. I’m simply pointing out the fact that the evidence you offer in support of your case is not at all convincing and that the differences between actualism and spiritualism are differences of substance, not style. I know well that this is difficult to grasp – it is not an easy thing to consider that there is something brand-new in human history – a discovery that draws a line across a whole field of human belief and endeavour and says ‘tried and failed’ – ‘time for a completely new approach’. In the last few years I had to do a similar thing when I decided I wanted to stop being a pen-and-ink architect and become a silicon-chip architect, or stop being a Neanderthal architect and become a 21st. Century architect as I termed it. For a while I kept my drawing board whilst I tried to learn CAD but eventually I came to realize that the only way I could learn something new was by taking the plunge and throwing out my old drawing board. Since then I haven’t looked back and I am so glad I took the plunge, as it were. RESPONDENT: The methods of Actualism offer interesting perspectives leading to the same freedom on offer elsewhere. The term ‘actual’ is just a re-branding. PETER: Re-branded, hey. Okay, let’s take a walk down that way then. Now presumably the reason that one would re-brand something would be to attract customers – put something old in a new wrapper, replete with a logo and some catchy words, put into motion an advertising program and sit back and wait for the gullible to take the bait. It’s a good theory and it’s what everybody else does but it only works if your product is the same as what everyone else is selling. However, if your product is indeed different, then those who want the old product will eventually go back to the old product whilst those few who are genuinely looking for something that is different think themselves lucky that they have found something that is indeed new. To give you a practical example, when I wrote my journal, Vineeto published it in paperback form with an eye-catching cover. I then took it to a local bookshop to see if they would stock it. One lady took a copy to read but gave it back to me saying that ‘while it was interesting … you are going too far’ – the ‘you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ objection. She realized that what I had written about was not spiritualism, but was something beyond spiritualism and she knew it was not for her customers. So much for re-branding. This mailing list also puts paid to your proposition. Whilst we have those who persist in believing that actualism is re-branded spiritualism there is an increasing amount of contributors who report that, after a good deal of initial difficulty, they now understand that actualism is not re-branded spiritualism. * PETER: (You might notice that I am not focussing my ‘high powered linguistic microscope on tiny shades of meaning and become lost in the minutiae of stylistic differences’, but rather I am focussing on the broad and fundamental differences between spiritualism and actualism) – in this case that spiritualism teaches the possibility of realizing that very reality of ‘me’ at my source is an ‘infinite and impersonal’ being, whereas actualism points out that ‘me’ at my core is an instinctive ‘being’ – a ‘being’ that will literally do anything, and believe anything, in order to survive. RESPONDENT: So how many actualists can dance on the head of a pin? PETER: … depends on how big the pin is? If a pin has a head why doesn’t it have legs? Can actualists dance? No? … I give up. * PETER: A classic description, if ever there was one, of the extreme act of dissociation that is necessary for anyone who aspires to become ‘supremely conscious’ in order that they can realize that they are ‘the Eternal’. You might notice that I’m not nit-picking words because the author has twice used phrases that unambiguously point to dissociation – RESPONDENT: That’s true. Is it important? I don’t think so. I guess it’s important if actualism lead to ‘the one true way’ to freedom, but I thinks those claims are inflated. PETER: Well it may not be important to you but I remember being staggered when I first became aware that Eastern spiritualism actively advocates dissociation and that the revered spiritual practices are practices designed to encourage and enhance dissociation. When it first struck me that meditation – sitting in a quiet place with eyes closed and retreating from the world of the senses in order to allow one’s mind to imagine all sorts of things – is in fact going ‘there’, the antithesis of being here in the world of the senses, I was astounded. I clearly saw that spiritualism was about retreating from, or dissociating from, being here, whereas actualism is about being here – being here doing whatever I am doing now, so much so that there is no separation, or distinction, between the doing of it and what’s being done.
PETER: It’s pertinent to point out that ancient Eastern spirituality teaches that the illusionary identity (‘I’ as ego only) is borne exclusively of the process of conditioning … whereas actualism establishes by observation and experimentation that the social/ instinctual identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is borne of the genetically- encoded instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: Big deal about nothing – instinctual passions are still conditioning. Evolutionary conditioning, in fact. There are others who say much the same thing. Read writings by David Bohm, for example. PETER: A quote will reveal what David Bohm saw as being the root cause of human malice and sorrow –
And another quote reveals the apparent source of this conviction – <snip> I cannot find anywhere that David Bohm has mentioned the words ‘evolutionary conditioning’ or anything like these words let alone where he indicates that the instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow – all I could find made it patently clear that he lays the blame for the ills of humankind on thinking and not feelings. Given that you have made the claim, perhaps you could provide the evidence that any of the spiritual teachings mention ‘evolutionary conditioning’ … or did you just coin the term on the fly, as it were? RESPONDENT: Actually he doesn’t separate thinking and feeling. In his book ‘Thought As A System’ he considers thought to be one aspect of a larger system that not only includes feelings in the body but the all the myriad of connections with the body and world at large. Put aside regular conceptual boundaries placed in the word thought (ie the idea that thought is only internal and ephemeral ‘whispers in the mind’) and consider it to be part of a larger whole. PETER: What you appear to be suggesting here is that if I ‘put aside regular conceptual boundaries placed in the word thought’ then I could consider it to ‘be part of a lager whole’, which presumably means that it includes the genetically-encoded instinctual passions. Therefore when David Bohm says that ‘the ultimate source of all these problems is in thought itself’, I am to assume he is saying that ‘the ultimate source of all these problems is in the genetically-encoded instinctual passions’? Are you for real? RESPONDENT: You can see that the movement of thought influences the brain, the body and the environment at large (buildings, roads, pollution, cultural influence, government etc) and that feedback returns into our bodies through the senses to make us feel and act in certain ways. PETER: The ‘larger whole’ – the ‘we all live in one big thought-system’ theory – still lays the blame for the ills of humankind at the feet of thinking and conditioning, not feelings borne of the instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: He considers the effect that evolution has had as well. PETER: Simply repeating a claim over and over does not make it a fact. Could you perchance provide some evidence where he David Bohm indicates that the genetically-encoded instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow and not that thought is the root cause? RESPONDENT: And please note that just because I quote or paraphrase someone does not mean that I endorse all they do and say. David Bohm spent far too much time and energy with the reprehensible J Krishnamurti. PETER: If I may point out, it was you who made the comment –
When I provided quotes that clearly indicated that Mr. Bohm specifically said that the ultimate source of all the problems that plague humanity is thought itself, you then offer a disclaimer that you are not prepared to endorse all that Mr. Bohm said. That puts an end to the possibility of any sensible discussion, hey? * PETER: I cannot find anywhere that David Bohm has mentioned the words ‘evolutionary conditioning’ or anything like these words let alone where he indicates that the instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow – all I could find made it patently clear that he lays the blame for the ills of humankind on thinking and not feelings. Given that you have made the claim, perhaps you could provide the evidence that any of the spiritual teachings mention ‘evolutionary conditioning’ … or did you just coin the term on the fly, as it were? RESPONDENT: Interesting person that No 58 mentioned a while back: John Wren-Lewis. Wren-Lewis has also been thinking about the effects of instinctual conditioning. Here’s a quote and reference:
However he does not come up with a system for dismantling the psychological survival-system, which is where Actualism is to be commended. PETER: For a start, there is no such thing as ‘instinctual conditioning’, a point I made clear in the last post and one which you chose to ignore. Secondly, Mr. Wren Lewis makes reference to what he terms a ‘psychological survival-system’, indicating that the survival-system is a mental process – and not a sequential process that is firstly physical, secondarily affective and only lastly cognitive. Not only does he not understand how the survival-system operates, he has no idea how it is passed from one generation to the next and it has apparently never occurred to him that it originated in the human species because the survival-system is common to all sentient animals. So much for Mr. Wren Lewis’ thinking about the effects of instinctual survival passions – he is doing no more than trotting out the Eastern spiritual party line that thinking and conditioning ‘cuts off so-called normal human consciousness from its roots in that other, impersonal consciousness’, that which is also known as God by whatever name. I can only assume that this will be another of those quotes you offer in support of your stance but then don’t necessarily endorse? * PETER: By the way, this survival program is not conditioning endowed by evolution over time – it is genetically encoded as an indivisible package in each and every human being born, i.e. it is not a progressive conditioning, it is an instantaneous condition. The instinctual program is the (human) condition and it is universal to every human being whereas social conditioning is individual in that it has slight cultural and gender variations. RESPONDENT: I was talking about evolutionary conditioning of a species, not an individual. PETER: Yes but the instinctual survival mechanism that gives rise to the instinctual passions (fear, aggression, nurture and desire) is universal to the human species – each and every human being is born with them. The instinctual survival mechanism is not conditioning – ‘evolutionary conditioning’ is something you have made up, it is not a fact. Social conditioning is somewhat individual and slightly varied but the instinctual survival mechanism – that which is the root cause of all human animosity and all human anguish – is universal in that it is genetically-encoded within all the sentient animal species and not just the human animal species. It’s not for nothing that it is said that ‘he fought like a tiger’ or ‘she squealed like a pig’ … or that ‘they acted like sheep’. RESPONDENT: It’s true to say that the genetic coding is supplied complete to each individual. PETER: Oh, good. Can we agree then that the instinctual survival mechanism – that which gives rise to the instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire in human beings – ‘is supplied complete’ to each and every member of the human species? Do realize that this is no little thing to agree to because it is completely at odds with all of the spiritual teachings that have it that we are born innocent beings and only corrupted by conditioning or that we are all blank slate souls who have to suffer the trails of being trapped in a corporeal body in an alien physical world? RESPONDENT: The conditioning, however, takes huge amounts of time and works on species. PETER: Well if you can see the sense – and accept the scientific evidence – that the instinctual survival passions are genetically-encoded and as such are ‘supplied complete’ to each and every member of the human species – then can also probably see that conditioning – be it ethnic, racial, social, cultural, religious or whatever – is what happens to each and every human being after birth? Let me put it another way. The instinctual passions are universal to all human beings – there is no difference between the fear a Greek woman feels or the fear a Liberian man feels, there is no difference to the anger a Roman centurion felt to that which a Stone Age girl felt. In other words, whilst there are undoubtedly ethnic, racial, social, cultural and religious differences between these people, the feelings they feel and the passions they are driven by are universal to all human beings. * RESPONDENT: Chapter XI Memory Habits and the Birth of the ‘I-process’ Page 116:
PETER: Not a word to be seen in this quote about the crucial role that the instinctual passions play in both forming and sustaining the parasitical entity that inhabits the flesh and blood body – RESPONDENT: I wouldn’t expect there to be. I can’t imagine that the writer would list every type of conditioning there is for this brief outline and nor would I expect him to use your particular terminology. PETER: Your argument would be more convincing had not the author specifically said that ‘consciousness of self is nothing other than a ‘secondary current’ formed by the ‘accumulation of memory’ and from this process ‘a ‘thinker’ is born’. In other words what he is saying is clearly not what actualism is saying. Why would he, along with all the other Sages and teachers and pundits, waste his time and his words skirting around the edge of the crux of the issue if indeed he did know ‘the crucial role that the instinctual passions play in both forming and sustaining the parasitical entity that inhabits the flesh and blood body’? RESPONDENT: I think it’s quite right that Actualism stresses the role of genetic inheritance. You have no argument with me on that. PETER: Are you clear that what you are agreeing to … because what actualism stresses (that the genetically-encoded instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow) is diametrically opposite to all of what all of spiritualism teaches (that human beings are born innocent and only corrupted by conditioning or that we are all born as blank-slate souls who then have to suffer the trails of being trapped in a corporeal body in an alien physical world before a final release ‘when the body dies’). As I said before, this is no little thing to agree to. * RESPONDENT: I still think it’s style over substance. You’re not very convincing. PETER: I’m not trying to convince you of anything. It is you who have come to this list with a mission to convince the list members that actualism is nothing but a new style of spiritualism. RESPONDENT: No, that’s not the case. I came here to question Richard about his inflated claim to be the one and only (so far) discoverer of an actual freedom from the human condition. PETER: If you care to look back on your first posts to this list it is obvious that you came to challenge and not to question. You came convinced that actualism was nothing but re-branded spiritualism – something you made clear in your second post to this list. And by your third post you were not only talking for yourself but for others (‘I and many others have had our bullshit detectors activated’) and on several occasions you used the words ‘we’ and ‘us’ indicating that you were speaking on behalf of others. RESPONDENT: As a philosophy, I think the teachings on the actualism website have some claim to uniqueness but only in emphasis and not in content. PETER: Your thought about actualism is wasted because it is based on your assumption about what actualism is and not on what actualism is in fact about. Actualism is neither a philosophy – it is not about the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of gaining more knowledge, it’s about gaining a personal and experiential understanding of how the human condition operates in order to facilitate one’s own freedom from the human condition – nor is it a teaching – it is not about sitting at the feet of a Guru and imbibing his or her wisdom, it is about the passing on of information about the only thus-far-ever-known, thus-far-ever- verified and thus-far-ever-documented method of becoming free of the human condition to those who have sufficient motivation to want to become free of the human condition themselves. It’s as simple as that really. * PETER: I know well that this is difficult to grasp – it is not an easy thing to consider that there is something brand-new in human history – a discovery that draws a line across a whole field of human belief and endeavour and says ‘tried and failed’ – ‘time for a completely new approach’. In the last few years I had to do a similar thing when I decided I wanted to stop being a pen-and-ink architect and become a silicon-chip architect, or stop being a Neanderthal architect and become a 21st. Century architect as I termed it. For a while I kept my drawing board whilst I tried to learn CAD but eventually I came to realize that the only way I could learn something new was by taking the plunge and throwing out my old drawing board. Since then I haven’t looked back and I am so glad I took the plunge, as it were. I’m simply pointing out the fact that the evidence you offer in support of your case is not at all convincing and that the differences between actualism and spiritualism are differences of substance, not style. RESPONDENT: Well, it might not convince you (but I wouldn’t expect it to) but other minds may be inclined to investigate further. PETER: Well that’s clear. The reason you have to write to actualists on this list is to convince other list members that actualism is nothing but a new style of spiritualism, i.e. that actualism is a fraud, a con, a sham. * PETER: When it first struck me that meditation – sitting in a quiet place with eyes closed and retreating from the world of the senses in order to allow one’s mind to imagine all sorts of things – is in fact going ‘there’, the antithesis of being here in the world of the senses, I was astounded. I clearly saw that spiritualism was about retreating from, or dissociating from, being here, whereas actualism is about being here – being here doing whatever I am doing now, so much so that there is no separation, or distinction, between the doing of it and what’s being done. RESPONDENT: Whatever your opinions are about meditation being a tool for realisation you cannot deny the health benefits of stress reduction to pick one example. PETER: Of course not. Dissociation is a well-known way of coping with stress and its relative effectiveness is well-documented. I practiced dissociation for 17 years and it was a darn sight better than being a participant in the senseless, grim and desperate battle for survival that goes on in the real world. Then I serendipitously came across someone who had managed to free himself of the human condition in toto – both from the grim real world and the dissociative spiritual world. I found the offer too tempting and my inclination to dissociate fell by the wayside the more I was happy being here and the more I was able to live and work harmoniously with all of my fellow human beings. In other words, I went for the third alternative and it worked.
PETER: It’s pertinent to point out that ancient Eastern spirituality teaches that the illusionary identity (‘I’ as ego only) is borne exclusively of the process of conditioning … whereas actualism establishes by observation and experimentation that the social/ instinctual identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is borne of the genetically- encoded instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: Big deal about nothing – instinctual passions are still conditioning. Evolutionary conditioning, in fact. There are others who say much the same thing. Read writings by David Bohm, for example. PETER: A quote will reveal what David Bohm saw as being the root cause of human malice and sorrow –
And another quote reveals the apparent source of this conviction –
I cannot find anywhere that David Bohm has mentioned the words ‘evolutionary conditioning’ or anything like these words let alone where he indicates that the instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow – all I could find made it patently clear that he lays the blame for the ills of humankind on thinking and not feelings. Given that you have made the claim, perhaps you could provide the evidence that any of the spiritual teachings mention ‘evolutionary conditioning’ … or did you just coin the term on the fly, as it were? RESPONDENT: That’s my term but and I fail to see why a teaching has to match the terminology exactly before equivalence can be seen. In a fair-minded person this is not a problem. PETER: So if someone says that thought is the root cause of human sorrow and misery and someone else says that the genetically-encoded instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow you, being ‘a fair-minded person’, claim that the statements mean the same thing, i.e. they are equivalent. By your logic, thought and feeling are different terminology that describe the same thing. I wonder if this is your experience as it is certainly not mine and it is certainly not the experience of others. Just last night I was watching a TV documentary in which a soldier in the GW1 was talking about his first experience in combat. He described the first time he killed an enemy soldier and he said there was an immediate rush of exhilaration, which was followed a half second later by a feeling of shame. He was most specific about the half second as he repeated it with hand gestures to indicate that these were distinctly separate reactions, one immediately following the other. I could relate to what he was saying as I have also experienced the primal rush of the instinctual passions – including the thrill of killing although I have never killed – as well as the split second later feeling-fed thoughts, the socially-conditioned response. Real-life anecdotes evidence such as this one confirm that instinctual reactions and their associated passions are primary and that thought-related reactions and their associated socially-conditioned feelings are secondary and that sensible thought doesn’t even get a leg in, as it were. This is yet again evidence that the instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow and not thought, as Eastern spirituality would have it. RESPONDENT: No 30 has kindly supplied an interesting quote from David Bohm. I’ll reproduce it here so that the fair-minded amongst us can see some equivalence to your preferred actualistic cliché:
PETER: Again the quote says that thought and human conditioning is the problem – not the genetically-encoded instinctual passions and the human condition itself. * RESPONDENT: Actually he [Bohm] doesn’t separate thinking and feeling. In his book ‘Thought As A System’ he considers thought to be one aspect of a larger system that not only includes feelings in the body but the all the myriad of connections with the body and world at large. Put aside regular conceptual boundaries placed in the word thought (ie the idea that thought is only internal and ephemeral ‘whispers in the mind’) and consider it to be part of a larger whole. PETER: What you appear to be suggesting here is that if I ‘put aside regular conceptual boundaries placed in the word thought’ then I could consider it to ‘be part of a lager whole’, which presumably means that it includes the genetically-encoded instinctual passions. Therefore when David Bohm says that ‘the ultimate source of all these problems is in thought itself’, I am to assume he is saying that ‘the ultimate source of all these problems is in the genetically-encoded instinctual passions’? Are you for real? RESPONDENT: Yes, I am for real. You actualists have a real problem with deviations to your preferred lingusitic patternings. You took the logical step and then got all incredulous. PETER: What you are saying in support of your long-running case that spiritualism is saying the same thing as actualism is the word ‘thought’ means the same thing as the words’ instinctual passions’ because I should consider them to ‘be part of a larger whole’. To me that is nonsense because words do have meanings and the reason we use words is so that we can accurately communicate meaning to others. As an example, as I sit here at the computer I am typing these words on a keyboard and watching the words appear on the CRT screen – both are part of a larger whole called a computer but each are distinct and different components. You might have noticed that when I used the word ‘keyboard’, the word accurately describes something that anyone familiar with computers would know, i.e. they would not assume that I was talking about a CRT screen or a printer. Now if I can move this discussion from the intellectual to the experiential – what I am saying is that there is a distinct difference between thought and the deep-seated feelings of malice and sorrow that are the product of the instinctual passions. If, in your experience, you cannot make such a distinction, then you will fail to understand that what actualism is saying is distinctly different to what the Eastern spiritualists have been saying for millennia. RESPONDENT: I would have said ‘the ultimate source of all these problems is in thought which is both informed by and feeds back into the genetically-encoded instinctual passions’. PETER: Well, the soldier who experienced the rush of the instinctual passions a half-second before feeling-fed thought kicked in would not agree with you and nor can I because I have experienced the fact that the instinctual passions are the primary reaction and thinking or rational thought only has a chance to feed back later. And not only that but the brain’s circuitry is such that the feedback loop is biased in that the instinctual reactions and subsequent emotional responses are seemingly stronger and quicker circuitry than those that carry the cognitive reaction and subsequent reasoned response. Whilst you say ‘the ultimate source of all these problems is in thought which is both informed by and feeds back into the genetically-encoded instinctual passions’ actualism says, and LeDoux amongst others confirms, that ‘the ultimate source of all these problems is in genetically-encoded instinctual passions which are not only primary ‘quick and dirty’ reactions but they also feed back into thinking such that reasoned responses, sensibility, sensitivity and clear thinking have little if any chance to operate’. If you think that you and I are talking about the same thing, I can only suggest getting in touch with your feelings and observe them in operation because that’s how I came to experientially understand the difference between thinking and feeling. * RESPONDENT: You can see that the movement of thought influences the brain, the body and the environment at large (buildings, roads, pollution, cultural influence, government etc) and that feedback returns into our bodies through the senses to make us feel and act in certain ways. PETER: The ‘larger whole’ – the ‘we all live in one big thought-system’ theory – still lays the blame for the ills of humankind at the feet of thinking and conditioning, not feelings borne of the instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: Come on, you’re not playing fair. If you wish to critique the ‘we all live in one big thought-system’ theory then you must respect the internal logic, even if you believe the assumptions to be flawed. PETER: Why must I respect the internal logic – I gave up believing Eastern spiritualism years ago. The internal ‘logic’ of spiritualism is a crock and an utterly ‘self’-centred crock at that. James Randy amongst others offered substantial prize money to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal feats – including the claims that thought can influence matter – and no-one has thus far succeeded. As someone who has worked in the building industry for years I have yet to hear of anyone who has evidence that ‘the movement of thought influences … buildings’. I have had people tell me that a house should be sited on a certain position on a block of land because of an imaginary ‘energy line’ that runs under the ground and that a particular internal arrangements of the house will bring either good or bad ‘Chi’ if that’s what you mean by thought influencing matter, but I don’t believe in superstition. RESPONDENT: You’re not playing fair when you conclude that the ‘we all live in one big thought-system’ theory ‘still lays the blame for the ills of humankind at the feet of thinking and conditioning, not feelings borne of the instinctual passions’. PETER: You keep coming up with these spiritual theories and then, when I don’t agree with them, you accuse me of not playing fair. I take it that a fair game to you is one in which I would sit here saying ‘Yes, No 59 … yes No 59… oh yes No 59’. If this is your idea of a fair game I can only suggest you stop playing it with me and start playing it in front of the mirror – that way you would not only have a captive audience but no doubt an admiring one as well. RESPONDENT: The theory does not say that. In this theory you can’t separate the feelings borne of instinctual passions from the larger system of thought. PETER: This theory only appeals to those who are either incapable of, or are not interested, in making a distinction between feeling and thought … whereas I, along with others, can and do make a distinction. RESPONDENT: The instinctual passions are an important part of the larger whole, being drivers and reactors to other elaborately interconnected parts of the thought system. PETER: From what I understand of the brain’s operation – both intellectually through reading LeDoux and others and experientially by being attentive as to how this brain and other brains operate – there are no ‘elaborately interconnected parts of the thought system’, it’s all very simple really. As I said above – ‘the ultimate source … is in genetically-encoded instinctual passions which are not only primary ‘quick and dirty’ reactions but they also feed back into thinking such that reasoned responses, sensibility, sensitivity and clear thinking have little if any chance to operate’. Once I understood this intellectually I then ditched the ‘‘we all live in one big thought-system’ theory’ and all other spiritual concepts and started to find out for myself the experiential evidence that this is so. In short, I started to get in touch with my own feelings and passions and began to observe them in action – something that men, in particular, have been conditioned not to do. * RESPONDENT: He [Bohm] considers the effect that evolution has had as well. PETER: Simply repeating a claim over and over does not make it a fact. Could you perchance provide some evidence where he David Bohm indicates that the genetically-encoded instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow and not that thought is the root cause? RESPONDENT: I see that you are looking for something that I’m not asking of Dr Bohm. You are demanding that Dr Bohm use your terminology before you will recognise any equivalence. I’ve not claimed that there would be a one-to-one relationship to actualism. I’ve suggested that other people have been thinking along similar lines. PETER: Okay. You have again posted a quote in this post that supposedly demonstrate equivalence –
And yet it is clear that the instinctual passions are genetically-encoded in every normal healthy brain, i.e. people with undamaged brain cells feel fear, aggression, nurture and desire. There is no equivalence here – one is a myth, the other is a fact, a fact that has been the subject of historical denial but one that is gradually being confirmed by more and more empirical evidence. RESPONDENT: I’ve agreed that Actualism does a good job in asserting the importance of inherited instinctual conditioning but that the notion is not original to actualism. Here’s another quote:
PETER: I assume the reason you have posted this quote is because the author mentions the words ‘physical heredity’ – even though he doesn’t make plain what he means by the term. Nevertheless, as I read the relevant part of this quote the author says ‘our physical heredity ... bear(s) the stamp of false values’. If I go along with your assumption that ‘physical heredity’ means genetically-encoded instinctual passions then what you assume he is saying is ‘the genetically-encoded instinctual passions bear the stamp of false values’. So if fear, aggression, nurture and desire are ‘false values’ then ‘fundamental transformation’ would presumably occur when those false values were replaced by authentic or true values – which in the spiritual traditions means fear is replaced by the feeling of omnipotence, aggression is replaced by the ideal of pacifism, nurture is aggrandized into a feeling of Divine or unconditional love and desire is disguised as Divine gratitude or humility. All you have posted is yet another recipe for self-righteousness and this bears no equivalence at all with what is on offer hereabouts. RESPONDENT: Here’s a source that DOES use your preferred terminology. You won’t like their conclusions (nor do I) and you will dismiss then as ‘spiritual’ but it shows that others are thinking along actualist lines:
Wow. Look at that. They talk about the human condition AND instinctive self! PETER: No equivalence at all. When the author says ‘the intellect evolved to the level where it could take control from the instincts’ he has got it completely wrong. How does he explain the fact that the ‘evolutionary development’ that produced homo sapiens (literally ‘man the wise’) occurred at least 100,000 years ago and possibly even 400,000 years ago and yet war, murder, rape, torture, child abuse, domestic violence, suicide, depression, corruption, superstition and the likes are still endemic within the human condition – so much for the intellect taking ‘control from the instincts’. A lot of people write a lot of things about the instincts – but none say that it is possible, let alone even desirable, to eliminate the instinctual passions … in fact human beings are mightily proud of being ‘passionate beings’. * RESPONDENT: And please note that just because I quote or paraphrase someone does not mean that I endorse all they do and say. David Bohm spent far too much time and energy with the reprehensible J Krishnamurti. PETER: If I may point out, it was you who made the comment –
When I provided quotes that clearly indicated that Mr. Bohm specifically said that the ultimate source of all the problems that plague humanity is thought itself, you then offer a disclaimer that you are not prepared to endorse all that Mr. Bohm said. That puts an end to the possibility of any sensible discussion, hey? RESPONDENT: You put pay to discussion with feeble conclusions like that. PETER: It was your failure to stand by the evidence you are offering in order to prove your point that actualism is nothing other than re-branded spiritualism, i.e. that it is not new, which led me to this conclusion. If you stop providing evidence that you are not prepared to stand by, and start to provide some that you are prepared to stand by, then we can have a sensible discussion. In other words, it’s high time you stopped bluffing and started to play your trump cards – if you had any, that is. RESPONDENT: In a previous point I said that Bohm would regard instinctual passions to be a part of the whole system of thought, so if Bohm sheets home the blame to thought you can be sure he includes a very wide section of experience including instinctual passions. PETER: Why should I assume that he said something when he didn’t say it? Or more to the point, why do you assume that he said something when he didn’t say it? RESPONDENT: That’s not something I ‘disclaim away’ from. My disclaimer was in defence of your previous propensity to attribute my complete agreement with my quotes and misunderstanding the purpose of my quotations. I am demonstrating that other people are thinking in the same direction as actualists. You are trying to suggest that unless people use the same terminology as expressed in actualist clichés then they can’t even be remotely thinking along actualist lines. It seems that you actualists hate being anything but totally unique and you’re prepared to argue at great length to be so. Why is that so? PETER: If I may point out, you are the one who has subscribed to this mailing list and you are the one who says that being free of the human condition is not unique and that actualism is nothing but re-branded spiritualism. All I have done is respond to your objections and take a clear look at the evidence you have provided in support of your claims. Why did I respond to your post at some length? Because I was once in your position and Richard took the time and made the effort to explain to me the difference between an actual freedom from the human condition and the altered states of consciousness that are revered in the spiritual world as well as sharing his expertise as to how he became free of the human condition. And it wasn’t a quick thing to do. It took a lot of time and effort on my part to get the gist of what he was saying – that an actual freedom from the human condition is unique – and the only way I could understand that it was unique was to throw out my spiritual beliefs, exactly as I had to throw out my drawing board before I could really get to grips with using a computer to draw, instead of a pen with ink in it. And whilst you have indicated in this post as well as in a post you sent one minute after this post that you are ‘done on this list’ I have nevertheless replied because what I write may also be of use to others on the list as well as to you. RESPONDENT: I’d say that your little uniqueness sensitivity points to an underlying insecurity. PETER: The marvellous thing about being virtually free of malice and sorrow is that I am no longer plagued by the insecurities others tell me they suffer from. Neither am I plagued by insecurity or doubt when I respond to posts on the list because I can stand by what I write because I write from my own experience, I don’t rely on the borrowed wisdom of others. RESPONDENT: Must be hard being in a tiny minority, holding all the answers with so few people listening and being so misunderstood. PETER: I have always been a minority in that I have always been on my own presumably from the time I was led by the hand to the school yard for the first time, although I have no memory of the day. It’s taken me a long time to come to acknowledge the fact and to be comfortable with the fact to the point of thoroughly enjoying my own company as it were. As for holding all the answers, I don’t pretend to, nor am I interested in, nor could I possibly do so. But when it comes to how to become happy and harmless I am an expert on the subject and I am only too happy to respond to those who write to me telling me they think and feel this is neither desirable nor possible. RESPONDENT: Looking at the website I can see great ideas floating in a vast sea of effusive, wordy turbulence. PETER: If that’s the case then it’s clear why you keep saying that you are ‘done on this list’. RESPONDENT: I see this is an expression of wonder and enthusiasm but I also see a counter current of wordcraft designed to allow no deviation. Linguistic excess as a bulwark against insecurity perhaps. The actualist path may be wondrous but it’s not wide. PETER: The actualism path is wide for those who fully launch themselves upon it; it’s just that everybody else has written a sign ‘Do not enter here’ over the entrance … and there are plenty of spiritualists milling around waving red warning flags at the start of the path so as to warn the ‘fool-hardy’ from taking the plunge. * RESPONDENT: Interesting person that No 58 mentioned a while back: John Wren-Lewis. Wren-Lewis has also been thinking about the effects of instinctual conditioning. Here’s a quote and reference:
However he does not come up with a system for dismantling the psychological survival-system, which is where Actualism is to be commended. PETER: For a start, there is no such thing as ‘instinctual conditioning’, a point I made clear in the last post and one which you chose to ignore. RESPONDENT: Ah yes. The actualist aversion to linguistic equivalence. Cut me some slack and tolerate some ‘thesaurus drift’, as it were. Substitute your preferred actualist cliché. PETER: You can bluster all you want but you have again ignored the fact that there is no such thing as ‘instinctual conditioning’ – the instinctual passions are genetically encoded as one cohesive package, they are not a matter of conditioning because the word conditioning means something that happens over time. Contrary to popular spiritual belief, words are not meaningless … and nor is thinking the root of all Evil, for that matter. * PETER: Secondly, Mr. Wren Lewis makes reference to what he terms a ‘psychological survival-system’, indicating that the survival-system is a mental process – and not a sequential process that is firstly physical, secondarily affective and only lastly cognitive. RESPONDENT: Wren-Lewis doesn’t want to speculate on the origin of the psychological survival-system but you think you have it sussed. PETER: Yep. And not only intellectually, but experientially as well. Unlike Mr. Wren-Lewis, I was interested enough to find out for myself the nuts and bolts of how the instinctual passions inevitably give rise to malice and sorrow and how they prevent the free operation of benign thinking and considerate action. RESPONDENT: It’s only a mental process you say, always was, always will be, thus implicitly extending Wren-Lewis’s words into a domain that he doesn’t want to speculate in. PETER: Your comment is a sure sign that you don’t read what I say. If you care to read again what I said you will see that I put mental (cognitive) last on the list and it’s a very poor last at that. The instinctual passions are passions and passions are affective in nature, they are not a mental process. Have you ever heard the expression ‘I suddenly had a fit of rage’ or ‘I found myself in the grip of jealousy’ or ‘I instantly fell in love’ or ‘I fell into a pit of despair’ or ‘I was overwhelmed with grief’ or ‘I was immediately gripped by fear’, or ‘I wanted … with all my heart’. Contrary to what some men think – these are passionate reactions, not mental processes at work. RESPONDENT: [It’s only a mental process you say, always was, always will be, thus implicitly extending Wren-Lewis’s words into a domain that he doesn’t want to speculate in.] Well if you can do that then so can I. The quote implies that the psychological survival-system is inherited somehow – perhaps it’s genetic and thus quite physical, affective and cognitive. PETER: Your speculation only proves that you are as disinterested in finding out the facts as Mr. Wren-Lewis was. * PETER: Not only does he not understand how the survival-system operates, he has no idea how it is passed from one generation to the next and it has apparently never occurred to him that it originated in the human species because the survival-system is common to all sentient animals. RESPONDENT: Yes. Very good. Perhaps you should contact John Wren-Lewis and further his thinking in this area. I’m sure he’d be sympathetic since you’re both thinking in the same direction, but you guys have gone further. No argument from me about that. PETER: But that’s the whole thrust of your adversarial stance on this mailing list – it was the very reason you came to this list in the first place – you do argue with the fact that we have gone further than the spiritualists have gone. You have done nothing but rile against the fact that someone has found something new in human history – something that takes the whole matter of the nature of human consciousness into a field that the revered ancient spiritualists had neither the wit, nor the interest, nor the daring to investigate. * PETER: So much for Mr. Wren Lewis’ thinking about the effects of instinctual survival passions – he is doing no more than trotting out the Eastern spiritual party line that thinking and conditioning ‘cuts off so-called normal human consciousness from its roots in that other, impersonal consciousness’, that which is also known as God by whatever name. I can only assume that this will be another of those quotes you offer in support of your stance but then don’t necessarily endorse? RESPONDENT: Tut tut. You’ve falsely labelled me there. I printed this quote to show that others have been thinking up your tree. Same cat, different dogs barking. PETER: Not the same cat at all. Mr. Wren-Lewis thinks that thought and human conditioning is the problem whereas actualism reveals that the problem is the genetically-encoded instinctual passions and the human condition itself. * PETER: By the way, this survival program is not conditioning endowed by evolution over time – it is genetically encoded as an indivisible package in each and every human being born, i.e. it is not a progressive conditioning, it is an instantaneous condition. The instinctual program is the (human) condition and it is universal to every human being whereas social conditioning is individual in that it has slight cultural and gender variations. RESPONDENT: I was talking about evolutionary conditioning of a species, not an individual. PETER: Yes but the instinctual survival mechanism that gives rise to the instinctual passions (fear, aggression, nurture and desire) is universal to the human species – each and every human being is born with them. The instinctual survival mechanism is not conditioning – ‘evolutionary conditioning’ is something you have made up, it is not a fact. RESPONDENT: So none of your books endorse the term ‘evolutionary conditioning’? So what if I ‘made it up’? You make up whole sentences. PETER: I don’t ‘endorse the term ‘evolutionary conditioning’ for the simple reason that ‘evolutionary conditioning’ is a not a fact RESPONDENT: Let me define the meaning for you – ‘naturally selected patterns imprinted across entire species, that guide the behaviour and appearance of individuals’. PETER: Nice try, but you have again ignored the fact that there is no such thing as ‘evolutionary conditioning’ – the instinctual passions are genetically encoded as one cohesive package and they are not a matter of conditioning because the word conditioning means something that happens over time. * RESPONDENT: It’s true to say that the genetic coding is supplied complete to each individual. PETER: Oh, good. Can we agree then that the instinctual survival mechanism – that which gives rise to the instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire in human beings – ‘is supplied complete’ to each and every member of the human species? RESPONDENT: Hey, I never disagreed with that! PETER: Then why do you insist on using the word ‘conditioning’ which means something that happens over time. And not only that, you continue to post quotes from spiritualists who also believe that conditioning is the problem and not the ‘supplied complete’ condition itself. * PETER: Do realize that this is no little thing to agree to because it is completely at odds with all of the spiritual teachings that have it that we are born innocent beings and only corrupted by conditioning or that we are all blank slate souls who have to suffer the trails of being trapped in a corporeal body in an alien physical world? RESPONDENT: Well it’s not hard for a person whose early exposure to spirituality taught them that they bear the stain of original sin. PETER: But that’s a fairy tale and a grim onerous one at that. To compare the idea of a Creator God who condemns human beings to be born malicious and sorrowful with the fact that it is the genetically-encoded instinctual passions that cause human malice and sorrow is nonsense. How you can reconcile agreeing to both is beyond me. * RESPONDENT: The conditioning, however, takes huge amounts of time and works on species. PETER: Well if you can see the sense – and accept the scientific evidence – that the instinctual survival passions are genetically-encoded and as such are ‘supplied complete’ to each and every member of the human species – then can also probably see that conditioning – be it ethnic, racial, social, cultural, religious or whatever – is what happens to each and every human being after birth? Let me put it another way. The instinctual passions are universal to all human beings – there is no difference between the fear a Greek woman feels or the fear a Liberian man feels, there is no difference to the anger a Roman centurion felt to that which a Stone Age girl felt. In other words, whilst there are undoubtedly ethnic, racial, social, cultural and religious differences between these people, the feelings they feel and the passions they are driven by are universal to all human beings. RESPONDENT: Yes. Well put. PETER: And how you can reconcile agreeing that the instinctual survival passions are genetically-encoded and as such are ‘supplied complete’ to each and every member of the human species with your continued use of the word ‘conditioning’ and your continued posting of quotes that insist that thinking is the problem is also beyond me. * RESPONDENT: I think it’s quite right that Actualism stress the role of genetic inheritance. You have no argument with me on that. PETER: Are you clear that what you are agreeing to … because what actualism stresses (that the genetically-encoded instinctual passions are the root cause of human malice and sorrow) is diametrically opposite to all of what all of spiritualism teaches (that human beings are born innocent and only corrupted by conditioning or that we are all born as blank-slate souls who then have to suffer the trails of being trapped in a corporeal body in an alien physical world before a final release ‘when the body dies’). RESPONDENT: I’ll cut you some slack here – you don’t mean ALL spiritualism. Think ‘original sin’. 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: As I said before, this is no little thing to agree to. RESPONDENT: Seems very natural to me. PETER: I can only suggest you do a bit more thinking about what it is you are agreeing to and what it is you are not agreeing with – it might help sort out the confusion you seem to have in making a distinction between what ancient spiritualism has always been saying and what modern-day actualism is on about. * RESPONDENT: I still think it’s style over substance. You’re not very convincing. PETER: I’m not trying to convince you of anything. It is you who have come to this list with a mission to convince the list members that actualism is nothing but a new style of spiritualism. No, that’s not the case. I came here to question Richard about his inflated claim to be the one and only (so far) discoverer of an actual freedom from the human condition. If you care to look back on your first posts to this list it is obvious that you came to challenge and not to question. You came convinced that actualism was nothing but re-branded spiritualism – something you made clear in your second post to this list. And by your third post you were not only talking for yourself but for others (‘I and many others have had our bullshit detectors activated’) and on several occasions you used the words ‘we’ and ‘us’ indicating that you were speaking on behalf of others. RESPONDENT: ‘Challenge’ and ‘question’ – in this context it’s the same thing for me. Inflated claims need to be challenged. You actualists have scientific pretensions so why should it bother you to be challenged vigorously? PETER: Contrary to what you feel, I’m not bothered at all and rather than find your challenges to be vigorous they appear to be are getting weaker and weaker the closer you get to the exit door. As for ‘inflated claims need to be challenged’ you have previously said in this post –
It seems that you do not object to the fact that actualism has ‘gone further’ than spiritualism but you do object that actualism has gone so far as to make all of the olde-time religions and all of the revered spiritual teachings completely and utterly redundant. Why not throw out the old if the new is better? People do use electric lights and not oil lamps nowadays, people do use motor vehicles to get around and not horses and carts, people do use email and not snail mail when they can, people do use the alternative of modern medicine when ‘traditional’ healing methods fail to produce results, and so on. In the same vein, I figured if the old methods of becoming free didn’t produce results I would abandon the old and try the new. And the reason I write to others is to tell them that I found that the new method works. RESPONDENT: That’s what you can expect in scientific quarters. PETER: Indeed, there are some adventurous scientists and engineers who are always on the look out for better ways of doing things, who are always open to new ways of looking at things, who are always on the lookout to ditch the old and try out the new. Then there are others who stick with the old ways no matter what, who resent having to change with the times and who desperately cling to the status quo. Actualism is for the adventurous. RESPONDENT: Not one of you actualists has stated by what mechanism I can discover that Richard was the first and only. You’re quite right to tell me to do the experiential work but this can only tell me that there exists an actual freedom from the human condition. It cannot tell me that Richard was first. Unless you are suggesting that a glowing Richard in glowing sandals will beckon me through a tunnel of light and reveal all at the time of identity erasure. PETER: If you were prepared to do the experiential work of discovering how your own psyche is programmed to operate then you would discover that actualism not only goes further than spiritualism but that it goes so far as to make spiritualism completely and utterly redundant. Then you would know by your own experience – i.e. not having to rely on the words of others – that actualism is brand new in human history. And then you would know that somebody had to be the first to discover that an actual freedom from the human condition is possible … and then you would sit back and marvel at the serendipity of having been one of the few who was curious enough to have been on the lookout for such a person and such a discovery. * RESPONDENT: As a philosophy, I think the teachings on the actualism website have some claim to uniqueness but only in emphasis and not in content. PETER: Your thought about actualism is wasted because it is based on your assumption about what actualism is and not on what actualism is in fact about. RESPONDENT: So I read the words on the website and yet I have no basis to draw any conclusions at all? Why then waste so many words? Perhaps you mean I’m not reading ‘fundamentally’ enough for you. PETER: Not at all. I always recommend taking the words on the web-site at face value. This doesn’t mean you have to believe what is written but it does mean that you need to take the time and make the effort to understand what the words in fact mean – that’s what ‘taking the words at face value’ means. * RESPONDENT: Well, it might not convince you (but I wouldn’t expect it to) but other minds may be inclined to investigate further. PETER: Well that’s clear. The reason you have to write to actualists on this list is to convince other list members that actualism is nothing but a new style of spiritualism, i.e. that actualism is a fraud, a con, a sham. RESPONDENT: Not quite on the target there, a little too either/or really. I was hoping to get some frank discussion, one that would potentially reveal some possible misunderstandings on my part. When it became clear that the actualist language could admit no deviation and that rigidity was the order of thinking here, I became fascinated as to how it would unfold. I hope that others can see what I see. It’s interesting, in a linguistic-car-crash kind of way. I find the juxtaposition of genuinely useful contemplative material and unyielding faith in Richard the First to be a most cacophonous composition. As ever, I will take what is useful and move on. Richard and other purveyors of freedom tell me this – to become free, it’s not necessary to undo every last piece of conditioning or to attain perfection. Some bad programming always seems to remain circulating in these guys. In Richard’s case, he believes his own press and has a blind spot to his inflated claim to be the historically unique, first person to ever become actually free of the human condition. What a dazzling deception to hold in the midst of such freedom. What a magnificently aggrandised sense of self to hold in a land where identities are deleted in toto. Toto? I must be Dorothy! There’s no place like home! There’s no place like home! Richard is the Wizard! Come out from behind the microphone, Richard ;-) PETER: I take it that that is another of your ‘I’m done on this list’ raves so I won’t bother to make comment. * PETER: In other words, I went for the third alternative and it worked. RESPONDENT: Excellent. I’m going for the fourth alternative ... beam me up, Scotty! Thanks for your in depth replies to my posts. No doubt you will reply for the benefit of your audience but I do not require a reply as I am done on this list. PETER: I do also write for the benefit of others on this list who despite their doubts have been interested enough to hang around for years on this mailing list. Having been a practicing actualist for some years now what I have to say can be summed up in simple words – whilst it’s so good to be happy, it’s even more wondrous to be harmless.
PETER to No 58: At the time I wrote these words I was talking of my own experience only, yet in the short time since then there are now a number of people … RESPONDENT: Peter, can you put a figure to the ‘number’ you speak of? PETER: Ah. If you want to play the numbers game, I readily concede that the figure is infinitesimally small compared to the number of people who are, for example Buddhists, given that you appear to revere some of the wisdom that flows from this religion. * PETER to No 58: …[yet in the short time since then there are now a number of people] who have discovered that the method to become free of malice and sorrow is devastatingly simple once one has unearthed the required ingredients necessary for it to be effective … and a few of these people have even dared to report their successes on this mailing list. RESPONDENT: So the difficulties that people face are with ‘unearthing the required ingredients’ not the method? PETER: Indeed. Unearthing the necessary ingredients to get the method up and running appears to be by far the most difficult part and the main impediments that people seem to struggle with are world-weary cynicism or spiritual-world distain or a combination of both. RESPONDENT: Why is it daring to report success to the mailing list? If you can’t figure this out for yourself, then you haven’t got a clue as to how radical actualism is … whereas your persistent objection to actualism on this mailing list indicates that you do indeed know. * PETER to No 58: And not only that but nowadays there are also a number of people who have reported tangible successes in becoming free of malice and sorrow in a remarkably short period of time … and a few of these people have even dared to report their successes on this mailing list. That you persist in maintaining a head-in-the-sand attitude to these reports only serves to illustrate your No 58-knows-best (because U.G. Krishnamurti says nothing-can-be-done) stance on this mailing list. RESPONDENT No 58: Marketing and advertising terms. PETER to No 58: What a terrible thing to speak openly and enthusiastically about the discovery of a do-it-yourself method to eliminate malice and sorrow, eh? What an effrontery that I should have used such strong words at the time given that they were based on only a handful of successes at the time? How dare I be so naive as to go on to propose that the spreading of actualism will one day mean that war, rape, murder, torture, child abuse, domestic violence, corruption, despotism and so on will be remembered as things of the past? RESPONDENT: How do you envisage that Actualism will spread? PETER: I don’t need to ‘envisage’ anything – it will spread the way that it is already spreading. RESPONDENT: What critical mass of actually or virtually free people will it take before we see an end to war, rape, murder, torture, child abuse, domestic, violence, corruption, and despotism? PETER: Is your reference to a ‘critical mass’ by chance related to that urban myth about the
Hundred Monkey RESPONDENT: How long do you estimate that this process will take? PETER: Contrary to your assumption, the actualism is spreading by means, and not by a ‘process’, the means being –
Having corrected your misconceptions, I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to how long it will be ‘before we see an end to war, rape, murder, torture, child abuse, domestic, violence, corruption, and despotism?’ What I do know is what I wrote in the ‘Introducing Actual Freedom’ –
It was obvious to me when I first met Richard that what he was talking of was revolutionary (revolutionary as in ‘instigating radical change’, not revolutionary as in ‘having a chip on one’s shoulder about certain aspects of the Human Condition’) and for reasons I have written extensively about, I found I could not but accept the challenge of being a pioneer in the business. My reasoning was that is up to those who are fortunate enough to be currently enjoying the benefits of millennia of human endeavour – unprecedented safety, comfort, leisure and pleasure – to lead the way. And this obviously meant me. RESPONDENT: Will it be remarkably short? PETER: Given that the current surviving hominoid species (homo sapiens sapiens) has been around for an estimated 400,000 years according to fossils records, I fully expect that the spread of actualism (as an alternative to spiritualism and materialism) will happen in a remarkable short time in comparison. I do realize that such speculation can only be speculation for you and I will never know, because we will both be long dead, but I do like it that I will die content that I was a pioneer in the business of becoming free of malice and sorrow. As a postscript, I found it curious that as I wrote this post today, I saw a 56-year old Iraqi man very happy that he was able to vote for the first time in his life. It reminded me of the astounding changes that have come about in many of the countries I visited whilst in my twenties. Serge, whom I met in Communist Russia, is nowadays free to travel and free to vote. The veiled women I saw in the Middle East are now beginning to give voice to the fact that they are not chattels but human beings and the bondages of tribalism and theocracy are rapidly being loosened throughout the region. The little Afghani boy I met in Herat may have voted with his feet and may be living in a fully democratic country now or may well have stayed and well be participating in the nascent democracy that is emerging in Afghanistan. The little African boy I saw peeking through the fence of the Whites-only amusement park in Durban is now free to go anywhere in the country he was born in as well as being free to travel abroad. Even the overpopulation and poverty that so appalled me in India is beginning to be reigned in, so much so that India is no longer regarded as a basket case country. I am not philosophizing about changes for the better or of freedoms gained – these are practical down-to-earth changes for the better and pragmatic freedoms gained. The remarkably short period of time in which these changes have occurred (30 years) reminded me yet again that what I wrote in ‘Introducing Actual Freedom’ is even more appropriate today than it was when I wrote it some 6 years ago.
VINEETO to No 60: Given that the whole reason why we are discussing your
interest, or non-interest, in actualism is the fact that you said you have not been intimidated by naysayers and objectionists – can you now see
that the reason why they have not bothered to deter you from committing to actualism may well be because you have not begun to commit yourself to
being an actualist? RESPONDENT: Good god, Vineeto, you are clutching at straws. Can you ever admit a mistake? Have you ever admitted a mistake on this list? Please provide examples. Get over your martyrhood, Vineeto. It’s not actualism that’s attracting ‘intimidation’ by naysayers and objectionists. No one intimidates anyone on this list unless it is with the full co-operation from the ‘victim’. The ‘victim’ is completely free to filter this list. It’s really that simple! Just say no! If the ‘victim’ does not have the resources to deal with ‘intimidation’ on this list then they really should stop participating in their own suffering. If anything, shouldn’t ‘deterence’ just build strength on this wide and wondrous path? You are not a good advertisement for actualism. In fact, you’re an anti-advertisement. PETER: This is perhaps the most perverse argument that anyone has yet come up with to justify the intimidatory ad hominem attacks that sometimes appear on this mailing list. I see you have taken another correspondent’s comment –
and run with it, to the point of bringing in the hoary old spiritual/ psychological adage of describing someone as being a ‘victim’. Describing someone as being a victim or of having a victim mentality – as in ‘they asked for it’ or ‘they shouldn’t complain because it happens to everyone’ or ‘they are just weak’ or ‘they should shut up if they can’t stand the heat’ or ‘they haven’t got the stomach for a good fight’ and so on – is a widely used argument within the dog-eat-dog world that is often employed by victimizers to justify their victimization. If I can just cut to the quick here as I have sat back and watched as correspondents on this mailing list have freely discussed a comment I originally made to another correspondent –
Whilst I do appreciate that this comment may on the face of it appear to be extreme, my response is straightforward. If anyone is sincerely interested in actualism – by which I mean bringing an end to their own malice and their own sorrow – it stands to reason that the first step to practically demonstrating their sincerity would be to cease indulging in intimidatory ad hominem attacks on their fellow human beings. It’s called putting one’s money where one’s mouth is. This way one simply cuts through the whole issue of morals, ethics, ‘victims’, ‘intimidators’, policemen, loutishness and so on and comes to the crux of the matter. And then, if you want to, you can sit down and join in a sensible discussion about the pressing issue at hand on this mailing list – actualizing peace on earth, in this life time. The ball’s in your court, after all it’s your ball and it’s your court. * PETER: A practical example of putting one’s money where one’s mouth is … from my journal –
VINEETO to No 60: Given that the whole reason why we are discussing your
interest, or non-interest, in actualism is the fact that you said you have not been intimidated by naysayers and objectionists – can you now see
that the reason why they have not bothered to deter you from committing to actualism may well be because you have not begun to commit yourself to
being an actualist? RESPONDENT: Good god, Vineeto, you are clutching at straws. Can you ever admit a mistake? Have you ever admitted a mistake on this list? Please provide examples. Get over your martyrhood, Vineeto. It’s not actualism that’s attracting ‘intimidation’ by naysayers and objectionists. No one intimidates anyone on this list unless it is with the full co-operation from the ‘victim’. The ‘victim’ is completely free to filter this list. It’s really that simple! Just say no! If the ‘victim’ does not have the resources to deal with ‘intimidation’ on this list then they really should stop participating in their own suffering. If anything, shouldn’t ‘deterence’ just build strength on this wide and wondrous path? You are not a good advertisement for actualism. In fact, you’re an anti-advertisement. PETER: This is perhaps the most perverse argument that anyone has yet come up with to justify the intimidatory ad hominem attacks that sometimes appear on this mailing list. I see you have taken another correspondent’s comment –
and run with it, to the point of bringing in the hoary old spiritual/psychological adage of describing someone as being a ‘victim’. RESPONDENT: No, Peter, it’s not spiritualists under the bed again. PETER: No, not under the bed … but blatantly out in the open, posting unsolicited longwinded Zen teachings to this mailing list. RESPONDENT: It’s just bloody common sense. PETER: Just because it is somewhat common for a victimizer to justify their victimization by labelling someone as being a victim, or of having a victim mentality, this does not make it ‘common sense’, as in sensible. RESPONDENT: And you have obviously misunderstood No 60. PETER: My point in referring to No 60’s post is that it alluded to a de-facto justification for the style and content of some of the correspondents on this mailing list. He has since written saying that this was not his intention and as far as I am concerned that is the end of the matter. The relevant point is that I have clearly understood the nature of your comment about ‘victims’ as you have made it quite clear –
As I said, you have taken something No 60 said and run with it … and this time around I will point out that you did so to the extent of introducing another hoary adage … that deterrence builds strength. * PETER: Describing someone as being a victim or of having a victim mentality – as in ‘they asked for it’ or ‘they shouldn’t complain because it happens to everyone’ or ‘they are just weak’ or ‘they should shut up if they can’t stand the heat’ or ‘they haven’t got the stomach for a good fight’ and so on – is a widely used argument within the dog-eat-dog world that is often used by victimizers to justify their victimization. RESPONDENT: It’s an email list, Peter, not a workplace, bar or public street. PETER: Indeed. And unless it has escaped your attention your are currently writing to a mailing list that has been specifically set up ‘to facilitate a sharing of experience and understanding and to assist in elucidating just what is entailed in becoming free of the human condition. This is a public forum for discussion about an end to malice and sorrow forever and an actual freedom for all peoples.’ Given the purpose of this mailing list, I do understand that this mailing list will inevitably attract a disproportionate number of detractors and objectionists. Whilst it is quite ‘natural’, given the human condition, that some correspondents on this list will focus on intimidating those who are willing to discuss the issue of actualizing peace on earth in this lifetime, I do find it a perversity to justify such intimidatory tactics on the basis that they are positively contributing to such discussions. RESPONDENT: There’s a huge difference and your shrill denunciation would be justified if we were talking about threatening behaviour from bar room bouncers, but we’re not. PETER: No. Apparently what we are talking about is anarchy in action RESPONDENT: Your e-mail software has a blacklist filter that no bully can break through. Once the conversation gets ugly it’s easy to step away. No intimidator can block your run for the door or snatch the phone from your hand as you try to call the cops. There is no physical presence to be intimidated by. Peter, what effect do you think your self-righteous little homilies are going to have on this list? Do you think they will control the behaviour on the list? Dream on. PETER: And yet the point of my ‘self-righteous little homilies’, as you call them, is not to control the behaviour on this list but rather to point out the nature and techniques of intimidation that some detractors and objectionists choose to indulge in on this mailing list. It’s called shedding a little light on the matter. RESPONDENT: The worthwhile question to ask at this point is: if one-sided intimidation on this list is truly possible then what are the stakes? PETER: The ‘stakes’, as you call them, are that the human condition is played out in all of its aspects, completely unmoderated and uncensored for all correspondents to see and experience … unlike in ‘a workplace, bar or public street’ where fiscal interests, personal safety, morals, ethics – and ultimately the police – tend to generally keep a lid on such behaviour. RESPONDENT: Who or what gets hurt? PETER: This is such a silly question, it doesn’t even warrant an answer. RESPONDENT: If you’re feeling something then it’s a fucking opportunity and you should thank the intimidator! PETER: I’ll pass on thanking you personally for your staunch defence of the human condition. I long ago realized that it sucked. RESPONDENT: That’s what this whole project is about, right? Getting to know what makes you tick? PETER: Aye, but there is a vast, vast difference between undertaking a personal hands-on unfettered exploration as to what makes ‘me’ tick … and making a mindless knee-jerk justification of how and why ‘I’ tick to others on the basis of some hackneyed spiritual world wisdom and/or real-world cynicism. RESPONDENT: If you’re quaking because someone gets under your skin then run with it, you’re onto something valuable. What value is there to a list such as this where everyone is calm, centred, polite and nice? PETER: The value of everyone being ‘calm, centred, polite and nice’, as you put it, is that – just as in any discussion – the chances of being able to clearly see the facts of the matter under discussion are dramatically increased. But then again, surely this is obvious, non? * PETER: If I can just cut to the quick here as I have sat back and watched as correspondents on this mailing list have freely discussed a comment I originally made to another correspondent –
RESPONDENT: Has anyone stopped you in the street and punched you in the face for being an Actualist, Peter? PETER: No But I’ll fill you in on a bit of background as to why I have recently been moved to make comment on the tactics and motives of some of the correspondents on this mailing list. Last year I was having a discussion with a correspondent on this mailing list about the persistent belief that the universe had a beginning event and the discussion became more and more heated to the point that the correspondent reported that he would like to ‘break my front teeth and make me choke on the shards’. He then reported that he had showed the correspondence to someone else who then said that ‘the only way to get through to this guy would be to drill a hole in his forehead, insert a stick of dynamite, light the fuse and stand back’. I remember wondering at the time at the vehemence of such a reaction and as a consequence I decided I would limit my correspondence to conversing with those who were demonstrably interested in being happy and harmless such that we could have at least a civil, harmonious discussion about what are sensitive and controversial matters … after all, it is obviously pointless trying to have a sensible conversation with someone who is busy being angry. In the ensuing months, I began to notice a number of correspondents using this mailing list as a platform to strut their nihilist philosophies and anarchist attitudes to the point of attempting to intimidate any correspondent who wanted to discuss bringing an end to malice and sorrow. Given that I have long experience of being the focus of such ploys and tactics, not to mention having considerable awareness of the full scope of the human condition, I decided to write to a few of these objectionists in order to make their motives, tactics and ploys clear such that people could make up their own minds as to the value of their contributions. One of the benefits of this list being unmoderated is that not only are the defenders of the status quo free to strut their stuff but that actualists are equally free to comment on the ‘games’ some of the defenders choose to indulge in on this list. RESPONDENT: I very much doubt that because it’s my guess that you keep your Actualist talk pretty much confined to this list. PETER: In my early days of being an actualist, I remember discussing the issue of stress with a friend one evening over dinner. In short, I said I had discovered that stress was entirely self-inflicted and that this discovery was the beginning of the end of me feeling stressed. The next morning the woman concerned turned up on my doorstep saying she did not appreciate me talking the way I did and that she took what I was saying as a personal affront. The lesson being that I am nowadays somewhat circumspect as to what topics I talk about with others, outside of the discussions on this mailing list that is. RESPONDENT: You’re not fighting in the Resistance, Peter. PETER: Of course, you would be well aware that from where I sit, it is the anarchists who are spoiling for a fight … and no better place than an unmoderated mailing list, hey?
PETER to No 21: The other experiential evidence I had of the fact that actualism is diametrically opposite to spiritualism is that not only were there psychic warning signs about doing something so radical as devoting my life to becoming happy and harmless but that there were also actual and psychic (as in emotionally-transmitted) warnings from those who had a vested interest in spiritualism telling me not to go down this path under any circumstances. (...) RESPONDENT: You have quite the penchant for self created drama & imaginative rationalization. PETER: Right on cue – direct, first-hand evidence of what I was saying. By far the bulk of the correspondence on the website is from correspondents who are essentially raising objections to the very idea that one should devote one’s life to becoming happy and harmless. Many of these objectors are avid defenders of the status quo of whatever particular spiritual teaching they hold to be the Truth, many raise intellectual objections whilst others resort to personal putdowns, some make brief appearances whilst yet others linger and lurk so as to provide sporadic support to other objectionists from the safety of the grandstand. But, by and large, what they are doing by choosing to take the time and make the effort to write is attempting to warn off others from devoting their lives to becoming happy and harmless by very often by psychic (emotionally-charged) warnings and/or deprecations. Some further examples from your post amply illustrate my point –
… QED. I am sure that you don’t need me to tell you what you are doing on this mailing list – you would be well aware of what you are doing on this mailing list and why you are doing it – but I wonder whether or not you have noticed that whenever you interject to give a newcomer a hearty pat on their back for raising objections to being happy and harmless, more often than not they soon after disappear stage left. Curious that, hey?
Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom
Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
