VINEETO: Hi,

I thought I reply to your query in your letter to No 33 –

RESPONDENT No 33: What I understood (from Richard’s mails mainly) so far is that: a direct experience is the final arbiter and while logic/ mathematics can sharpen the directly experienced, they are subservient to the direct experience. This is in contrast to the theoretical physicist/ mathematician’s viewpoint which is: logic/ mathematics is the final arbiter – direct experience is prone to error. Please correct this appraisal if necessary.

RESPONDENT: I think your appraisal is fair enough.

However, the question that interests me at this stage is not so much whether empiricists or rationalists should have the final say. The question that concerns me is: where is the ‘empirical’ evidence?

VINEETO: No 60, there is no empirical evidence that the universe is infinite and eternal, nor can there ever be – although it is paradoxical that those cosmologists who also acknowledge this simultaneously claim that they have found empirical evidence of a supposed creationist event that took place some 12 billions years ago, thereby claiming they have proof that the universe is neither eternal nor infinite. Infinitude is by its very nature beyond the reach of empirical data because we can never build a telescope powerful enough to look into infinity. There is only one evidence for infinitude and that is the unadulterated sensate apperceptive experience.

RESPONDENT: How can precise details concerning the origin, extent and duration of the universe be directly experienced? In the so-called ‘Big Bang’, we are talking about an event (or non-event) that happened (or didn’t happen) billions of years ago. How can one claim to have direct experience (thus empirical evidence) of what did or didn’t happen billions of years ago, on the basis of what one experiences in a lifespan of 50-odd years as a flesh and blood body with limited sense organs and limited intellect?

VINEETO: In a PCE – in absence of a scheming alien entity – one can clearly recognize that all theories about a beginning and an edge of the universe are mere anthropocentric fantasies (part and parcel of the human drama as you called it) and that questions about ‘the origin, extent and duration of the universe’ are utterly redundant. In a PCE I directly experience that matter is not passive, I directly experience that matter is in a continuous cycle of birth and death, generation and decay, composition and decomposition and that the belief that all this should not have been happening at some imaginary other point in time is plain silly. An intelligence freed of ‘self’-centredness can easily comprehend that there is neither ‘origin’ nor ‘extent’ nor ‘duration of the universe’ – those are man-made anthropocentric metaphysical inventions in order to get a grip on something that is, by its very nature, incomprehensible to both logic and rational thought. Infinitude cannot be thought through or reasoned out – it can only be experienced in delight.

The question is what is it that makes this so hard to understand?

RESPONDENT: It seems to me that what is being portrayed as empirical evidence is actually circular and self-validating logic:

VINEETO: No, what is being portrayed is neither empirical evidence nor logic – that is what you make of it. What is being portrayed are the results of apperception – ‘self’-less pure perception.

RESPONDENT: The universe is infinite and eternal because one (supposedly) experiences it that way in a PCE. A PCE reveals the actual facts of the cosmos. A PCE happens if (and only if) the universe is infinite and eternal. PCEs do happen. Therefore the universe is infinite and eternal. If this type of logic is allowed, one might say: the universe is imperfect because one experiences it that way in depression. Depression happens if (and only if) the universe is imperfect. Depression does happen. Therefore the universe is imperfect. This is not ‘empirical evidence’ of anything. It is circular reasoning based on one absolute experiential standard and several tenuous premises.

No 33, since you’ve been following the discussions closely, I’d appreciate it if you (or anyone else) let me know if you think my reasoning is off track. I am not asking you to ‘take sides’, just to drop me a note (by email if you wish) if you think I’m not making sense, or not understanding something that is clear to you.

VINEETO: When I started to look into actualism as an alternative to the spiritualism that I had practiced so long with unsatisfying results, the mind-boggling radicality of the 180 degrees opposite statements often caused my mind to gridlock. From whatever angle I looked at certain issues, I simply could not understand what Richard was saying. However, I had the burning desire to find out all there is to know about this third alternative because I had already experienced for myself that something was greatly amiss in the venerated teachings and practice of spiritualism.

In those situations when I couldn’t think my way out of my mental block, a condition which I later discovered to be cognitive dissonance, I used to ask myself what it was that was preventing me from understanding. Rather than accusing Richard of being bone-headed, stubborn, silly or wrong, I instead chose to question why I was so bone-headed that I could not understand what he had discovered and what emotional investment ‘I’ had in maintaining ‘my’ status quo by not understanding what he presented as his ongoing delectable experience of the actual world.

These were some of the questions I used to ask myself –

• What feelings prevent me from seeing this one particular fact?
• What fears do I have that prevent me from coming to a new understanding?
• What consequence will this understanding possibly have for ‘me’ and ‘my’ worldview if what Richard is saying is right?
• What consequence will it have for ‘my’ lifestyle, my friendships, my working situation if what Richard is saying is right?

To ask these questions was to sharpen my attentiveness as to how I felt, what I felt and why I felt it when I contemplated the issues that caused a mental block and this attentiveness also showed me how to move past those affective feelings that prevented a clearer understanding of those issues. In other words, attentiveness counteracts the instinctive ‘self’-centredness that is more or less happening all the time unless I become aware of it. Attentiveness combined with contemplation does wonders when one wants to penetrate ‘my’ automatically ongoing affective reactive-ness to emotionally charged topics.

Eventually my burning desire and my persistence not to settle for anything less than indisputable facts won over my fears of questioning what I believed to be absolutely right and true and, to make a long story short, one day something had to give – ‘my’ worldview collapsed in one fell swoop and I had my first pure consciousness experience which lasted for a night and the better half of the next day. I was with Peter at the time and experienced for the first time what it is to be with a fellow human being without having ‘self’-oriented expectations, fears and preconceptions. In fact I only noticed that those ‘self’-centred expectations, fears and preconceptions towards others were a constant feature of ‘me’ when they temporarily ceased.

The next day Peter and I went to the local market and I experienced first hand how everyone was not only selling their goods but with those goods their beliefs and convictions, their worldviews and ethics and everyone was absolutely convinced that he or she had the right truth. In the following days the memory of this direct experience made a big dent into all of my beliefs and truths but it took many more such break-throughs to question one ‘truth’ after the other and with each crumbled belief my understanding of the human condition expanded and the nature of actuality became more and more clear.

One of those break-throughs happened when I mused about the nature of the universe and my beliefs in a mystical, metaphysical or super-natural energy permeating it. The longer I contemplated the more it became clear that both a beginning to and an edge of the universe do not make sense because this theory raises far more questions than it solves, whereas an infinite and eternal universe does away with any and all the theorizing about the how, when and by whom or by what mysterious force the universe was created and what it is that it supposedly expands into. At this point it also dawned on me that in a universe without boundaries there is no physical space for any mystical Force to be ruling the world and the very meaning of actuality – matter devoid of spirit but in constant change – became stunningly clear, not just intellectually but experientially. The very simplicity of my intellectual understanding and the resultant immediate experiencing of this very understanding made the nature of the universe self-evidently obvious.

I acknowledge that it requires great daring, intent and stubborn determination to leave one’s safe haven of being an agnostic about the nature of the universe in order to recognize and experientially discover the facts about the nature of the universe as opposed to remaining ‘open’ to any and all theories about the universe. To leave the non-committal position of not-knowing behind and commit oneself to finding out the facts, whatever the cost, is a truly life-changing process as one’s whole personal worldview will fall apart and disappear. Naturally in the face of this threat, the survival instincts kick in, causing ‘me’ to opt for the safety of the status quo.

The first thing to counteract this automatic instinctual reaction is to become aware of it so that one can then make an informed decision in which direction one wants to proceed. But then again, you have apparently experienced the strength of theses passions –

[Respondent]: I started out with the intention of picking up the pace, using HAIETMOBA to awaken felicitous feelings and sensuous delight, hoping to bring on a PCE. For a while everything was going fine – untroubled, happy, buoyant, delighting in sun and sky and sea, etc. Then, seemingly out of the blue I was seized with a deep remorse. <…> I felt as if I’d betrayed everything I ever held dear; everything that was ever innocent, pure, honest and true in myself had turned into this wretched bag of scum walking along the beach trying to blithely exterminate all the goodness that had ever existed in this body. I couldn’t continue, and didn’t want to. I felt I’d rather be permanently sad yet true to my roots than give up my humanity in exchange for the absence of pain. Ruthless-Pitiless-Merciless-Relentless, 10.1.2004

The actualism method itself is very simple – the consequences of applying it are enormous.

1.2.2004

RESPONDENT No 23: From my own experience I have so far come to the conclusion that this is no longer possible. This kind of imagination is a feature of the neocortex and not a result of overexcitement in the reptilian brain.

RESPONDENT: That’s what I thought too. I’d hard to conceive of the imaginative faculty as a phenomenon of the reptilian brain. I don’t buy that. On the other hand, maybe those features of the neocortex depend on crude ‘triggers’ from ‘below’ in order to be stimulated into action.

VINEETO: You don’t need to ‘buy that’ at all. The imaginative faculty is not ‘a phenomenon of the reptilian brain’ but a faculty of the instinctual survival passions and as such imagination is an epiphenomenon of the survival passions. That the instinctual survival passions are possibly triggered in the reptilian brain, possibly in the area called substantia nigra in the brain-stem, does not mean that the imaginative faculty is also located in the same area of the brain.

RESPONDENT: Who knows?

VINEETO: To give you the description from someone ‘who knows’ because he has lived entirely free from the affective faculty for more than a decade –

Co-Respondent: Is all imagery connected to the limbic system, to feeling, as the synesthetes above?

Richard: All imagery is a product of the imaginative/ intuitive facility contained within the psyche – the affective faculty – born of the instinctual passions. When the instinctual passions are deleted, the entire psyche itself ceases to exist ... thus the imaginative apparatus also disappears in toto.

Co-Respondent: Could it be that there are non feeling images, that we create an image of sorts, in our mind for each and every thought?

Richard: There is no such thing as ‘non-feeling images’ ... without the affective faculty there is no visualising, no forming images, no picturing, no ‘seeing in my mind’s eye’, no intuiting, no feeling, no envisioning, no falling into a reverie, no daydreaming, no conceptualising, no envisaging in any way, shape or form.

There is only the magical unfolding of the actual ... actuality is far, far better than anything ‘I’ could imagine, dream, contrive or concoct. Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, No 10, 25.5.2000

Incidentally this quote is an excerpt from a long correspondence Richard had with someone who also valued their imagination very much, in his/her case because he/she fancied the idea that one lives in several universes simultaneously, an idea supposedly ‘channelled’ by a disembodied entity named Seth via Jane Roberts. You may find the correspondence interesting for your own research into imagination.

As well as Richard’s experiential report there is also the option of inquiring into why you are now doubting the sincerity of the information supplied to you to the point of suggesting that Richard might still have an ‘ego/soul/affect’ and is possibly ‘simply unconscious of same’. (Being verballed by Richard, 29.1.2004)

Whereas you had said in a post to me only 2 days previous to this –

[Respondent]: ‘I’m intending to keep my mouth shut and learn for a while, but I couldn’t let this pass without a personal thanks. Every word speaks directly to where I’m at right now. I very much appreciate the thoughtfulness, sensitivity and clarity of these words, and the helpful intent that obviously lies behind them.

Thank you very much. It confirms that I’m among people who truly know what they’re talking about’. (re infinity, 27.1.2004)

3.2.2004

Co-Respondent: Is all imagery connected to the limbic system, to feeling, as the synesthetes above?

Richard: All imagery is a product of the imaginative/intuitive facility contained within the psyche – the affective faculty – born of the instinctual passions. When the instinctual passions are deleted, the entire psyche itself ceases to exist ... thus the imaginative apparatus also disappears in toto.

Co-Respondent: Could it be that there are non feeling images, that we create an image of sorts, in our mind for each and every thought?

Richard: There is no such thing as ‘non-feeling images’ ... without the affective faculty there is no visualising, no forming images, no picturing, no ‘seeing in my mind’s eye’, no intuiting, no feeling, no envisioning, no falling into a reverie, no daydreaming, no conceptualising, no envisaging in any way, shape or form.

There is only the magical unfolding of the actual ... actuality is far, far better than anything ‘I’ could imagine, dream, contrive or concoct. Richard, Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, No 10, 25.5.2000

RESPONDENT: Richard knows that he has no affective faculty. He knows that he has no imagination. He does not ‘know’, and neither do we, that the imaginative faculty is necessarily dependent on the affective faculty.

VINEETO: But Richard does know that ‘the imaginative faculty is … dependent on the affective faculty’ as he made clear in the above quote and has reported repeatedly in other correspondences. Similarly both Peter and I know experientially that imagination and passions are interlinked and both of us have reported how and why imagination is part and parcel of the human condition and also that it arises from the instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire.

The topics page ‘Imagination’ in The Actual Freedom Trust Library has links to all the selected correspondence from actualists about imagination, in case you want to confirm what I am saying here for yourself. Additionally you can gain experiential evidence from your own PCEs about there being no imaginative faculty present whenever the ‘self’ is absent.

RESPONDENT: I won’t be persuaded to just accept this until there is solid neurological evidence, simply because there is always a danger of mistaking correlation for causation. (This is not the same as refusing to accept the honesty of Richard’s testimony w.r.t. his personal experience). Just to avoid any possible confusion: I accept that the imaginative faculty is absent in a PCE.

VINEETO: Nobody asks you to ‘accept’ any of the information, the reason we provide it is that you may want to use it in order to establish a working hypothesis as a basis to do your own experiential research.

As for solid neurological evidence there has been a host of experiments that all record the fact that imaginative scenarios produce emotional reactions (and associated behaviours) that are identical to those produced in similar real-life situations, i.e. imagining a dangerous situation or watching a fictional film about a dangerous situation induces an instinctual reaction of fear exactly as if the situation was real. Is this not solid neurological evidence that the imaginative facility is intimately interlinked with the affective faculty?

As for the question as to whether imagination still operates when the affective faculty is either voluntarily expunged or temporarily in abeyance, I have found that neurological science has very little interest or expertise in this question. The only productive reports you will find describing such a condition is in the reports of Richard and other actualists on this list … bearing in mind that psychiatrists have diagnosed Richard as having a chronic and incurable psychotic mental disorder, namely Depersonalisation (no identity), Derealisation (reality has disappeared), Alexithymia (absence of affective feelings) and Anhedonia (unable to affectively feel pleasure/pain). Richard, Selected Correspondence, Sanity 2

By your own report you ‘accept that the imaginative faculty is absent in a PCE’ and I assume this is based on your own experience – if this is the case, then is not your own experience and the corroboration of that experience by others sufficient for you to establish a prima facie case in order to give a preliminary nod and then move on look at other issues. In my experience, I could always come back to the question later but moving on was important lest I would get bogged down in details.

RESPONDENT: I know that the goal of AF is to bring about a permanent PCE, to eliminate the identity, the soul, the imagination altogether. I am not advocating any synthesis of AF and imagination.

VINEETO: I am pleased to hear that you have now resolved this issue. It will help a lot to keep terms and communication clear.

*

VINEETO: Incidentally this quote is an excerpt from a long correspondence Richard had with someone who also valued their imagination very much, in his/her case because he/she fancied the idea that one lives in several universes simultaneously, an idea supposedly ‘channelled’ by a disembodied entity named Seth via Jane Roberts. You may find the correspondence interesting for your own research into imagination.

RESPONDENT: Heh! I know what imagination can do ... its very purpose is to entertain scenarios that are not actual. Sometimes this is useful, sometimes not.

VINEETO: The reason I provided the link was not to indicate that you have similar fantasies – far from it – but to point to where you can find more information to assist you in making your own assessment with regards to Richard’s expertise to questions on imagination.

As for the usefulness of imagination – based on my experience with the process of actualism over the past six or seven years I have come to know that the less imagination is going on the closer I am to experiencing actuality. In fact the way I perceive it is that emotions and imagination are the only two things that prevent me from experiencing the stunning luminosity of the world as it is.

*

VINEETO: As well as Richard’s experiential report there is also the option of inquiring into why you are now doubting the sincerity of the information supplied to you to the point of suggesting that Richard might still have an ‘ego/soul/affect’ and is possibly ‘simply unconscious of same’. (Being verballed by Richard, 29.1.2004)

RESPONDENT: I don’t doubt the ‘sincerity’ of the information supplied to me, but I sometimes do, and no doubt will continue to, question the ‘factuality’ of it. There is a big difference, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

VINEETO: Nowadays I am able to take everyone’s words at face value, which is possible only because ‘me’, the doubting, fearing, defensive, aggressive, suspicious identity hardly ever interferes with reading or hearing the actual words that are conveyed. Whether or not the person is sincere or genuine will either become clear in the course of the conversation or by the person’s actions, and if the person is sarcastic or cynical it does not affect me as they only shoot themselves in the foot. I also keep my wits about me when taking someone’s words at face value in that I take into consideration all the information available to me in order to determine what background or motivations a person may have in saying what they are saying – in short, a naiveté based on adult sensibility and sensitivity.

In this way I validate or invalidate the ‘factuality’ of what is being said by assessing the sensibility/silliness of the statements, by cross-references from outside sources and, particularly in the case of actualism, by comparing it to my own ongoing experience of what works and what doesn’t work.

RESPONDENT: (In the meantime, in daily life, I am practising actualism exactly as prescribed).

VINEETO: When I started practicing actualism I was in for many a surprise because I uncovered many aspects of ‘me’ that were hidden before. No 47 gave an excellent description of the process the other day –

[Respondent No 47]: Being sensible has turned out to be a very dangerous enterprise for ‘me’ <…> Before I came upon actualism I was like a mess swept under the carpet, next few months after that the carpet had been lifted and I was just a mess, now I have a handle on the broom. A Sensible Dialogue, 29.1.2004

RESPONDENT: If you have a close look at the posting you referred to above, you’ll notice that I was indeed questioning my own reactions, as well as questioning the phenomena that occasioned that reaction (i.e. Richard’s behaviour as it appeared to me).

VINEETO: Questioning my reactions for me means inquiring into why am I getting annoyed or why am I feeling sad. I found it useless blaming someone else or something else for making me annoyed or sad because when I came to understand that I am the only person I can change, I focussed my full attention on ‘me’ not ‘her’ or ‘him’ or ‘they’ or ‘it’.

This is how I use the method of actualism (as prescribed) with excellent outcome –

In order to investigate a feeling when it is occurring, the first thing I have to do is to stop trying to make it go away or stop trying to hang on to it as we have been socially or spiritually conditioned to do. As long as I object to having the (bad) feeling or desperately want to cling to the (good) feeling, I cannot examine what exactly is going on. The first thing to become aware of and understand was my automatic reaction of suppression or expression in order to be able to experience the feeling fully that I am then able to label and examine.

I began to notice that when I stopped fighting having the feeling or stopped feeding the feeling, its intensity was immediately reduced significantly and then I was be able to take a closer look of what has caused this particular feeling to appear in the first place. When feelings are really intense such that they have taken me over, any investigation at such a time is useless. I had to get back to at least feeling good, if not happy, again in order to be able to sensibly delve deeper into the reasons that got me upset or enraptured in the first place.

Then I could go about examining the feeling that I had just experienced – when did the feeling first start, what was the event or situation that caused the affective reaction, why did I feel insulted, self-righteous, misunderstood, rejected, sad, angry, worried, pissed off, etc., which of my cherished beliefs, truth, views, values, etc. is being questioned, in what way is this linked to my identity, is there a fear underneath the initial feeling, what is this fear about, and so on ...?

In this way I am conducting an empirical systematic inquiry into my own affective experience and I am in fact examining my own psyche in action – I don’t make the feeling go away, on the contrary, I allow it to come entirely to the surface so that I can feel the feeling so that I can conduct an extensive experiential examination into all its aspects. Once I overcame the initial moral and ethical objection to having undesirable and unpleasant feelings in the first place, a keen interest and fascination developed that came from being able to be aware of my own feelings and emotions while they were happening as well as being able to understand why they operate, how they operate and what is their root cause. I was becoming keenly interested in each detail and every opportunity that might give me a clue to the way I tick – and everyday life is rich with such opportunities.

The investigation into one’s feelings has to be experiential if it is to bring any tangible results – thinking about feelings and emotions removed from down-to-earth personal experience will only keep one at a surface level and will prevent one from penetrating into the very nature of one’s psyche. So the first thing for me to learn was to stop fighting my feelings and to stop feeding my feelings and allow myself to experience my feelings … all the while making sure that I kept my mouth shut and my hands in my pockets, in order that I wouldn’t do or say something I’d have to regret or feel remorseful about later on.

As long as I continue to have silent accusations, grudges, irritation, suspicions, defensiveness, anger, fear, etc. against someone, I always know that there is an unresolved belief, a hidden truth, a firm conviction, a dearly-held principle, a personal moral or value at stake that the other – usually inadvertently – has uncovered or questioned or opposed. In order to get back to being happy and, more importantly harmless, I then need to take this belief apart, as I call it. That means I look where and when I acquired it, why I believe it to be so, why I react emotionally when it is opposed and by doing so inevitably I discover the aspect of my identity associated with this belief – in other words, it is ‘my’ belief and to give it up will mean I have to give up some part of ‘me’. Only my intent to be happy and harmless will cause ‘me’ to give up something ‘I’ hold so dear.

This is the very reason why actualism is a do-it-yourself method because nobody can expose your own beliefs and truths but you.

*

VINEETO: As well as Richard’s experiential report there is also the option of inquiring into why you are now doubting the sincerity of the information supplied to you to the point of suggesting that Richard might still have an ‘ego/soul/affect’ and is possibly ‘simply unconscious of same’. (Being verballed by Richard, 29.1.2004)

Whereas you had said in a post to me only 2 days previous to this –

[Respondent]: ‘I’m intending to keep my mouth shut and learn for a while, but I couldn’t let this pass without a personal thanks. Every word speaks directly to where I’m at right now. I very much appreciate the thoughtfulness, sensitivity and clarity of these words, and the helpful intent that obviously lies behind them.

Thank you very much. It confirms that I’m among people who truly know what they’re talking about’. (re: infinity, 27.1.2004)

RESPONDENT: There is no ‘whereas’, Vineeto. I meant that, and I still do. I am trying to be more careful in differentiating and separating my personal impressions from what is actual/factual, in growing awareness that my own reactions are not necessarily reliable.

VINEETO: Firstly, I have just read in your post to Peter that you had sent this as a private post. I apologize that I have inadvertently published it. I did not realize that it was a private post until just now as I very rarely receive private posts from list members and my MS-Outlook program does not display the difference in the preview pane.

As for ‘whereas’ – personally, if I felt that someone was unconscious of ‘his ego/soul/affect’, and for a period of 11-12 years at that, I wouldn’t simultaneous think he was someone who truly knows what he is talking about. To me that would be contradictory.

RESPONDENT: I’ve understood lately that I tend to take in gulps of reality, form a few impressions, and then start addressing those impressions – as if they were reality – without realising I’ve done so until afterwards. It’s something I’m trying to watch more closely. Richard has been rubbing ‘me’ up the wrong way lately, as I mentioned in the posting you referred to above.

VINEETO: When I experienced someone as ‘rubbing ‘me’ up the wrong way’, whenever I am discussing an issue with them, I always knew that I had something to look at in terms of finding the underlying emotional investment I had with regard to the issue that caused me to feel this way. If this was the case I usually stopped my discussion with whoever it was, got back to feeling happy and amicable, nutted out ‘my’ issue that was bugging ‘me’ for myself and then was again able to objectively listen to what the other had to actually say. In the early days of my relationship with Peter for instance I felt emotionally threatened whenever the topic of my being a disciple of Rajneesh came up, so much so that Peter and I agreed ‘not to talk about the war’, for a period which lasted about six weeks. In that time I had explored other areas of my conditioning and had found it so beneficial and successful that I was then ready and able to tackle the ‘big one’.

I am only saying this because this information might possibly assist you in your own practice of actualism. Inevitably every sincere discussion on this list will uncover many beliefs, viewpoints and truths one holds, will question ethics and values one might have, will disperse images one might have of oneself or trigger feelings one doesn’t like or didn’t know one had. The reason is because what is being discussed is the human psyche, how it is programmed to operate and what is the result of that programming, and therefore ‘I’ will feel inevitably exposed because ‘I’ am the human psyche.

For this very reason I always stress that it is important to establish one’s intent first – which essentially is ‘my’ agreement to ‘my’ demise – before attempting to start with the nitty-gritty of dismantling one’s identity, otherwise one ends up going round in circles and blaming others for one’s own feelings of frustration and despair.

The trick is to remember that the human condition applies to everyone and that nobody is to blame for it. And, as Richard emphasises again and again, it is important to be one’s own best friend in the enterprise of taking the identity apart –

Richard: None of this mess is ‘my’ fault ... ‘I’ was born like this. Now that ‘I’ realise this ‘I’ can willingly, cheerfully be in concordance. (...) ‘I’ can never, ever become perfect or be perfection. The only thing ‘I’ can do – the only thing ‘I’ need to do – is to say !YES! so that the already always existing perfection can become apparent. Richard, List B, 25f, 22.6.2000

RESPONDENT: (And not just me, evidently).

VINEETO: Oh, the human condition – as the name suggests – is common to all. It’s a majority – an estimated 6 billion people.

RESPONDENT: Actualism has a ready-made explanation for why that might be the case – everything Richard writes is a potentially fatal poison to the identities that lurk inside us all. I know that Richard does not pander to identities, and so be it – I was writing about ‘my’ reaction to ‘my’ perception of him, and part of that reaction was the idea that ‘he’ is alive and well, albeit unconscious of himself. (Notice that I said: it makes me wonder ... And please notice that it isn’t the same as saying: I’m convinced that Richard is ... this or that.)

VINEETO: I wonder in what way publishing what you wondering about but are not convinced about can add to a sensible discussion about the topics at hand. As you would know by experience, expressing your feelings to others only adds fuel to the fire and to other people’s fire – investigating your own feelings by yourself in your own time is quite a different matter. I always found that I first had to sort out my feelings for myself before I could read with both eyes open, ask sensible questions of Richard or have a fruitful discussion that was helpful to me in furthering my inquiry into the human condition.

14.2.2004

Richard: None of this mess is ‘my’ fault ... ‘I’ was born like this. Now that ‘I’ realise this ‘I’ can willingly, cheerfully be in concordance. (...) ‘I’ can never, ever become perfect or be perfection. The only thing ‘I’ can do – the only thing ‘I’ need to do – is to say !YES! so that the already always existing perfection can become apparent. Richard, List B, 25f, 22.6.2000

RESPONDENT: (And not just me, evidently).

VINEETO: Oh, the human condition – as the name suggests – is common to all. It’s a majority – an estimated 6 billion people.

RESPONDENT: All fundamentally driven by the same basic genetic code – fear, aggression, desire and nurture. That is the one aspect of actualism that I am absolutely sure about. The evidence is everywhere, within and without.

VINEETO: If you know that for sure then all it takes is to make a decision to become free from being driven – whatever it takes. Then it is only a matter of developing a persistent and dedicated practice of attentiveness to find out how these instinctual passions express themselves in your every neurotic or frantic thought, in your every feeling, in your every action.

RESPONDENT: Actualism has a ready-made explanation for why that might be the case – everything Richard writes is a potentially fatal poison to the identities that lurk inside us all. I know that Richard does not pander to identities, and so be it – I was writing about ‘my’ reaction to ‘my’ perception of him, and part of that reaction was the idea that ‘he’ is alive and well, albeit unconscious of himself. (Notice that I said: it makes me wonder ... And please notice that it isn’t the same as saying: I’m convinced that Richard is ... this or that.)

VINEETO: I wonder in what way publishing what you wondering about but are not convinced about can add to a sensible discussion about the topics at hand. As you would know by experience, expressing your feelings to others only adds fuel to the fire and to other people’s fire – investigating your own feelings by yourself in your own time is quite a different matter.

RESPONDENT: Simple answer: In addition to my own feelings / impressions there was the actual / factual issue of whether No 59 was being fobbed off and ‘verballed’ by Richard. The way I saw it, he was.

VINEETO: In German we have an expression that goes something like – ‘the way you call into the forest, the way it will shout back at you’. No 59 made his agenda very clear – he wants to ‘expose’ Richard as a fraud and has no interest at all in having an amicable discussion about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being.

When I began to inquire into my feelings and emotions I found it to be a waste of time to take sides with another because they felt the same as I did. I found taking sides only served to justify my own animosity or my own unhappiness and it did not lead me to look at the source of my feelings, which is ‘me’.

RESPONDENT: More complete answer: Cognitive dissonance works two ways. There is a possibility that some of you see Richard as something he is not, and will desperately resist ‘seeing’ aspects of his behaviour that are not exactly consistent with someone who is ‘actually free from the human condition’. If No 59 sees something, No 58 sees something, I see something, no-one speaks about it – it’s all too easily swept under the carpet, because there is a vested interest in not seeing it. Everyone knows what kind of scenarios that can lead to.

VINEETO: First, cognitive dissonance is a mechanism that ‘I’, the entity, use in order to keep things as they are, to maintain ‘my’ status quo as it were, whereas ‘being open’ to understanding actualism requires a 180 degree turnabout in how one has been unwittingly taught to viscerally think about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being.

My own cognitive dissonance stopped when I had my first major pure consciousness experience. I had desperately wanted to know if actual freedom was indeed actual, as in universally applicable to all human experience, independent of anyone’s personal viewpoint and the PCE undeniably proved that it is – when ‘I’ temporarily disappeared the actual world of the senses became apparent. Then I also knew that the actual world Richard describes is the very same actuality that I briefly experienced in my own PCE.

Second, when you say ‘not exactly consistent with someone who is ‘actually free from the human condition’’ – you do not actually know what is consistent with someone who is free from the human condition because you have yet to meet anyone who is actually free from the human condition. All you can do is project your idea of being actually free onto Richard and then demand he should behave according to your imaginary scenario.

Third, No 59 and No 58 have both clearly stated that they are not interested if Richard is actually free from malice and sorrow and they both repeatedly state their belief that it is useless to deliberately want to change human nature. Whatever they ‘see’ is a pre-conditioned ‘seeing’, in other words a feeling. Far from ‘no-one speaks about it – it’s all too easily swept under the carpet’, by far the majority of correspondents on this list passionately object to actualism and dispute the accounts of actualists – albeit for an assortment of reasons. As an example, the 65 posts that were posted to the list yesterday were almost all from objectors – rather than ‘all too easily swept under the carpet’ this is all upfront for everyone to see and for everyone to evaluate ‘what kind of scenarios that can lead to’.

The instinctual pull to remain within the fold is enormous – I have always compared it to gravity because of its automatic and permanent pull – and to even begin to recognize this instinctual pull requires the sincere intent to become free from it, whatever the cost. Without this intent you cannot help but side with the majority.

RESPONDENT: When I first started reading the Actual Freedom web site, I thought the core ideas sounded really interesting. Then when I started to look into the correspondence, I saw that Richard seems to spend an inordinate amount of time discussing the minutiae, quibbling and quarrelling over trivialities, and seeming to be more interested in defending himself than helping the other. It almost deterred me from the start. I thought, how the hell can this guy have the goods he claims to have when all he does is bicker like the million and one pedantic geezers that hang out in newsgroups and mailing lists. It didn’t fit my impression of what a person who is actually free, beyond enlightenment, living a life of such quality that is unparalleled in human history, ought to be.

VINEETO: Of course, the ‘core idea’ can sound ‘really interesting’ in theory. People only begin to quibble and quarrel when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of actually doing the work of looking at their own beliefs and preconceptions, their feelings and passions. A little clear-eyed look at the website will reveal that the journals and articles are forthright, down-to-earth and to the point, whereas the majority of correspondence consists of answers to correspondents who raised objections to what was said. In short it is the correspondents themselves who set the agenda by the content and intent of their criticism.

I wonder why you feel Richard is ‘defending himself’ – aren’t his correspondents attacking him, often ad hominem? Do you think it is ‘not exactly consistent with someone who is ‘actually free from the human condition’’ to take the time and make the effort to put the facts straight and explain his experience in detail, over and over again? Do you think Richard should instead be a ‘lie-down-and-let-people- trample-all-over-him-pacifist? Do you think Richard should recant his discovery as Galileo was forced to do simply because the majority of correspondents think and feel he should not be challenging the status quo?

Is your idea that Richard should be ‘helping people’ by agreeing with them or pampering to everyone’s individual worldview and personal beliefs or that he should not respond to their concerns and attacks? By ‘helping people’ do you mean refraining from ‘discussing the minutiae, quibbling and quarrelling over trivialities’ that many people find important enough to raise as an issue?

*

VINEETO: I always found that I first had to sort out my feelings for myself before I could read with both eyes open, ask sensible questions of Richard or have a fruitful discussion that was helpful to me in furthering my inquiry into the human condition.

RESPONDENT: May I ask: does the kind of bickering I’ve witnessed here happen a lot in ‘real life’ too, or is it a text-only thing?

VINEETO: Ha! Never. I never talk to people about their personal beliefs let alone about the possibility of becoming free from all emotions and passions that constitute the human condition unless they invite me to do so, and even then the conversation soon turns to less threatening topics. If the ‘text-only’ comments on this mailing list were face-to-face group encounters then we actualists may well have been taken out and shot in front of the grateful mob who would have no doubt been glad to see justice done, such is human nature. T’is not for nothing that we choose to discuss these matters with our fellow human beings via the internet.

As a hint in case you are interested in less ‘bickering’ conversations – whenever I was in any way emotionally effected by what my correspondents wrote it has always helped me to look at my own feelings in the issue and then sleep over my response before I sent it so as to have some time to have a clear-eyed look at what was being said.

*

PS: Seeing that you have now made your decision that actualism is not for you because you think that ‘actualism itself is very harmful to a fully intact human being’ this might as well be the end of our conversation.

Actualism Homepage

Vineeto’s Writings and Correspondence

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity