|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 65
RESPONDENT No 16: Actually, you seem aloof to me in that I find it near impossible to have a conversation with you. VINEETO: I wonder what kind of conversation you are looking for that you ‘find it near impossible to have a conversation’ with me? In case you are seeking an ‘I-don’t-know, you-don’t-know, what-do-you-think’ type of conversation as is so common on spiritual mailing lists then surely you are talking to the wrong person. If you are looking for sympathy, empathy, commiseration, love or compassion, then again you won’t find it here. What I am doing is having a conversation with you about the workings of the human condition – the very nature of the topic makes such a conversation the most candid and frank kind of discussion one can have with another person. To liken this to being ‘aloof’ is to misunderstand both the nature of aloofness/ detachment/ disidentification and the degree of intimacy and sincerity required in order to undertake an honest inquiry into the human condition. RESPONDENT No 16: [Right now, it seems that good is as good as it gets for me while living with this feeler.] VINEETO: Personally, feeling good almost all the time wasn’t good enough for me – I wanted to live the perfection I had experienced in my PCEs as much as possible. So when I had managed to feel good most of the time I raised the bar to feeling great, then to feeling excellent to the point where I wake up in the morning and take it for granted that I will have an excellent day. After I had experienced the best that is possible, settling for second best was no longer an option. RESPONDENT No 16: I didn’t say I had ‘settled’ for second best. I simply stated what’s so for me. VINEETO: I am left wondering why you bother to converse with me at all. You write to me asking
questions and when I respond saying that, as a consequence of having actively explored the human condition, I have found a way to become free of
the particular problem that bothers you, you appear to take offence at my responses and subsequently the conversation dawdles to an end … yet
again. If you don’t like what I say or how I say it … why bother writing to me? RESPONDENT No 16: The conversation then deteriorated into you making a lot of assumptions about me and now bringing up long past conversations to back up your assumptions. As always, you have assumed an authoritative teacher role which makes discussion impossible. RESPONDENT: This is the actualist’s back flip. Instead of becoming ‘sans self’ and simply discussing the facts calmly and clearly with their fellow man, they keep getting lost in a quagmire of ‘YOU this and YOU that’. In other words they have become more ‘self-obsessed’ than normal people. And this silly reprimanding finger pointing at the YOU of the correspondent instead of pointing at the nature of human instincts and learning together makes them unable to discuss the facts sans attitude. Which makes their claim of sans self a total wank. VINEETO: Given that you talk about ‘discussing the facts calmly’, t’would be best to get your facts straight first – I have never claimed to be ‘sans self’ and if you cared to read what I said in the post you responded to, I was not pointing a reprimanding finger at anyone. However if you want to point the finger at me when I am discussing the human condition with someone else on this mailing list, I suggest your criticism would have at least a smidgeon of credibility had you yourself ever joined in a conversation about the human instincts (either generally as they are manifest as the human condition or specifically as they are manifest as one’s every-day, every-moment feelings and actions). As you would know, armchair critics are ten a penny – and we have had a plethora of them on this mailing list. By and large their mottos operandi is to engage in personal disparagement, presumably based on the well-known ploy that if you throw enough mud, something will stick. What they all fail to appreciate is that their continual refusal to engage in a meaningful discussion about the human condition, combined with their avowed disinterest in becoming free of the human condition themselves, means that they wear their attitude on their sleeve. RESPONDENT: In other words why keep prodding and poking at the centre (the feeler/thinker) when it only makes the vortex (emotional thoughts) swirl faster. VINEETO: In case you haven’t noticed, actualism is something everyone does for themselves. In contrast to psychology, psychiatry and human growth therapy there are no psychologist/ therapists prodding one to move into one direction or another. Having said that, it stands to reason that anyone asking questions of an actualist on this mailing list about how the human condition operates in practice can expect to get a straight answer. Given that the human condition is epitomized by senseless beliefs, archaic superstitions, emotive thoughtless responses and gut-wrenching instinctual reactions, it is par for the course that any discussion about the human condition will invariable evoke feelings of guilt and shame which in turn gives rise to defensive and evasive responses, even to the point of denial. Having a clear-eyed, sensible, frank and open discussion about the human condition is not an easy thing to do, as is evidenced by the majority of correspondence on this mailing list. The reason I asked No 16 why he bothers to converse with me at all was because he asked me questions
about the human condition and when I answered he complained that he finds it near impossible to have a conversation with me, a reaction he has
also shown in past conversations with me. I did neither prod nor poke at him, I talked about observations I had made about ‘people I know’ ( In other words what you call ‘keep prodding’ are another’s assumptions about a general statement I made. It would be useful to pay more attention to the facts of what is actually said before you jump onto the bandwagon of accusations and complaints against actualists. RESPONDENT: Actualism won’t spread like a chain letter till we ‘actually care’ enough to learn how to observe and examine human instincts without ‘investigating’ them as though they are criminal. VINEETO: When I use the word ‘investigate’ I use it meaning ‘research, probe, explore, inquire into, go/look into, study, examine, inspect, consider, sift, analyse; check out’ (Oxford Thesaurus). My investigation is a ‘self’-inquiry into my own beliefs and instinctual passions with the aim to become actually free from the human condition. For me, the very first step in this investigation was to admit that deep down, I was governed by instinctual passions – predominantly fear, aggression, nurture and desire. This simple act of acknowledgement meant that any feelings of guilt and shame (that ‘I’ am a criminal for having these passions) or feelings of self-righteousness (that ‘I’ am a saint for having repressed or denied these passions) that arose in my investigations were clearly seen for what they were – the inevitably by-products of socialization. For anyone who has done some ‘self’-investigation it is obvious that one can only observe and
investigate human instinctual passions if one is friends with oneself and coopts any aspect of oneself as an ally in this investigation into the
human psyche. Maintaining a moralistic attitude towards one’s instinctual passions unavoidably results in avoidance, denial and detachment. For this reason actualists have always maintained that before one can begin to examine one’s instinctual passions it is essential to first rekindle one’s naiveté and be guided by pure intent born from the experience of the perfection of the actual world. Then one can begin to take apart one’s social identity – one’s spiritual values and beliefs and one’s social morals and ethics – in order to replace them with naiveté and the pure intent to have the already always existing peace-on-earth become apparent. This is precisely described in the ‘Actualist Guide for the Wide and Wondrous Path’ –
RESPONDENT: This contaminated trio is still moralising and posturing so learning is crippled here. VINEETO: Again your claim would have at least some smidgeon of credibility had you ever expressed any interest at all in wanting to learn anything about the human condition and how it operates, or even expressed any interest whatsoever in wanting to become free of the human condition. Once one adopts a posture, particularly an adversarial one, maintaining it becomes a face-saving matter, hey? RESPONDENT: Others more benign and well meaning will pick up this ‘actual’ ball (as many already have) and will ‘play’ it with (not coach) their fellow man all the way to the goal. VINEETO: There is a rich tradition of human beings denying facts in favour of holding on to their beliefs and of human beings negating new discoveries in favour of clinging to old myths and superstitions. As such your pronouncement hardly comes as a surprise. If it wasn’t for the Actual Freedom Trust website and this mailing list you wouldn’t have known that an actual freedom from the human condition is even possible, yet you are trying to tell experienced actualists how they should inform their fellow human beings about actualism. Whatever ‘actual ball’ you and those unnamed ‘others’ ‘play with’ and whatever ‘goal’ you have in mind, it can only be some spurious fantasy of your own making – it ain’t actual freedom because that is a do-it-yourself and do-it-by-yourself business.
RESPONDENT to Peter: You forgot g… Richard got it wrong: it is patently silly to ‘claim’ to be the first and only actually free, happy and harmless human being whilst writing like an aggressive argumentative asshole. VINEETO: No 65, have you looked up the word ‘automorphism’
RESPONDENT No 60: You say: I made Virtual Freedom my standard and I was then bound by my own integrity and supported by my intent not to slip back into not having a perfect day. I say: Virtual Freedom must be constantly policed ... maintained affectively and cognitively by a constant barrage of actualist ideation. In other words, you say tomayto, I say tomahto, let’s call the whole thing off. VINEETO: You have made it quite clear in your recent post to Richard that you are not virtually
free of malice and sorrow, and that when you said you were virtually free, you were joking In other words, I know tomatoes by taste, you call them lemons, why don’t you call the whole thing
off. RESPONDENT: Doncha love it. That’s it No 60 you’re a write off now. VINEETO: This is what has been said –
… and it is obvious that for both No 60 and me ‘the whole thing’ refers to the discussion about Virtual Freedom.
Makes me wonder whether you read what is written or whether you don’t care about misrepresentation as long as it serves your cause. RESPONDENT: It’s been decreed by the almighty Vineeto, you are a flawed creature. There’s no hope for you now mate, … VINEETO: As your first interpretation is so way off the content of what has actually been said as to be risible, your subsequent conclusions from this misinterpretation are even further removed from reality. RESPONDENT: … and even in 11 years, these three are gonna drag out their copy and pastes and remind you of your ‘givens’. VINEETO: I did not remind No 60 of ‘his’ ‘givens’, I simply reminded him that by his own admission he is not an expert in Virtual Freedom and provided the quotes where he says so. There is nothing at all ‘given’ about this particular attitude to becoming virtually free because anyone can change their attitude at any time if they so desire – all it needs is an insight powerful enough to cut through accumulated convictions and principles and the integrity to act on it. RESPONDENT: Oh boohoo. VINEETO: Your expression reminds me of another participant who had a foible for multiple names/identities. He/she wrote to this list about five years ago –
RESPONDENT: Lately I’ve become increasingly aware that the average human being has an almost pathological fascination for what other people are up to and almost no interest in finding out about themselves. Which would not be a problem except their favorite hobby seems to be trying to mould others with that darth of knowledge. Just watch a room full of people busy telling each other what to do or not do, how to be or not be, thereby sparing themselves from finding out how they tick? Take No 30 for example... VINEETO: You just proved your point. Brilliant.
VINEETO: Now meeting someone who needs help at a road accident is a rather rare situation in
order to practice actual caring – help as action rather than feeling sympathy – whereas when I started to pay attention to my daily routine of
interactions with people, and became more sensitive how my words and actions where affecting not just myself but even more so my fellow human
beings, … RESPONDENT: Mmm ... Now I wonder why Richard doesn’t pay more attention to this before he pumps out his aggressive replies, and why you so defensively and dishonestly, pretend that he does? VINEETO: Whereas I wonder why someone who claims not to experience a ‘mean and miserable
me/I/self’ I have known Richard personally for more than eight years now and never ever have I experienced him to
be aggressive, not even irritated or impatient with people, neither in face-to-face interactions nor in his writings. Maybe it’s time for a
spoonful or two of your own medicine * VINEETO: I could easily see in what way I could replace a feeling compassion for the suffering all of human kind (which has no tangible effect whatsoever except on me who is feeling it) with an active and tangible change in the way I treat people in my immediate surrounding. RESPONDENT: I always have difficulty with this one. VINEETO: You are not the first. Here is an example of what someone wrote many years ago with a remarkably similar agenda to your own – 2.9.1999 It is simply not possible to preserve the good emotions and discard, or distance oneself from, the bad emotions – this has been tried for 5000 years of recorded history and peace on earth is nowhere in sight. If you want to be free from the human condition then the instinctual passions will have to go as a whole package, nurture included. RESPONDENT: Why does actualism/actualists see the good feelings as ineffective motivators of practical actual caring, i.e. compassion as having [quote] no tangible effect whatsoever except on me who is feeling it [unquote] but eagerly acknowledges the bad feelings as motivating all the murder and mayhem in the world? VINEETO: In a ‘self’-less pure consciousness experience it is readily observable that both the loving and desirable feelings as well as the hostile and invidious feelings are but two sides of the same coin and that both arise out of the instinctual animal survival package. Not only are the good feelings ineffective to eliminate suffering and violence, they actually contribute to it. Emotional caring only cares for those one feels connected with and will always exclude those who don’t fall into that category. Furthermore, actualism doesn’t state that ‘all the murder and mayhem’ is only motivated by the bad feelings but that it is caused by the whole of the instinctual survival package every human is endowed with at birth. The best practical actually caring thing anyone can do is to become aware of their own instinctually driven feelings and passions in order to stop imposing them on their fellow human beings.
VINEETO: Now meeting someone who needs help at a road accident is a rather rare situation in
order to practice actual caring – help as action rather than feeling sympathy – whereas when I started to pay attention to my daily routine of
interactions with people, and became more sensitive how my words and actions where affecting not just myself but even more so my fellow human
beings, … RESPONDENT: Mmm ... Now I wonder why Richard doesn’t pay more attention to this before he pumps out his aggressive replies, and why you so defensively and dishonestly, pretend that he does? VINEETO: Whereas I wonder why someone who claims not to experience a ‘mean and miserable
me/I/self’ I have known Richard personally for more than eight years now and never ever have I experienced him to
be aggressive, not even irritated or impatient with people, neither in face-to-face interactions nor in his writings. Maybe it’s time for a
spoonful or two of your own medicine RESPONDENT: My my! talk about passionate instincts in full swing. Tis a good thing we are not depending on your mentality to negotiate peaceful resolutions ... or are we, hence all the wars etc. etc., go on forever and a day. VINEETO: Are you or are you not going to substantiate your above allegations about Richard and me – else all your schoolyard taunts are just that, schoolyard taunt, including this present post.
VINEETO: Now meeting someone who needs help at a road accident is a rather rare situation in
order to practice actual caring – help as action rather than feeling sympathy – whereas when I started to pay attention to my daily routine of
interactions with people, and became more sensitive how my words and actions where affecting not just myself but even more so my fellow human
beings, … RESPONDENT: Mmm ... Now I wonder why Richard doesn’t pay more attention to this before he pumps out his aggressive replies, and why you so defensively and dishonestly, pretend that he does? VINEETO: Whereas I wonder why someone who claims not to experience a ‘mean and miserable
me/I/self’ I have known Richard personally for more than eight years now and never ever have I experienced him to
be aggressive, not even irritated or impatient with people, neither in face-to-face interactions nor in his writings. Maybe it’s time for a
spoonful or two of your own medicine RESPONDENT: My my! talk about passionate instincts in full swing. Tis a good thing we are not depending on your mentality to negotiate peaceful resolutions ... or are we, hence all the wars etc. etc., go on forever and a day. VINEETO: Are you or are you not going to substantiate your above allegations about Richard and me – else all your schoolyard taunts are just that, schoolyard taunt, including this present post. RESPONDENT: How can I resist when you ask so nicely? But nah, I wanna hear you beg baby :-))) VINEETO: Ah, so they are all just silly schoolyard taunts after all. I’ll keep that in mind for further reference. Come to think of it, this also throws quite a revealing light on your declared agenda here on this list –
VINEETO: Now meeting someone who needs help at a road accident is a rather rare situation in
order to practice actual caring – help as action rather than feeling sympathy – whereas when I started to pay attention to my daily routine of
interactions with people, and became more sensitive how my words and actions where affecting not just myself but even more so my fellow human
beings, … RESPONDENT: Mmm ... Now I wonder why Richard doesn’t pay more attention to this before he pumps out his aggressive replies, and why you so defensively and dishonestly, pretend that he does? VINEETO: (...) Are you or are you not going to substantiate your above allegations about Richard and me – else all your schoolyard taunts are just that, schoolyard taunt, including this present post. RESPONDENT: How can I resist when you ask so nicely? But nah, I wanna hear you beg baby :-))) VINEETO: Ah, so they are all just silly schoolyard taunts after all. I’ll keep that in mind for further reference. Come to think of it, this also throws quite a revealing light on your declared agenda here on this list –
RESPONDENT: You’re trying too hard Vineeto, using ‘harmless’ old posts as arrows. I’m happy to stand by them. Take a tip from Richard and give up. Your replies (like his) only reveal your passion for imaginary battle, no school-yard taunts needed. (…) Calm down baby, take a deep breath and remind us how far that actual intimacy you experience with Peter extends. No arguments huh? OK, so lets see some of that here :-) VINEETO: Ha, you have given ample evidence that you wouldn’t recognize an actual intimacy when it is happening right with you and I don’t even need any of your so-called ‘‘harmless’ old posts’ to make that evident. This is what Richard says about actual intimacy –
And this is how you classify Richard’s correspondence (from above) –
Despite your denial it’s all taunt and bluff and bluster – you might better stick to what you know by your own experience than throw around words you have no idea of what they actually mean. Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
