Selected Correspondence Vineeto
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?
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: I’d like to clarify a point you made to No 38 recently.
I’m very curious about this whole line of reasoning and where it comes from. A couple points that are unclear to me...
VINEETO: Animals on farms are domesticated animals – they are ‘provided with shelter, food and security’ and ‘become domesticated such that the survival instincts are not as pre-eminent’. For this reason domesticated/farm animals have less need to exhibit their instinctual survival behaviour.
RESPONDENT: Then I wonder why many animal lovers and caretakers have a single minded goal to return their precious animals to the wild where they belong and can be ‘happy.’
VINEETO: Could it be that the animal lovers and caretakers are also exhibiting their own instinctual behaviour? These animal lovers, being domesticated animals themselves, are usually provided with food by other people, which in turn means they have no need to eat ‘their precious animals’, so their instinct to nurture has a free reign, which means they desire ‘to return their precious animals’ to the wild in order that other animals have the opportunity to eat them. No wonder you wonder, as it makes no sense to me.
RESPONDENT: Eagles can’t fly in captivity like they do in the wild. Cheetahs can’t run like normal. Whales can’t swim like they do in the wild. So it seems there is a good reason why many animals may be better off in the wild rather than in captivity or being domesticated.
VINEETO: Are you speaking personally here or generalizing about what you think other animals might prefer?
RESPONDENT: Also, as domestication is often accompanied by laziness and immobility and lack of challenge that animals can thrive on, are we to assume that having one’s needs taken care of, thus turning off instinctual passions to some degree is necessarily healthier or more enjoyable?
VINEETO: Speaking personally, I much rather live with domesticated humans in a policed and regulated society than with an undomesticated, undisciplined and marauding mob. Civilization may be a thin veneer but it is better than the anarchy of the wild.
RESPONDENT: People can at least attest to the fact that activity and a challenge is much more enjoyable than sitting around and getting bored.
VINEETO: Speaking personally, once I started to enjoy being here, the feeling of boredom fell by the wayside. It is utterly delicious sitting around doing nothing as it is doing an activity or nutting out a challenge. And nowadays I leave physical challenges to the hormonally-impaired.
RESPONDENT: It is an interesting assumption that domesticated animals are happier or better off than those in the wild – but is it true?
VINEETO: Yet I didn’t say that – the only statements I made were –
It is you who are making ‘an interesting assumption’ and are busy questioning whether it is true – not me.
VINEETO: Tigers are not a representative example of animals in the wild. They are exceptional in that they are at the top of the food chain in many places and therefore need to be less constantly vigilant than the general population of animals that not only need to hunt but are hunted as well.
Most people who make romantic videos of playing and romping big cats and other ‘cute and lovable’ animals passionately believe in a Garden of Eden-type ‘natural paradise’ which is supposed to have existed before humans roamed the earth and these people have a vested interest in presenting animals as being innocent and happy – a natural state that was supposedly corrupted by the very presence of human beings. Nature documentaries, while appearing to be visual evidence of the leisurely and playful life of wild animals, is nevertheless information tainted by the beliefs and feelings of the people who researched, filmed, edited, produced and annotated it. (see )
RESPONDENT: Also, I don’t know about you, but I interpret their hunting activity as probably quite enjoyable – much like people enjoy the hunt as well.
VINEETO: People who are nowadays hunting animals for sport do it for pleasure and entertainment, not for survival – they enjoy the temporary unrestrained expression of the instinctual passions to hunt and kill. Animals in the wild need to hunt and kill in order to survive and most animals fear becoming a meal for some other predator.
Speaking personally again, I like it that we humans have risen to the top of the food chain – that I don’t have to worry about being eaten by a tiger outside the supermarket or having to shoot a crocodile out of the garden.
RESPONDENT: Oh, and to not be concerned about guilt when killing another animal – that sounds pretty good to me too.
VINEETO: Everyone is instilled with a social conscience and it is an age-old dream to free oneself from the shackles of this societal conscience by returning to one’s natural state, the so-called innocence of the wild and uncultured, to a state before one’s feeling of guilt ever existed. The idea that animals are both happy and innocent because they don’t know or feel guilt is based upon the belief that if it weren’t for guilt one would be happy and carefree.
RESPONDENT: Of course, they are driven by their instinctual passions which does put a damper on things – but I wonder why you don’t see a tiger’s life – just as one example, as at least somewhat enjoyable?
VINEETO: If you want to contemplate how animals feel in the wild it is useful to pick an example that characterizes the broader range of animals – a tiger has no competitor to fear but his own kind in many places and is therefore not representative. For a general picture of how animals possibly experience life you could compare their life to that of the Stone Age humans whose life was an ongoing battle of grim survival.
In days of old, with the dangers and unreliability of hunting, enough was always only temporary; hence the constant drive for more and the constant fear of too little. It was necessary to compete and fight with other animals and humans for scarce food, shelter and territory and it was also necessary to physically protect the women and helpless offspring. Indeed, survival was a grim business – an instinctual obsession.
When you have experienced in yourself the full force of bare instinctual fear or instinctual aggression you will know that there is nothing enjoyable at all about being overcome by instinctual passion.
VINEETO: It would appear that you are arguing the case in support of the human condition again because within the human condition malice and sorrow are often synonymous with enjoyment.
There are many, many people who find it enjoyable to watch violent movies or brutal boxing matches, who delight in ridiculing and denigrating their peers, who take glee from plotting revenge and who find relaxation in playing video games where one murders as many opponents as possible. There are others who find it highly enjoyable to jump out of an aeroplane for thrills. Their enjoyment is derived from feeding and yielding to their instinctual passions.
This is not the enjoyment of life I am talking about as an actualist. Enjoying this moment of being alive directly pertains to my freedom from being driven by my social-instinctual programming. No other animal can make such a choice – it needs an awareness of being instinctually driven to be able to choose not to be driven.
RESPONDENT: I should say that I certainly am not defending the view that animals are ‘innocent.’ They can be vicious and cruel – but they are also tender and docile and playful. I also cannot claim to be able to ‘get into their heads’ enough to definitively say that they are ‘happy.’ But being that ‘happy’ has many possible definitions, it would be hard to be definitive when thinking about ‘animal happiness.’ About all I can say is that it is obvious to me that animals experience a good deal of enjoyment as well as the struggle for survival and the suffering involved. They obviously have a good deal of vitality and in many a capacity for much playfulness. Also, it should be noted that even as each species is different and has its own set of challenges, for the most part – each animal is somewhat different and has something of a personality of its own – as any animal owner can attest to.
VINEETO: I am reminded of your recent correspondence with Richard only four month ago in which you presented the following question
And you now want to conduct an inquiry into the ‘worthwhile, valuable, and at least somewhat happy’ life of animals. Why?
RESPONDENT: As a final observation, we recently made our two cats outdoor cats. I was a bit concerned at first that this might put them in danger from other cats, traffic they could run into, etc. yet they have survived quite well and are always ready to enjoy being held and rubbed – responding with quite satisfied purrs. One of them is more fearful in general than the other – so I’m not sure whether she is enjoying herself more or less outdoors, but the other cat is quite adventurous and is thriving outdoors – on the hunt or taking a relaxing siesta. We still provide their food and water – so they don’t have to ‘worry’ about that, but they still stalk and kill birds – apparently for the ‘fun of it.’ Now, they are certainly not in the wild, but there are plenty of threats out there (other cats and dogs that roam the neighbourhood) so it is certainly a simulation of the wild – probably as much as a farm would be. Anyway, I would be hard pressed to say that cat is ‘not enjoying life.’
Back to you...
VINEETO: Last week you wrote to No 53 a succinct description of the human condition –
Yes, ‘human beings are already in their natural state’, as are all other animals. By my own experience as a human I know that this ‘natural state’ is not enjoyable – otherwise I wouldn’t be in the business of practicing actualism in order to leave the natural state permanently behind.
RESPONDENT: I’d like to point out something regarding the ‘birthright’ issue that is part of your current discussion.
In your current discussion:
Vineeto, I’m not sure if you are distinguishing between the feeling of happiness and an actual freedom – since on the homepage of the Actual Freedom website, it is stated –
I don’t know for sure who wrote those words, but it appears that ‘birthright’ is being used interchangeably with ‘destiny.’ Here’s an exchange with Richard about the subject of AF being a birthright.
Since it has been unequivocally stated that one’s birthright is an actual freedom, I’m wondering whether you, Vineeto, are disagreeing with that statement – or whether you are merely saying that ‘happiness’ – as in the feeling of happiness is not a ‘birthright?’ Or possibly you are saying that happiness is not a birth-‘right’ in a legal sense?
VINEETO: Yes, one’s birthright, in the sense of one’s destiny, is to be free from the human condition, but one’s birthright, in the sense of one’s fate – genetic fate – is to be malicious and sorrowful. In order to avoid the trap of pedanticism, Richard has also put it this way –
And yes, I do distinguish ‘between the feeling of happiness and an actual freedom’.
The reason I responded to No 38 the way I did was because he said ‘animals appear to thoroughly enjoy life’ … ‘is being happy our birthright’…? No 38 appeared to link the way he thinks animals experience life with ‘our birthright’ to be happy. But this is not the birthright Richard is talking about – the birthright ‘to be living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal and infinite universe actually is’.
No 38 used the word ‘birthright’ directly after stating his idea that ‘animals appear to thoroughly enjoy life’ which points to the word ‘birthright’ being used as meaning one’s natural, as in genetically-endowed, heritage rather than one’s destiny. This is why I went on to explain that our heritage is the animal survival passions, whereas our destiny, ‘the next step in human evolution’ is to become free from this animal heritage.
Maybe this is the opportunity to have a closer look at the widespread belief that ‘animals appear to thoroughly enjoy life’. Animals do not have a conscience, i.e. they are not instilled with certain morals and ethics that impel one to reject, control and suppress the savage instinctual passions and encourage one to embrace and aggrandize the tender instinctual passions. Animals, with the exception of those trained by humans such as dogs or horses, blindly follow their instinctual drive whenever it occurs – they express both their tender and their savage urges without any inhibitions whatsoever.
This ‘natural freedom’ of instinctual action, unmitigated by the constraints of a social conscience, has been hailed as a desirable freedom for humans throughout the centuries. In the West it has given rise to the religious and quasi-religious movements of ‘going back to your roots’ and living ‘naturally’ – be it living in the bush, eating ‘pure foods’, being self-sufficient, using traditional medicines and shamanic cures, and so on. All of these pursuits have one thing in common – they assume that the solution to mankind’s problem lies in returning to one’s original animal nature … to the time of an imaginary golden age, a time before ‘the original sin’, a time before humans were laden with guilt, a time when humans were ‘happy and innocent’ like animals.
The Eastern religious view of the world is the concept that all humans are born ‘innocent’ and have only been corrupted by ‘evil thoughts’ since birth. It is further believed that it is possible for a chosen few to regain this mythical ‘natural’ innocence and to become ‘Who You Really Are’, hence the search to find one’s ‘original face’ or Divine Self. In order to achieve this state one is advised to give full reign to one’s ‘good’ instinctual passions while ignoring and denying the ‘bad’ or evil thoughts. If you believe this it is only a small step to revering all animals as pure and innocent because they haven’t been corrupted by ‘evil thoughts’.
Actualism quite obviously is 180 degrees in the opposite direction. An actual freedom is a freedom from the instinctual animal passions themselves.
RESPONDENT: According to actualism, being happy and harmless is precisely the method to achieving one’s birthright – not in the sense of being inborn, or some legal ‘right’, but as one’s destiny.
RESPONDENT: Just wanted to follow up my last post by saying that I’ve been doing some thinking about where I’m going wrong with actualism – and the result was my last email to No 38.
VINEETO: I am pleased to see that my responses to your posts called ‘Animals’ and ‘Birthright’ have become redundant because you have already worked it out for yourself.
RESPONDENT: Needless to say, that has put many things in a different light – and I now see where you are coming from when you say that animals (farm/wild) don’t ‘enjoy life.’ You are using the phrase ‘enjoy life’ as an actualist would – and I’m using the words as a person in the ‘real’ world would do – two entirely different standards – so I see that we are both correct, but mean two different things by the words ‘enjoy life.’ We are both correct by definition and there is no need, I think, for any disagreement on the matter.
VINEETO: Now that you recognized that we are talking about two different worlds, you can make a clear choice for yourself. If you ‘enjoy life’ as an instinctually-driven being then you are correct, if you are dissatisfied with your life-as-it-is then you might want to consider what it is you are objecting to … and why.
VINEETO: You wrote in response to my letter to No 38 and No 37 –
RESPONDENT to No 38 and No 37: I don’t blame anyone for not being extremely interested in animals as I happen to be. But to say that even prey animals don’t have a fully rounded emotional life seems to come from lack of interest/ observation.
VINEETO: What I said in response to No 38’ post was –
If by a ‘fully rounded emotional life’ you mean the same as ‘driven by the survival instincts of ‘what can I eat, what can eat me’’ then I agree with you. I have seen many animals cowering in fear, being aggressive, looking sad as they licked their wounds or missed their prey and so on.
RESPONDENT: I’ve watched rabbits play. And they play a lot and very enthusiastically. I even heard of a rabbit eaten by a coyote after he/she spent too much energy playing.
VINEETO: This anecdote seems to verify substantiate my comment that ‘in the wild animals are constantly on the alert, vigilant for predators and scanning for attack on prey’ – if they don’t they aren’t fit for survival.
RESPONDENT: In fact the amount of time most animals, even prey animals, spend sleeping, mating, courting, playing, and eating tasty tidbits is greater than the amount of time they spend fleeing. The animals don’t have the thinking reasoning neocortex, but to assume that that denies them pleasure as well as pain in life seems silly to me and flies in the face of my own observations of both wild and domesticated animals. Similarly the tribal peoples who are still living pretty much in their natural habitat today spend most of their time in what would be considered the simple pleasures of life. I don’t see why it is necessary to assume that instinctively ruled beings constantly suffer in order to justify actualism.
VINEETO: I did not say that ‘instinctively ruled beings constantly suffer’ – I said that they do not enjoy life. And before we head off in a discussion about what enjoying life means let me make it clear that the enjoyment I am talking about in the context of actualism is the awareness of the intrinsic enjoyment of being alive when not being driven by instinctual passions.
I have no interest in philosophizing about the subtleties of the degree of enjoyment that both animals and humans derive from satisfying their instinctual urges. This type of enjoyment is mostly achieved at the expense of others and is both conditional and fickle. My understanding of enjoyment in the context of actualism is a pure enjoyment – the sensate enjoyment that is possible only when one is either temporarily or permanently free from being an instinctually driven ‘being’.
RESPONDENT: For me actualism stands on its own as the next intelligent, reasonable step in the unfolding of the experience of the universe as an aware being. It’s not possible for us as individuals to comprehend all the myriad facts of existence, even those on this one planet. For that reason I welcome factual information that comes from others as well as challenging questions that bring about increased understanding.
VINEETO: The ‘facets of existence’ that we are talking about in this post are the instinctual passions, both in humans and in animals – and these are possible ‘to comprehend’ as one proceeds to experientially understand the animal survival passions in oneself. Just as the instinctual survival passions are instilled in every human being so they are present in all animals that have a reptilian brain. When I experience the bare instinctual passion of fear or aggression or nurture or desire in me, then this experience arises from the reptilian part of the brain, and this has been clearly and repeatedly demonstrated my Joseph LeDoux and other researchers.
Because I have experienced these passions in action in myself I know that animals experience the same kind of bare fear, aggression, nurture and desire – bare means a direct experience of the raw instinctual passions when the restrictive layer of one’s social morals and ethics is not sufficiently established, inadvertently fails or has been sufficiently dismantled via the actualism practice.
When I first started to come face to face with the deeper instinctual passions in me that were lurking underneath my initial emotional reactions, I realised why no one has dared to fully acknowledge this instinctual animal heritage both in themselves and in every human being. The power and rawness of my bare instincts was so overwhelming at first, that had I not known that it is actually possible to eliminate these instincts, I would not have dared to let them come to the surface in their full repellence. Only because I know that I can, and want to, get rid of ‘me’, the root of these survival instincts, has it been possible to face this atavistic evil force. With the knowledge that there is life beyond instincts I was able to sit out the turbulent storms of fear without scurrying for safety, acknowledge my instinctual lust to kill without denying it and experience the dread and sorrow of humankind without wallowing in it or grasping for the ‘redemption’ of enlightenment. It is all very real when it happens, but once the storm abates, which it inevitably does, there is not a trace of it left in the delightful clarity that follows.
It is perfectly understandable that most people have a romanticised view about the happy and carefree lifestyle of animals because they rarely dare to become aware of their own passions in action. All of human wisdom so far has only blamed social conditioning for human suffering and the instinctual passions have come away scot-free.
VINEETO: It is perfectly understandable that most people have a romanticised view about the happy and carefree lifestyle of animals because they rarely dare to become aware of their own passions in action. All of human wisdom so far has only blamed social conditioning for human suffering and the instinctual passions have come away scot-free.
RESPONDENT: What I’m trying to say about animals is that since they do not have the same brains as we do they can neither suffer nor enjoy life in the same way that we do. I agree that we share nearly all the same survival oriented instincts that animals have, both the pleasurable ones and the painful ones. I don’t assume that I know exactly how they experience their lives. I can only speculate based on observation and study.
VINEETO: The thread on the topic of animals started with me answering a question from No 38 –
To which you responded –
The point of the discussion that is relevant to actualism is not how animals experience their instinctual passions but that they are instinctually driven, exactly as humans beings are. The discussion then lead on to the widespread romantic notion that animals, having no social identity – no moral or ethical constraints – lead a happier and more carefree life than humans do. It is interesting to observe that most discussions begin with someone presenting an observation to which a response is made and then the discussion often degenerates if participants insist on maintaining their moral stance or beliefs about the particular subject, which in turn usually results in the end of discussion.
If nothing else, discussions such as these demonstrate that the only way to determine the facts of the matter is to experientially discover for oneself the facts of the matter – in this case to experience the full range of the raw instinctual passions in operation in oneself, as one’s ‘self’. And yet this is impossible to do whilst one insists on holding on to one’s moral stance or romantic beliefs about the instinctual passions themselves – insisting that some passions are so good that one could never do without them and begrudgingly acknowledging that whilst others may be bad they are nevertheless necessary to maintain.
In order to find out about animal instinctual passions it is necessary to experience them in oneself – only then you know with certainty if being instinctually driven is a pleasant lifestyle to be envied. And only when you know with certainty can there be action and change.
Connected to the romantic notion that animals lead a more enjoyable life than humans is the idea that less cultured or less civilized peoples lead a happier life –
This notion is derived from the fashionable belief that it is thought and social conditioning that are responsible for human malice and suffering and all people would be happy if only we all returned to live like in the ‘good old days’.
RESPONDENT: I have a question for you and Peter and Richard. What is your definition/understanding of instinct? I have looked for it in the AF glossary and I was surprised not to find it there.
RESPONDENT: Do you think instinct is something we receive in the DNA?
VINEETO: There is substantive evidence that animate life on this planet blossomed during what is known as the Cambrian period and there is speculation that this burgeoning of complexity coincided with the emergence of predation – animate life feeding on other animate life. If this is the case, then it is reasonable to infer that predation also coincided with the emergence of a rudimentary instinctual cunning – the constant need to be on alert based on a ‘what can I eat-what can eat me?’ survival scenario.
Regardless of when they emerged, these instinctive survival reactions are to be seen in all current animate life on the planet that is an integral part of the animate-life food chain. The current species are the successful survivors of this battle and from what we now know, it is reasonable to assume that it is mutations in the DNA structure which have produced the successful survival strategies and life forms whilst other mutations that have produced less successful survival strategies and life forms have perished.
I say ‘reasonable to assume’ because the only objections to this scientific explanation of the evolution of animate life on this planet that I have discovered comes from those who see it as a threat to their spiritual/ religious beliefs.
RESPONDENT: If so, are you saying that one can learn to supersede it by cerebral action?
VINEETO: This query is best answered by a piece from the Introduction into Actual Freedom –
RESPONDENT: I don’t think you are saying that one gets rid of the physically inherited instincts, but one changes the emotional charge attached to the instinct. Is that correct?
VINEETO: It is not the instincts, such as the startle reflex, the swallowing reflex or other reflexes controlled by the central nervous system that are under scrutiny in actualism but the instinctual survival passions such as fear, aggression, nurture and desire. Instinctual passions are ‘the emotional charge attached to the instinct’ and there is no t way to change the ‘emotional charge’ because the emotional charge is inherent to the instinctual passion itself.
Further, as ‘I’ am my instinctual passions and my instinctual passions are ‘me’, it is impossible to get rid of one’s instinctual passions whilst remaining a ‘self’. The result of trying to do so would be a stripped-down rudimentary animal ‘self’ (seemingly) divested of feelings ... somewhat like what is popularly known as ‘psychopath’.
The only way to get rid of one’s physically inherited instinctual passions is to ‘self’-immolate … which is what the method of actualism is all about.
However, actualism is not an all or nothing business as the process of actualism is about being as happy and as harmless as one can be – right here and right now. The very process of actualism involves dismantling one’s social identity and dis-empowering one’s instinctual passions such that one can become virtually free of malice and sorrow, the essential first stage if one at all aspires to becoming actually free of the human condition of malice and sorrow.
Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.