PETER: Hi Gary,

Just a few things that occurred to me when I read your post –

*

PETER: When you write of exploding in anger at your partner’s grandson, I remember a similar instance where I did the same to the son of my partner at the time. We had one son each from previous partners and I became aware of how much more ‘tolerant’ I was of ‘my’ son’s behaviour than ‘her’ son. Now I am clearly able to see that it was because I was instinctually programmed to favour, be biased, turn a blind eye to, defend and be sympathetic towards my ‘own’, i.e. the instinct to nurture my ‘own’ counteracts the usual instinctual reaction of aggression that I felt towards other human beings.

The other reaction I became aware of was a feeling of jealousy that I had of the special relationship she had with her son. It was an instinctual bond and therefore was stronger and overrode the relationship that I had with her. There is a good deal of statistical evidence that points to outbreaks of violence towards stepchildren caused either by jealousy or innate intolerance.

GARY: Yes, I am still investigating the jealousy angle to this. I did identify a feeling of jealousy towards their special relationship and she and I discussed it some. One thing that is even harder for me to own up to is that I am probably angry at her for having this kind of relationship, one that I do not feel I had growing up. So, in spite of my liking to tell myself that I have resolved my childhood hurts, they are apparently still there, rearing their ugly head again and again. I remember one of the things Richard said to me in my correspondence on the other list that hit me like a ton of bricks: he said ‘There are no childhood hurts extant in this flesh and blood body’. I still do not understand how this is possible.

PETER: The nature vs. nurture debate in psychology and sociology has raged for centuries, yet the curious thing is that it has always really been a one-sided debate. Moral and ethical considerations, combined with spiritual and religious beliefs, have always prevented a sensible and clear-eyed assessment of the primary and overarching role of genetically-encoded instinctual passions in human behaviour. That we were ‘born in sin’ is acknowledged in many religions as an excuse for the earthly behaviour of God’s creatures which only gives rise to primal feelings of guilt and shame in many Western societies. The current fashion for Eastern spiritual belief has given a shot in the arm for the Nurturists with the popularization of the Tabula Rasa theory, whereby we are supposedly born ‘innocent’ and corrupted by wrongly identifying with the physical world.

This Tabula Rasa revival has given rise to many psycho/spiritual therapies that offer to dredge up memories of past childhood hurts, on the basis that a healing, resolution or ‘completion’, with a subsequent wiping the slate clean feeling of regaining lost innocence. This practice has been the subject of much controversy as to the validity and accuracy of many memories recalled, the motives and competency of the practitioners, and the effectiveness of either emotional release or hidden memory recall in bringing about any healing, resolution or change.

Personally in my investigations into my psyche, I found it unnecessary to go back into childhood memories or past hurts. ‘How am I experiencing this moment of time’ has always served to keep me busy with the immediate and I found that the most I ever had to skip back was a few days to discover what was causing me to be either unhappy or malicious. Then, when I recognized the incident, reaction, onset of a mood, etc. and I could label it as jealousy, resentment, feeling inferior etc. I was then able to recall similar events and times when exactly the same event had arisen to make me sad or make me angry at someone. Then it simply became a matter of – ‘how long am I going to go on doing this same thing, how many times is this going to go on before I stop’. Once one dares to acknowledge, recognize, and catalogue the debilitating role that feelings play in one’s life it then becomes impossible to be the way you were – one has begun the process of radical and irrevocable change.

One of the more curious aspects of the human brain, if I have understood it properly and if it is indeed factual, is that the primitive brain seems to have its own separate memory which is an emotional-only memory of past events. There is also evidence that any long-term memory recall is very short on factual detail and further, that we only recall the last time we remembered the event rather than being able to trace back to the original event. Thus it is that these past memories are primarily psychological and psychic in nature, i.e. they are ‘my’ often irrational and largely emotional memories. When a present event triggers an automatic kick-in of an instinctual reaction it activates an emotion-backed thought in the neo-cortex, and this often opens a floodgate, as it were, and we get past emotional memories flooding in as well. Many people also access these emotional memories deliberately as they like the bitter-sweet feelings of sorrow or grief, or lusty feelings of anger and revenge.

But generally what happens with a triggering event is that we get a first hit of feeling reinforced by feelings from the past which serves to create and affirm a very-real chemical-backed ‘me’ stretching out over a time period we fondly, or despairingly, call ‘my’ life.

To actively dredge up past memories does nothing but keep ‘me’ in existence as a psychological and psychic entity. They are best nipped in the bud as quickly as possible so that one can focus one’s attention and awareness on the main event – one’s happiness and harmlessness now.

I can attest to the fact that with the diminishing of ‘me’ as a credible entity, these emotional memories do indeed wither. An actual memory of people, things and events still exist, but they have no emotional component. Undeniably it was this flesh and blood body that was there, did those things, met those people, but it was someone else who suffered those hurts, who had those feelings, who felt lost, lonely and frightened. This is not in any way the formation of a new dissociate identity, or a denial of anything that happened in the past – it is simply that it as though all emotional content of my memory has been erased. It was not me, as-I am-now, who suffered and caused others to suffer. It was the Peter who started this process of ‘self’-immolation.

Good Hey.

It’s always important to acknowledge how much change for the better has happened, to pat one’s back as it were, for it is a sensible acknowledgement of success – the very substance of the confidence needed to go even further.

*

PETER: Your story has reminded me of the fact that it is this acknowledging of aggression in oneself that is the key to wanting to change irrevocably. If one only wants happiness for oneself then that is insufficient motive or intent to get stuck into the business of irrevocably changing oneself. It needs an altruistic motive rather than the mere self-gratification of being happy and that motive is to be actually peaceful – to do no harm to one’s fellow human beings, as in not instinctually feeling aggression towards others, not instinctually feeling sorrow for others, not being blindly driven to nurture others and not being blindly driven to desire power over others.

GARY: At first sight, when I read your words, I thought I have been awfully selfish, for the most part, thinking of myself and wanting happiness for only myself. But, looking a little more deeply into it, as I write it, I think I have been quite honest with myself for many years now and realized that there is little or no difference between myself and, for instance, the war criminals one hears about sometimes on the nightly news, the child abusers, the predatory criminals most people are afraid of, the suicides one hears of, the drug addicts and alcoholics, etc, etc.

PETER: The stunning thing about actualism is the recognition that one’s instinctual passions are genetically-encoded by blind nature and understanding this simple fact can free one from the debilitating effects of guilt and shame, or pride and superciliousness. That is exactly why we talk of the Human Condition, i.e. that which is common to all, no matter what gender, tribe, age or religious belief. We all have no choice but to be born with instinctual animal passions but we now have a choice as to whether we want to continue denying the fact or go on attempting to suppress them, keep them under control, or imagine that we transcend the savage passions by solely identifying with the tender passions.

As for feeling selfish about wanting to be happy, when I first jumped on the actualism bandwagon I wanted to test out the method to see if I could live with a woman in peace and harmony – a desire that could be regarded as selfish. What I quickly discovered, if I can call 4 months quickly, was that in order for me to be happy I had to stop blaming Vineeto for making me unhappy and I had to stop trying to change her, as both actions were malevolent on my part, i.e. I was causing her to be unhappy. This is markedly different to her being unhappy through no fault of mine and I had to be very scrupulous and aware, not only of my actions, but also of my feelings and motivations.

My point is that on the path to Actual Freedom it is inevitable that altruism will soon crop up and eventually come to the fore, if one’s intent is pure. One experiences purity in the PCE where it is obvious that purity only exists when this flesh and blood body has no ‘I’ in the head or ‘me’ in the heart operating to muddy the waters. When in a ‘self’-less state both selfishness and altruism disappear to reveal an already existing purity and perfection that is me as this flesh and blood body only.

Until that happens permanently, wave the altruism flag, for my experience is that some people will be ready to condemn your ‘self’-investigations, ‘self’-obsession, lack of empathy, lack of sorrow, etc. as heartless and selfish in order to try to drag you back into Humanity and its ancient beliefs and values.

GARY: Thank you Peter for your willingness to go into these things with me.

PETER: It’s just such good fun to swap stories and experiences. To be able to talk to someone about how they see things, what their experiences are, what sense they make of this business of being a human being. To be able to let one’s guard down with a fellow human being is what actual intimacy is about. To have no defensive guard up and no secrets to hide.

Most people think of intimacy as sharing one’s feelings, which is entity-to-entity relating with all its implications and limitations. When we talk of eliminating one’s social identity the most startling result is that everyone magically becomes a fellow human being – not a woman or man, not an Arab or an American, not a Christian or a Rajneeshee, not a Greenie or a capitalist, etc. Because one has eliminated one’s own social/ religious identity one simply does not automatically stigmatize others, for a social identity is clearly seen and experienced as a folly, a primitive ball and chain, imposed by other, usually well-meaning people on all helpless infants. One also sees the inevitableness having a social identity and understands the feeling of ‘freedom’ that arises from swapping this initial humdrum identity for a new spiritual identity, so all blame or fault is simultaneously expunged with the elimination of one’s own social/ religious identity.

In a similar vein, when we talk of eliminating one’s instinctual passions there is no psychological or psychic fear of, or aggression towards other human beings, no desperate discriminatory drive to nurture one’s own, no relentless unquenchable drive for power over others and, as such, everyone magically becomes a fellow human being. This change is not ‘me’ trying to be accepting or tolerant of others, or ‘me’ feeling ‘at one’ with others or feeling love towards all. It is something that happens by itself, as it were.

So, whenever ‘I’ am not here, which is most of the time lately, all my interactions with others are fair, magnanimous, considerate and delightful.

Some people do get defensive and offended by what I say about my investigations and understandings of the Human Condition but they are always free to exercise the ‘delete’ option on the computer at any time and not read what is offensive to them. Those who do read, and write to me with their objections to being happy and harmless, will simply be presented with more facts, which usually serves to make their further objections quite silly and finally they tire of the whole business. To plagiarize Richard, yet again, – it is only recalcitrant egos and contumacious souls that get offended – the flesh and blood humans miss out.

GARY: It is becoming of greater and greater importance to me to have people like yourself and the others here on the list to talk to and compare notes with. I have also noticed the ‘herding instinct’ operating, in the sense that I am aware of the desire to have friends and people to talk to.

PETER: The value of being able to talk to others who are also doing what you are doing is invaluable. Goodness knows how Richard did this by himself and no wonder he went through a period of ‘adjustment’ after he became actually free of the Human Condition. In comparison, those who follow have it cushy. It is such a sensible thing to do – to follow in the footsteps of those who know the path and the pitfalls and who are willing to describe them to others. You also get to know where you can take shortcuts with confidence, because someone else has tried that way and it produced no results, or it was simply a dead end diversion like the usefulness of trolling in the dustbin of past hurts.

As for exclusive club ... it is totally inclusive for anyone wishing to join. The primary qualifications are a sense of adventure, and a sense of humour so you don’t take your self, or anybody else’s, too seriously ...

13.8.2000

GARY: Thank you for the information. I found it helpful. You wrote:

[Peter]: ‘Just a minor correction. It is always the neo-cortex – the so-called modern brain – that is ‘hijacked’ by the amygdala – seemingly the source of the instinctual reactions in the so-called reptilian brain. <snip> [endquote].

Yes, of course, that makes more sense. I felt rather a fool after I sent my first post requesting more information. That is because there is such a wealth of information in the AF and Third Alternative website that there is scarcely any need to go further afield.

PETER: Yep, The Actual Freedom Trust website is getting bigger by the day and Richard has covered so many topics in his writings that it is not necessary to go further afield. Personally, I checked out everything he said either by checking my own life experiences, checking my current experience or life-situation, observing others, reading what others have said on the matter, etc. My previous experiences in the ‘real’ world and on the spiritual path made me very wary of believing others or meekly accepting the status quo viewpoint in whatever field, spiritual or otherwise. Thus I was moved to think about and question everything that I had been taught, told or assumed to be true, right, good or sacred. Even now as I sit on the other side of the fence, as it were, I would encourage anyone to abandon the act of believing and to question and think for themselves, for it is only by doing this can one become autonomous.

GARY: I did obtain an introduction to Evolutionary Psychology off the net which perked my interest. I can see some obvious similarities to some of the things we talk about here. You are right that much scientific writing is not only incomprehensible to the average layman (me) but also replete with misleading emotional-moral-ethical perspectives.

Interestingly, the information from Wiener, entitled ‘Young Men More Likely to Wage War’, is a corroboration of a view I have had for a long time: that there is nothing more dangerous than an 18-19 year old male.

PETER: Yes, and the only thing more powerful is a cute 15-16 year old female who ‘has eyes’ for him. The females of the species have developed quite an arsenal of covert powers to seduce, influence and control men, and these essential survival skills are passed from one to the other by imitation and word of mouth. The instinctual sex-drive has always been the downfall of men, which is why the traditional paths to spiritual ‘freedom’ have always emphasized the evil of sex, and encouraged celibacy. All of the Gurus have battled with the evil of sex and for many it has been their downfall. Only recently, the most powerful man in the world was brought to his knees by a young woman eager and willing to get on hers. Couldn’t resist the pun. According to the reports it was a flash of panties that was the original enticement, but history is littered with examples of the supremacy of women’s covert power over men. This is not a denigration of women for they are only playing out the instinctual role that blind nature has programmed them to play, exactly as men play out the role they are programmed to play.

Ultimately each sex is locked into an instinctual battle for domination over the other – with mutually-agreed ceasefires, for the sake of the offspring, the norm for most relationships. The marvellous thing about becoming free of the animal sexual instinctual drive is that the male breaks free of power women have over him and women are freed of the humiliating and debilitating games they have been taught and programmed to play. Then sexual play is freed of inane societal moral and ethical taboos, freed of being a battleground between the sexes in which neither side wins and freed of the instinctual sexual imperative. The sex act then becomes innocent sensuous scrumptious and sumptuous play simply because it is freed of guilt, shame, evil and the blind senseless drive to impregnate, or be impregnated.

GARY: That point gets around to what I really want to talk about in this post, which is my recent discoveries regarding the instinctual passions. I feel I have begun to experience, in a more directly intimate way, what previously I had only had very brief, rather superficial glimpses of: the primitive passions at work in me, the so-called battle between Good and Evil. I awoke yesterday morning in a state of anxious dread. As I investigated into it, I found what I would call a fear of annihilation, a naked dread that I wanted to get away from as much as I could. There was raw libidinal energy also swirling around – I seemed to go from fear to sex in a heartbeat and it was very powerful.

I feel I am getting now a direct look at the caldron of seething passions that are ordinarily contained by the thin veneer of morals and ethics. My most obvious spiritual practices were the first thing to go overboard, but as I continue in this work, I am uncovering the less obvious and infinitely more subtle morality and ethicality that is designed to keep these instincts in check. I have noticed that my way of expressing this in language to myself is definitely archaic: words like fornicator, lecher, warlord, beast, wolf, etc. come into my consciousness and I feel I am peeling away the thin layer of 20th century civilizing influences and getting into a substratum of morality that harkens back to the Christian Dark Ages, or at least it seems that way.

PETER: Yes, this dark side of human nature is a fascinating exploration. All religions, be they eastern or western, have condemned sex per se, for there is no more powerful urge in the instinctual repertoire. The instinctual package is designed primarily as a reproductive program for the species and secondarily as a defensive program. Therefore, there is no greater evil to the priests, men of God or the Gurus than the crude sexual drive for it ultimately has the power to override all sense and ‘good’ness.

Some sorts of rules are necessary to keep the lid on the animal instinctual passions and the religious/spiritual texts are littered with moral goods and evils, and ethical rights and wrongs. Religious morality is ultimately enforced by the deep-seated threat of damnation and hell, purgatory and God’s wrath and it is no little thing to dare to challenge, let alone break free of this burden.

It also take nerves of steel to traverse the dark and evil side in oneself without frantically and instinctually grabbing for the light and the good. It is no coincidence that so many people, when they have their dark night of the soul, say they saw the light or that God spoke to them. It was on one of those very occasions when I literally ‘fell in love’ with an Eastern spiritual God-man and had a 17 year excursion into the spiritual world. But for an actualist, forewarned is forearmed so the risk is minimalized – but if you do get to have some affective experiences or Godly experiences it immediately becomes another fascinating aspect of the Human Condition to explore.

GARY: There is so much baggage of Christian religion and western civilizing influences that make up the social identity to be dismantled. It is quite evidently thousands and thousands of years old, and deeply, deeply ingrained and embedded. I have also been having quite a surge of energy with these developments. It seems like some great energy is being liberated inside of me. Something that had been contained and burdened is becoming unburdened and I am feeling marvellously alive. And there is, for the most part, not that fear that it needs to be clamped down on. Perhaps this is what I was experiencing yesterday morn, the fear of engulfment, that this force, this primal energy will wash over me and be my undoing. It is an exciting time right now and I feel that I have come upon something of major importance.

Well, I have spent myself just in writing this little bit. So I’ll end for now....

PETER: For an actualist it is often the case that these investigations, explorations and realizations can subsequently produce pure experiences that just creep up on you, so to speak. Certainly a feeling of joie de vive, when combined with an earthy sensuality, is a potent combination.

And, of course, life is so much more fun when one begins to investigate and become free of the shackles of ancient moral restrictions.

27.8.2000

PETER: Ultimately each sex is locked into an instinctual battle for domination over the other – with mutually-agreed ceasefires, for the sake of the offspring, the norm for most relationships. The marvellous thing about becoming free of the animal sexual instinctual drive is that the male breaks free of power women have over him and women are freed of the humiliating and debilitating games they have been taught and programmed to play.

Then sexual play is freed of inane societal moral and ethical taboos, freed of being a battleground between the sexes in which neither side wins and freed of the instinctual sexual imperative. The sex act then becomes innocent sensuous scrumptious and sumptuous play simply because it is freed of guilt, shame, evil and the blind senseless drive to impregnate, or be impregnated.

GARY: Funny you should mention sex and the sexual instinctual drive, as I feel I have barely scratched the surface of examining sex and sexuality. Sex has been especially troublesome for me, as I am sure it is for many people. My partner and I are still living an essentially celibate lifestyle, which, although it is not very satisfying emotionally, seems to obviate the painful consequences of bedroom politics. We seem to be stuck in a place where it is very difficult to talk not only about sex but about other significant aspects of our relationship, ie. dependency, ‘love’, family, etc. As a male, I have always felt a great deal of pressure to perform sexually, and feelings of shame and guilt when I could not, whatever the reason. Consequently, it has seemed to be the safest thing to back off entirely.

PETER: A couple of things come to mind. One is how excellent it is to have someone else who has taken on actualism as a practical down-to-earth method rather than play safe by regarding it as a philosophy to be intellectually discussed and argued about. This was the very reason I wrote my journal and the reason it came out the way it did – as a personal account of a very ordinary, common and garden type human being becoming free of the Human Condition. I wrote it for another Peter or another Vineeto, to describe how to apply the actualism method and I am well pleased that it has been of use to you. I also see that although it was written as a personal account, it refers to situations, events, feelings, emotions and passions that are common to everybody.

When you say you started to write a reply that seemed too personal, I wondered why? It would seem to me that the value of this list is in sharing and talking about these common-to-all experiences rather than too-personal accounts that may well involve others who are, for whatever reason, best left out of the discussions. Does this make sense to you?

I remember when I did a number of emotional sharing type groups in my spiritual years, what I eventually found most fascinating was the remarkable similarity in the emotional problems and life predicament expressed. I was eventually able to relate to all the issues that emerged – a sort of ‘Oh yeah, I know that one ... yep, and that one too’. What this did was make me realize that ‘I’ was not special or unique at all – for I was as equally socially conditioned as everyone else, I was as equally affected by emotional issues and I was equally blindly driven as everyone else.

I would suspect you have had similar experiences with traditional therapy type approaches and that this has served you well to give you the incentive to dig below the more personal surface layers and get into the common-to-all deeper layers. My experience is that if one makes the investigation into one’s own psyche purely personal it can too soon run aground on pride, guilt and shame, rights and wrongs, goods and bads of one’s social identity. One way to move through this minefield is by widening one’s viewpoint from being purely self-centred and this is where an overview of the common-to-all affections that constitute the Human Condition is an essential perspective. The other trap is to make the investigation too impersonal and the end result of this would be an intellectual-only approach, which would elicit no change.

What I am proposing is neither a too impersonal nor a too personal investigation and this is where genuine intent, altruism, a good sense of humour and this list will stand you in good stead.

I am back involved in my business a bit more lately and I am having fun writing on another mailing list, both of which keep me fairly occupied. As such, I don’t seem to be writing on the Actual Freedom Mailing List much lately but it is great to see it bopping along extremely well.

Good to have you on board the good ship ‘actualism’.

4.9.2000

GARY: There is one other thing, Peter, that I would like to explore with you and others. There is a sexual instinctive drive in humans. Of that, we are all quite aware. This is the same drive (desire) that causes the male to want to impregnate females (of course I have not considered what the drive is in homosexual individuals, perhaps it is similar or the same but the object is different). In your book, in the chapter on sex, you commented on the pervasiveness of the sexual instinctual drive, the power of this drive, and the central importance of the drive in human affairs. It is indeed a powerful drive, and there are many social mores and customs in place in human society to curb the sexual instinctual drive and regulate it, the institution of marriage and monogamous relationships being one notable example. It is also known that, as far as the physiology of sex, that in human beings sex is subject to considerable cortical control.

PETER: By control, are you relating to the types of experiments whereby a mouse when wired up with electrodes to its sexual pleasure centre in the brain will continually press a button such that it overdoses on sexual pleasure to the point of ignoring the other button that gives it food. I would suggest that human beings may stop short of killing themselves in an experimental situation like this because human beings, unlike the mouse, have the ability to think and reason, but I would not be sure in some cases. If a similar experiment was conducted on human beings, it would be considered unethical, but I am reminded of Milgram’s experiment that I related to in my journal (‘Peace’ chapter), which is why I say I could not be sure of human reactions in a sex vs. food test.

GARY: For instance, castration does not obliterate the sexual drive in humans but does in animals. Apparently there is a lot about sex that goes on in the higher brain centres.

PETER: I have no knowledge at all about sexual physiology in animals, but given they have an instinctual-only brain, if one obliterated the sex drive, end of story. Presumably, by what you are saying, castration can completely remove the sex-drive in animals. The question would then be, does castration remove the instinctual sex-drive in humans? I have heard that castratos remain interested in sex, but I don’t know if their sexual interest is instinctive or cerebral-only. I guess the only way to determine this would be to wire someone up who had been castrated so as to see whereabouts in the brain the lights lit up.

My experience when ‘I’ was normal was that it was impossible to distinguish between feelings arising from the instinctual passions and what was sensate pleasure and clear thinking, for they were all one muddled intertwined mess. The whole point of the actualism method when investigating the sexual instinct is to unravel this mess and eliminate the brutish senseless passion such that sensuous sexual pleasure is free to be what it is – innocent frivolous play. Sex certainly is one of the most interesting investigations for it is one of the most physical, and if you are having sex regularly, the investigation can be intense with no time-off, so to speak. It also directly involves another person, which means there is no place to hide, no avoidance possible. I encountered very intense periods particularly when tackling the morals and taboos that have enshrouded human sexuality in shame and guilt, fear and trepidation, imagination and fantasy. It was as though I had literally stirred up the whole of the church and faced its awesome psychic powers of condemnation, and then it was as though I stirred up the Devil and encountered hellish realms of perversion and damnation. Beneath this again was a level of brutal animal aggression and bestiality. Once I had discovered the raw instinctive level the only thing remaining was investigating imagination and fantasy and then daring to be let my guard down and be intimate during the most direct one to one activity two human beings can do. Skin on skin and sharing and mixing bodily fluids is as intimate as it gets and the transition from raw and naked to free mutual playfulness took a while.

I have written of this before, whereby there is an initial exciting breakthrough with investigations and then there is a remaining ghost-like weirdness that prevails that could be described metaphorically as deleting the substance of a computer program but a few files float around for a while causing trouble and confusion. There is a strangeness that is not only disconcerting but disorienting, as familiar program after program falls to pieces to be replaced by nothing – no new psychological or psychic program at all. The only orientation one has is what is actual and that can only be experienced in this moment.

GARY: My question is this: if the sexual instinctual drive is eliminated, with the other instincts, what is left? Is there enjoyment of sex? Is one rather indifferent about sex? I doubt then that there would be a ‘drive’ underlying sexual behaviour, the ‘drive’ having been eliminated. One would not fantasize about sex, as one often does many times, because the intuitive/imaginal faculty would have been eliminated. With the sexual instinctual drive gone, eliminated, I would think that one would be rather indifferent to sex. What do you think?

PETER: What I have discovered is when the sexual imperative disappears it becomes utterly clear that sex is not an essential need such as food or sleep. When it is not an essential need and there is no blind drive to have or want it, then it becomes an optional pleasure in a literal cornucopia of sensate pleasures. The particularly delicious thing about sex freed of the instinctual drive is that it is not a necessity for then it becomes what it is – one on one intimate innocent play. It is body pleasuring body, mutually agreed, freely given and taken, sensuous pleasure, never the same, always fresh. And the sheer sensual overload results in a post-sex looseness and limpness of the body, with the brain awash in serotonin or dopamine or whatever chemical it is.

I always wanted to get to the core of my inevitable frustration and failure with sex, and now I get to reap the rewards of my efforts every time we play.

Good hey.

18.9.2000

PETER: So your computer crashed and was in the workshop for a while. A few years ago I sold my car and bought a computer to write a book. I figured I would cut my overhead expenses but I found I now download my money into the computer instead of pour it into a car. But, back to sex ...

*

PETER: By control, are you relating to the types of experiments whereby a mouse when wired up with electrodes to its sexual pleasure centre in the brain will continually press a button such that it overdoses on sexual pleasure to the point of ignoring the other button that gives it food. I would suggest that human beings may stop short of killing themselves in an experimental situation like this because human beings, unlike the mouse, have the ability to think and reason, but I would not be sure in some cases. If a similar experiment was conducted on human beings, it would be considered unethical, but I am reminded of Milgram’s experiment that I related to in my journal, which is why I say I could not be sure of human reactions in a sex vs. food test.

GARY: By cortical control, I meant control of sex by the higher brain centres, such as the cerebral cortex. On the one hand, I am thinking of how humans are able to discern and think about the consequences of engaging in sex, and hence the rise of morality and ethics as a means of controlling the sex act and procreation. But also I am thinking about the sheer amount of imaginative foreplay involved in sex for human beings. In animals, sex is run by hormones, for the most part. It is classic driven instinctual behaviour. While sexual behaviour is similarly driven in human beings, leading to such sexual problems as sexual addictions, there is much more thinking and fantasy activity involved.

PETER: In the human animal, sex is equally and identically run by hormones. In other animals once the act is done, it is most usually end of story. In human beings, once one’s instinctual reproductive duty has been done – find woman, impregnate woman ... or find man, get impregnated – the sexual imperative for both sexes begins to keep an eye out for gratification elsewhere. Both sexes usually resort to playing their societal role as partners and parents and usually have to indulge in fantasy or dreams to maintain interest in staying with the same sexual partner, or sex simply wilts and is shelved as a mutual pleasure.

GARY: Sexuality, on the other hand, as opposed to sex per se is a matter of one’s identity, and this is clearly something that is inculcated in one by one’s parents, family, society, etc. For instance, castration does not obliterate the sexual drive in humans but does in animals. Apparently there is a lot about sex that goes on in the higher brain centres.

PETER: In human beings instinctual sex is made bewildering and confusing by our social/spiritual conditioning and our knowledge that it can result in pregnancy and parenthood. However, no matter how much control we may exert or how sublimated the instinctual drive is, it is always lurks beneath the surface inhibiting or preventing the free sensual enjoyment of sex. So in order to gain free sensual enjoyment of sex the first thing is to investigate the social morals and ethics and then dig into the instinctual drive itself.

*

PETER: I have no knowledge at all about sexual physiology in animals, but given they have an instinctual-only brain, if one obliterated the sex drive, end of story. Presumably, by what you are saying, castration can completely remove the sex-drive in animals. The question would then be, does castration remove the instinctual sex-drive in humans? I have heard that castratos remain interested in sex, but I don’t know if their sexual interest is instinctive or cerebral-only I guess the only way to determine this would be to wire someone up who had been castrated so as to see whereabouts in the brain the lights lit up.

GARY: I don’t know if you are familiar with this or not, but castration has been recommended as a means of controlling dangerous sexual predators (I mean the human kind), like serial rapists. I have read somewhere certain experts opine that it will not work because you can castrate a male human being and they will still have sex and want to have sex. So, this leads me to believe that humans, unlike animals, have a much higher investment of their sexual functioning in the brain and nervous system, and not so much in the hormonal regulatory areas.

PETER: If castration in fact does eliminate the instinctual sexual drive and its accompanying chemical rush, it would seem that the human ability to think and reflect would mean that the castrato would still think and reflect on the physical pleasure that comes from sex. Just as an aside, I was recently watching a program on male impotency. Up until the last decade the failure to have an erection was thought to be mainly due to cerebral psychological problems but now practical medical reasons have been found to be the major causes. It does seem the popular psychological-problems-only approach to sexual difficulties is being questioned, as it will further dented as more people eliminate their social conditioning and their instinctual sexual drive.

*

PETER: What I have discovered is when the sexual imperative disappears it becomes utterly clear that sex is not an essential need such as food or sleep. When it is not an essential need and there is no blind drive to have or want it, then it becomes an optional pleasure in a literal cornucopia of sensate pleasures. The particularly delicious thing about sex freed of the instinctual drive is that it is not a necessity for then it becomes what it is - one on one intimate innocent play. It is body pleasuring body, mutually agreed, freely given and taken, sensuous pleasure, never the same, always fresh. And the sheer sensual overload results in a post-sex looseness and limpness of the body, with the brain awash in serotonin or dopamine or whatever chemical it is.

GARY: Yes, that’s a good way of putting it. There is not the ‘blind drive’ to have or want sex now. Time will tell whether this is mere suppression or sublimation (sorry to resort to Freudian terms on you but I think they are apt here), in which case the sexual instinctive drive will out in renewed fury and intensity, or a natural kind of withering away of the sex drive as a result of practicing attentiveness and sensuousness leading to apperception. Please note that I am not saying that I want to eliminate sex. Far from it. I want to get to the bottom of my sexual hang-ups and free myself from the need to control sexual feelings as well as either resort to over-indulging or under-indulging in sex. In other words, I want to enjoy sex but don’t want to be blindly driven to have it or want it, as you have nicely stated. To me, it seems like a crucial difference. I think it is going to take a long time for me to get to that point.

PETER: Just a comment, based on my experiences in this business of getting to the roots of instinctual passions. Actualism is both practical and down to earth and, as such, one needs test out one’s realizations and understandings to see if they can be put into practice – if they are factual, if they work, and if they work in the world as-it-is with people as they are. In the case of sex, my investigations were serendipitously easy – I had a willing and eager partner who proved equally interested in investigating, discovering and unveiling the social and instinctual taboos that inhibit the free enjoyment of sexual play. However, even in a pre-established normal relationship I see no reason why one partner cannot initiate an investigation by themselves, for themselves, if they are willing to take the risk.

*

PETER: I always wanted to get to the core of my inevitable frustration and failure with sex, and now I get to reap the rewards of my efforts every time we play.

GARY: I feel like there are some rewards at this point but I also feel I am missing out on the sheer delight of having a free sexual relationship with a woman and I am back to being somewhat confused about the whole mess. But I want to tell you that I genuinely appreciate having this forum to discuss these matters and, as you have pointed out in the past, these issues are of universal importance to all human beings, not just a particular and private concern of people participating on this list. Sexuality is such a central part of the social identity and sexual matters have, in spite of the openness about sex since the 1970s, been shrouded in so much secrecy and shame, and I feel such is still the case. Part of it is that I naturally inherited all my ancestors’ fears and shame regarding sexuality but picked up a few new bugaboos myself as I grew into adulthood.

PETER: When I look back over the last few years I am amazed how much I have written about actualism and my experiences. I say amazed because I was never interested in writing, failed English at school and generally scorned those who wrote and taught as those who weren’t the doers. As such, when I found myself writing about actualism and my experiences I have always been cautious to be able to stand behind what I write – as in, I know it is factual and I know by my experience, and the experience of others, what works and what doesn’t work. This is why I am able to endorse and confirm all that Richard writes about.

This reporting to others is the limit of what is possible, and sensible, in communicating something so radically new and iconoclastic as actualism. So, when you ask me to point out any discrepancies, I am at a loss for all I can do is comment on facts and relay my practical experience as to what works and what doesn’t.

Good that it was only your computer that faded out.

23.9.2000

PETER: In the human animal, sex is equally and identically run by hormones. In other animals once the act is done, it is most usually end of story. In human beings, once one’s instinctual reproductive duty has been done – find woman, impregnate woman ... or find man, get impregnated – the sexual imperative for both sexes begins to keep an eye out for gratification elsewhere. Both sexes usually resort to playing their societal role as partners and parents and usually have to indulge in fantasy or dreams to maintain interest in staying with the same sexual partner, or sex simply wilts and is shelved as a mutual pleasure.

GARY: That has certainly been true for me. Fantasy and dreams prevent actual intimacy. Sex, in our case, has wilted, but there are stirrings of mutual sensual delight and innocent experimentation. I have been recently been thinking about and mulling over the whole business of the nature of imaginative psychic activity – how such activity removes one from the actual, maintaining and supporting the real world. I have become more aware of the flights of fancy and imagination that fuel ‘me’, with some of the strong affective states that accompany them.

PETER: Personally I found thinking about and understanding some aspect of how I function to be an essential activity, but the real change came in change – overcoming my innate resistance and fear of doing something and doing it anyway. This always involved taking a risk, ‘letting my guard down’ as I tend to call it these days.

*

PETER: In human beings instinctual sex is made bewildering and confusing by our social/spiritual conditioning and our knowledge that it can result in pregnancy and parenthood. However, no matter how much control we may exert or how sublimated the instinctual drive is, it is always lurks beneath the surface inhibiting or preventing the free sensual enjoyment of sex. So in order to gain free sensual enjoyment of sex the first thing is to investigate the social morals and ethics and then dig into the instinctual drive itself.

GARY: Sex is certainly a raw instinctual energy. After digging into the social morals and ethics that control the wayward self, one can more easily see the primacy of the sex drive in humans. I think there is a basic urge to physically be close, as expressed through sexual contact, between people, both males and females. It is ever present when people get together.

PETER: The sexual urge acts to overcome the basic fear people have of other people. As for a basic urge in humans to be physically close, other than the sexual imperative, this is another matter. You probably missed it, but there was a discussion on this list some months ago about a herding instinct in humans – the fear-driven need to huddle together in tribal or family groups for protection against other competing aggressive animals. This is why love and loyalty is trumpeted so strongly in the human condition as a way to overcome the psychological and psychic fear that is the basic genetic endowment of all human animals.

Humans desperately fear actual intimacy because it is too raw, too close – with no barriers, shields or guards available as psychological or psychic defences.

GARY: There are also, of course, strong taboos against homosexuality in both males and females, yet the fact remains that homosexual behavior occurs. Large scale sexual surveys, like Kinsey’s, have shown that homosexual behavior is remarkably common in many people. I remember myself having homosexual experiences when younger. Mostly they were innocent gropings and explorings with male friends. I have never been a homosexual, but the urge was there nevertheless to indulge in sexual play with another male. Due to the strong taboos and forbidden nature of such gropings, I felt a keen sense of shame about these encounters and was greatly confused about my own sexuality when I was a young person. Level-headed and sensible discussion with a reasonable, more knowledgeable person might have dispelled these doubts and confusions, but none was forthcoming and I was too ashamed to divulge my internal turmoil.

PETER: Homosexual behaviour is documented in many other animal species as well, but I have no idea what proportion is genetic/natural, what is behaviourally caused and what is fashionable in humans.

*

PETER: Just a comment, based on my experiences in this business of getting to the roots of instinctual passions. Actualism is both practical and down-to-earth and, as such, one needs test out one’s realizations and understandings to see if they can be put into practice – if they are factual, if they work, and if they work in the world as-it-is with people as they are. In the case of sex, my investigations were serendipitously easy – I had a willing and eager partner who proved equally interested in investigating, discovering and unveiling the social and instinctual taboos that inhibit the free enjoyment of sexual play.

However, even in a pre-established normal relationship I see no reason why one partner cannot initiate an investigation by themselves, for themselves, if they are willing to take the risk.

GARY: My partner is a lot more willing to explore these things than I probably give her credit for. I am finding more and more that it is getting easier to talk matter-of-factly about sexual hang-ups and problems. Humour about these matters is also good medicine. I think talking about these things in this forum, with others, is making it easier to talk to her about it. I think we are gradually beginning to tease this thing apart and, though it will probably take considerable time to investigate all this, I am confident that better things are possible for both of us.

PETER: Yea. Women tend to be a bit more down-to-earth about sex than men. Contrary to popular male belief, it is women who are more interested in action and are usually the initiators, whereas men usually like the idea, talk and think about it a lot, but are hesitant to open up in sex lest they get consumed. I’m for mutual consumption – it’s simply the most fun.

*

PETER: When I look back over the last few years I am amazed how much I have written about actualism and my experiences. I say amazed because I was never interested in writing, failed English at school and generally scorned those who wrote and taught as those who weren’t the doers. As such, when I found myself writing about actualism and my experiences I have always been cautious to be able to stand behind what I write – as in, I know it is factual and I know by my experience, and the experience of others, what works and what doesn’t work. This is why I am able to endorse and confirm all that Richard writes about.

GARY: Actualism is such an eminently sensible method that I find it surprising that so many people seem to scoff about it. I know it works from my own experience. All of it is so simple and obvious. I too feel I can confirm and validate all that Richard writes about. It struck me with renewed clarity on my drive home from work yesterday, after having a simply excellent day, that the actualism method of asking oneself ‘How am I experiencing this present moment of being alive’ is so simple yet so powerful.

PETER: About a year after meeting Richard, I had a PCE where I saw clearly that this physical universe was perfect and that this planet was a breathtaking verdant ambrosial paradise. What was also clearly evident was the appalling grim instinctual battle for survival that is fought out physically, psychologically and psychically amongst all human beings on the planet. Human beings, uniquely amongst all the animal species on the planet, not only exhibit instinctual malice and sorrow but get pleasure from being malicious and sorrowful.

Human beings are far, far from being perfect, but I knew from that ‘self’-less experience that it is possible to directly and sensately experience the perfection and purity of the actual world – with people as-they-are.

Whenever I write about the perfection and purity of the actual world on spiritual mailing lists, I often get the comment back that ‘everything’ is perfect as-it-is. This is the demented, egocentric spiritual ‘I am already perfect, as in God by whatever name, and all ‘I’ have to do is Realize it’ syndrome. Not that I am saying this is what you are saying, but I always keep firmly in mind that ‘my’ aim is to step out of Humanity, for Humanity is rotten to the core. For ‘I’ am Humanity and Humanity is ‘me’, as Richard puts it.

For an actualist, altruism is not to be fretted away by trying to make ‘me’ or others perfect – the only action that will make a difference is for ‘me’ to step out of Humanity. To facilitate this step, what ‘I’ can initially do is to become as happy and harmless as possible – to progressively and deliberately dare let my instinctive guard down.

28.9.2000

PETER: Just a comment on something you wrote at the end of last post.

GARY: I regard you, Richard, Vineeto, and the others as mentors. I think the word mentor has acquired certain negative connotations, especially here in the US. It is starting to smack of social control strategies by being applied across the board as a means of solving social problems. But if you regard the meaning of the word ‘mentor’ as someone who is a coach, then I think it is proper to use the term. I see what you mean about simply commenting on the facts of a situation and relaying your own practical experience with a matter, and I have no qualms about that. It is just that I am eager to learn from others who have more experience than I and get their direct feedback and comments on the issues that I raise. I'll take all the help I can get in this thing. Thanks for your comments.

PETER: Personally I don’t see the word mentor, nor its implications, as appropriate in actualism.

Mentor an experienced and trusted adviser or guide; a teacher, a tutor. Oxford Dictionary

guide, advisor, counsellor, therapist, guru, spiritual leader, confidant, teacher, tutor, coach, instructor. Oxford Thesaurus

To take such a radical path in life as to be an actualist and to strive for an actual freedom from the Human Condition can only be done under one’s own steam, following the expertise of others who have gone before. It is a simply process that is purely self-motivated – no-one can do it but you and nobody else can do it for you or to you.

Perhaps a few anecdotes will illustrate my point.

I always found being a parent a somewhat strange business – it was something I had no training for, it came at a stage in life when I knew nothing about life and it was clearly a case of the blind leading the blind. I always found the business of teaching or instilling my morals and ethics a bit hollow and phoney so as much as possible I adopted a tread lightly approach – which was still an approach. As quickly as possible I abandoned a fatherly teaching role – opting instead to allow my children as much freedom to explore and find out for themselves, make their own judgements, have their own successes and failures.

In the work I have done, I have often been involved in co-coordinating and supervising the work of others and again found adopting the role of teacher or mentor to be not my cup of tea and to be inhibiting of another’s learning for themselves. Another more pragmatic reason is I find if I do offer advise, no matter how sound and sensible, it was rarely followed and often resented or rebelled against. The last episode that stands out was when the teenage son of the owner of a house I was building came to work on site, fresh from school. After about 2 weeks of turning up late on the job, I said ‘I will tell you the only rule you need to know about work – turn up on time’. I said if you find yourself coming late, just take the day off because every one else is on time and you don’t want to be seen as the owner’s son taking advantage of the others. From then on, he wasn’t late and he picked up the necessary carpentry skills himself by observing others he worked with. I think I taught him all I knew about working for someone else – they are buying your time and the mutual bargain is time and effort exchanged for money.

In the case of actualism, all I can say is it works, and the return is related to the time and effort that you put in to actually changing yourself. Enough words and writing exist on the Actual Freedom Trust website for anyone to pick up the necessary skills needed to become more happy and harmless and to become free of the human condition, if that is your goal.

The idea of teaching or mentoring is not for me, as I see it as the antithesis of freedom, both for me and others. Actualism is, by its very nature, squeaky clean – it is about autonomy, freedom and actuality, 180 degrees opposite to the spiritual path.

6.10.2000

PETER: Just a follow on about mentoring –

GARY: I regard you, Richard, Vineeto, and the others as mentors. I think the word mentor has acquired certain negative connotations, especially here in the US. It is starting to smack of social control strategies by being applied across the board as a means of solving social problems. But if you regard the meaning of the word ‘mentor’ as someone who is a coach, then I think it is proper to use the term. I see what you mean about simply commenting on the facts of a situation and relaying your own practical experience with a matter, and I have no qualms about that. It is just that I am eager to learn from others who have more experience than I and get their direct feedback and comments on the issues that I raise. I’ll take all the help I can get in this thing. Thanks for your comments.

PETER: Personally I don’t see the word mentor, nor its implications, as appropriate in actualism.

Mentor an experienced and trusted adviser or guide; a teacher, a tutor. Oxford Dictionary

guide, advisor, counsellor, therapist, guru, spiritual leader, confidant, teacher, tutor, coach, instructor. Oxford Thesaurus

To take such a radical path in life as to be an actualist and to strive for an actual freedom from the Human Condition can only be done under one’s own steam, following the expertise of others who have gone before. It is a simply process that is purely self-motivated – no-one can do it but you and nobody else can do it for you or to you.

GARY: I’m a bit surprised that you regard mentorship as being inappropriate in actualism. I seem to remember the word mentor being used deliberately by Richard in his Journal, but I cannot produce right now the exact page reference, there being no index to his Journal. So from seeing it mentioned in his Journal, I thought the use of it in a loose sense of one being a coach or teacher it was appropriate. I understand the part about ‘nobody can do it but you’ and I do not think that I was asking for anyone to do it for me.

PETER: I know Richard used the term in his journal but I think the word mentor has too many fuzzy connotations for our use. I guess it stems from the current local fashion of SNAGS to use the word mentor in running groups for teenage boys whereupon they are instilled with all sorts of moral values and ethical codes. Vineeto and I had a good mull over an appropriate word to use that would be free of social/spiritual preconditioning. One way is to invent a new unique word but this sort of spluttered out, so we have come up with two new terms for consideration.

Firstly, the proposal is to use the term ‘experienced actualist’ for someone who is virtually happy and harmless, i.e. someone whose intelligence is no longer fettered by personal instinctual passions. As such, having a conversation or interaction with such a person would be of great benefit for someone interested in actualism and who is seeking a sensible conversation, clarity, direction and evidence. Vineeto and I certainly fit this description.

Secondly, the proposal is to use the term ‘expert actualist’ for someone who is totally free from the Human Condition, à la Richard.

This may seem over simple and pragmatic, but given the human propensity for over-complexity and ambiguity, these labels then allow others to freely make use of another actualist, and their level of expertise, in any way that is mutually appropriate. This definition also ensures it is a fairly simple business to debunk any pretenders, clip-oners or wannabes – they plainly have to exhibit a clarity of thinking, an absence of instinctual malice and sorrow and, most tellingly, show that it works by the down-to-earth demonstrable living of actualism in the world of people, things and events.

GARY: As it is at present there is nobody in my immediate environment with which I can converse in an intelligent way about what actualism is all about, except perhaps my partner, who is a little interested but I think also leery of it all. I have been receiving comments like ‘crazy’ and ‘psychotic’ lately when I have strayed from the herd and challenged the deeply held beliefs and psittacisms (interesting word – I never heard it before until I saw Richard using it) of fellow human beings. People have told me that I strike them as ‘cold’ and ‘clinical’ when I do not buy into nor follow along with their disturbed emotional displays or when I question the desirability or even the primacy of feelings.

PETER: Again at the risk of seeming over pedantic, you are on your own in this exercise, which is exactly what makes the process so thrilling. Nobody but you can journey into your psyche, nobody but you knows what is the next thing you have to do, the next vital issue to be faced. I have no special perception, or sense of what is going on, other than what you report and all I, or any other experienced or expert actualist, can do is pass on knowledge, experience and technique – the most valuable of information, for it is all factual.

I like the term ‘to let one’s guard down’. It addresses the issue of one’s instinctual survival program, it requires an active naiveté, and it allows one to experience firstly one’s personal psychological and emotional programming and then to experience the collective psychological and emotional programming of the human species. It beats spiritual vulnerability by two country miles for the spiritual people retreat inwards and create a protective bubble around themselves in order to be ‘present’ in the world. To let one’s guard down is to be considered insane by both real world and spiritual world viewpoints, which is why neither will understand what you are doing – but that is simply the way it is for all pioneers.

GARY: I am sorry about any misunderstanding about my use of the word mentor. I am not looking for you to be a guide. But I can read your words as you communicate them to me and test out for myself the accuracy and/or veracity of what you and others are saying. I do not want to be a burden to you Peter, so please do not think that I am trying to turn you into a protective parent figure. Just say what you have to say and go on being autonomous and free. I shall do the same.

PETER: No apologies necessary Gary, on the contrary. We are all in this actualism business for the first time and we are plotting the course for ourselves and others as we go. The recent discussions about the difference between affective spiritual experiences and pure self-less experiences was a case in point where we were all becoming clearer in communicating and more concise in our terminology. The same thing is now happening around the term mentor and I like the aliveness and immediacy of this pioneering business. It’s one of the side benefits of pioneering – you get to write the journals and tweak them as appropriate. I have really enjoyed this conversation and the associated contemplations and await your comments on our suggested terms.

Actualism Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.