RESPONDENT: I have found that the question ‘Why does this moment suck?’ works much better for me than the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ This might sound silly, might be silly in fact, but that’s the way it is. <snip>

VINEETO: Asking such a question implies that it is this moment which sucks and that one only needs to change the circumstances of this moment in order to enjoy it.

RESPONDENT: Yes, I can see that it could be construed that way, and that would indeed convey the wrong impression.

VINEETO: I did not construe anything, I took what you were saying at face value. The question ‘why does this moment suck?’ has ‘this moment’ as its subject and ‘suck’ as its verb which by simple grammatical rules conveys that this moment sucks and ‘why’ questions the reason.

RESPONDENT: Are you sure you weren’t just seizing an opportunity to quibble? And are you sure you’re not still doing so? Quite, quite sure?

VINEETO: Quite, quite sure. Why do you ask?

13.9.2004

RESPONDENT: I have found that the question ‘Why does this moment suck?’ works much better for me than the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ This might sound silly, might be silly in fact, but that’s the way it is. <snip>

VINEETO: Asking such a question implies that it is this moment which sucks and that one only needs to change the circumstances of this moment in order to enjoy it.

RESPONDENT: Yes, I can see that it could be construed that way, and that would indeed convey the wrong impression.

VINEETO: I did not construe anything, I took what you were saying at face value. The question ‘why does this moment suck?’ has ‘this moment’ as its subject and ‘suck’ as its verb which by simple grammatical rules conveys that this moment sucks and ‘why’ questions the reason.

RESPONDENT: Are you sure you weren’t just seizing an opportunity to quibble? And are you sure you’re not still doing so? Quite, quite sure?

VINEETO: Quite, quite sure. Why do you ask?

RESPONDENT: It seemed likely, based on past performances. And based on the dialogue you’re currently conducting with another, I think further discussion with you would be as counterproductive as it has been in the past. I’ll just limit my interactions to correcting any errors in references to me and/or my words. Hopefully they’ll be few.

VINEETO: What you consider ‘seizing an opportunity to quibble’ is my making clear the fundamental difference in what you report as practicing actualism and the effective method described on the actualism website. Here are three examples from your recent posts –

Example 1: the method –

• [Respondent]: I have found that the question ‘Why does this moment suck?’ works much better for me than the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ 4.9.2004

Example 2: the approach –

• [Respondent]: I tend to look upon harmlessness as an inevitable side-effect of ‘self’-free happiness.
  [Vineeto]: It is, in fact the other way round – the intent to be harmless and to live in peace with one’s fellow human beings is the only way to crack the intrinsic instinctual selfishness of the human condition.
  [Respondent]: In the absence of ‘me’, there is an intrinsic benevolence here. It can’t be simulated by moral strictures; the only thing that is going to bring it about is the demise of ‘me’;
  [Vineeto]: Yes, in a PCE, in the absence of ‘me’ one experiences the benevolence that is intrinsic to the actual world. However, when the PCE fades, then the real job begins for an actualist which is to actualize one’s insights gained in a PCE and do the nitty-gritty business of uncovering, understanding and putting a stop to the multitudinous cunning ploys that ‘I’ invariably produce spoiling the already existing perfection.
  … and in the interim, the pure intent to facilitate same is the only workable substitute.
  Pure intent is not an interim ‘workable substitute’ – it is in fact the very means to bring about ‘the demise of ‘me’’.10.9.2004

Example 3: the result –

• [Respondent No 72]: ... has their a been a positive change in your behaviour and fundamentally in your character? <snip>
  [Respondent]: It’s all or nothing with me. My normal condition is pretty much the same as it ever was. 10.9.2004

If you find the differences between your approach and the actualism method as ‘seizing an opportunity to quibble’, i.e. insubstantial and trivial then so be it. The reason I have written to make the difference clear is because the method offered on the Actual Freedom Trust website is thus far the only method that has worked to make one person actually free from the human condition and at least two others virtually free.

25.10.2004

RESPONDENT No 71: Richard claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone. That it is a privilege etc. But the very fact that he would consider it a privilege, that is, something which adds value to his life, belies the claim that the world is perfect as is for an actualist. I mean, can there be an icing on a cake, a cake which is infinitely big? My dialogue with Richard started with questioning about sex, but it degenerated into nit-picking over a thought experiment I proposed (which was a mere part of the discussion but which became the focus of his onslaught). Re: It’s all for Sex, 24.10.2004

VINEETO: As long as you continue to evaluate actualism by what you call the ‘highest standards’ of the Indian saints you will remain unable to understand what an actual freedom from the human condition is all about. Most misunderstandings of people who read the Actual Freedom Trust website result from the fact that they invariably try to integrate what they read into their existing spiritual/ mystical and/or philosophical real world beliefs thereby ignoring what is clearly stated on the very first page – that an actual freedom from the human condition is non-spiritual, down-to-earth and entirely new to human history.

RESPONDENT: This must be a new record. Misrepresenting a correspondent’s words, words from the very first line. It usually takes at least a couple of sentences. Clearly No 71 was evaluating Richard’s claim of enlightenment (not actualism) against the ‘highest standards’ of the Indian tradition. One wonders why this continues to happen. I’m not sure which is the more depressing and hopeless prospect: it’s intentional, or ... it isn’t.

VINEETO: I am well aware that the first sentence of the paragraph quoted in the footnote refers to Richard’s enlightenment yet the thread of No 71’s conversation was sex (more specifically the need for sex/relationship). In the second sentence No 71 gets back on the track of his topic making it clear that he considers the ‘highest standards’ to be those of the named Gurus ‘and some saints that I know personally who were/are free of any kind of romantic need or actual romantic/ heterosexual/ homosexual relationship’ – hence the comment I made …

[Vineeto]: ‘As long as you continue to evaluate actualism by what you call the ‘highest standards’ of the Indian saints you will remain unable to understand what an actual freedom from the human condition is all about.’

In order to make this more clear, the following quote from the same thread is relevant –

[Respondent No 71]: I have serious doubts as to whether Peter, Vineeto and Richard are free from the need for sexual congress. Vineeto claims she is free, Richard too claims the same. But why they choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life? Simply a matter of preference? Doesn’t really sound very convincing. Of course, they don’t need to convince me. But as part of the actualist cavalcade, they certainly are open to scrutiny, especially since they make claims that they are (to varying extents) free from the ‘human condition’. Re: It’s all for Sex, 24.10.2004

It is obvious to me that No 71 continues to evaluate not only Richard’s preferred lifestyle but actualism itself by what he calls the ‘highest standards’ of the Indian saints – i.e. that he has not yet grasped that an actual freedom from the instinctual passions cannot be evaluated by the standards of enlightenment. Far from misrepresenting his words as you claim, I see that I did no more than clearly sum up his stance concerning not only Richard’s preferred lifestyle but actualism itself.

Maybe the fact that I was deeply immersed in spiritualism for many years and understand first-hand its flaws and failings means that I prick up my ears quicker than others when someone espouses spiritual values and beliefs and persists in comparing actualism with something it clearly is not.

25.10.2004

Richard: It is this simple: the Eastern mystical wisdom holds the tenet that the ‘normal-world’ reality (where 6.0 billion people live) is the ‘Known’ and the ‘abnormal-world’ Greater Reality (where 0.0000001 of the population live) is the ‘Unknown’ ... and the ‘Unknowable’ lies beyond physical death (Mahasamadhi, Parinirvana and so on).

Therefore, in those terms, this actual world where Richard lives is the ‘Unknowable’ ... and the good news is that one does not have to wait until physical death to be free of the human condition.

Co-Respondent: Is the fact that you and only you know it what makes it beyond the ‘unknown’?

Richard: No ... to become enlightened is to stop half-way: to go all the way not only does the ego die (spiritual freedom), so too does the soul become extinct (actual freedom). Richard, List B, Respondent No 19k, 28.10.2001

RESPONDENT: I am not seeking a response from you No 37, and I am not trying to stir up a fight. Any more of this would be pointless. I just want to put this out there for others to see, in the hope that by recognising this particularly obnoxious pattern of argumentation it might spare them some of the frustration I have experienced as a result of it.

VINEETO: If you regard my attempts to discuss these matters with my fellow human beings on this mailing list as being a ‘particularly obnoxious pattern of argumentation’ then so be it. Yet to mount a critique of what others are saying on this list and then discourage any discussion about it is not going to bring more clarity to the situation. The reason why I wrote to No 37 about the agnostic stance in religious, spiritual and metaphysical matters is that I wanted to make it crystal clear that maintaining an agnostic attitude to the mysteries of life will not work if one wants to become free from the human condition.

I found I needed a passionate inquisitiveness, an urge to get to the bottom of matters and an imperative to know if there was a God or not, if there was afterlife or not, if the universe was infinite or not, and so on. At first it was not always easy to overcome my fears of leaving the well-trodden path of my comfortable beliefs, my convenient agnosticism and my lethargic indifference to finding out for myself the answers to the mysteries of life the universe and what it is to be a human being.

31.10.2004

RESPONDENT: Yes, it is good to talk again. Thanks for leaving the door open.

VINEETO: I always welcome and enjoy a sensible discussion.

*

VINEETO to No 37: To further clarify what you so aptly called ‘their precious agnosticism’ I would like to add the Oxford Dictionary definition of an agnostic –

‘a person who holds the view that nothing can be known of the existence of God or of anything beyond material phenomena. Also, a person who is uncertain or non-committal about a particular thing.’ Oxford Dictionary

As such an agnostic not only doesn’t know what to believe but many who consider themselves agnostics passionately defend their stance that ‘one can never know’ or even that the answers to the mysteries of life can not be known. Thus maintaining an agnostic viewpoint is used as an excuse to shield the ‘Unknowable’ from being explored. I have seen many discussions by both Buddhists and the followers of Jiddu Krishnamurti in which they passionately defended the Unknowable as sacred threshold that should not be questioned, let alone be actively explored.

To me an agnostic is someone, as you say, who does ‘not know what to believe’ but who also, as per his doctrine, does not want to find out the facts … and I am definitely not an agnostic. Vineeto to No 37, 24.10.2004

RESPONDENT No 37: Yes, I’m glad you pointed out that agnostics normally maintain that it is ‘impossible to know’ – so that not only are they (normally) saying they just don’t know, but also that one cannot know – so that one had better not claim that they do know.

RESPONDENT: Yeah, but it’s hardly sensible to apply the same terminology and adopt the same attitude toward (a) people who recognises their lack of omniscience; and (b) people who avoid seeking out the facts ON PRINCIPLE!

VINEETO: I fail to see the point you are making.

RESPONDENT: OK. I don’t think we’ll need to go into much detail here ... please correct me if I’m wrong.

1. A person whose ‘precious agnosticism’ is a creed of sorts (they ‘wave the flag’ of agnosticism). (Whether that flag-waving is in opposition to actualism or not is incidental, AFAICT).
2. A person can be ‘agnostic’ because they realise they are not in full possession of the facts (they’re not omniscient, they know it, and they know that in order to be certain about [X,Y,Z] they need certain data that they don’t possess).

VINEETO: Whenever I have talked about agnostics on this list is was always about

‘a person who holds the view that nothing can be known of the existence of God or of anything beyond material phenomena. Also, a person who is uncertain or non-committal about a particular thing.’ Oxford Dictionary

It is you who persists in giving a meaning to the word agnosticism it does not have as in ‘they’re not omniscient’.

RESPONDENT: The first kind isn’t seeking out the facts because ‘unknowability’ is their creed.

The second kind may or may not be seeking out the facts, but their (current) ‘agnosticism’ is based on the fact that they currently do not know enough to be certain one way or the other.

VINEETO: Does the fact that you yourself put agnosticism in inverted commas indicate that it is not a commonly used meaning of the word? And as for your use of the term ‘(current) ‘agnosticism’’ – it is my experience that by and large agnostics tend to hold to their agnosticism as an attitude or even a conviction such that it becomes an impediment to wanting to find out the facts of the matter for themselves.

RESPONDENT: Example of type (1): Somebody who believes that reality is unknowable. Example of type (2): No 37 in relation to Einstein’s relativity.

VINEETO: I cannot make a sensible comment as I have no idea whether or not No 37 fits to your type (1) category or not?

RESPONDENT: My outburst of peevishness last week was motivated by what I saw as your indifference to this distinction.

VINEETO: As there is no distinction because only type (1) classifies as an agnostic I wonder what all the fuss was about. In all of the dictionary definitions that I could find, agnosticism does not refer to ‘non-omniscience’ as in your ‘a person can be ‘agnostic’ because they realise they are not in full possession of the facts (they’re not omniscient…)’.

RESPONDENT: Does this clarify what I meant, and what I mean now?

VINEETO: Neither No 37 or I made reference to agnosticism as ‘people who recognises their lack of omniscience’ in our conversation. It was you who introduced this second definition.

*

VINEETO: The point I was making to No 37 was that those who wave the ‘I am an agnostic flag’ as an objection to actualism mostly do so based on the principle that nothing can be known of the existence of God (one way or the other) and thus go on to claim that the essential facts of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being can never be known, let alone directly experienced.

As for someone waving the ‘I am not omniscient’ flag as an objection to actualism in the name of agnosticism – this is what is known in Australia as a furphy. To come to understand the essential facts of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being such that one can directly experience the perfection of this actual world does not mean that one is omniscient.

RESPONDENT: Whoa there ... how did ‘I am not omniscient’ become a flag-waving objection to actualism? I intended nothing of the sort.

I was only trying to emphasise a distinction between people who are agnostic on principle, and people who are agnostic on a particular issue because they’re not in full possession of the facts. There is no challenge to actualism in that.

VINEETO: Well, perhaps if I can put it this way – would you agree that someone who is convinced that it is impossible to know for certain that the physical universe is infinite and eternal would therefore be disinclined to remain open to the possibility that it could well be so? And not only that but that they would tend to regard anyone, who claimed that he or she had direct unfettered experience of the infinitude of physical universe, either temporarily or permanently, as being someone who was claiming to be omniscient? Would not such a person be seen to be ‘waving the ‘I am not omniscient’ flag as an objection to actualism in the name of agnosticism’?

*

RESPONDENT: Also, notice the use of a technique that Peter employs so frequently: reification of a harmless down-to-earth abstraction as a Metaphysical Greater Reality Which Does Not Exist. Example: It is a simple fact that in an immense (possibly infinite) universe, the vast majority of facts are going to remain ‘unknowable’ to my human mind. No matter how determined I am to find out the facts for myself, I shall never know the precise shape, size, colour and weight of every nasal hair in every Chinese grandmother (come to think of it they’re probably grey – but let’s move on).

VINEETO: Your example is yet again a furphy. This is what I said –

[Vineeto]: … many who consider themselves agnostics passionately defend their stance that ‘one can never know’ or even that the answers to the mysteries of life can not be known. [quote].

The example that you give – that it is impossible to know ‘the precise shape, size, colour and weight of every nasal hair in every Chinese grandmother’ – implies that actualism is about becoming omniscient.

RESPONDENT: No it doesn’t. It says nothing about actualism at all. The (admittedly silly) example was meant to demonstrate something I could have said in plain English as something like this: To recognise that there are things one cannot ever know is not the same thing as believing in The Unknowable.

VINEETO: Okay. When you said ‘it is a simple fact that in an immense (possibly infinite) universe, the vast majority of facts are going to remain ‘unknowable’ to my human mind’ and then went on to give your example, did you mean that the answers to ‘the mysteries of life’ are going to remain unknowable to you? I ask this because that was what I was talking about to No 37 in relation to agnosticism – and this has no relationship at all about being all-knowing about the nasal hairs of Chinese grandmothers.

RESPONDENT: And the reason I was saying this at all is because I had observed a tendency to take an abstraction – eg. the set of all facts I cannot personally know – and reify it as a Metaphysical Entity or Realm. I would prefer not to labour this point though; if it was gonna benefit anyone it already will have served its purpose. If not, dwelling on it will only dredge up the past.

VINEETO: I am at a loss when you say ‘I had observed a tendency to take an abstraction … and reify it as a Metaphysial Entity or Realm’. As far as I am concerned I see a persistence on my behalf to avoid abstractions (as in abstract concepts) in preference to squarely addressing the issue of investigating the so-called mysteries of life sufficiently such that I can become actually free of the human condition. This is after all what actualism is about.

If, however, you mean abstraction as in a generalization then yes, I do have a tendency to generalize because the things that I have discovered about the human condition are general to all. Further, I found it useful to discuss the human condition in general terms because this sometimes can avoid the trap of taking the issues personally and by doing so the usual emotional reactions can possibly be avoided.

*

VINEETO: Again, actualism is not about becoming omniscient, actualism is about discovering and unearthing the mysteries of life, and a large part of this process is stripping away the multitude of passionate beliefs that human beings have accumulated over millennia. Prime amongst these beliefs is the insistence that life, the universe and what it is to be a human being is a mystery that can never be known.

RESPONDENT: Yep. I managed to imbibe that belief in my late teens, where it has lain almost unnoticed (seeming to be so self-evident) for nearly two decades.

VINEETO: Yep. By the far the majority of beliefs that we have imbibed appear not to be beliefs but are taken to be self-evident truths solely for the reason that everybody else also takes them to be self-evident truths.

*

RESPONDENT: But Peter and Vineeto pull this kind of crap all the time. They reify an abstraction (in this case the ‘unknowable’, the set of all facts which I cannot in practice ever know) as ... The Unknowable. And whaddya know? Suddenly it’s transmogrified into an Eastern spiritual belief in an Unknowable Sacred Metaphysical Beyond and blah blah fucking blah ... again, and again, and again.

VINEETO: Maybe the following snippets of conversation might be of help to understand that the idea of exploring the ‘Unknowable’ is a frightening, if not blasphemous proposition for many people – <snipped>

There are many more examples that the belief in the ‘Unknowable’ is an awe to be reckoned with and not to be dismissed lightly when one investigates the human condition in oneself.

RESPONDENT: OK, I understand all of this. Now, to understand the point I was making, all that is necessary is to bear in mind that not every ‘I dunno’ is equivalent to a belief in The Unknown, and not every ‘I can’t know that’ is equivalent to a belief in The Unknowable. That’s all. That really is all I meant.

VINEETO: Personally, whenever I find that I have an emotional reaction to finding out the facts of a particular matter, I know that I have work to do – it isn’t necessarily a belief in ‘The Unknown’ or ‘The Unknowable’ but my emotional reaction is always a sure sign that ‘I’ feel threatened that ‘I’ will be exposed for the fraud that ‘I’ am. My own integrity demands that I have to proceed until I arrive at irrefutable facts – that’s the nature of actualism, nothing remains hidden if it is in any way relevant to the human condition.

*

VINEETO: I found I needed a passionate inquisitiveness, an urge to get to the bottom of matters and an imperative to know if there was a God or not, if there was afterlife or not, if the universe was infinite or not, and so on. At first it was not always easy to overcome my fears of leaving the well-trodden path of my comfortable beliefs, my convenient agnosticism and my lethargic indifference to finding out for myself the answers to the mysteries of life the universe and what it is to be a human being.

RESPONDENT: Speaking personally now, I can understand what you mean by the ‘convenient agnosticism’ comment – agnosticism can be a way of avoiding putting one’s money where one’s mouth is, or sitting on the fence forever.

VINEETO: Speaking personally, whenever I became aware that I was avoiding finding out the facts that related to the human condition and the nature of the universe, I knew I had to abandon my convenient agnosticism and find out for sure.

RESPONDENT: Personally I can’t relate to the ‘comfortable beliefs’ though, because even though I have sought out something to believe in I’ve never been able to settle down with a set of beliefs (for better or worse).

VINEETO: And yet didn’t you just say, a few lines above, that ‘I managed to imbibe that belief in my late teens’ in relation to my comment that ‘prime amongst these beliefs is the insistence that life, the universe and what it is to be a human being is a mystery that can never be known’? The reason I point this out is that it is the nature of the beliefs that one doesn’t recognize them as beliefs unless one personally has the intent to question what one takes to be the truth and dares to scrutinize its efficacy by oneself, for oneself. Unless one is prepared to do this, one is fated to remain trapped in the endless game of passionately defending or mindlessly espousing beliefs – the pathetic game that masquerades as discussion within the human condition.

RESPONDENT: For me, the search has been more desperate, driven, restless and futile rather than lethargic (hence ‘kicking-in-mid-air-ism’).

VINEETO: What I meant by ‘my lethargic indifference to finding out for myself the answers’ is that for long periods of time I was all too willing to take the easy route and believe what others told me were the answers rather than make the effort to find out for myself. However, if I hadn’t been driven to find out for sure, to know for certain, I would not be where I am today. Making the effort to pursue the spiritual path for all those years proved to be of immense benefit because I came to know and understand experientially why the spiritual path fails and why it will always fail to deliver anything remotely resembling peace on earth.

What actualism gave me at first, and it is no little thing, was an end to my life-long search for the Truth, be it a secular Truth or a spiritual Truth. In a PCE it is absolutely obvious that peace on earth is always here, right now, and that it is ‘me’ who is standing in the way. It is also obvious in a PCE that ‘I’ am the only one who can do the necessary work to become free from the human condition.

8.11.2004

RESPONDENT: Hey Vineeto, lest the essentials become lost in petty controversies over the details, allow me to say: I am pretty sure I know where you are coming from on the subject of agnosticism. You’re basically saying that people can (contrary to popular belief) come to know the essential facts about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living on this planet, right?

VINEETO: Right. And the way to come to know the facts is surprisingly simple – I eventually stopped the habit of automatically believing what everybody else tells me to be the truth and set about finding the facts for myself.

To bring back our discussion to the point from whence it started, for the sake of clarity and possible conclusion –

[Respondent]: Yeah, but it’s hardly sensible to apply the same terminology and adopt the same attitude toward (a) people who recognises their lack of omniscience; and (b) people who avoid seeking out the facts ON PRINCIPLE! Re Vineeto Re: Agnosticism, 24.10.2004

When I am not in full possessions of the facts of a particular matter – and there are many such matters – I consider that as my being ignorant about the matter. I would describe group (a) not as being agnostic but as people who recognize their ignorance in certain areas.

Maybe we can agree to bring this discussion about the various meanings that people have assigned to the word agnosticism to an end, particularly in light of your recent understanding about the essential nature of the universe. (see below).

RESPONDENT: To remain agnostic on the big issues (eg. existence of God or gods, meaning/ purpose of life, etc) is to miss an opportunity to throw out all the crap that has kept humanity locked in the human condition for millennia.

VINEETO: Exactly. It stands to reason that it is impossible to become free of the human condition whilst passionately holding on to the beliefs, values, ethics, principles, feelings and passions that make up the human condition. When one comes to understand what one is then one can feel more than a little foolish – a feeling that can be fostered as a naïve curiosity as to what else one can sensibly ‘throw out’, as in become free of.

RESPONDENT: I remember when I first heard actualists speaking about the infinite and eternal nature of the universe, my position was ‘agnostic’ in the sense that I thought such things could not be determined (with absolute certainty) by direct experience. That was a knee-jerk agnostic’s response (which probably deserves the ‘precious agnosticism’ tag).

VINEETO: Would you say a ‘knee-jerk response’ as in following ‘the quick and dirty processing pathway’ that LeDoux has observed in his laboratory experiments? If so, then you might well see that a knee-jerk response is the default response of every human being unless they begin to apply attentiveness to the way of how they are being programmed both by nature and by nurture. I say this because attentiveness reveals that every belief – and every principle, ideology, moral and ethic – is an emotional backed thought.

There is a schematic diagram in The Actual Freedom Trust Library that made this automatic programming quite clear to me. The fact that the instinctual survival programming is wired as a neurological imperative also explains why the process of becoming free from this programming does not happen overnight – it makes sense that it has to be a gradual process that only ‘I’ can decide to deliberately set into motion and that this process will require ongoing application and diligence if it is to come to fruition.

When I came to understand that ‘my’ instinctual programming is manifest as habitual firing of neurons along already well-trodden pathways it gave me a fact-based understanding of how ‘I’ am programmed to operate. Then it was but a short step to beginning to apply the actualism method in order to become aware of this programming in action, to understand when and how it operates and then to interrupt any knee-jerk reactions and establish new, more considered, more considerate and less ‘self’-centred responses to sensory input.

RESPONDENT: When I thought about it some more, I found that I was (and am) still skeptical, but less so than I was. See, I understand that no conceptual model of the universe (being a product of the psyche) can substitute for a direct sensate experience of same. The universe without psyche or any its constructs is a very different place from normal ‘reality’ – I know that much with utter certainty.

VINEETO: Very different indeed – a world that is actual and palpable and universal as opposed to ‘self’-created worlds that are imaginary, affective and personal.

RESPONDENT: Where I’m at now ... I don’t assume (as I once did) that it’s impossible to know from direct experience whether the universe is infinite and eternal or not. If direct experience reveals that any other possibility would necessarily depend on a construct that exists only in the psyche, then such certainty is possible. So, while I am still ‘agnostic’, it is because I don’t know. It’s no longer because I believe it’s impossible to know. (It may well be impossible to know, but I no longer believe that).

VINEETO: You have since reported –

[Respondent]: ‘I actually ‘got I’ (experientially) last night, and it was so obvious! The notion that the universe (aka everything) could be somehow located within a finite enclosure is just plain ridiculous.’ Infinitude! 6.11.2004

You also said –

[Respondent]: ‘Unlike on previous occasions I was able to think about this and confirm it as it was actually happening. There’s no doubt in my mind now.’ Infinitude! 6.11.2004

Would you say that your mulling over what you previously considered ‘impossible to know from direct experience’ could have something to do with your having been able to think about the infinitude of the universe whilst you were experiencing it?

I am asking because for me these two components of exploration have always been hand in glove, so to speak. I have to deliberately instigate or allow to happen a ‘crack in the wall’ of my previous way of thinking (and more importantly my feelings) about the mysteries of life in order to then be able to make sense of an experiential taste of the actual world while it happens. And contemplation is key to this happening.

RESPONDENT: In any case, my focus at this stage is on here and now: what makes ‘me’ tick.

VINEETO: What would you say is your intention in wanting to find out what makes ‘you’ tick?

I am asking because recently you wrote to a co-respondent that – ‘Long before I came across actualism I had a burning desire to find a better way to be sane, or to go mad in the attempt’ (RE: No 60, No 37 & other actualists, 10.9.2004). About a month later you wrote to another co-respondent that you ‘never bought into the happy and harmless thing’. (Practical Question, 29.10.2004). Do you have in mind ‘a better way to be sane’ that doesn’t include being both happy and harmless?

Just curious because I discovered that one does not go without the other.

13.11.2004

VINEETO: What would you say is your intention in wanting to find out what makes ‘you’ tick?

I am asking because recently you wrote to a co-respondent that – ‘Long before I came across actualism I had a burning desire to find a better way to be sane, or to go mad in the attempt’ (RE: No 60, No 37 & other actualists, 10.9.2004). About a month later you wrote to another co-respondent that you ‘never bought into the happy and harmless thing’. (Practical Question, 29.10.2004). Do you have in mind ‘a better way to be sane’ that doesn’t include being both happy and harmless?

Just curious because I discovered that one does not go without the other.

RESPONDENT: My idea of a ‘better way to be sane’ certainly does include being happy (delighted, carefree) and harmless (effortlessly benevolent).

In the past I had shied away from the ‘happy and harmless’ thing; the very words had an unpleasant ‘ring’ about them because, as I once explained in conversation with No 33, they carried connotations of weakness and incapacity. They made me think of de-clawed cats, toothless lions, castrated monks, lobotomised mental patients, etc.

VINEETO: I think I can relate to what you are saying. People often mistake becoming happy and harmless for being meek (in religious terms) or being a pacifist (in secular terms). Many a time I have seen discussions on this mailing list where correspondents demanded of Richard that he should not defend himself, so much so that when he takes the time to correct their false allegations he is often accused of nitpicking, arrogance and one-upmanship.

I know pacifism well – I was imprinted with an ideology of pacifism whilst growing up, particularly by my father who had experienced first hand the horrors of the Second World War. When I became an actualist I had to take a close look at the ideals of pacifism in order to see that they have nothing at all to do with the practice of actualism.

Pacifists ideologically oppose war between nations, believing that aggression can be stopped by reasoned negotiations (despite the fact that the only thing that ultimately puts an end to rampant violence is the application of even more force). In doing so they acquiesce to those who use aggression in order to have power over others (despite the fact that this does nothing but give a green light to the use of aggression). To understand this one needs to look no further than the pacifists who acquiesced to the rise of Nazism prior to the Second World War to see that rather than stop the outbreak of war, they created an atmosphere that emboldened the aggressors to start invading their neighbouring countries.

The other myth about pacifists is that they are peaceful people – despite the fact that they are very quick to apportion blame on others for being aggressive, and often vehemently so. I was involved in some angry student anti-war demonstrations and have seen the inherent hypocrisy of pacifism in action first hand.

As a pacifist I conveniently overlooked not only my own aggravation and annoyance, the conflicts and disputes that invariably occur in my everyday life and in my personal relationships but I also turned a blind eye to the fact that I, without a second thought, am completely reliant upon the army of the country I am living in and the local armed police to keep me safe. Nowadays I clearly see the hypocrisy inherent in the ideology of pacifism. This hypocrisy is also evident in the eagerness of pacifists to lay the blame for the lack of peace on earth on others. For a long time I also firmly believed that it is only ‘the bad guys’ – such as corrupt politicians and greedy capitalists – who are responsible for all the wars, genocides and democides on the planet.

Indeed pointing the finger at others is a trick one learns in childhood as a way of avoiding culpability and this is reinforced as one grows up and adopts certain ideologies and is adversarial towards others, forms allegiances to certain political doctrines and fervidly opposes others, embraces certain morals, values and ethics and avidly rejects others … and so on. In fact, the business of growing up inevitably involves being compelled to take a position, to have an opinion and to take a stance in the adversarial blame-game that typifies the human condition simply in order that one becomes a substantive social identity.

When I came to understand and acknowledge the underlying causes and the practical workings of the human condition it came as somewhat at a shock to then discover that ‘I’ (together with some 6.4 billion other ‘I’s on the planet) am the sole reason that there is no peace on earth and furthermore, that I am, at core, as mad and as bad as everyone else whom I had accused of causing the wars and murders and violence in the world.

As for your comment about ‘toothless lions, castrated monks, lobotomised mental patients, etc.’ – I too sometimes felt toothless, castrated and helpless, particularly in situations where I felt I was being ‘wronged’ or I was being treated ‘unjustly’. But once the feeling subsided and I looked at the situation as it really was, I could see how silly it would have been to waste my time passionately fighting in order for ‘me’ to be right or for ‘me’ to feel justly treated when instead I could walk away and be at peace.

As you might guess, becoming aware of having had these antagonistic and/or indignant feelings then caused me to look at my own ideas and ideals of what I thought and felt was ‘right’ and ‘just’ and ‘fair’. And this process of discovery is still in action as I am still finding sly remnants of the ‘good’ variety of humanistic ethics extant which sometimes cause distress or indignation – clear indications of how ‘I’ tick.

RESPONDENT: The error in my thinking is clear: I was imagining a stripped-down identity, an identity incapable of harming or being harmed – which is all wrong.

VINEETO: Ah, when I first encountered actualism I found it very intriguing that one can, with attentiveness and the intent to be happy and harmless, unilaterally do something about feeling insulted or feeling attacked to the point where these feelings will very rarely occur at all. Although I am still an identity, it is indeed possible to whittle away at one’s identity to the point that I am almost always ‘incapable of harming’ others as well as being emotionally harmed by others.

RESPONDENT: Actualism is not about divesting oneself of the capacity to harm and be harmed while remaining an incapacitated, stripped-down identity. It’s about eliminating identity altogether, and thereby becoming carefree and benevolent (or ‘happy and harmless’).

VINEETO: In my experience the means to the end are not different from the end, which means that living this moment as happily and as harmlessly as humanly possible the identity necessarily diminishes thereby losing it substantiality which in turn brings me closer to ‘my’ inevitable ending. This is how Richard describes it –

Richard: In the end, only altruistic ‘self’-immolation, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body, will release the flesh and blood body from its parasitical resident and, as ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’, the end of ‘me’ is the end of ‘my’ feelings (aka the instinctual passions and all their cultivated derivations).

Of course, one does not psychologically and psychically self-immolate just because it seems like a good idea at the time. It requires a rather curious decision to be made – a decision the likes of which has never been made before nor will ever be made again – as it is a once-in-a-lifetime determination and takes some considerable preparation.

So, in the meantime, what one can do is choose to be as happy and harmless as is humanly possible each moment again – the means to the end are not different from the end – and with this pure intent, as one goes about one’s normal everyday life, each moment again provides an opportunity to find out what is preventing one from living in the already always existing peace-on-earth (as evidenced in the PCE). Richard, List B, No 39a, 19.10.2002

Actualism Homepage

Vineeto’s Writings and Correspondence

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity