|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 27
RESPONDENT: Richard, since I’ve been absent from the list for a while, I thought it might be appropriate to let you know that I do intend to respond to your last post, but a full response will have to wait for another day. Suffice it to say for now that I think you did quite a sufficient job in shredding my apprehension in using the word ‘reprehensible’ the way that you use it. I no longer have any ‘problem’ with it. I think SOME of my confusion was set off by a confusion of how you use the word, but I think it’s also clear to me now from your post that should I look deeper (which I have) then I will (and I do) find a reticence (maybe ‘horror’ is a better word) at finding my very ‘being’ as ‘reprehensible’. Much of my life has been invested in developing a self image as a loving, caring person – yet you have done the ‘dirty deed’ for me of revealing that one must get underneath all that. What to call such an experience? Humbling? Humiliating? Enlightening? I guess it’s all part of the process. More later. RICHARD: As it was revelational ... how about invigorative? To finally get a handle on the root cause is both a relief and a vivification. Anyway ... it is on occasions such as this when it is particularly apt to draw attention to personal experience (lest my words should dominate):
I only re-post this passage because it is often so easy to forget what it was like at the time ... and to maybe throw some light upon why the subject of reprehensibility was important enough to write several e-mails about. It is experiences such as this which, even if not consciously remembered, work away in the background to impel one to proceed nevertheless. Particularly so with pure intent operating (involuntarily born out of the highlighted sentence above perhaps) ... and then the workings of the actual are truly wondrous to behold. Meaning that when inevitability sets in more often than not one is more or less simply along for the ride – doing what is appropriate as required by the circumstances of course – until it becomes obvious that one has never been steering the ship all along (except astray) and never will be. It is all rather magical.
RESPONDENT: Richard, I am currently perplexed about ‘caring’. You distinguish between ‘feeling caring’ and ‘actually caring’. I think I understand the distinction for the most part – ‘feeling caring’ is caring based upon emotion – ‘feeling’ that one cares, and ‘actually caring’ is something that happens ONLY in a PCE or when one is actually free. Now, this results in the somewhat shocking statement that the only people who actually care are those in pure consciousness. RICHARD: Aye, it can indeed be a shock to realise that, for all the protestations of being caring, no one trapped in the human condition actually cares. However, apart from galvanising one into action, it is a liberating realisation as it releases one from the bonds that tie. There are always strings attached in affective caring. RESPONDENT: Now, I don’t want to debate the merits of this for one moment, but I would like to understand it better. For example, just how is it that ‘feeling-caring’ is an ‘illusion of caring?’ RICHARD: In saying ‘to create the illusion of caring’ (and ‘to create the illusion of intimacy’) I am referring to generating the false impression, or the deceptive appearance, of being caring (and being intimate) because of the reality which underpins all human interaction ... as the following passage where the quote comes from clearly shows:
Thus the feeling of caring (and the feeling of intimacy) is the antidote for feeling uncaring (and the restorative for feeling separate) and, as such, has a causal basis – meaning it has a dependant nature – resulting in an inevitable instability. Whereas actually caring (and an actual intimacy) cannot be switched off ... ever. RESPONDENT: Is it an illusion of ‘Actual caring?’ RICHARD: Yes, it is a synthetic substitute for actually caring (or an actual intimacy) ... an ersatz surrogate born out of the instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: It seems to me that feeling caring is caring on some level – since caring-for is actually happening. For example, take a mother who breast feeds her child – she may be ‘feeling-caring’ – therefore, under the illusion that she is actually caring for her child – yet the child is actually being taken care of – which isn’t an illusion at all. RICHARD: There is a difference between feeling care and taking care – you are mixing the sentiment of care with the action of care – wherein the former is a fancy and the latter is a fact. In other words, you are confounding the affective experience of care with the physical activity of care ... which is not what is meant by the expression ‘feeling caring’ as contrasted to the expression ‘actually caring’. To experience being caring as a feeling (born of separation) is a far cry from the experience of being caring as an actuality (sans separation). Feeding an infant feelings along with the food corrupts the action of caring. RESPONDENT: I also seem to experience a difference between what I might call ‘contrived’ caring and actually caring. For example, a waiter may completely contrive caring about the service they provide in order to get the largest tip possible – so they pretend to care about me when they actually care about the tip. Then with other waiters, I get the sense that they actually care about giving good service – just because it’s more fun to actually care about the person and engage them as a person – rather than a means to an ends. This is the normal distinction that I make between ‘illusory (contrived) caring’ and ‘actually caring’. RICHARD: Okay ... although faking care is not the distinction being referred to as the person feeling caring is being true to their feelings. It is not their fault that the truth is insincere. RESPONDENT: Yet it seems that you may want to push it further and say that all feeling caring is only an illusion of caring – this is what I don’t understand. RICHARD: No, I am not pushing your distinction further ... the distinction I talk of is in another category. RESPONDENT: It also seems you are saying that in some sense ‘I’ cannot actually care about anything or anyone else? RICHARD: No, what I am saying is that ‘I’ cannot experience the actuality of being caring ... ‘I’ can only experience the feeling of being caring. For example, the last time I visited my biological parents (1984) I was told ‘we worry about you’ ... which fretful feeling of apprehension/anxiety is, to them, being caring. They mean well, of course, as do most people. RESPONDENT: What is happening when I do ‘take care of’ other people and things? RICHARD: Well, things and other people do get taken care of – it is remarkable what is achieved despite all the hindrances – but it is the motivating factor which muddies the waters and undermines the result. Also, what is known as ‘compassion fatigue’ can happen as well. RESPONDENT: Are you saying this only happens in a selfish sort of way? That all feeling caring is selfish – therefore not really caring at all? RICHARD: I would rather say ‘self’-centred than ‘selfish’ ... when someone is touched by another’s suffering, as in being moved sufficiently to stimulate caring action, it is their own suffering which is being kindled and quickened. Thus feelings are being aroused, which motivate the activity of caring, and taking care of the other works to assuage the aroused feelings (as well as working to help the other of course). Shall I put it this way? They are missing-out on experiencing the actuality of the caring action, the helpful activity itself, which is taking place. RESPONDENT: If all ‘I’ can manage is the illusion of caring, how is ‘altruism’ or ‘pure intent’ possible? I don’t understand. RICHARD: First of all, in its biological sense altruism is an instinctive action – born of the drive to survive – such as in fighting to the death to protect the young, defend the group, or secure the territory, and is not so much a feeling of caring but an involuntary response ... a response which could evoke any number of feelings (such as fear, thrill, courage, excitement, exhilaration, euphoria and so on). Although it can be used to mean an unselfish feeling, the ‘self’-centred feeling of caring for others, that is a watering-down of the word as, properly speaking, altruism is an instinctive behaviour or deed which benefits others at the expense of self ... of the two survival instincts, individual survival and group survival, the instinct for the survival of the group is usually the stronger instinct. It takes a powerful instinct (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinct (selfism). The pure intent to have the already always existing peace-on-earth become apparent is a determination, born of the PCE, and thus is indicative more of a dedication, a strength of purpose, as in the will to freedom, rather than a ‘self’-centred feeling of caring ... one taps in to the over-arching benignity and benevolence of the actual world. Then one is not on one’s own, in this, the adventure of a lifetime. * RESPONDENT: I have similar questions about the distinction between ‘feeling intimacy’ and ‘actual intimacy’. Could you define exactly what you mean by those terms – as well as just exactly what you would say is going on when there is a ‘feeling intimacy’? RICHARD: So as to circumvent coining new words I chose to make a distinct difference between the word ‘actual’ and the word ‘real’ (plus the word ‘fact’ and the word ‘true’) whereas the dictionaries do not: thus when I talk of the actual world, as contrasted to the real world, whilst both words refer to the physical world I am making a distinction in experience. I usually put it this way: what one is (what not who) is these eyes seeing, these ears hearing, this tongue tasting, this skin touching and this nose smelling – and no separative identity (no ‘I’/‘me’) inside the body means no separation whatsoever – whereas ‘I’/‘me’, a psychological/psychic entity, am busily creating an inner world and an outer world and looking out through ‘my’ eyes upon ‘my’ outer world as if looking out through a window, listening to ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ tongue, touching ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ skin and smelling ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ nose. This entity, or being, residing in the body is forever cut-off from the actual – from the world as-it-is – because its inner world reality is pasted as a veneer over the actual world, thus creating the outer world reality known as the real world, and experiences an affective intimacy (oneness, union, unity, wholeness) wherein the separation is bridged by love and compassion ... instead of an actual intimacy (direct, instant, immediate, absolute) where there is no separation whatsoever. In other words, no separative identity in the first place means no division exists to be transcended. RESPONDENT: Is there no intimacy in feeling intimacy? RICHARD: Yes, there is the feeling of being intimate. RESPONDENT: If that’s the case, why do you call it feeling ‘intimacy’? RICHARD: Because that is what it is ... the feeling of being intimate. RESPONDENT: Lastly, I’m curious about the notion of ‘imitation’ of the actual. You once told me that someone pursuing actual freedom takes what they know of the actual world from the PCE and ‘imitates’ it. RICHARD: Yes ... but knowingly imitates it (thus one is not fooling oneself). RESPONDENT: Would their caring then become ‘virtual caring’ or somehow MORE actual? RICHARD: It is more a case of being in line with what is actual rather than being more actual: feeling happy and harmless, as much as is humanly possible each and every moment again, is as far-removed from the normal modus operandi as to be a virtual freedom. Or, to put that another way, the means to the end are not different from the end (other than being a feeling rather than the fact of course). RESPONDENT: Or is it still only ‘feeling caring’, thus an illusion? RICHARD: As all affective-based experiencing in the real-world is an illusion (including the real-world itself) you are, basically, asking me which part of the illusory experience is less of an illusion than any other part of the illusory experience. I pass. RESPONDENT: I guess what I’m asking is … if all feeling caring is an illusion of caring, how is one to care if one is pursuing an actual freedom? RICHARD: As happily and as harmlessly as is humanly possible ... in a word: benevolently. RESPONDENT: In other words, how can one actually care, when it is all too clear that actually caring can only happen in the PCE?? RICHARD: Exactly ... one cannot actually care unless one is free of the human condition. I have oft-times said that I have no solutions for life in the real-world ... the only solution is dissolution. Then all interaction is based upon fellowship regard. RESPONDENT: Or does one just continue with (attenuated) feeling caring – saying it is becoming more and more an imitation of actually caring? RICHARD: Yes, until the blessed dissolution happens, attenuating both the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ feelings whilst amplifying the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (hence being as happy and as harmless as is humanly possible) is what one does in the meanwhile. Thus the benefits are immediate ... and have the added benefit of preparing the way. RESPONDENT: I have searched through the website to answers to these questions – and there is much material that pertains to them, but I was unable to find any clear answers. So it would be great if you would shed some more light on these issues. Thanks! RICHARD: Okay ... perhaps it would be handy to mention that, in a close personal association (such as in a marriage or in a relationship), a being residing in the body can feel a connection, or a feeling rapport, with another being residing in another body (which relationship can be called a bond, a tie, a link, an attachment) giving rise to the feeling of caring ... be it a pitying caring, a sympathetic caring, an empathetic caring, a compassionate caring or a loving caring. This is because all sentient beings, to a greater or lesser extent, are connected via a psychic web ... a network of energies or currents that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’. The affective energies are a two-way street ... mostly peoples initially overlook the ‘harmless’ part of my oft-used ‘happy and harmless’ phrase. In other words: how can one live freely in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst ‘I’ nurse malice and sorrow, and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion, to ‘my’ bosom? One cannot be happy unless one is first harmless ... and one cannot be harmless unless one is first happy. To be actually free one abandons ‘humanity’ in oneself – one cuts the umbilical cord – which means that the ability to connect-relate vanishes ... life is not ‘a movement in relationship’ (as one enlightened being was wont to say) here in this actual world. There is no relationship here – no bonding, no tying, no linking, no attaching – as there is no being, or entity, to necessitate such a connective affinity ... there is no ‘I’/‘me’ to either be affected or to affect others when one is free from the human condition. Furthermore, and this is a salutary point few comprehend, I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here – when a fellow human being tells me they are an identity inside the body I have to take their word for it – as nothing ‘dirty’, as it were, exists in actuality. There is only purity and perfection in this actual world.
RICHARD: ... faking care is not the distinction being referred to as the person feeling caring is being true to their feelings. It is not their fault that the truth is insincere. RESPONDENT: I see now that ‘faking care’ isn’t what you mean by ‘feeling caring’. I’m curious, what would it take to be sincere? Is all feeling caring insincere – or are you saying that the person being true to their feeling of caring could be sincere by realizing that their caring is ‘self’ centred? Is it only possible to be sincere if one is actually free? Or ‘imitating’ the actual? Could you say more about what you mean – ‘It is not their fault that the truth is insincere’. What exactly is insincere about feeling that one cares for another? Is all feeling caring insincere? Or is insincerity due to one’s ignorance of the actual genesis of feeling caring? If all feeling caring is actually insincere – then it doesn’t seem we ‘beings’ have any choice about it, do we? If this is the case, the path to actual freedom would be becoming as sincere as possible, yet one couldn’t be completely sincere until once actually free. Is this how you see it? Or is one ‘imitating’ the actual also sincere – since they know all feeling caring is ‘self-centred’? Thus, anyone could be sincere just by realizing the ‘self-centeredness’ of feeling caring. RICHARD: Unless a realisation is actualised, meaning that it operates spontaneously each moment again, it remains just
that ... a realisation. All I am indicating by saying that the truth is insincere is that, as the truth holds the promise of an after-death peace for the feeling being inside the flesh and blood body (as in ‘The Peace That Passeth All Understanding’), the truth is not sincere in regards to bringing about peace on earth ... which peacefulness is what caring is all about. In short: feeling caring is incapable of delivering the goods. As being sincere in the context under discussion is to have the pure intent to enable peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, it would therefore take a perspicuous awareness of what is unadulterated, genuine, and correct (seeing the fact) to be sincere ... rather than an instinctive feeling of what is unadulterated, genuine, and correct (intuiting the truth). The feeling of caring (be it a pitying caring, a sympathetic caring, an empathetic caring, a compassionate caring or a loving caring), being primarily the feeling being inside one flesh and blood body caring for the feeling being inside another flesh and blood body (or for an anthropomorphised feeling being called mother earth for instance), is insincere by its very nature. And to realise that such feeling caring is a ‘self’-centred caring – and thus corrupt and/or tainted – is the first step towards sincerity. Anybody can be sincere (about anything) – all it takes is seeing the fact (of anything) – and in this instance the perspicacity born out of the pure consciousness experience (PCE) ensures sincerity in regards to enabling the already always existing peace-on-earth into becoming apparent. The basis of such sincerity lies in comprehending the fact that caring starts with oneself – if one is incapable of caring for oneself one cannot care about others (or anything for that matter) – lest it be a case of the blind leading the blind. There are two forms of ignorance about the genesis of the affective feelings: nescience and ignoration – wherein the former is to be incognisant of the root cause and the latter is to be disregardant of the root cause – and the latter has much to do with what is often expressed as ‘you can’t change human nature’ (only recently on another mailing list the sentence ‘we can’t change biological predisposition’ was pithily presented as if it were a valid reason not to discuss the genetic inheritance of aggression). Meaning that, apart from fanciful notions about genetic engineering, it is generally held that as human nature (biology) cannot be changed therefore biology cannot be the root cause of all the ills of humankind ... or so the bizarre rationale goes. Obviously part of the first step towards sincerity is the acknowledgement of blind nature’s legacy. * RICHARD: ‘I’ cannot experience the actuality of being caring ... ‘I’ can only experience the feeling of being caring. For example, the last time I visited my biological parents (1984) I was told ‘we worry about you’ ... which fretful feeling of apprehension/anxiety is, to them, being caring. They mean well, of course, as do most people. RESPONDENT: So, all affective caring stems from separation – the need to ‘solve’ isolation and loneliness. RICHARD: Yes, it does stem from separation – from being a separative identity – and it does have the effect of ‘solving’ (not dissolving) isolation and loneliness, albeit temporarily, but further to the point affective caring verifies, endorses, and consolidates ‘me’. Not only am ‘I’ thus authenticated, sanctioned, and substantiated ... ‘my’ presence has meaning. * RESPONDENT: Are you saying this [taking care of other people and things] only happens in a selfish sort of way? That all feeling caring is selfish – therefore not really caring at all? RICHARD: I would rather say ‘self’-centred than ‘selfish’ ... when someone is touched by another’s suffering, as in being moved sufficiently to stimulate caring action, it is their own suffering which is being kindled and quickened. Thus feelings are being aroused, which motivate the activity of caring, and taking care of the other works to assuage the aroused feelings (as well as working to help the other of course). Shall I put it this way? They are missing-out on experiencing the actuality of the caring action, the helpful activity itself, which is taking place. RESPONDENT: OK, so ‘self’-centred caring (feeling caring) actually works to eliminate one’s own suffering? RICHARD: Not ‘eliminate’ ... mitigate, alleviate, lessen, diminish. RESPONDENT: Even so, the other person suffering is getting cared for. RICHARD: Aye ... the other person does get physically taken care of but both persons miss out on the direct experience of the caring action, the helpful activity itself, which is taking place. RESPONDENT: So properly caring for the other person is a prerequisite for ‘assuaging’ one’s own aroused feelings. RICHARD: Yes ... else there be feelings of guilt, compunction, shame, ignominy and so on. RESPONDENT: Isn’t this actually caring about the other person? RICHARD: The physical act of caring – the helpful activity itself – is certainly happening but actually caring (an inseparate regard) is not ... there is only feeling caring (a unifying solicitude) occurring. RESPONDENT: Admittedly, it is caring via one’s own feeling, but one actually does care about the other, since it is only through proper care of the other that one’s own feelings are ‘assuaged’. RICHARD: No, one does not actually care about the other – one feels that one cares about the other – which is not to deny that ‘proper care’ does occur ... it is remarkable what physical assistance is achieved despite all the hindrances. RESPONDENT: I’m never quite sure how to take the word, ‘actually’ when you use it – whether it’s sometimes the normal usage – or whether it’s always the ‘actualism’ usage. For example, I am tempted to say that even when one is empathetic and works to resolve another’s suffering – then one actually cared about their suffering – about the other person – again admittedly, via one’s own suffering, yet there is caring taking place – but it’s not actual caring (in the ‘actualism’ usage). RICHARD: When empathy works to resolve another’s suffering an empathetic caring occurs – this is not under dispute
– but it is occurring as a feeling activity ... in the form of affective vibes For instance, some ‘born-again’ people bailed me up in the street some time ago in order to save me from their devil (only they called it ‘The Devil’ so as to make their fantasy universal): as the conversation waxed they grew more and more intense, their words became loving words, their eyes became radiant eyes, their faces became soft and suffused with a glowing shade of pink, and if my companion had been with me at the time she could have verified, as she has on other occasions, that feeling vibes and psychic currents were swirling and eddying all about. Eventually they gave up as they could not ‘reach’ me (aka establish a feeling connection). RESPONDENT: I’m still trying to pin down exactly how feeling caring is an ‘illusion’ of caring. I’m still tempted to think that one does care even in empathy – though not in the actualist sense. Does the illusion come in where one thinks that that sort of caring is (or can be) not self-centred? RICHARD: That is partly so – an unselfish ‘self’ is still a ‘self’ nevertheless and is perforce ‘self’-centred in all its activities – but there is also the factor of just who it is that is caring for who it is that is being cared for to take into account. In other words: it is an illusory identity inside one body which is caring for an illusory identity in another body. Which is what the born-again people in the above example were (futilely) attempting to do ... and I say ‘futilely’ because there is no entity inside this flesh and blood body to be stroked by their blandishments. Or to be goaded by intimations of perdition, of course. * RESPONDENT: If all ‘I’ can manage is the illusion of caring, how is ‘altruism’ or ‘pure intent’ possible? I don’t understand. RICHARD: First of all, in its biological sense altruism is an instinctive action – born of the drive to survive – such as in fighting to the death to protect the young, defend the group, or secure the territory, and is not so much a feeling of caring but an involuntary response ... a response which could evoke any number of feelings (such as fear, thrill, courage, excitement, exhilaration, euphoria and so on). Although it can be used to mean an unselfish feeling, the ‘self’-centred feeling of caring for others, that is a watering-down of the word as, properly speaking, altruism is an instinctive behaviour or deed which benefits others at the expense of self ... of the two survival instincts, individual survival and group survival, the instinct for the survival of the group is usually the stronger instinct. It takes a powerful instinct (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinct (selfism). RESPONDENT: I understand the definition, but must altruism always be ‘at the expense of self’? RICHARD: No, which is why I specifically said ‘in its biological sense’ (above) so as to distinguish it from its moralistic and/or ethicalistic meaning. Viz.:
Biologists use the word ‘altruism’ in the instinctive self-sacrificial sense. Viz.:
This instinctive self-sacrifice is epitomised by the honey-bee: when using its sting to defend the hive it dies. RESPONDENT: I witness a lot of caring for others that is done probably without any ‘feeling of caring’. In other words, there seem to be a lot of actions that wouldn’t necessarily be ‘empathetic’ or feeling caring or that are not at the expense of self, yet not obviously ‘self-centred’. My son helps take care of the baby sometimes just because he enjoys it – kind of like play – he doesn’t know he is ‘caring’ or ‘altruistic’ – rather he is just enjoying being a part of things. Could this be altruism as well? Or would you put that down as ‘feeling caring’? Also, when people feel happy, they tend to be naturally helpful towards others – is that a form of altruism, or feeling caring? Though their response is based on their current (transient) emotion, it is still not self-centred in the sense of assuaging their own suffering, is it? Couldn’t one say that this is a case where normal humans ‘actually care’? Or you might say it’s ‘in line with’ or an ‘imitation’ of actually caring? Also, how much do you see altruism in action in the ‘real’ world? Are you only using the word for actions that involved ‘self-sacrifice’? People are generally helpful toward each other when feeling fairly happy – and it doesn’t seem one always has to be motivated by a feeling of love or empathy in helping others – would you say this general helpfulness is altruism too? Or do you reserve the word for only actions that involve self-sacrifice – like saving someone’s life at personal risk, or launching on the path to actual freedom? Also, couldn’t it be said that when one goes down the path to actual freedom, that feeling caring is gradually replaced more and more by altruism? (until of course, actual freedom is reached) I forget the exact location – but this is how Peter talks about his process. I suppose I’m curious as to whether you have rigid or fuzzy lines dividing ‘feeling caring’ and ‘altruism’? When I see someone taking care of another person – I tend to think there is more going on than just the feeling caring – it seems that altruism is very often involved too. So when I ask whether there are rigid or fuzzy lines dividing ‘feeling caring’ and ‘altruism’ – I mean to ask not whether the terms are clearly or fuzzily defined, rather whether you see them as clearly displayed as distinct in experience – or whether they are normally ‘mixed’ up together and not always easy to pull apart – so that when someone does a kind deed for another – it’s not always easy to say whether it was done from feeling caring – or whether it was an altruistic act? I guess what I’m shooting for here, is that it seems to me that there is an underlying altruism that constantly drives our actions, yet it’s not always easy to say of a particular action whether it was feeling caring – or an altruistic act. This isn’t to say that some actions can’t be pinned down as stemming from feeling or from altruism. I guess you could have feeling caring on one side and altruism on the other – some actions are clearly on one side or the other – while a good deal of ‘taking care of’ falls somewhere in the middle. Anyway, that’s the way it occurs to me to view it – though it would be preferable to know – rather than conjecture. RICHARD: If you had said there is an ‘underlying’ instinctual passion called nurture which ‘constantly drives our actions’ then you would have my agreement: the much-lauded unselfishness, which the word altruism is most often used for, by and large is sourced in the nurturing instinct ... and most of what you write about above can be sheeted home to blind nature (including the role-playing games that children practise). As far as I can make out you are stripping this genetically endowed caring of its feeling content, renaming it as a dispassionate altruism, and then asking me whether I have rigid or fuzzy lines dividing this stripped-down nurturing from feeling caring. You say that you witness a lot of caring for others which is ‘probably’ done without any feeling of caring; that there ‘seem’ to be a lot of actions that would ‘not necessarily’ be empathetic or feeling caring or at the expense of self yet ‘not obviously’ self-centred; that you ‘tend to think’ there is more going on than just the feeling caring ... but is everyday human caring, in fact, sans feeling content? Here is a quite typical response (typical of the kind of response I repeatedly receive) on this very topic:
I am not at all altruistic – nor unselfish – let alone nurturing ... ‘twas the identity inhabiting the body who was. And the altruism I spoke of (further above) – altruistic ‘self’-immolation – is a once-in-a-lifetime event and not the real-world day-to-day altruism (unselfishness) ... such everyday unselfishness falls under the category of morality or ethicality. Where I use the word altruism in a non-biological sense is where it is synonymic to the magnanimity of benevolence ... for example:
The growing magnanimity (an increasing generosity of character) referred to as an expanding altruism is a munificent
well-wishing ... the etymological root of the word benevolent is the Latin ‘benne velle’ (meaning ‘wish well’). And well-wishing stems from
fellowship regard – like species recognise like species throughout the animal world – for we are all fellow human beings and have the capacity
for what is called a ‘theory of mind’ The way to an actual freedom from the human condition is the same as an actual freedom from the human condition – the means to the end are not different from the end – inasmuch that where one is happy and harmless as an on-going modus operandi benevolence operates of its own accord ... you partly indicated this (above) where you commented that people are generally helpful toward each other when feeling happy. Where benevolence is flourishing morals and ethics, as a matter of course, fall redundant by the wayside ... unused, unneeded and unnecessary. Lastly, as you mentioned Peter talking about altruism, you could access the Library section of The Actual Freedom Trust
website and look under the entry for altruism ... you will see that he refers to the ‘quality of altruism’ in actualism as being ‘benevolence
in action’ and that this altruism ‘needs to be put under the microscope, examined carefully and fully understood, lest one confuses it with
blind instinctual passions and senseless societal values’. * RESPONDENT: ... as you can see I’m still a bit confused as to where ‘altruism’ fits in. I am getting though that altruism is the key to this whole process – the motivating factor that allows ‘me’ to self-immolate as well as imitate the actual – altruism and pure intent. RICHARD: Just to set the record straight: altruism (in its biological sense) is only the key to the process of ‘self’-immolation – going into blessed oblivion – and has nothing to do with living everyday life happily and harmlessly ... the appearance of benevolence ensures that all interactions (including with oneself) are benign and beneficial. Once again I will refer you to your own words (I keep on doing this as they would have more impact than mine):
Life is truly this simple: the pure intent to have the already always existing peace-on-earth become apparent, as evidenced in
the pure consciousness experience (PCE), is activated with the nourishment of one’s innate naiveté via ‘the wonder of it all’ ...
whereupon an intimate connection, a golden thread or clew And sincerity works to awaken one’s dormant naiveté. RESPONDENT: I think the confusion stems from the fact that I witness the general helpfulness of human beings – even in contexts where there is no immediate personal gain physically or emotionally – so it seems that altruism is more than just ‘self-sacrificing’ – but more of an instinct towards perpetuating not only the survival, but the flourishing of the species – but not only homo sapiens, but all other things in the universe insofar as one has an effect on them. RICHARD: Again, what you say here is sourced in blind nature’s nurture – taken to a fantastic extreme when applied to ‘all other things in the universe’ – which instinctual passion is currently the flavour of the month in those ‘save mother earth’ circles. RESPONDENT: Also, it has dawned on me that I’ve been imitating actually caring for years – not that it had occurred to me that there is an actual world and one could experience it constantly, but rather that if I am going to get along with others on a reasonable basis – then I must ‘take care of’ them by considering ‘what is best for them’ rather than putting my feelings about the matter first. RICHARD: I am none too sure what caring you have been doing ‘for years’ but, going by the description of it which you provide, ‘imitating actually caring’ it ain’t ... I cannot put it more bluntly than that. It smacks of a rehash of the ‘tried and true’ ... whereas being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible is what imitating the actual is on about – then ‘putting my feelings about the matter first’ is to be putting happy and harmless feelings into the world at large – and instead of this proactive contribution to peace and harmony on this verdant and azure paradise you are advocating withholding your feelings out of a ‘tried and failed’ consideration for the other ... which more often than not means considering the other’s feelings. Actualism is not about being guided by, or run by, other people’s feelings ... I mean it when I say that where one is happy and harmless as an on-going modus operandi benevolence operates of its own accord. RESPONDENT: So that even if I don’t care about someone – or feel like not taking care of them – I would still do so because of the overriding drive to live at relative peace with others. This is not ‘putting others first’ – rather just a realization that my feelings don’t always indicate what is sensible. RICHARD: Again this is not what ‘imitating actually caring’ looks like in action – going by the ‘even if I don’t care about someone’ and ‘or feel like not taking care of them’ phrasing – because where one is happy and harmless an on-going benevolence operates of its own accord and benevolence already always cares ... the ‘drive to live at relative peace’ is no more. Furthermore, to say that ‘my feelings don’t always indicate what is sensible’ is to say that feeling happy and harmless (which is what ‘imitating actually caring’ is in practice) is not necessarily relevant to peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body ... and if peace-on-earth is not sensible I would like to know what is instead. This is just a guess, as I can only go on the words you write, but I would venture to suggest that the ‘self image’ you were invested in developing over all those years has resurrected itself in the guise of an (intellectual) caring which is (ostensibly) not a feeling caring. Viz.:
Being a ‘loving, caring person’ is born of the instinctual passion of nurture – as most moralistic/ ethicalistic caring is – and as the instinctual passions are particularly tenacious it may be apposite to enquire into who the grief you mentioned in another e-mail was being felt for. Viz.:
‘Tis only a suggestion, mind you.
RICHARD: All I am indicating by saying that the truth is insincere is that, as the truth holds the promise of an after-death peace for the feeling being inside the flesh and blood body (as in ‘The Peace That Passeth All Understanding’), the truth is not sincere in regards to bringing about peace on earth ... which peacefulness is what caring is all about. RESPONDENT: I see that the ‘truth’ is not sincere in regards to bringing about peace on earth – but it is not clear to me that ‘the truth holds the promise of an after-death peace for the feeling being’. I grant that is often the case, but an easily shown exception would be a child being empathetic before having any beliefs about an afterlife. It is also readily apparent that feeling caring is often done for an earthly reward – so am I to assume you were over generalizing here? If not, then I don’t understand. RICHARD: I am not even generalising – let alone over-generalising – as the truth has not, and will not, bring about peace-on-earth for any flesh and blood body anywhere in its lifetime ... simply because it cannot. Moreover, the truth has not, and will not, bring about peace-on-earth for any entity inside any flesh and blood body either ... what it holds out is the promise of an after-death peace (the feeling of eternity is intrinsic to love). As for a child not knowing about an afterlife: as far as I have been able to ascertain children in all cultures are spoon-fed fantasies about immortality at a very early age ... for example I can recall having a fascinating conversation with a child, not yet four years old, who not only gravely informed me that their newly deceased pet was residing in their particular society’s abode of requiem aeternam, but that they knew the pet’s body was in the ground. And even if a child somehow escaped such cultural conditioning any feeling of empathy they may express – no matter how earnestly felt – is still not going to bring about peace-on-earth anyway ... which peacefulness is what caring is all about. * RICHARD: When empathy works to resolve another’s suffering an empathetic caring occurs – this is not under dispute – but it is occurring as a feeling activity ... in the form of affective vibes and/or psychic currents. However, it is only occurring in the real world – there is no empathetic caring here in this actual world – which is a salutary point few comprehend. RESPONDENT: What confused me for a while is this point that feeling caring doesn’t actually care. In others words I was interpreting that as saying for example that I may feel that I care about my son – but I really don’t care. I think I’m getting a better handle on this though – apparently what you mean is that when I feel that I care about my son, there is empathetic, tender, loving, (or whatever) caring happening, yet it’s not actual. That is, feeling caring misses out on the inseparate regard of the actual world. So, feeling caring is not necessarily (un) caring – rather it is based on feeling – which is by its nature insincere in bringing about peace on earth because it is born of illusory separation. RICHARD: And the same applies for intimacy: one can feel intimate with all of one’s being – manifest Love Agapé unceasingly – yet it is not and never will be an actual intimacy. * RESPONDENT: ... it seems to me that there is an underlying altruism that constantly drives our actions, yet it’s not always easy to say of a particular action whether it was feeling caring – or an altruistic act. This isn’t to say that some actions can’t be pinned down as stemming from feeling or from altruism. I guess you could have feeling caring on one side and altruism on the other – some actions are clearly on one side or the other – while a good deal of ‘taking care of’ falls somewhere in the middle. Anyway, that’s the way it occurs to me to view it – though it would be preferable to know – rather than conjecture. RICHARD: If you had said there is an ‘underlying’ instinctual passion called nurture which ‘constantly drives our actions’ then you would have my agreement: the much-lauded unselfishness, which the word altruism is most often used for, by and large is sourced in the nurturing instinct ... and most of what you write about above can be sheeted home to blind nature (including the role-playing games that children practise). As far as I can make out you are stripping this genetically endowed caring of its feeling content, renaming it as a dispassionate altruism, and then asking me whether I have rigid or fuzzy lines dividing this stripped-down nurturing from feeling caring. RESPONDENT: I’m not sure anymore what I was doing. The best I can say is that I was wondering whether there is such a thing as a ‘dispassionate altruism’ since it can seem that a lot of actions could be construed in that way. I don’t mean to postulate something that doesn’t exist – I do now see that you can chalk up every caring action (for an ‘I’) to feeling caring. I guess the idea is that there are many caring actions that I do and that I witness others do that are virtually unthinking – in the sense that there was simply no time to ponder one’s feelings about a particular caring action – they happen so quickly with almost no forethought – that they can seem to be without feeling – yet I can see that easily can be said to stem from feeling caring too – even though there is no obvious feeling of compassion or empathy evident. RICHARD: Your words ‘I do now see that you can chalk up every caring action (for an ‘I’) to feeling caring’ says it all. * RICHARD: ... the way to an actual freedom from the human condition is the same as an actual freedom from the human condition – the means to the end are not different from the end – inasmuch that where one is happy and harmless as an on-going modus operandi benevolence operates of its own accord ... you partly indicated this (above) where you commented that people are generally helpful toward each other when feeling happy. Where benevolence is flourishing morals and ethics, as a matter of course, fall redundant by the wayside ... unused, unneeded and unnecessary. RESPONDENT: This is clearer to me now. RICHARD: Good ... life is truly this simple: the pure intent to have the already always existing peace-on-earth become
apparent, as evidenced in the pure consciousness experience (PCE), is activated with the nourishment of one’s innate naiveté via wonder ...
whereupon an intimate connection, a golden thread or clew And sincerity works to awaken one’s dormant naiveté. * RICHARD: ... as you mentioned Peter talking about altruism, you could access the Library section of The Actual Freedom
Trust website and look under the entry for altruism ... you will see that he refers to the ‘quality of altruism’ in actualism as being ‘benevolence
in action’ and that this altruism ‘needs to be put under the microscope, examined carefully and fully understood, lest one confuses it with
blind instinctual passions and senseless societal values’. RESPONDENT: Makes more sense to me now. RICHARD: Okay ... you are aware that the benevolence and benignity referred to (of the PCE) is not ‘my’ benevolence and benignity? * RESPONDENT: I think the confusion stems from the fact that I witness the general helpfulness of human beings – even in contexts where there is no immediate personal gain physically or emotionally – so it seems that altruism is more than just ‘self-sacrificing’ – but more of an instinct towards perpetuating not only the survival, but the flourishing of the species – but not only homo sapiens, but all other things in the universe insofar as one has an effect on them. RICHARD: Again, what you say here is sourced in blind nature’s nurture – taken to a fantastic extreme when applied to ‘all other things in the universe’ – which instinctual passion is currently the flavour of the month in those ‘save mother earth’ circles. RESPONDENT: This confusion is a result of confusing the two senses or ‘altruistic’ – the biological and the moralistic. My reference to ‘all other things in the universe insofar as one has an effect on them’ might better read ‘all other things in the universe insofar as they have an effect on one’. Reversing the latter part of the sentence may be more accurate – since it shows the ‘self centeredness’ of feeling-caring. For a while, I couldn’t understand why you called that comment ‘fantastic’ – but I see now that what I was referring to was merely the moralistic idea of altruism – which is not at all to be equated with benevolence. RICHARD: Exactly ... in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) one discovers that the universe is already benevolent and benign (it does not need ‘my’ benevolence and benignity pasted as a veneer over it). There is a passage in ‘Richard’s Journal’ which may be worth contemplating:
I have emphasised the words which indicate one of the biggest stumbling-blocks to first setting foot upon the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition – the apprehension of becoming a simpleton – so as to highlight the fact that when I say naiveté I mean naiveté. * RESPONDENT: I can see that what I was calling ‘imitating the actual’ is not what you mean by it. It might be better put by saying that ‘for years’ I was ‘trying’ to imitate my ‘image’ of what it would be to actually care – not that I knew what actually caring was. Which is none other than feeling caring – being guided by one’s emotions. I see that. I also see how different what I thought was ‘imitating’ the actual was from actually imitating the actual. RICHARD: Good ... it is such a release to be relieved of the burden which feeling caring imposes, eh? * RICHARD: This is just a guess, as I can only go on the words you write, but I would venture to suggest that the ‘self image’ you were invested in developing over all those years has resurrected itself in the guise of an (intellectual) caring which is (ostensibly) not a feeling caring. (...) Being a ‘loving, caring person’ is born of the instinctual passion of nurture – as most moralistic/ethicalistic caring is – and as the instinctual passions are particularly tenacious it may be apposite to enquire into who the grief you mentioned in another e-mail was being felt for. (...) ‘Tis only a suggestion, mind you. RESPONDENT: Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I’ve always been aware that there was a gulf between how I used to care and what is happening when I am asking the actualist question and being happy and harmless. It seems that I was trying to extend the concept of moralistic altruism and ‘imitating the actual’ beyond what you intend. The confusion is cleared up now though – I see clearly that you mean altruism merely in the biological sense is needed for the actualist process and that imitating the actual specifically means being happy and harmless and acting benevolently from that position. RICHARD: Yes, though where one is happy and harmless then benevolence and benignity act of their own accord ... thus it is effortless. RESPONDENT: Here is how I think the confusion arose. I was seeing all feeling caring as stemming from separation – something an actualist is to be wary of. So I figured, there must be a kind of caring which isn’t based on feeling – which must be ‘altruism’. That seemed to match up with a kind of caring that doesn’t seem to have much premeditative thought or feeling – ‘spontaneous’ caring which one could call altruistic since one doesn’t think or feel much about how the action would affect oneself. So I was equating ‘altruism’ with ‘actually caring’ and ‘benevolence’. So I thought maybe that’s what was meant – that feeling caring changes into a sort of spontaneous caring which is not consciously related to one’s personal aims (actually caring) – which would make caring happily and harmlessly not a feeling caring, but a spontaneous altruistic caring – which is the ‘launch-pad’ to an actual freedom. But I see now this was just a wild goose chase. I was simply misunderstanding. Even one in virtual freedom still uses feelings to care – only happy and harmless ones – benevolence. RICHARD: So as to keep it simple: all you have to do, so to speak, is be happy and harmless ... the rest takes care of itself.
CORRESPONDENT No. 27 (Part Six) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
