|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 60
RESPONDENT: Yeah, I’m sure I don’t ‘need’ the method, but it still bugs me that it isn’t working as I’d thought it might. The basic practice sounds reasonable in principle, wouldn’t you say? Pay attention to how you’re experiencing this moment. If it’s no good, find out the cause, dispense with it, and go back to enjoying the moment as much as possible. Sounds like a pretty simple and useful algorithm, no? For me, no. I can feel plenty good enough until I start trying to feel good, or until I start asking myself whether I’m feeling good or not. When I pay attention to how I’m feeling, I want it to be good, really good, excellent, perfect. But wanting to feel good just doesn’t make it happen. And when I’m not feeling good (usually because I’m trying to and failing), after a few hours I get impatient, annoyed with myself and (involuntarily, reluctantly) intolerant of much of what happens around me because it feels like an annoyance, a distraction from trying to feel good. VINEETO: I used to liken the actualism method to switching on the light in the basement of my psyche. What I found was very often not to my liking at all but I understood that with such a messy, dark and unexamined ‘basement’ my happiness could only be superficial and at most temporary and conditional. When I became aware of this I set out to clean it out.
RESPONDENT: Given that ‘I’ am not actual, how can ‘I’ do anything that wasn’t going to happen anyway? In other words, how can an illusion have any executive power whatsoever? If ‘I’, as the agent of ‘my’ thoughts, feelings and actions, am an erroneous ex post facto claim of responsibility for the actions of the meat puppet who generates ‘me’, in what sense is ‘my’ freedom in ‘my’ hands? If the neural activity that generates ‘me’ has already happened before ‘I’ become aware of it, how can ‘I’ actually do anything? VINEETO: This question has been asked many times and it could well be that reading While such questions may well appear to be ‘logical’, at closer inspection it is obvious that such logic can only exist when kept separate from the reality of the myriad of daily activities, momentary affective reactions and mundane choices involved in everyday normal life. ‘I’ make hundreds of ‘executive’ decisions per day. And yet in those instances questions such as ‘how can an illusion have any executive power whatsoever?’ do not arise for ‘I’ am busy doing whatever ‘I’ choose to do. My experience is that if one starts down the path of refuting what is obvious – that I can decide to take charge of my life such that I actually make life-changing decisions – I would in effect be ‘shutting up shop’ by begrudgingly accepting my fate. In other words, a little investigation revealed to me that fatalism in whatever form was nothing other than me categorically negating the possibility of ever changing my life for the better. This simply made no sense to me at all because it was clear to me that I had in fact made many choices in my life that resulted in change … and very often for the better. To approach the issue of fatalism from a different angle – At present I am reading a book by a primate biologist entitled ‘The Dark Side of Man’ (by Michael P. Ghiglieri, Helix Books 1999), a well-written account on the instinctual passions of both great apes and humans. The book reminded me that, as I look at ‘me’ at the instinctual level and leave aside the superficial variations that make up one’s social conditioning, the core urges and compulsions that make up the human condition are very simple and obvious. For great apes, with whom we share 98% of genetic DNA, the core programming for males is to impregnate a female by display of or use of strength, power and/or cunning, and for females, if she has a choice, it is to find a male that is best capable of protecting her young, the strongest, most powerful and/or most cunning. By and large this blind instinctual imperative to reproduce is the same for humans. You could say that instinctually the sole meaning of life is to procreate – to fulfill one’s instinctual obligation to ensure the survival of the species by passing on my genes. Further, great apes have a rudimentary sense of self, i.e. they are self-conscious, which manifests as an individual self-survival instinct. Humans have developed a more complex self-consciousness, a feeling of self, so much so that this ‘self’ is felt to be ‘me’, a substantive entity in its own right. Thus it is that human beings are not only compelled to ensure the survival of the species via procreation but the individual survival instinct is now manifest as a ‘self’-survival instinct. Consequently human beings indulge in all sorts of imaginary scenarios of ‘self’-survival – imaginary spirit worlds, a fantasy afterlife, the search for immortality for the soul, and so on, imagining these pursuits to be the true meaning of life. Many people pursue both these meanings of life hand in hand – physical procreation to ensure the survival of the species by passing on my genes and the imaginary survival of ‘me’ as a ‘self’. While they are busy bringing up their young they are also busy purifying their soul and bettering their status for an afterlife. As such, one is driven by one’s instinctual programming and subsequently pursues the instinctually imprinted ‘meanings of life’ and such an immersion renders one incapable of paying attention to the instinctual programming itself. The interesting part of the adventure of life begins when I begin to apply attentiveness and become apperceptively aware of how ‘I’ function, socially and instinctually, because then I can make sensible choices based on both my intent (my goal) and the depth of my insight into the human condition itself. In other words when I clearly see the pattern of the outer layer of ‘my’ social programming, I can stop this pattern and replace it with sensible choices. When I am able to clearly understand the pattern of the innermost layer of ‘my’ instinctual programming, which is buried deep in the basement of my psyche, I have the opportunity to stop the pattern and make sensible choices. This continuous action of becoming aware of and successively stopping the automatic patterns eventually weakens both the social identity and the instinctual ‘me’ to the point where stepping out of one’s ‘self’ into the actual world won’t be a giant leap that appears impossible, but a small step that is simply the next sensible thing to do.
RESPONDENT No 73: I do think that I have been deterred a bit by other people on this list. PETER: This is after all their sole aim in writing on this mailing list – to deter those who dare to get off their backsides, stand on their own two feet and begin the journey out of the human condition, from doing so. And as you can see, they will literally stop at nothing in their efforts to intimidate anyone who shows any interest whatsoever in actualism. RESPONDENT No 73: But I also remember when I first discovered actualism, and the numerous PCE’s that followed. PETER: Despite all *the bluff and bluster of the nay-sayers* who would have you live your life according to their beliefs and their principles, there is a wonderful freedom in realizing that there is nobody standing in the way of freedom – a fact that is made startlingly evident in a pure consciousness experience. [emphasis added] RESPONDENT No 66: At first, I had a hard time admitting that people who claim to be seeking self-knowledge would ‘literally stop at nothing in their efforts to intimidate anyone who shows any interest whatsoever in actualism’, even though it was clearly right in front of these two eyes. This is of course exactly what is going on. RESPONDENT: to No 66: I don’t think so, and I think the claim is a bit silly, quite frankly. Actualism is often attacked, some of the attacks are vigorous and heated, (often more heat than light, in fact), but if actualism has the goods it can easily stand up to these criticisms, and everyone learns something. VINEETO: Whilst you state that ‘actualism is often attacked’, what was being discussed were personal attacks on actualists and those who show any interest in actualism. It is pertinent to point out that the most strident of the nay-sayers rarely, if ever, discuss the core issues of actualism and indeed many of them have consistently refused to do so. RESPONDENT to No 66: Of course, there is some personal hostility from time to time too, and actualists do cop plenty of flak. (Some of the attacks on Vineeto are quite beyond the common protocols of decency, but she can obviously handle herself). VINEETO: Are you really suggesting that it is ok to off-load ‘flak’ – ridicule, fabrications, lies, mendacity, sexual innuendo and verbal abuse –on people if they ‘can handle [it]’? By your standards does it then follow that those who break down and beg for mercy should then be spared? RESPONDENT to No 66: However, to say that the critics are literally stopping at nothing to intimidate people who are interested in actualism ... far from being ‘exactly what is going on’ ... is a big exaggeration, IMO. VINEETO: It is not the critics, but the nay-sayers with their bluff and bluster who will literally stop at nothing in their efforts to intimidate anyone who shows any interest whatsoever in actualism. There is a big difference between the two. Of course the way to tell whether or not your opinion is correct is to dare to stick your head above the parapet and declare yourself to be a committed actualist (as distinct to being a materialist or a spiritualist) … and then see how your friends react.
You have changed the sequence of the messages I responded to; I’ve restored it to what it was when I responded: VINEETO: This is the exact copy and paste as you wrote it to No 66 (Intimidation, Mon 24.1.2005, 10:28 AEST).
What I did was add another paragraph of Peter’s original post to No 73 in order to clarify what the plural personal pronoun ‘they’ refers to, particularly as you had interpreted Peter’s statement to mean ‘the critics are literally stopping at nothing’ –
* PETER: And as you can see, they will literally stop at nothing in their efforts to intimidate anyone who shows any interest whatsoever in actualism. [Emphasis No 60’s] RESPONDENT No 66: … This is of course exactly what is going on. RESPONDENT: Firstly, if anyone on Earth spent more time discussing actualism in 2004 than me, they could surely be counted on one hand, probably even one finger, and maybe no fingers at all. It would be most Stalinesque if, in order to keep Peter’s statement correct, I were to be refused classification as ‘anyone who shows any interest whatsoever in actualism’? [Emphasis mine] Secondly, during this time I was not once ‘intimidated’ in any way, by anyone at all, whether critic or naysayer or anyone else. Now, Peter’s statement is either true or false. If I ask, in light of the above facts, ‘which is it?’, and if someone who calls him/ herself an actualist gives me a straight acknowledgement, sans qualifications or excuses, that another actualist’s statement is false, it will be a first, in my experience. OK, here goes: Is Peter’s statement a fact or is it not? Step up, someone. One syllable will do it. VINEETO: I see that No 47 has stepped up and responded (with more than one syllable) To offer yourself as proof that the statement was wrong – ‘I was not once
‘intimidated’ in any way’ – does seem a little odd, as whilst you have shown interest in being free of the human condition, you
have shown little, if any interest, in actualism (the hands-on do-it-yourself process of becoming free of the human condition), in fact you have
many times expressed your aversion to actualism When I looked through last year’s correspondences I noticed quite a few posts where the same naysayers jumped on the bandwagon and highlighted and emphasized your disagreements with actualists and your objections to actualism. Given that the naysayers use both carrot and stick in their attempt to deter people from thinking for themselves on this mailing list, I am not surprised that you have not felt intimated by them. * RESPONDENT to No 66: I don’t think so, and I think the claim is a bit silly, quite frankly. Actualism is often attacked, some of the attacks are vigorous and heated, (often more heat than light, in fact), but if actualism has the goods it can easily stand up to these criticisms, and everyone learns something. VINEETO: Whilst you state that ‘actualism is often attacked’, what was being discussed were personal attacks on actualists and those who show any interest in actualism. RESPONDENT: Fair enough. VINEETO: I’m glad we agree on the difference between ‘ad hominem’ attacks and discussions about the content of what is on offer on the Actual Freedom Trust website. * VINEETO: It is pertinent to point out that the most strident of the nay-sayers rarely, if ever, discuss the core issues of actualism and indeed many of them have consistently refused to do so. RESPONDENT: I can’t think of anyone who refused from the start to discuss the core issues, but I’ll take your word for it. VINEETO: You don’t need to take my word for it. The Cult-Busters, Guru-Busters,
Disciple-Busters, Clone-Busters, Method-Busters, Verbiage-Busters and Myth-destroyers are all assembled * RESPONDENT to No 66: Of course, there is some personal hostility from time to time too, and actualists do cop plenty of flak. (Some of the attacks on Vineeto are quite beyond the common protocols of decency, but she can obviously handle herself). VINEETO: Are you really suggesting that it is ok to off-load ‘flak’ – ridicule, fabrications, lies, mendacity, sexual innuendo and verbal abuse – on people if they ‘can handle [it]’? RESPONDENT: Depends what you mean by ‘ok’. I thought the relevant categories for an actualist were silly and sensible, not ‘ok’ or ‘not ok’, but I’ll answer in the old fashioned way. VINEETO: Oh, to offload ‘flak’ as a means of discussing facts is silly all right, but my question specifically related to your apparent condoning of attacks (‘personal hostility’) on the basis of ‘she can obviously handle it’. RESPONDENT: Do I approve of these things? For the most part, no. Would I do them myself? Ridicule, yes. VINEETO: Personally, when I committed myself to become as happy and harmless as humanly possible and consequently became more aware of my feelings of being hurt by others and my thoughts and actions of wanting to pay-back those who I felt hurt me, I discovered that indulging in malicious gossip and ridicule are ill-intended means of pay-back and cutting people down to size. RESPONDENT: Fabrications, no – not unless they served a rhetorical purpose, in which case I’d acknowledge them as fabrications. Lies, no. Mendacity means pretty much the same thing, so no. Sexual innuendo, not unless I knew the correspondent well and there was no likelihood of offence. VINEETO: And yet the question I asked was – ‘Are you really suggesting that it is ok to off-load ‘flak’ – in this case, sexual innuendo – on people if they ‘can handle [it]’? As the question obviously relates to this mailing list – given that that is what you were referring to – I still can’t make out if you are saying yes or no? RESPONDENT: Verbal abuse, ... depends where you draw the line. VINEETO: Personally I draw the line at abuse – whether it be verbal, acted out or feeling abusive is simply a matter of degree. RESPONDENT: Personally I find the malicious and/or ignorant abuse of (il)logically contorted arguments far, FAR more damaging and more reprehensible than harsh or vulgar words, so if I were to be guilty of either one (and sometimes I am, as you know), I’d rather it be a tongue-lashing than a quietly and politely delivered mind-fuck. (Neither would be preferable). VINEETO: If neither are really preferable, why do you express a preference for one over the other? Again, I personally draw the line at the intent to hurt, and the actualism method is an excellent tool to become aware of such intent (as well as of all of one’s other emotions) before they are acted out. * VINEETO: [Are you really suggesting that it is ok to off-load ‘flak’ – ridicule, fabrications, lies, mendacity, sexual innuendo and verbal abuse – on people if they ‘can handle [it]’?] By your standards does it then follow that those who break down and beg for mercy should then be spared? RESPONDENT: The only way this would ‘follow’ (by my standards) is if I’d said it’s OK to abuse Vineeto because she can handle it. I didn’t say that, or mean that. What I meant was that I find some of the hostility directed at you quite over the top, and you seem to get more unprovoked shit than most. And no, your being able to look after yourself does not make that ‘OK’, in the old-fashioned way. VINEETO: Your use of the phrase ‘OK, in the old fashioned way’ reminds me of what is often deemed to be OK in the new-fashioned way, as in New Age spiritual way, whereby people fondly imagine themselves to be ‘free’ by rejecting the conventional morality and ethics of society and letting their resentments and hostility out on other people. To imagine that this petty act of rebellion is freedom is a nonsense as all one is doing is blindly following yet another social convention. RESPONDENT: I added the ‘but she can obviously handle herself’ for a rather pathetic reason: I did not want it to seem as if I was making out that you were weak and in need of special treatment on account of being female. VINEETO: The irony is that I in fact do receive the ‘special treatment on account of being female’ by those old-fashioned (or New Age) misogynists on this list for whom actualists, especially when female, are considered ‘fair prey’. This may well be the reason that I am still the only female actualist who choses to write on this list – the others I have talked to regard much of the behaviour of the naysayers on this list to be male-troglodytic. * VINEETO: There is a big difference between the two [the critics and the nay-sayers]. Of course the way to tell whether or not your opinion is correct is to dare to stick your head above the parapet and declare yourself to be a committed actualist (as distinct to being a materialist or a spiritualist) … and then see how your friends react. RESPONDENT: I’ve never kept my head down or declined to show my hand for fear of persecution, and I don’t intend to. I’ve never been big on wearing the tribal colours either. VINEETO: It’s not ‘wearing the tribal colours’ I was talking about because actualism is not a group or a tribe one can belong to. What I suggested was to see how your friends react when and if you *commit* to dedicating yourself to peace on earth.
PETER: And as you can see, they will literally stop at nothing in their efforts to intimidate anyone who shows any interest whatsoever in actualism. [Emphasis No 60’s] RESPONDENT No 66: … This is of course exactly what is going on. RESPONDENT: Firstly, if anyone on Earth spent more time discussing actualism in 2004 than me, they could surely be counted on one hand, probably even one finger, and maybe no fingers at all. It would be most Stalinesque if, in order to keep Peter’s statement correct, I were to be refused classification as ‘anyone who shows any interest whatsoever in actualism’? [Emphasis mine] Secondly, during this time I was not once ‘intimidated’ in any way, by anyone at all, whether critic or naysayer or anyone else. Now, Peter’s statement is either true or false. If I ask, in light of the above facts, ‘which is it?’, and if someone who calls him/ herself an actualist gives me a straight acknowledgement, sans qualifications or excuses, that another actualist’s statement is false, it will be a first, in my experience. OK, here goes: Is Peter’s statement a fact or is it not? Step up, someone. One syllable will do it. VINEETO: I see that No 47 has stepped up and responded (with more than one syllable) To offer yourself as proof that the statement was wrong – ‘I was not once
‘intimidated’ in any way’ – does seem a little odd, as whilst you have shown interest in being free of the human condition, you
have shown little, if any interest, in actualism (the hands-on do-it-yourself process of becoming free of the human condition), in fact you have
many times expressed your aversion to actualism When I looked through last year’s correspondences I noticed quite a few posts where the same naysayers jumped on the bandwagon and highlighted and emphasized your disagreements with actualists and your objections to actualism. Given that the naysayers use both carrot and stick in their attempt to deter people from thinking for themselves on this mailing list, I am not surprised that you have not felt intimated by them. RESPONDENT: The only part of this I want to respond to right now is something I wrote myself: ‘if someone who calls him/herself an actualist gives me a straight acknowledgement, sans qualifications or excuses, that another actualist’s statement is false, it will be a first, in my experience.’ That wasn’t fair to No 37. He has been a notable exception. VINEETO: Your reply to my post indicates that rather than discuss the issue of intimidation, your focus was to prove the statement of an actualist wrong. This seemingly anti-actualist bias may well explain why you have yet to understand what I tried to elucidate in my post. Vis –
For the sake of clarity, I’ll just repeat the point I was making again. What you have shown interest in, and plenty of it, is to be actually free from the human condition, the end product, so to speak. However, until your recent correspondence with No 47, your interest in actualism – the hands-on application of the method to reach an actual freedom from the human condition, paying attention to one’s emotions, feelings and beliefs – was ‘scant’ and you recognized this yourself –
The way I see it is that you have attempted, by whatever means possible, to avoid, bypass or skip the
process of actualism altogether Given that the whole reason why we are discussing your interest, or non-interest, in actualism is the fact that you said you have not been intimidated by naysayers and objectionists – can you now see that the reason why they have not bothered to deter you from committing to actualism may well be because you have not begun to commit yourself to being an actualist? Be that as it may, it appears that your whole exploration into some of the ways of avoiding actualism was essential for you to experientially find out that ‘you need to bake the cake in order to eat it’, to paraphrase a common expression. This exploration may now give you the necessary motivation to question your misconceptions with regard to actualism and actualists. As always, it is up to you.
RESPONDENT: Do you think that being interested in actualism VINEETO: Oh yes. Being interested in ‘the direct experience that matter is not merely passive’ as experienced in a PCE can be but a sweet dream once the PCE has faded … unless one becomes interested in ‘the process of becoming actually free from the human condition’. When I began the hands-on process of doing something practical to become actually free from the human condition I noticed that I not only stopped indulging in my own malicious and sorrowful feelings but also found it impossible to support my former friends and allies in their passionate fights against what we had previously conceived as ‘our common enemies’ – within the sisterhood: ‘chauvinist men’, within the Sannyas community: ‘all non-Rajneeshees’, within the lefty’s network: ‘all capitalists’, within the purist community: ‘all non-vegetarians’, and so on. Correspondingly I also ceased to actively support and encourage people in their sorrow and resentment of being here because I could more and more see the silliness and harm of doing so. Delving into the human condition as part of my process of becoming actually free inevitably resulted in changes in my behaviour and this behavioural change was of course noted and responded to by my former friends, mostly in form of a quiet retreat from their association with me, but sometimes in form of passionate accusations that I was a traitor for abandoning the cause(s) they felt compelled to fight for. The good news is that having given up belonging to various camps there were no more ‘enemies’ or adversaries to be wary of – everyone became a fellow human being to me. As No 37 recently reported, life is indeed much more simple and easy once the commitment to begin the process of cleaning oneself up has been made.
VINEETO: When I began the hands-on process of doing something practical to become actually free from the human condition I noticed that I not only stopped indulging in my own malicious and sorrowful feelings but also found it impossible to support my former friends and allies in their passionate fights against what we had previously conceived as ‘our common enemies’ – within the sisterhood: ‘chauvinist men’, within the Sannyas community: ‘all non-Rajneeshees’, within the lefty’s network: ‘all capitalists’, within the purist community: ‘all non-vegetarians’, and so on. RESPONDENT: Right ... I can see how abandoning these causes (or, rather, going for the more comprehensive solution) could make one a traitor in some people’s eyes. Personally, I had already given up on social / political solutions before I encountered actualism, so I won’t have to deal with that one. (That is to say, I knew that with humanity in its current state no political change or social movement could stand a chance of lasting success, so my focus shifted to an individual psychological revolution / neurological evolution. I didn’t follow any spiritual tradition (apart from reading a bit of JK and Zen), but psychology, philosophy, drugs and music became my defacto ‘religion’). But this one ...
... is a different kettle of fish. I can see how the withdrawal of tacit support for the continuation of suffering (particularly the withdrawal of support for people’s personal sorrows and grievances) could undermine the foundations of a friendship. VINEETO: When I stopped supporting both my own feelings of sorrow and those of others I became increasingly aware of the extent to which my relationships were built upon mutual support for common grievances and loyal allegiances against what we perceived as difficult to deal with people, upsetting things and worrying events – in other words, when I sorted my own feelings out for myself I lost interest in other people’s sad stories and subsequently we had less in common to share. Friendships in the real world are by and large emotional allegiances against an adversarial world – where there is neither sorrow nor enemies, there is also no need for loyal and emotionally supportive friends. * VINEETO: As No 37 recently reported, life is indeed much more simple and easy once the commitment to begin the process of cleaning oneself up has been made. RESPONDENT: Something else he said hit home too. When he said (in response to my ‘art of the mindfuck’ message): ‘another objection to being happy and harmless bites the dust’, I was initially stung ... and felt myself ready to protest, no, no that isn’t the point at all ... it’s not an objection to being happy and harmless, it’s ... ... but on further reflection I realised that’s exactly what it was. VINEETO: Have you noticed that very often when one feels stung it may well be because someone has intentionally or unintentionally pointed out a fact that is contrary to what one believes to be a truth, whereas if what another says is a clear fabrication, one can, if one cares to, easily and calmly set the facts straight? RESPONDENT: Since then, ‘What is ‘my’ objection to being happy and harmless?’ has become a seminal question for me. VINEETO: Ah, a very potent question, if I may say so. RESPONDENT: It’s pretty interesting to see myself twist and turn any which way in order to justify not being happy and harmless. But I haven’t found a valid reason yet. VINEETO: There are Whilst you may not find a ‘valid reason’ for not being happy and harmless, you will certainly find a basket full of emotions disguised as rational arguments for not being so. Personally I found reasoning necessary in order to establish a prima facie case for actualism but I soon became aware that I had to recognize and address the emotional objections I had to committing myself to becoming happy and harmless. When I examined the emotional objections I found that the most predominant one was fear. What greatly helped me jump the hurdle of self-preservation was my burning desire to make peace-on-earth possible for everyone and given that I had both the means and the opportunity I had no choice but to take the jump and make a start. And I can say I have never ever regretted my choice.
VINEETO: When I stopped supporting both my own feelings of sorrow and those of others I became increasingly aware of the extent to which my relationships were built upon mutual support for common grievances and loyal allegiances against what we perceived as difficult to deal with people, upsetting things and worrying events – in other words, when I sorted my own feelings out for myself I lost interest in other people’s sad stories and subsequently we had less in common to share. Friendships in the real world are by and large emotional allegiances against an adversarial world – RESPONDENT: Yeah, ‘you and ‘me’ against the world. Deep down ‘I’ have always known that ‘I’ am special ... ‘I’ am blessed or accursed or both at once. ‘I’ present a face to the world but it’s not the real ‘me’. Only a handful of people know a piece of the real ‘me’, and ‘you’ are one of them. And ‘I’ know a piece of the real ‘you’, and the real ‘you’ is special too. (Just not quite as special as ‘me’, ok? ;-)). ‘We’ do not fit. ‘We’ play the game, ‘we’ present a face to the world, but ‘they’ will never know the real ‘us’. Only ‘we’ know who ‘we’ really are, and your secret is safe with ‘me’, just as ‘mine’ is safe with ‘you’. And every poor sucker in the crowd is the same ... feeling special, feeling isolated by a unique blessing/curse, feeling that everyone else fits in except ‘me’ ... ‘I’ must be so much better/worse/both than they are. A ‘close friend’ knows the extent of ‘my’ superiority / inferiority / uniqueness, and allows ‘me’ to know of theirs. That is what ‘we’ are made of. VINEETO: Yes, and this genetically imprinted feeling that ‘I’ am special is multiplied and reinforced by others whenever one feels as though one belongs to a group, a club, a tribe, a nation, a race, or shares a set of convictions and/or creed, either religious or secular, with others. As I began to unravel the feelings that are ‘me’, it became obvious that I had to actualize what I had understood in my daily interactions with people – and that’s where application and diligence comes in. I became aware of how others automatically reinforced ‘me’ in my various social roles and I noticed how I didn’t want to upset their feelings by changing. I also began to become aware of the extent to which all of my day-to-day interactions were based on countless assumptions of what is right and true or, more accurately, what feels right and true. As I became more experienced in paying attention not only to my feelings and values but also to the content of all the information I had unquestioningly taken on board, I discovered that many, many of those silent assumptions were more often than not conjectures, opinions, viewpoints, factoids, myths, feelings and false information. * VINEETO: … where there is neither sorrow nor enemies, there is also no need for loyal and emotionally supportive friends. RESPONDENT: I once thought that even if I chose to be an actualist, it would be unfair to leave certain other people (whose identities need ‘me’ for support/reassurance) in the lurch. Now that I can see what is entailed in this mutual support, it seems there is a much better option: to get rid of this fucking burden, show the other that it can be done, and let them make of it what they will. VINEETO: Some people will no doubt feel, and say, that you will unfairly leave them ‘in the lurch’. As you know actualism is something you can only do for yourself and by yourself, which means that you don’t need the agreement of others in order to becoming a practicing actualist. Indeed some might even stop in their tracks and reconsider when they see tangible results but going by
my experience I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen. Metathesiophobia * VINEETO: As No 37 recently reported, life is indeed much more simple and easy once the commitment to begin the process of cleaning oneself up has been made. RESPONDENT: Something else he said hit home too. When he said (in response to my ‘art of the mindfuck’ message): ‘another objection to being happy and harmless bites the dust’, I was initially stung ... and felt myself ready to protest, no, no that isn’t the point at all ... it’s not an objection to being happy and harmless, it’s ... ... but on further reflection I realised that’s exactly what it was. VINEETO: Have you noticed that very often when one feels stung it may well be because someone has intentionally or unintentionally pointed out a fact that is contrary to what one believes to be a truth, whereas if what another says is a clear fabrication, one can, if one cares to, easily and calmly set the facts straight? RESPONDENT: Hmmm ... not really, mainly because I’m not a person who is easily capable of believing, or of maintaining beliefs for long periods. If I believe something that’s bullshit I generally want to know about it, and even though it hurts for a while I will not stubbornly resist it. VINEETO: When I started my investigations into what ‘I’ am made of I decided, for simplicity’s sake, to call all my ideas about the world, i.e. people, things and events, beliefs. After all, a belief is an emotion-backed thought and most of my thoughts about people, things and events were emotion-backed. In the course of my exploration into how ‘I’ tick I uncovered not only my adult spiritual and early-childhood religious beliefs but a whole series of emotion-backed thoughts in the form of political, economical, dietary and environmental ideals, work-ethics and health-issues, sexual mores and gender roles and differences. I also became aware that I had a plethora of emotion-backed thoughts regarding what is right and wrong, fair and unfair, good and bad, true and false – in short, I eventually had to admit that my whole worldview was almost entirely based on emotion-backed thoughts … rather than solid facts and common sense. RESPONDENT: Personally, I find (or let me say with confidence now: ‘have found’) it more frustrating to deal with arguments that I perceive to be fabrications and/or simply illogical constructions. I don’t think it will be as much of a problem in future though. VINEETO: As a rule of thumb, what I learnt from practicing actualism is that whenever I became passionate about an issue, a situation, something someone said or did, some piece of information on TV or such like, I knew for certain that one of my dearly-held emotion-backed thoughts was being touched … I guess that could be the root of the expression ‘being touchy’. * RESPONDENT: Since then, ‘What is ‘my’ objection to being happy and harmless?’ has become a seminal question for me. VINEETO: Ah, a very potent question, if I may say so. RESPONDENT: It is indeed ... and it’s proving very interesting. I am finding all kinds of reasons why I have not found much sustained success with actualism so far, in spite of some good insights and experiences along the way. VINEETO: Personally I had lots of factual insights and even a few pure consciousness experiences in my years before actualism – what I learnt from Richard was that one can and needs to put those insights into action in daily life in order for them to work their magic. * RESPONDENT: It’s pretty interesting to see myself twist and turn any which way in order to justify not being happy and harmless. But I haven’t found a valid reason yet. VINEETO: There are 47 objections that have so far been collected on the website but the most persistent one I found is that the human animal finds it extremely challenging (as in threatening to one’s very survival) to do something that sets one apart from the fold. RESPONDENT: May I suggest a 48th? ‘You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater’. VINEETO: Done. We even had a caricature from ‘The Flacco Files’ from P. Livingstone adapted
to illustrate People have different interpretations of what they consider to be the ‘baby’ that should not be thrown out with the bathwater. Some suggest to throw out the corrupt gurus but to keep the ‘good’ ones, some are happy to throw out God but want to keep the belief in an overarching Energy or Superior Intelligence, some want to keep the ‘baby’ of love, others yet want to keep imagination, creativity, beauty, compassion and so on. * VINEETO: Whilst you may not find a ‘valid reason’ for not being happy and harmless, you will certainly find a basket full of emotions disguised as rational arguments for not being so. RESPONDENT: Yep, shiploads of ‘em. VINEETO: Personally I found reasoning necessary in order to establish a prima facie case for actualism but I soon became aware that I had to recognize and address the emotional objections I had to committing myself to becoming happy and harmless. When I examined the emotional objections I found that the most predominant one was fear. RESPONDENT: Same here. So much of my thinking is motivated and fed by a mildly unpleasant underlying feeling state, dominated by a fear so persistent as to be almost imperceptible (until it unexpectedly departs, and then I find out just what a heavy burden I’ve been carrying). VINEETO: The way to lighten this burden for me is to put a name to the fear whenever I can because a fear that has a name is far less powerful and non-mysterious. First I got rid of fears that had to do with my pride, my status in society, my role-playing as a social identity and then I looked at my fears arising from the morals and ethics I had taken on board since childhood and those added later in my spiritual years. * VINEETO: What greatly helped me jump the hurdle of self-preservation was my burning desire to make peace-on-earth possible for everyone and given that I had both the means and the opportunity I had no choice but to take the jump and make a start. RESPONDENT: Lately I’ve got very sick of poncing about with this ... shall I, shan’t I, what if ...?, what about ...?, business. It was necessary of course, but now it’s merely a hindrance. VINEETO: It’s great, isn’t it, when being sick of one’s doubts, whatever the doubts, is winning over the fear of change. That was always the moment when I initiated my next change in life.
VINEETO: When I started my investigations into what ‘I’ am made of I decided, for simplicity’s sake, to call all my ideas about the world, i.e. people, things and events, beliefs. RESPONDENT: That’s a very good idea. If I look at beliefs as the feeling-based building blocks of reality (rather than as simply logical propositions about the world which may or may not be true), then I can see why you and Peter place so much emphasis on beliefs. They are the very fabric of reality. VINEETO: Oh yes, beliefs are ‘the very fabric of reality’ and every apparently ‘logical proposition about the world’ is championed by a group of passionate defenders of this proposition and this is what holds sustains them over centuries despite their blatant silliness and well and truly after their use by date. I’ve more than once heard a person say that they wouldn’t want the facts to stand in the way of their belief or that they wouldn’t want facts to divert them from their truth. I found that these ‘feeling-based building blocks of reality’ – whether they be in the form of beliefs, ideas, concepts, morals, principles, ideals, opinions, or convictions – have played a major part not only in my underlying objection to being here but also to my ability to recognize and acknowledge a feeling when it was happening. The second part is the more tricky aspect in that it needs to be understood and taken on board if one aspires to understand the workings of one’s own psyche. To put it succinctly, I found it impossible to investigate the feeling-based building blocks of reality unless I took a clear-eyed look at the beliefs, ideas, concepts, morals, principles, ideals, dreams, opinions and convictions that prevented me from clearly seeing that ‘who I am’ is an instinctually driven being – ‘as mad, as bad and as sad as everyone else’ as Peter put it in his journal. I discovered various objections to acknowledging that I was an instinctually driven being were due to the moral and ethical values that I had absorbed in my early years at home and in school, administered by parents, teachers, priests and peers. And then I noticed the stumbling blocks of my idealistic dreams – how I wanted to be, how I thought I ought to be, how I dreamed I could be – and they often stood in the way of clearly seeing, feeling and understanding what was emotionally going on. To translate the impact of ideals, morals and ethics into a real life example – if you threaten a child with punishment, shame and guilt, it will, rather than come clean, most probably lie and hide what it’s been doing, thinking and feeling. RESPONDENT: Looking at beliefs this way will be excellent complement to something else I’ve been doing lately. I’ve been reminding myself regularly that reality is an affective construct, and that one affective construct is ultimately as (in)valid as another. Understanding this intellectually is one thing; experiencing it is another; putting it to practical use is another thing again. It’s working in two ways: firstly, it enables me to loosen ‘my’ grip on reality, or reality’s grip on ‘me’ as the case may be; and secondly it gives me the freedom to create a more felicitous reality in which to live on the way to my final destination. VINEETO: For me the penny dropped when I realized that whatever I do, think, feel or imagine, ‘I’ can never escape ‘me’ – in other words, whatever reality ‘I’ am trying to create, ‘I’ remain always in situ. This insight also wiped off imagination as an option for improving my life in any way. The ‘more felicitous reality’ that I experience in Virtual Freedom is not created by ‘me’ but it is the inevitable result of painstakingly removing the building blocks of ‘my’ beliefs, ideas, concepts, morals, principles, ideals, etc., thereby diminishing the grip of my instinctual passions. The ensuing vacuity of emotion-backed thoughts allows the felicitous (and innocuous) feelings to come more and more to the fore – an essential precursor to ensuring that one’s sensuous awareness is fact-based and not imagination-based. * RESPONDENT: Lately I’ve got very sick of poncing about with this ... shall I, shan’t I, what if ...?, what about ...?, business. It was necessary of course, but now it’s merely a hindrance. VINEETO: It’s great, isn’t it, when being sick of one’s doubts, whatever the doubts, is winning over the fear of change. RESPONDENT: It sure is ... it’s both a relief and a thrill to have left indecision behind. I know I’m in for a helluva ride now. (I’m surprising myself every day with how far I’m prepared to go. I have been quite spooked a couple of times though, but once having made the decision, why fuck around? ... I’m determined to go as quickly as this body can handle it). VINEETO: In my experience it’s ‘me’ who puts up the fight and encroaches on this body’s well-being. Although there were some minor physical reactions to some of my weirder explorations into my psyche, I can say that generally my physical well-being has increased as my social identity has decreased. * VINEETO: That was always the moment when I initiated my next change in life. RESPONDENT: You can almost feel something ‘give’, can’t you? Have you noticed a peculiar ‘squelching’ sound/sensation associated with a decision to let go of something? It’s as if you can hear/feel cerebro-spinal fluid (or whatever the hell it is) squirting through a narrow passage in the base of the skull / top of the neck. And it seems to work both ways too. If I’m teetering on the brink and I decide to press on, there’s a squelch ... and if I pike out and decide to pull back, there’s also a squelch. It’s pretty weird ... and exciting/scary to think of what might be going on in there ... but what the hell – I’m delighted to be finally on ‘my’ way. VINEETO: I remember quite a few weird experiences and sensations, and I have written about
RESPONDENT No 81: Your’s and Alan’s reports are very interesting. Are these symptoms still coming up or was it only back then [1998] for a short time period that the ‘I’ was struggling for survival? I understand you are in VF, that is, your ‘I’ is still intact but diminished. Is this correct? Are you going fully for it [self-immolation, AF] or are you happy to stay where you are? I understand that Alan is not going fully for it. In the case you go fully for AF what are you doing to keep up the process? Thanks for your time and effort, VINEETO: Given that you have thus far spent a lot of time and effort to dismiss and ignore all that I have written to the point of saying that the words I use have no meaning whereas the philosophers and metaphysicalists whose writings you post on this list have got it right, … RESPONDENT No 81: I am not at all ignoring what you are writing. I am simply not agreeing with a great deal of your ‘conclusions’ [for lack of a better word] but that’s a complete different story. (...) Please distinguish between the No 81 who criticizes your ‘conclusions’ [for lack of a better word] regards the ‘ultimate questions’ on the one hand and the No 81 who is genuinely interested into your experiences regards ‘self’ immolations on the other hand. VINEETO: I’d rather wait until you two guys have made up your minds about actualism –
particularly since the former seems to be well and truly strutting the stage, so much so the other guy cannot get a word in edgeways. RESPONDENT: In case you didn’t notice, the other guy just did get a word in edgeways, and was more or less told to fuck off until he’s prepared to stop challenging your conclusions. VINEETO: If No 81 chooses to compartmentalize his affective and mental activity such that the one No 81 does not know what the other No 81 is doing then it is not something I can do anything about and that’s what I indicated when I jokingly said ‘I’d rather wait until you two guys have made up your minds about actualism’. Besides, to take sides in someone’s fight with oneself would be silly. One thing I learnt very early on in actualism and that was that I needed to get my act together and at least be one ‘me’ – in short, integrity became a prime issue at the time. The choice was clear – either be interested in becoming free of the human condition and make it the most important thing in my life or don’t. To sit on the fence or vacillate was never an option for me. The other thing I learnt was that the only one I can change is myself – nobody can, or needs to, do that job for me, and the same applies for anyone … including those who write to this mailing list. Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
