Please note that Peter’s correspondence below was written by the feeling-being ‘Peter’ while ‘he’ lived in a pragmatic (methodological), still-in-control/same-way-of-being Virtual Freedom before becoming actually free.

Selected Correspondence Peter


PETER: My experience is that the only way I ever understood something fully was by the trial and error doing of it. Thinking about what to do and how to do it were the first steps, but then plunging in and doing it was essential to know if what I thought was the right way worked in practice. With hindsight that is what I did in the first year of actualism – I tested out Richard’s observations about the human condition by making my own investigations of my own psyche in action.

But where I tend to differ with what you are saying is that I did demand an understanding from my investigations – and not only an intellectual understanding but an experiential understanding. What I found was that each understanding became like a stepping-stone on the path to becoming happy and harmless. Each understanding of what made ‘me’ tick, of what prevented me from being happy and what stood in the way of me being harmless, allowed me to more and more freely delight at being here, doing this business of being alive. <snip>

RESPONDENT: Understood. I think it’s probably a case of vagueness on my part. I’m not suggesting I drop the proper application of neo-cortical capability. If I don’t maintain vigilance, I tend to ‘drift’ off to an abstractly intellectual place. It’s just my Jungian type. I have to constantly remember to keep it all firmly rooted in the flesh-and-blood. I am a huge proponent of the power of our grey matter, and am aghast at how poorly the human race uses it. It’s our greatest tool and it is essential that we take full advantage of it.

PETER: I don’t know about Jungian types but the male of the human species does have a well-earned reputation, and a long history, for abstract intellectualization – it’s not for nothing that men are said to be ‘in their heads’ whilst women are ‘in their hearts’. In exploring the different gender programming with Vineeto I discovered that, broadly speaking, men tend to indulge in philosophy, intellectualization and rationalization whilst women tend to wallow in psychology, drama and dreams.

Abstract intellectualization can only lead to philosophies, beliefs, dreams and theories about how things were, could be, should be or would be. Abstract intellectualization is the opposite to the down-to-earth reflective contemplation that an actualist uses in order to make sense of what it is to be a human being, here and now in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are.

Actualism requires a radical shift not only in one’s attention and focus but in the very manner of using one’s ‘grey matter’ as you put it. Because the shift is so radical, it does take a stubborn intent to stay on track, as it were. Whenever you notice you ‘tend to ‘drift’ off to an abstractly intellectual place’ then that in itself is an excellent awareness and understanding. Whenever you become aware of falling into old habits and programs and manage to break free, pat yourself on the back and then get on with the business of being here.

PETER: The practice of detachment from the physical, material world and renunciation of sensate, sensual experience is fundamental to entering fully into the more refined, ethereal, inner spirit-ual world.

RESPONDENT to No 14: I agree with Peter here. But I can see very clearly the following too ... if we just replace a couple of words: The practice of detachment from the spiritual world, the feelings, emotions and passions in general is fundamental to entering fully into the more material, rational, ‘intelligent and logical’ world (as one sees it).

PETER: You use inverted commas as though you are directly quoting my words, which is not the case. I have never used the words rational or logical to describe the actual world. Rational thinking and logic are no substitute for a clarity of thinking that is unimpeded by ‘self’-centred – or ‘Self’-centred – emotions and feelings arising from the instinctual passions. Rational and logical type thinking and philosophies were invented largely by impractical men ‘holed up’ in ivory towers, who were neither in touch with their emotions and feelings nor their physical senses.

RESPONDENT to Vineeto: Have your read books written by fellow English man, I thought you were English, Roger Penrose. He is a mathematician interested in consciousness. He came to give a talk here and said he was not giving a ‘religious’ account of consciousness. I know two of his books: Emperor’s New Mind, and Shadows of the Mind.

These books may be 10 and ~4 years old by now so do not have all the recent research results. I picked them up about 3 year ago, but then ran into Osho and never finished reading these books. I just started reading Emperor’s New Mind again. I think you may like them if you have not read them already. I always wanted to know if Osho had read the older one but never knew who to ask.

PETER: Just thought I’d put my ‘two bob in’ about theoretical scientists, given you have raised the issue, and offered one up for discussion. When I met Richard and the radical discovery that everyone has got it 180 degrees wrong, I decided to find out for myself if what he was saying was factually correct. With a new possible view-point in mind, I set off on a skim-through of sociology, psychiatry, physiology, behavioural studies, biology, cosmology, quantum physics, history, anthropology, philosophy, religion and spirituality. It was an eye-opener to find scant regard to instinctual influences in human studies, to find nothing but a fairy tale of God in the revered spirituality, to discover mind-numbing imagination in the theoretical sciences, and nought but mind-fucking in philosophy. To see that everybody pre-ordains that ‘you can’t change Human Nature’ – the mutually agreed scenario being ‘Life’s a bitch and then you die, so make the best of it and/or believe in a God and you will get your reward in Heaven’.

What was amazing to discover was the all-pervasive spiritual concepts in theoretical studies of physics, mathematics, cosmology. They are veritable hot-beds of spiritual fantasy – searches for other worlds, other realms, dimensions and energies. The search for the Beginning, the search for the End and the search for the Meaning behind it all – the Grand Unified Theory or GUT.

For GUT ... read GOD, and you know for what they search. For the mathematician the search is for the Elegant solution, for the philosopher the search is for Truth. Vineeto and I coined the term GUF for what the spiritualist seek – Grand Universal Feeling.

I dug out a bit from Sir Woger from the Net – the quotes are from Psyche magazine and are Mr. Penrose’s defence of critiques of his book Shadows of the Mind.

[Roger Penrose]: ... ‘The whole point of the procedures of mathematical proof is that they instil belief. <snip> This notwithstanding, Chalmers and McCullough argue for an inconsistency of the very notion of a ‘belief system’ (which, as I have pointed out above, simply means a system of procedures for mathematical proof) which can believe in itself (which means that mathematicians actually trust their proof procedures).’... R. Penrose, Psyche magazine

The very words belief and trust always make me prick up my ears ... but a belief system which can believe in itself?

[Roger Penrose]: ... ‘Likewise, a self-believing belief system cannot consistently operate if it is allowed to apply itself to unrestricted mathematical systems.’ ... R. Penrose, Psyche magazine

A ‘self-believing belief system’ is how I would describe a religion.

[Roger Penrose]: ... ‘My reason for presenting this bit of personal history is that I wanted to demonstrate that even the ‘weak’ form of the G’del argument was already strong enough to turn at least one strong-AI supporter away from computationalism. It was not a question of looking for support for a previously held ‘mystical’ standpoint. (You could not have asked for a more rationalistic atheistic anti-mystic than myself at that time!) But the very force of G’del’s logic was sufficient to turn me from the computational standpoint with regard not only to human mentality, but also to the very workings of the physical universe.’... R. Penrose, Psyche magazine

Yep, when I ‘found’ Rajneesh – you could not have asked for a more rationalistic atheistic anti-mystic than myself at that time! It seems some people get Religion and mathematicians get G’del.

[Roger Penrose]: ... ‘I have stressed in many places in Shadows that the main arguments of that book (certainly those in Chapter 2) are concerned with what mathematicians are able to perceive in principle, by their methods of mathematical proof – and that these methods need not be necessarily constrained to operate within the confines of some preassigned formal system.’... R. Penrose, Psyche magazine

In the East it is passionate feelings that run riot; in Western academia, theoretical science and mathematics, theories and principles run riot, not ‘constrained’ by ‘some preassigned formal system’.

[Roger Penrose]: ... ‘The position that I have been strongly arguing for is that this ideal notion of human mathematical understanding is something beyond computation.’... R. Penrose, Psyche magazine

By beyond computation he means unable to be computed, calculated, reckoned, worked out, demonstrated, or made sense of.

[Roger Penrose]: ... ‘Of course, individual mathematicians may well not accord at all closely with this ideal. Even the mathematical community as a whole may significantly fall short of it. We must ask whether it is conceivable that this mathematical community, or its individual members, could be entirely computational entities even though the ideal for which they strive is beyond computation. Put in this way, it may perhaps seem not unreasonable that this could be the case. However, there remains the problem of what the human mathematicians are indeed doing when they seem able to ‘strive for’, and thereby approximate, this non-computational ideal. It is the abstract idea underlying a line of proof that they seem able to perceive. They then try to express these abstract notions in terms of symbols that can be written on a page. But the particular collections of symbols that ultimately appear on the pages of their notes and articles are far less important than are the ideas themselves. Often the particular symbols used are quite arbitrary. With time, both the ideas and the symbols describing them may become refined and sometimes corrected. It may not always be very easy to reconstruct the ideas from the symbols, but it is the ideas that the mathematicians are really concerned with. These are the basic ingredients that they employ in their search for idealized mathematical proofs.’ ... R. Penrose, Psyche magazine

Abstract ideas and notions expressed in terms of symbols are the concern of mathematicians – in other words, imagination. Contemplate upon an abstract notion and away you go ...

[Roger Penrose]: ... ‘I think that a few remarks in relation to my attitude to mathematical Platonism are appropriate at this stage. Indeed, certain aspects of my discussion of errors, as given in Section 6 above, might seem to some to be inappropriately ‘Platonistic’, as they refer to idealized mathematical arguments as though they have some kind of existence independently of the thoughts of any particular mathematician. However, it is difficult to see how to discuss abstract concepts in any other way. Mathematical proofs are concerned with abstract ideas – ideas which can be conveyed from one person to another, and which are not specific to any one individual. All that I require is that it should make sense to speak of such ‘ideas’ as real things (though not in themselves material things), independent of any particular concrete realization that some individual might happen to find convenient for them. This need not presuppose any very strong commitment to a ‘Platonistic’ type of philosophy’ ...R. Penrose, Psyche magazine

Is not he saying that one needs to believe in the existence of these abstract ideas in order to understand them?

[Roger Penrose]: ...’I wear my scientist’s hat much more frequently than my philosopher’s hat! But sometimes I try to wear both hats at once.’ ... R. Penrose, Psyche magazine

He curiously makes no mention of mystics’ robes but obviously his philosopher’s hat is steeped in mysticism

[Roger Penrose]: ... ‘It appears that some people, on reading the section entitled ‘Contact with Plato’s world’ in Chapter 10 of The Emperor’s New Mind, have picked up the curious view that I believe that mathematicians obtain their mathematical knowledge by use of some direct mystical quality not possessed by ordinary mortals (see Grush and Churchland 1995, for example), and even that I may be claiming for myself a particularly unique such quality! This is a complete misreading of what I had intended in that section; for I was simply trying to find some explanation of the fact that different mathematicians can communicate a mathematical truth from one to another even though their modes of thinking may be totally dissimilar. I was arguing merely that the mathematical truths that each mathematicians may be groping for are ‘external’ to each of them – these truths being ‘inhabitants of Plato’s timeless world’. I was certainly not arguing for a fundamentally particular quality of ‘direct Platonic contact’ to be possessed only by certain individuals. I was referring simply to the general qualities of ‘understanding’ (or ‘insight’) which are in principle available to all thinking individuals (though they may perhaps come somewhat more easily to some individuals than to others). These qualities are not mystical – but as G’del’s theorem shows, there is indeed something rather mysterious about them.’ ... R. Penrose, Psyche magazine

A ‘communication’ of the ‘truth’ from ‘one to the other’ via ‘insight’ ... sounds awfully familiar language to me.

Well, not a lot about his book, but it is obvious where he is coming from – ‘pure’ mathematics, philosophy and mysticism. From a reading of the critiques of his fellow mathematicians they hadn’t much of a clue what he was on about, and from Sir Woger’s comments, they weren’t expected to. They were meant to believe, ‘understand’ and receive a ‘communication’ of a mathematical ‘truth’. I don’t think Mr. Penrose has anything at all sensible to say about consciousness , given his state of awareness of anything that is actual. Methinks he has spent too long in his ivory tower.

Mysticism and spiritualism are an attempt to ‘feel’ your way to God, philosophy and theoretical science are an attempt to ‘think’ your way to God. For an actualist – awareness and pure intent lead to apperception – a bare awareness whereby one figuratively and literally ‘comes to one’s senses’. With apperception operating almost exclusively an Actual Freedom from the Human Condition is the inevitable result.

PETER: Hi Everyone,

Just a bit more from the meta-physicians of mathematics, theoretical physics and cosmology. I thought I would post some quotes on the subject of infinity as they reveal much about the tortured imagination of the human mind. Imaginative flights of fantasy, such as we see in children’s fairy stories, are well documented, fervently believed in, passionately defended and financially well supported in the ‘adult’ worlds of science, religion and philosophy. Much convoluted and twisted thinking has gone into making up stories about ‘what lies beyond’ – whether it be beyond the stars in the physical world, or beyond death in the spiritual world. The theoretical scientists realm is supposedly that of the physical world but when they encounter infinity – the fact that this physical universe has no limit, no ‘outside’, no edges, nothing ‘beyond’ – they eagerly succumb to the spiritual or ethereal.

I remember, it was a stunning realization when I contemplated on the fact that the universe is infinite. No outside ... this is it. And I am nowhere in particular – there is no bottom left-hand corner in infinite space. And there is no room for God.

I had had previous glimpses of the infinitude of the universe while sleeping out at night in the desert when the stars alone were as bright as a coastal full moon night. Or the evening when we stopped to camp and sat out on deckchairs to watch the sunset. As the sun was setting to a huge golden-red ball I turned to see the moon rising behind me – an equal sized golden-red ball on the opposite horizon. What a sight, I didn’t know which way to look, such was the magnificence of it all.

The actual leaves any paltry imagination for dead.

So, on to some quotes from – Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity, Beyond the Black Hole, Penguin 1994, Chapter 2 – Measuring the Infinite

[Paul Davies]: In science, however, infinity is frequently encountered, sometimes with dismay. Long ago mathematicians began attempts to get the measure of the infinite and to discover rules which would enable infinity to join the ranks of other mathematical objects as a well understood and disciplined logical concept. <snip>

Even in science, for many purposes, infinity is only an idealization for a quantity which is actually so large that to treat it as strictly infinite involves negligible error. From time to time, though, the appearance of infinity in a physical theory denotes something much more dramatic – the end of either the theory, or the subject of its description. This is the case with spacetime singularities. There we are brought face to face with infinity, and it seems to be telling us something profound: that we have reached the end of the universe. Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity, p. 22

The ‘end of the universe’, in spacetime terms, is an illusion built upon an illusion. Spacetime is an imaginary ‘other dimension’ invented by Mr. Einstein – so whatever is theorized to happen in spacetime is twice removed from the actual universe (with actual time and actual space) that we live in. All this nonsense is based on the stubborn and instinctual fear of acknowledging the fact that the physical universe is infinite and eternal – no other worlds, no other place, no other dimensions.

[Paul Davies]: None of the results quoted will be rigorously proved, for the proofs would require many years study of advanced mathematics to comprehend. It is important to realize that the subject of discussion is not a theory about the world, but mathematics. Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity, p. 23

A little disclaimer he slips in here but then proceeds to apply his mathematical theories to the real world – predicting the existence of black holes and singularities in the physical universe despite a stunning lack of any factual evidence.

[Paul Davies]: Given the fundamental axioms on which all mathematics ultimately rest, the results are therefore correct, beyond any possibility of doubt, as all the proofs rest on concrete and universally accepted logic. This point is stressed because the results often seem impossible to believe; yet they are true. We shall see that measuring infinity can be a very strange experience indeed. Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity, p. 23

‘... impossible to believe, yet they are true’. ‘True’ is a word that is currently so abused as to be useless. Christians believe the virgin birth was true, NDA-followers believe that inert planets hurtling through space affects their moods and behaviour, Trekkies believe in Warp-speed and wormholes, and Mr. Davies believes in an edge to the infinite universe. Strange tales, but ‘true’ ...?

[Paul Davies]: The first step on the road to infinity is to discard any ideas about ‘very, very large’. Infinity is larger than any number, however large that number may be – and there is no limit to numbers. We shall see that not only is infinity beyond all limits, but is, in a sense, so large that it is almost impossible to make it larger. <snip> Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity, p. 23

I hate to quibble about words, but Mr. Oxford says of infinity –

‘Having no limit or end; boundless, endless; immeasurably great in extent, duration, degree, etc’. Oxford Talking Dictionary

So how is it almost impossible to make it larger? Could it be by inventing a plug hole in the middle – a black hole – so we can all disappear down there one day? Or how about a hole that ‘new stuff’ comes flowing in one day? Of course, you would have to bend space a bit around the holes but ... then again ... why not? It is just a theory after all ... truly ... honestly ...

[Paul Davies]: [The concept of infinity] in 1600 even contributed to the death sentence passed on Giordano Bruno at the hands of the Church. Bruno had declared a belief in the infinity of worlds, against the established doctrine that only God was infinite. Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity, p. 23

How not to win friends in the church. Mr. Davies has no such trouble, as he collected a cool million dollars in 1995 for the ‘Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion’.

[Paul Davies]: Many people first encounter the idea of infinity when thinking about the universe. Does it extend for ever? If space is not unlimited in extent, does that not mean that there exists a barrier somewhere – in which case the barrier must lie beyond, and something beyond that ...? Another question, frequently asked by children, is of the ‘what happened before that’ variety. It seems that every event must have been preceded by some cause, and every elapsed moment must have come after an earlier moment. We shall see that the answers to these questions can be bewilderingly different from the obvious. <snip> Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity, p. 23

Questions ‘frequently asked by children’ and adult cosmologists? Answers provided by science fiction writers and cosmologists – if there is a difference between the two. The only difference between Paul Davies and George Lucas is that one writes science fiction books and the other makes science fiction movies.

As for the cosmological ‘answers’ – beyond the stars we see from earth have come pictures of vast nebula thousands of light years across, fantastic arrays of particles, rocks, gases, storms, eruptions, explosions, lights, clouds. All actual – requiring no imagination. All obvious – raising no question. All perfect – requiring no solution.

[Paul Davies]: If the infinity of all even numbers is as numerous as all the even and odd numbers together, it looks, crudely speaking, as though doubling infinity still leaves us with the same infinity. Moreover, it is easily shown that trebling, quadrupling or any higher multiplication of infinity has equally little effect. In fact, even if we multiply infinity by infinity itself it still stubbornly refuses to grow any larger. The square of infinity is only as numerous as the natural numbers. <snip> Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity, p. 27

[Paul Davies]: Cantor’s great discovery was that the set of all decimals (i.e. all rational and irrational numbers) is a bigger infinity than the set of all fractions (i.e. rational numbers alone). These issues may appear to be mathematical quibbles, but they run very deep. Centuries of groping towards a proper understanding of time, space, order, number and topology lie behind the work of Cantor and others to grasp the infinite as an actual, concrete concept. Some of the greatest minds in human history have foundered on the rock of the infinite. Few ideas can have so challenged man’s intellect. <snip> Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity, p. 32

[Paul Davies]: Measuring the infinite must rank as one of the greatest enterprises of the human intellect, comparable with the most magnificent forms of art or music. Mathematics, ‘eternal and perfect’ in the words of Lord Bertrand Russell, can be used to build structures more beautiful and satisfying than any sculpture. Yet Cantor’s edifice of infinity – ‘a paradise from which no one will drive us’, as his contemporary David Hilbert was moved to say – took its toll. Grappling with the infinite evidently proved such disconcerting experience that when the respected mathematician Leopold Kronecker pronounced Cantor’s work on set theory as ‘mathematically insane’, he seems to have struck a raw nerve. Cantor suffered several nervous breakdowns, and eventually died in a mental hospital in 1918. Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity, p. 37

Yep, insanity and madness prevail. And the passion and fervour of Holy Mathematics is indicated by the phrase – ‘a paradise from which no one will drive us’. Their search for God, ‘eternal and perfect’, involves trust, faith and belief in concepts that are held to be truths, all firmly based on the quick-sand of imagination. An imagined new dimension – spacetime that bends, folds and warps, that has holes and peaks; an imagined time that can run backwards, split into two or more and even loop the loop, imaginary numbers that are unreal, irrational and illogical; imaginary matter that is negative, uncertain, anti or virtual, particle and/or wave or even string-like.

And from this mish mash come theories which are ... ‘impossible to believe, yet they are true’.

‘True’ they may be called, but factual they are not – nobody has found a black hole, or a worm hole, let alone a naked singularity! It was nuclear chemists and engineers who developed nuclear energy and the bomb. According to the book,

[Robert Jungk]: ‘Einstein assured the American reporter W. L. Lawrence that he did not believe in the release of atomic power’, Brighter Than a Thousand Suns by Robert Jungk – as late as 1939

i.e. he didn’t think it was possible. Further, Edward Teller states

[Edward Teller]: ‘I believe at the time he had no very clear idea of what we were doing in nuclear physics’. Edward Teller

The Americans got to the moon with Newtonian physics and engineering, not Einsteinian theory.

[Paul Davies]: Einstein’s general theory of relativity is regarded by many as the supreme intellectual achievement of the human species; certainly it surpasses Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory in elegance, economy and scope. <snip> Yet Einstein’s theory leads irresistibly to a singularity, to unbounded gravitational collapse. It is frequently proposed that the theory should be abandoned in the face of this absurdity. <snip> Tinkering with this great edifice of descriptive and predictive power in order to alleviate the singularity crisis seems like a ‘cop-out’. It was not the way out in 1911, and it would be surprising if it were the solution today. Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity, pp. 176-7

The more I read and understand Mr. Einstein, the more mystical and Guru-like he becomes.

It’s all mythical tales and wishful thinking of anywhere but here, and anytime but now. Anything to avoid the fact that we are mortal and that neither goodness nor Godness can make us happy and harmless. Anything to avoid the instinctually-sourced malice and sorrow of the Human Condition. Anything to avoid the fact that this is the only moment one can experience being alive. Anything to avoid being here and now in this very actual world, happening at this very moment.

What a waste to bury one’s head in the sand or in the clouds when what is actual is perfect, benign, delightful, magnificent, tangible, tactile, tasty, vibrant, alive, immediate and right here on this planet.

And it is the destiny of all committed actualists to experience this actuality 24 hrs. a day, every day. To sacrifice one’s self – to psychologically and psychically self-immolate, in order that the perfection and purity of the infinitude of the physical universe can become actualized in a human being.

In order that the universe can experience itself as a human being.

Good, Hey.

PETER: In response to your post –

This is a discourse where Mr. Rajneesh talks on anger, one of the fiercest of the instinctual passions, and a topic that is directly related to Gurus, their legacy (written words) and peace on earth (the eradication of human anger) –

[Mohan Rajneesh]: When I say replace perfection with totality, I mean when you are angry be totally angry. Then just be anger, pure anger. And it has beauty. And the world will be far better when we accept anger as part of humanity, as part of the play of polarities? The Revolution. Chapter 2. ‘The Sacred Soul Makes Music’. Q.2.

From this direct quote I would have thought that it was obvious that peace on earth was definitely not on Rajneesh’s agenda and therefore cannot possibly be part of his legacy.

RESPONDENT: If you want to make the point that Osho wanted us ‘to accept anger as part of humanity, as part of the play of polarities’, you certainly have provided an exhibit for this purpose. From this point, if you want to say peace on earth was not on Osho’s agenda, I understand your logic for this conclusion. I have no problem with you making such a conclusion based on the evidence you have provided. However, this is one of the possibilities among many conclusions one can draw.

PETER: I take it that your use of the word ‘exhibit’ is some sort of put down that I chose to use Mr. Rajneesh’s own words as factual evidence as to his stance regarding peace on earth, and then you go on to blatantly avoid making any personal comment whatsoever on the facts presented. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what conclusion you draw from the quotation. This is what is called having a conversation. You tell me what you think and I’ll tell you what I think and we will compare notes. After all, in a previous post you said – ‘For me, the bottom line is: to look into myself, especially to see where my anger and fears are coming from’ and the quote, coincidentally, deals with this very issue. And yet you will not enter into any meaningful conversation about this very topic.

RESPONDENT: I remember someone explaining that to save an endangered species one needed to exploit the species commercially, to ensure its survival. An unconvincing argument for anyone interested in the species’ quality of life, but it had a pragmatic kind of logic.

PETER: I think there is no doubt that the human species is an endangered species but not from external threat, nor from any ‘environmental’ disaster or earth resources’ depletion, but from the simple fact that human beings cannot live together in anything remotely resembling peace and harmony. As a practicalist, when I came across Richard, I chose to disprove the logic of Ancient Wisdom that you can’t change Human Nature. Otherwise a human existence of perpetual malice and sorrow is indeed a sick joke. I saw in a PCE that the universe is too magnificent, too grand, too perfect and too pure for me to continue to be sorrowful and malicious. So I set out to change the only thing that was wrong – as in silly and senseless – and that was a ‘me’ inside this flesh and blood body.

As for ‘endangered species’, I realized I was not alone in this exercise of seeking peace on earth. It is an almost universal hope and wish, but everyone looks to others to bring it about, to actualize it. Peace on earth is already here, of course, and only you can find it for yourself.

A bit from my journal –

[Peter]: ... ‘When I was growing up, as a teenager, it seemed there was a revolution happening on the planet. My father had fought in the Second World War but didn’t talk about what had gone on at all. His sole piece of advice to me was, ‘It doesn’t matter what you do in life, what job you have – be happy.’ I guess he saw that the next war would be fought with Really Big Bombs – atomic bombs – so I might as well make happiness my goal in life, because the next world war would be the last one. In fact the world was facing global suicide, with two nations, each with tens of thousands of nuclear bombs, facing each other in a Mexican stand-off; a bit like two kids in the school ground saying, ‘Go on, I dare you.’ The Cold War was to prove a watershed; from then on world wars meant possible suicide for the species.

I remained in childhood ignorance of the historical significance, but my father surreptitiously passed on his warning – a sort of a secret message against society’s values.’ Peter’s Journal, ‘Peace’

This is no small thing we do.

RESPONDENT: OK there are advantages to deprogramming, recording and examining, (in a very exact manner), how the words, experiences, beliefs and morals, ‘we’ the community often take for granted, are used for ‘ourselves’... but is it the best?

PETER: It is a curious thing when I contemplate my own path to freedom. I lived down the road from Richard and spent a good deal of time sitting in his living room, talking about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being. After about 9 months that stopped and I went off to write my journal – to get on with the business at hand, becoming free from the Human Condition. And most of that process has involved writing – it is the best form of ‘contemplation in action’ that I know of. It is this process that put in action the ‘deprogramming, recording and examining, (in a very exact manner), how the words, experiences, beliefs and morals’, which ‘I’ had taken for granted. For me it was the best method.

RESPONDENT: It would be faster with ICQ, telephone, or even multimedia productions, I think? If we are serious about sharing and promoting AF with the world let us stir the mass media...? Television, magazines and newspapers are where most people are. Why must the powerful determine what ‘we’ see, think or what is possible?

PETER: Well, in the world as-it-is, that is the way it is. Even the mild-mannered loving ladies at the local New Dark Age book shops did not want to stock my journal. I did get one very mild article printed in a newspaper but when I ‘upped the ante’ to be just a touch heretical it was no go. I am at present trying the same exercise with a local New Dark Age magazine, so I am still on the case. It is really that Actual Freedom is not a popular subject. No one wants to change themselves. It is much more convenient to blame others for one’s own misery and unhappiness and then one can have the fun of battling with and being angry at others. In the Human Condition anger is a pleasing self-gratifying emotion.

The other point is that there is no ‘we’, as in a group, who promote Actual Freedom. Richard has his experience, interests and ‘style’, I have mine, Vineeto hers, Alan his. Each person who becomes interested in Actual Freedom and takes it on will no doubt make their own contribution – in proving that it is possible to become free from the Human Condition something will spin off that will be valuable for others. The world is full of those who don’t live what they teach and unless one proves it is possible for oneself ‘tis but more piss in the wind.

I include writing about being virtually free of the Human Condition in that I experience that ‘not quite, but almost’ state I live as eminently worthwhile trumpeting about. Thus, I write from practical, down-to-earth, everyday experience not from theory or wishful thinking.

PETER: The only way to become free of the belief-go-round is to ascertain the facts, for yourself, by yourself.

Given that you have stated in part 3 of your reply to my post –

[Respondent]: ‘I am sorry I am not familiar enough with the totality of No 22’s writings to know if I agree with him on average.’ [endquote].

PETER: – it does seem you might be somewhat on shaky ground in questioning the facticity of what I said, particularly when you take your issue even further, as you have done immediately below. (see – ‘the issue is you lying, Peter’).

RESPONDENT: The facticity I am after is a simple statement of your logic. You will not state your logic?

PETER: To put it as plainly, simply and unambiguously as I can – because No 22 said so, not once, but many times, in many ways. There is no simpler statement I can make, nor is there a simpler form of logic than this.

It goes like this – X says A. I read that X says A. I then report that X says A.

It’s called reporting what someone else said. The excellent thing about mailing lists is that this reporting does not rely on rumour, intuition, inaccurate recall, fudging or the like. A direct, copy and paste, accurate written quote is as good a report as is possible – it is a statement of fact.

Neither tortuous yang logic nor fickle yin intuition is necessary at all to discover a fact, they only serve to sidetrack and befuddle.

RESPONDENT: You will not provide the texts that you suggest if taken at face value would show that No 22 believes he is god-on-earth?

PETER: No. It would be not only illogical but silly to do so given that you have already stated that if I did so you would simply ask the same question again. Given that that is what you are doing anyway, I simply skipped a round in your game. (...)


PETER: A quote from a Mohan Rajneesh discourse will illustrate that this is an archetypical rebuttal –

[Question]: Beloved Master, what is the difference between you and other Godmen?

[Mohan Rajneesh]: Swami. S..., I am not a Godman, I am simply God – as you are, as trees are, as birds are, as rocks are. I don’t belong to any category. ‘Godman’ is a category invented by journalists. <Snip> If someone has realized God, he is not a Godman – he is simply God! Osho, The Dharmapada: The Way of the Buddha, Vol 1 Chapter 10 ‘Neither This Nor That’ Q.1.

RESPONDENT: It is nice to have a quote from Osho, but I fail to see the relevance. How does something that Osho said, prove to you that No 22 believes he is god-on-earth? Is it a case of categorisation? No 22 has a similarity to Osho (in your estimation) and thus Osho’s words can be used to determine No 22’s entire state of mind. Is that the logic?

PETER: Are you really this silly or are you simply spreading your intelligence so thinly in order to point score such that you can’t follow a simple use of example? Example goes like this –

Man X says he is God but denies he is a God-man.

Man Y also says he is God.

Therefore it is reasonable to look up what Man Y says about God-men to see whether this denial is common to God-men.

When one collects enough examples by this process to see a common pattern emerging, then you go looking for exceptions.

If you find none then it is a fact that all God-men deny that they are God-men.

Which is why I take No 22’s denial to be nothing other than common God-man-speak – i.e. in fact it is his own words that prove that he is a God-man.

Prof. A. DEIKMAN: Experiment 2:

Look straight ahead. Now shut your eyes. The rich visual world has disappeared to be replaced by an amorphous field of blackness, perhaps with red and yellow tinges. But awareness hasn’t changed. A Deikman, Awareness = ‘I’

PETER: In my experience, when sight – the visual awareness of one’s surrounding – is shut down, then two options become apparent. If you wish to retain any sensorial experience then the focus shifts to hearing, feeling on the skin, smell and taste. Given that sight is such a dominant sense, the other senses can become heightened, but generally, in meditation practices, one begins to feel isolated from the ‘external’ world. Thus one’s focus or awareness inevitably falls on the thinking and reflecting of the brain in action. Given the intent of this inner search, one identifies as the awareness of the brain’s senses and the awareness of the brain’s functions of thinking and reflecting. ‘I’ become this awareness itself. This new ‘I’ – an unchangeable entity – is uninfluenced by, and disassociated from, all sensate experience that is occurring and any thought and reflection that is happening. This new identity is beginning to live in its ‘own’ world, more and more.

Prof. A. DEIKMAN: You will notice that awareness continues as your thoughts come and go, as memories arise and replace each other, as desires emerge and fantasies develop, change and vanish. Now try and observe awareness. You cannot. Awareness cannot be made an object of observation because it is the very means whereby you can observe. A Deikman, Awareness = ‘I’

PETER: We have a further confirmation of awareness as being a separate ‘it’ – ‘it is the very means whereby one can observe’ – rather than simply a functioning of the brain itself. We have an almost complete separation of awareness, the new identity, from the flesh and blood mortal body and from the brain and its functioning of thought and reflection.

Prof. A. DEIKMAN: Awareness may vary in intensity as our total state changes, but it is usually a constant. Awareness cannot itself be observed, it is not an object, not a thing. Indeed, it is featureless, lacking form, texture, colour, spacial dimensions. These characteristics indicate that awareness is of a different nature than the contents of the mind; it goes beyond sensation, emotions, ideation, memory. Awareness is at a different level, it is prior to contents, more fundamental. Awareness has no intrinsic content, no form, no surface characteristics – it is unlike everything else we experience, unlike objects, sensations, emotions, thoughts, or memories. A Deikman, Awareness = ‘I’

PETER: This new identity, awareness itself, is building up quite an impressive curriculum vitae. It seems to be becoming more than a little imperious, more than a touch ethereal and definitely unquestionable.

Prof. A. DEIKMAN: Thus, experience is dualistic, not the dualism of mind and matter, but the dualism of awareness and the contents of awareness. To put it another way, experience consists of the observer and the observed. Our sensations, our images, our thoughts – the mental activity by which we engage and define the physical world – are all part of the observed. In contrast, the observer – the ‘I’ – is prior to everything else; without it there is no experience of existence. A Deikman, Awareness = ‘I’

PETER: So now we have the concept of duality introduced to give further credence to and supporting evidence for the existence of ‘awareness itself’ as being a separate but fundamental identity. The argument goes that because ‘I’, the observer, feel separate from what is observed then experience is dualistic. One part is awareness, per se, as a disembodied experiencer; the other part being the physical world, including the physical body and it’s instrument of observation – the brain and its senses. The professor, like countless others before him, predictably opts for that which is physical and actual to be seen as transient and illusionary and ‘I’, as awareness, to be real, substantial and prior. Thus ‘I’ am real – all else is unreal. And his logic is that without ‘I’ there is no experience of the existence of physical world. He comes perilously close to saying without ‘I’ the physical world does not exist at all, which is but a hair’s breath away from saying ‘I am the Centre of it All’, ‘I am God’ – but again I wouldn’t want to pre-empt the professor’s inner research.

Prof. A. DEIKMAN: If awareness did not exist in its own right, there would be no ‘I’. There would be ‘me’, my personhood, my social and emotional identity – but no ‘I’, no transparent centre of being. A Deikman, Awareness = ‘I’

PETER: Now this is quite a leap. First he creates a new identity, ‘I’ as awareness itself, and then says if the function of awareness did not exist then nor would the new identity that is this very awareness! Round and round goes the logic.

I guess, he also has a bit of trouble in explaining what happens to his new ‘I’ when he goes to sleep at night-time and his awareness ceases to function. We won’t bother, just yet, with what happens to ‘it’ after death. But he has managed another of his shuffles for he says if the new identity did not exist then the old one would be back in existence. The going inside and searching for a new identity – the ‘transparent centre of being’ – has somehow magically managed to obliterate the old identity. Quite effortlessly it has disappeared, no doubt confirming it was merely an illusion in the first place and once again contriving, by implication, to confirm the genuineness of the new ‘I’ that has emerged. This new ‘I’ exists in a peaceful inner world and has superseded or transcended the old ‘I’ of the real world.

It all sounds so seductive, so easy, so effortless ... just close your eyes ... and go in ...

I might leave him at that for this post and continue later. It may seem that I am labouring a point here, and I freely admit to doing so. Underlying the Professor’s ‘logical’ thesis is the core of spiritual philosophy and the essence of its very delusion – a delusion being an illusion based on an illusion. Or, to put it another way, an insane, fashionable, concept, based on an ignorant ancient belief.

Up until now this delusion has offered the only ‘freedom’ from remaining normal, and it needs to be exposed for the fraudulent, imaginary freedom it is. This exposure is necessary and vital if human beings are to free themselves of the yolk of Ancient Wisdom and the horrendous, violent consequences of maintaining spiritual and religious belief.

There is now a third alternative – a new and non-spiritual, down-to-earth freedom.

Well, that’s it from me, Alan. Vineeto is home and dinner is being discussed, so I might send this off. Yesterday a new telescope was launched into orbit to look at the ‘Event Horizon’, but my event horizon is currently limited by thoughts of what to eat.

PETER: One has no psychological and psychic identity whatsoever. No ‘I’ in the head – who ‘I’ think I am – nor ‘me’ in the heart – who ‘I’ feel I am.

There is simply this thoughtful, reflective flesh and blood body brimming with sense organs being apperceptively aware. Apperception is the brain’s ability to be aware of itself – a bare awareness. There is no ‘I’ being aware, there is simply awareness operating by itself as a function of the brain of this flesh and blood body. The brain, freed of the neurotic burden of a social identity and the chemical surges emanating from the instinctual animal ‘self’ is able to operate with salubrious clarity. The physical senses – literally the stalks of the brain – are freed of their burden of guard-duty imposed by a fearful instinctual ‘self’, are heightened to an extent that one experiences purity and perfection as a sensual actuality that leaves any paltry feelings for dead.

RESPONDENT: Great stuff Peter, I must say I bought the spiritual idea of the self watching the thoughts in our brain. That ‘insight’ (actually delusion) served me as very clear and logic evidence of the existence of the soul/self. I often pointed this out to other people; look, this makes perfect sense! We’re watching ourselves from the ‘centre’, the real self is watching the dream existence, what else could it be than definite proof of the existence of a mysterious other world (the spiritual world). I didn’t for a moment consider the possibility of this being the works of the mind alone. This shows how limiting one’s beliefs can be and how gullible I was.

PETER: This ‘self’-less awareness is something that is only possible to experience in a pure consciousness experience. An understanding that a ‘self’-less awareness is possible is certainly an excellent start but the proof is only by experience, lest it remains yet another belief. (...)


RESPONDENT: You will see this as ‘objections to peace on earth’, I’m sure, but I still insist that it’s useful to be more inclusive than exclusive. Otherwise the third way can become an elitist club with very few members even in the long run and the chance for peace on earth is diminished a little.

PETER: So what you are proposing is that the first ones who become free of the Human Condition are, by definition, ‘an elitist club’, so therefore we should all wait until some mass event causes some ‘more inclusive’ club to become free? Following this logic, no one should be first, or at least in the early group and therefore we should do nothing towards pioneering a third alternative. I, for one, don’t buy your logic.

We humans would all be still huddling in caves fighting off wild animals if this logical attitude had prevailed.

PETER: Well, it seems that this conversation has come to an end. I can see that you are a firm believer in, and practitioner of, Eastern religion and philosophy and, as such, are not interested in exploring an alternative. Fair enough. It is good to be full-on into something that makes you ‘happier, less serious, more fun and deeper’, as you said.

PUBLISHER No 1: It’s funny, isn’t it, members of my religion accuse me of not being focused on eastern religion and at odds with it and you say the opposite.

PETER: Which must make you a rebel without a cause, or a rebel for rebellion’s sake, or a fighter for ... Which is perhaps where your taunt of ‘chicken’ comes from. It reeks of schoolboy playground fights.

PUBLISHER No 1: Why does what I said ‘make you a rebel without a cause, or a rebel for rebellion’s sake, or a fighter for ...’ Where is your reasoning? Where is your logic? Again ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ are new age heresies.

PETER: You indicated you were not interested in exploring an alternative to remaining ‘normal’ or becoming ‘spiritual’, acknowledged that ‘of course I don’t understand actualism’ and then proceeded to tell me what you think it is, based on a thoughtless knee jerk reaction to my ridiculing of all spiritual belief. This is a clear sign of someone being against something without knowing what it is he is against, or why. This is the definition of ‘a rebel without a cause, or a rebel for rebellion’s sake, or a fighter for ...’ You also will never understand actualism, or spirituality for that matter, for as you said – ‘as far as books go I never read them, (including Osho’s)’. You may feel you have a cause but you don’t understand your cause for you refuse to understand what it is you are defending or attacking.

Peter’s Selected Correspondence Index

Library – Topics Index

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

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity