Selected Correspondence Vineeto
RESPONDENT: If you get a chance I would like your opinion on this unusual audio programme by my good friend Fintan Dunne. http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1647
VINEETO: Your ‘good friend Fintan Dunne’ has a nice sonorous voice but the content of his dissertation is deeply steeped in mysticism and metaphysics. (…)
RESPONDENT: Yea, I know, what I meant to write was ‘my good, but quirky, friend’, Fintan Dunne. Great character all the same, he reminds me of the famous film star, Groucho Marks. LOL.
VINEETO: If you knew he was deeply steeped in mysticism and metaphysics why did you ask my ‘opinion on this unusual audio programme’? Don’t you know that an actual freedom is utterly non-spiritual?
RESPONDENT: I was thinking about your last e-mail. I cannot see how Neo-tech is ‘spiritual’. It may well be within the human condition, but spiritual? I don’t think so. As for The Matrix, I use that to remind me of some of the concepts Richard, and yourself, propounds without comparing if that is possible. For instance, an early scene in the film, which I told you about, shows, metaphorically, the ‘reptilian’ brain being programmed. I don’t see it as a science fiction film, as Richard does, but as a metaphor, and a commentary on the nature of reality. We must really have a telephone chat some time. (:
VINEETO: I only have a mobile phone – it would be very expensive!
RESPONDENT: Addendum – I just remembered that Neo-tech talks about an inner world. If I had the inclination I would look at it again to check the context, may do in future.
VINEETO: If you don’t have ‘the inclination to look at it again’, why did you asked *me* to listen to Fintan’s metaphysics oif immortality in order to give you my comment?
In other words, a thorough understanding just where, how and why your own favourite worldview is spiritual and metaphysical is paramount for removing the impediments to your direct experience of actuality.
For some of the context of Fintan’s philosophy – a few things I wrote down from what I heard –
His belief in life after death is based on his belief in something that is non-physical, non-tangible, ephemeral and non-actual (like God, super mind, an immortal non-physical personal identity).
And from the Neo-Tech website (founder Frank R. Wallace) –
‘Who’ is gratified by the senses? Good emotions are not even questioned, let alone understood as being part and parcel of the instinctual passions.
It is obvious that Neo-Tech is a preferred mind-set that supposedly allows you to exert control – separation is taken as a given whereas in a PCE you are aware that you *are* the universe experiencing itself as a human being, there is no separation, no control, not even gratification.
Whereas actualism recognizes that emotions and instinctual passions of any kind are the problem, not part of a solution. In virtual freedom, with one’s instinctual passions disempowered, one’s doesn’t need to plan nor use rational thought to live in harmony – being sensible is eminently sufficient.
Nobody is innocent as all human beings are born with the instinctual survival passions, however much they might repress them and that’s the very reason morals and ethics have been put in place. A person without instinctual passions (Richard) has no use for either morals or ethics as he/she is never driven by their passions.
Why should anyone produce values for others to follow? Those ‘Nonmystics’ are merely replacing one world-order with another and in this process are executing immense power over their fellow human being by claiming to know right and wrong, good and evil.
Whereas in actualism I become a happy destroyer of values and ethics and a happy and harmless diminisher of my instinctual passions. I also stop interfering in other people’s lives as one is prone to within the human condition because I know by experience that everyone can experience the actual world for themselves in a pure consciousness experience.
Whereas in actualism it is understood that the desire for power arises out the instinctual survival passions.
The Neo-Tech philosophy tripod (http://attitudeadjustment.tripod.com/Images/neo-tech.jpg) illustrates the fundamental difference between this (unliveable) philosophy and actualism so conspicuous, unconcealed, overt, pronounced, transparent, prominent, unmistakable and indisputable that I wonder how you can find any similarities at all –
One obviously needs a preconceived ideal and imagination to idealize ‘what is’. One also needs the arrogance and blindness of ‘self’ to want to improve the perfection of the physical universe.
When ‘I’ disappear there is no relationship at all, let alone business. The only business I do is trading some of my time in exchange for some token to pay for food, clothes, shelter and toys.
‘Relationship’ clearly indicates a separation between man and his mind. Inside man there is a ‘who’ imagining this relationship with his own mind. In actuality thoughts are the functioning of the physical human brain usually interfered with the emotions and instinctual passions.
Neo-Techs purport a production of values whilst actualism suggests stepping out of my ‘self’ in order to recognize and experience that this infinite and eternal universe is already perfect and has no need, let alone use, for man’s petty produced values.
Ha, is this the best interaction they can come up with, free competition? It’s still a dog eat dog world, one human being competing against all other human beings. Whereas in virtual freedom and of course in actual freedom I can actually live in peace and harmony with my fellow human beings because I am no longer driven by fear, aggression, avarice and nurture.
In a PCE one recognizes that beauty is a man-made, a ‘self’-produced value just like ugliness is, produced by the instinctual reaction of attraction and repulsion, whereas the physical universe in its infinitude is perfect, flawless, incomparable, pristine, abundant and benevolent.
Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.