|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 41
RESPONDENT: I’ve been reading your web page and mail group for about 8 months. When I was 18 I had an experience on LSD that seems to match your descriptions of PCE’s and also ASC’s. That day I swung from one to the other. After that day I could never stop desiring to return to that space of unspeakable peace and miraculousness (PCE as I understand it) or messianic immortality (ASC as I understand it). RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Mailing List ... here is an example, from a self-healing personal growth book published only recently, which maybe shows how a pure consciousness experience (PCE) can readily turn into being an altered state of consciousness (ASC) when feelings enter the picture:
The intense feeling of beauty, in such instances, is what reveals truth (or god/goddess): beauty is the affective substitute for the purity of the perfection of this actual world ... just as love is the affective surrogate for actual intimacy. RESPONDENT: So I sought teachers, and I found teachers and followed them and found myself led toward the realm of the ASC – messianic immortality, God consciousness, Divine Love and so on. Not that I claim to have achieved these for more than occasional moments here and there, but that was my direction, this would be the final solution, I believed. This pursuit went on for 30 years. Then I came across your web site tangentially, in a funny way. I was linked to it through Satsang MLM, a site that made fun of the non-duality gurus. That site is no longer on the net and I miss it. RICHARD: Curiously enough the authors of the ‘Satsang MLM’ website tried to make fun of an actual freedom from the human condition as well. Vis.:
I say ‘curiously enough’ as one of the authors of the now defunct website has met me on a number of occasions in the years gone by – once we discussed life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, for several hours in the privacy of my own home – yet he still shows a remarkable lack of understanding as to what actualism is ... it is most certainly not a ‘non-spiritual spiritual path’ which is in the opposite direction to ‘all other non-spiritual spiritual paths’ as the very first words on The Actual Freedom Trust website make crystal-clear:
Also, I am none too sure how these (few) examples can be misconstrued:
Plus many more examples ... yet there was more misconstruing on the website whilst it was on-line:
Apart from the laboured exposition of their ‘Non-Spiritual Spirituality’ theory it is pertinent to point out that in order to be satirical satire has to be able to accurately hit its mark and expose absurdity ... as an actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human experience – it had no existence prior to spiritual enlightenment – the words ‘and become actual once again’ are a dead giveaway that the authors are only making mockery of something they have invented. Or, if I may mix metaphors, they are but tilting at straw-men. RESPONDENT: Very quickly after reading your site God died for me. What a shock, I had been a devotee, a spiritual person, and God just fell away like the curtain in front of the Wonderful Wizard of Oz. I did go through a rather hollow, lost period. I waited to see if this Godless state would just blow over, but it didn’t. I’m here in the real world now looking into the activities of the parasite and marvelling at its tenacity and wiliness. It took me a while to have the courage to admit to my Christian mate that I did not believe in God, and found no purpose, other than ego salvation, for the old ‘pie in the sky when we die’. RICHARD: Would I be correct in assuming you are referring to a monotheistic god here (theism)? RESPONDENT: I think that part of what many consider as God is what I consider as the universe. It’s the imaginary, anthropomorphic trappings of God that I can do without and the existence itself that I appreciate, regardless of whether ego suffers or enjoys. RICHARD: Surely you would be cognisant of pantheism and/or panentheism (acosmic mysticism)? For a pantheist their god/ goddess is immanent (maybe expressed as ‘god/ goddess is the infinitude of the universe’ or ‘god/goddess, as truth, pervades everything that is’) ... as compared with a theist whose god/goddess is transcendent (as in ‘not the infinitude of the universe’ or ‘not all-pervading’). Broadly speaking theism refers to a creator god/ goddess who is beyond the universe whereas in panentheism god/goddess is not only all-pervading (immanent) but beyond the universe as well (transcendent). Vis.: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blfaq_theism_pan.htm RESPONDENT: I’ve found amazing amounts of ill will, fear, romantic dependency and cloying nurture in my repertoire, and I’m slogging through the cistern in fishing boots much of the time. From the start I have thought that actualism requires faith. RICHARD: Yet actualism does not require ‘faith’ ... all one needs is the confidence born of the pure consciousness experience (PCE) and belief, with all its trappings, is no more. I addressed this question, at length, only a week ago on this very mailing list:
The full content of that e-mail can be accessed here: RESPONDENT: Why dive into this often, painful work if there is no desirable outcome? But then, what other work could I do at this point; the will has been set in motion and the work continues on its own. RICHARD: Although I would be the last to deny that all manner of things unpleasant can temporarily manifest themselves from time-to-time (to go deep-sea diving into the stygian depths of the human condition is not for the faint of heart or weak of knee) I look askance at the words ‘why dive into this often, painful work’ as the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and that the slightest diminishment of such felicity/ innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently wandered off the way. One is thus soon back on track ... and because of pure intent no scarring occurs (no matter how traumatic the deviation was). * RESPONDENT: I’ve corresponded with Respondent No. 36 of EndOfTheRopeRanch@yahoo.com, a group I connected to through the Actual Freedom mailing list, and she gave the old ego-parasite some shattering kicks in the butt. RICHARD: You must be referring to the following mailing list:
If the words ‘Realization of Transcendent Understanding, Nonduality, Enlightenment’ do not signify the spiritual solution to all the ills of humankind for you then the words on the associated web page may very well drive the point home:
Maybe this is an apt moment to re-visit your earlier words (from the top of this page)? Vis.:
It is easy to make fun of the nonduality peoples ... offering a viable alternative in its place is another matter entirely. RESPONDENT: So, I’m just letting you know that I’m with you, and reading you all the time and finding Actual Freedom the solution in which my past pursuits are dissolving. RICHARD: Okay ... instead of having Love/ God/ Truth/ IT give you some ‘shattering kicks in the butt’ may I suggest adopting the benevolent, and thus beneficial, approach? Vis.:
Put succinctly: be kind to yourself ... you are the only friend you have, so to speak. * RESPONDENT: Now, on another track, I read a little of Professor Steven Reiss’s theory of desires mentioned on the mailing list a few days ago. I agree that the desire for immortality should be added, but what do you think of the rest of his list? RICHARD: Speaking personally I found the questionnaire to be structured in such a way as to produce the desired (no pun intended) result ... just for starters there is not the option to answer ‘not at all’. Vis.:
Needless is it to say I would answer ‘not at all’ to each and every question? Most of the questions are loaded and/or slanted questions designed to elicit desire-based values ... to take the very first one as an example:
Question No. 1 turns any interest, in what life has to offer, into a desire-based value by using the word ‘thirst’ (a de facto word for desire) ... and other questions are peppered with similar noms de guerre (‘I love to eat ...’, ‘I love learning ...’, ‘I hate throwing things away ...’, ‘I often seek ...’, ‘I am very concerned ...’, and so on. My guess is that this loaded/slanted structuring is because Mr. Steven Reiss (a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Ohio State University) defines felicity this way:
Mr. Vijai Sharma (a Clinical Psychologist of 30 years practice) addresses this self-same point after presenting Mr. Steven Reiss’ thesis:
He then expands upon what spirituality means to him (as a Clinical Psychologist of 30 years practice) and thus, by extension, to his clients: http://www.mindpub.com/topic71.htm It also appears that when mathematics enters the picture commonsense is nowhere to be found:
And just what does ‘2 trillion different profiles’ mean to him? Vis.:
In other words: we are all unique/you can’t change human nature/its okay to remain as you are ... and there is, of course,
no mention of the third alternative to feel-good (aka hedonistic Let alone harmlessness. As a generalisation it seems that somewhere along the line psychology lost the plot (presuming there ever was one) and is, more and more these days, into appeasement (you’re okay/I’m okay/it’s all okay) and pacification via becoming comfortably numb ... to settle for second-best, as it were, by accepting one’s lot in life. Also, there always was the spiritual dimension to psychology (Mr. Carl Jung’s intuitions for example) which dimension grew exponentially after the ’sixties generation trekked eagerly to the Himalayas, and to other exotic places eastern, to find the permanent drug experience ... and found cultures who had been practicing same for centuries, which (with the benefit of hindsight) has had predictably the self-same results: mystical ‘States Of Being’ that take one out of the physical world of the senses into a dissociative state of unreality ... replete with massive delusions of grandeur (‘I am That/Love/God/Truth/It’). Put simply: transcendence is an institutionalised insanity masquerading as ultimate wisdom. * RESPONDENT: Another question: I have the charge of a good part of the education of my grand daughter, 11 years old, and now to be home schooled. I realize we won’t see these ideas taught in school for the foreseeable future, but what would you teach to a child if you could teach him/her whatever you wanted? RICHARD: Back when I was a parent I adopted the ‘home-schooling’ approach with my then children – until the state’s child welfare department intervened and enforced academic schooling at the point of a gun – and found it most rewarding for all concerned: I never taught them anything, in the structured sense of the word, as children learn (teach themselves) all what is necessary, whilst it is happening, of their own accord ... as long as there be a supportive adult to provide the suitable environment conducive to such ad hoc skill-development and absorption of relevant information. RESPONDENT: In gratitude for the existence of the Actual Freedom site and its members. RICHARD: Whilst I appreciate your sentiments as expressed please do watch out for gratitude ... because that warm fuzzy feeling can, and does, lead on to love and thus all manner of disastrous consequences (in regards peace-on-earth). It is not for nothing that many spiritual teachers insist their students be grateful.
RICHARD: ... here is an example, from a self-healing personal growth book published only recently, which maybe shows how a pure consciousness experience (PCE) can readily turn into being an altered state of consciousness (ASC) when feelings enter the picture: [snip quote]. The intense feeling of beauty, in such instances, is what reveals truth (or god/goddess): beauty is the affective substitute for the purity of the perfection of this actual world ... just as love is the affective surrogate for actual intimacy. RESPONDENT: Yes, this is what happened to me and has happened many times. I start out open, innocent, no borders, no boundaries, everything clear and sparkling, realer than real (meaning that the mechanical, take-it-all-for-granted view of the existence that I’ve absorbed or formed as I matured falls away). Then I finish by appreciating, loving, cherishing all that is. I’ve bought into the love, love, love cultural directives in a big way. I thought this was what I was supposed to achieve. RICHARD: Such has been the received wisdom up until now. RESPONDENT: I drag myself out of bad moods by appreciating and loving the beauty and order of nature. I have made it a goal to create a solid love relationship with a man. This love thing is tricky. It’s slippery for me, when I try to look at it, it dives aside. Malice is right there, spread eagle, but love? RICHARD: Well, love is usually considered sacrosanct ... yet just as sorrow is essential for its antidotal compassion to flourish love is the antitoxin for malice: without malice, love has no raison d’être. I started to empirically encounter this, whilst sailing my yacht around tropical islands off the north-east coast of Australia with a choice companion, towards the end of 1987 and by about mid 1988 the unfolding of experience came to its inevitable realisation. Strangely enough it was the disclosure of the intrinsically manipulative nature of love – and ‘unconditional love’ at that – in 1987 which triggered the expansion of comprehension and experiential understanding of the composition of the affective faculty ... with the concomitant growth of awareness. It was with Love Agapé being such a ‘sacred cow’ that there had initially been considerable uneasiness about a direct investigation – my initial enquiry had begun in India in 1984, whilst single and celibate, upon becoming suss about the Buddhist ‘karuna’ (pity-compassion) and ‘metta’ (loving-kindness) – hence there was a three year-long gestation period before the fact could be addressed squarely. Eventually what happened was that at anchor one velvety night with an ebbing tide chuckling its way past the hull what I then called ‘The Absolute’ presented itself as being feminine – a Radiant Being initially seen to be Pure Love – which femininity I would nowadays consider to be a product of me being of masculine gender. Due to an intensity of purpose there was the capacity to penetrate into the nature of this ‘Radiant Being’ and I was able to see ‘Her’ other face: It was Pure Evil – the Diabolical underpins the Divine There is a vast difference between ‘realisation’ and ‘actualisation’. * RESPONDENT: And to go on with the god thing. I went into a PCE from an extremely rough and materialistic point of view. At that time I knew nothing of pantheism, only monotheism, which I had rejected, thinking of myself as an atheist. So when I saw what I saw I thought that if they want to call this fabulous existence God then that’s okay, because that’s a way of making it special. Now after reading you all I see that it doesn’t require to be given the name of God to make it special, it’s special in and of itself, and that calling it God is a way to confusion. RICHARD: Yes, basically they have taken the experiential properties of the material universe – infinite and eternal and perpetual – and ascribed them to a supernatural deity. RESPONDENT: When I saw the sparkling magical eternity and beneficence of the universe, so much more real than my previous cognition, I thought that this was the experience that caused people to talk about god. They have this experience, and then later, trying to explain it from the usual restricted point of view it gets embellished with personal limited perspectives and voila! Different religions. What I experience as a beneficent conscious universe others give the name of God. That’s what I thought for a long time. The explanation that it’s another grab by the ego to immortalize itself by aligning with an all powerful immortal God makes even more sense. RICHARD: Yes, though in reality it is the soul (the deeper aspect of identity) which the ego aligns itself to. The realised soul (the spiritual Self) is nothing more and nothing less than the rudimentary animal self of the affective feelings – emotions and passions and calentures – still in operation ... only in a sublimated and transcended form. This is because the affective feelings input a bias towards preserving ‘self’ (particularly ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’ which is ‘being’ itself) – because of their instinctual survival nature – which leads to a switch in identification from ‘I’ as ego (in the head) to ‘me’ as soul (in the heart) via humble ‘self’-surrender ... only blown-up all out of proportion into a grandiose identity (‘Self’, ‘Being’, ‘God’, ‘Goddess’, ‘That’, ‘Isness’ and so on). RESPONDENT: For myself I could reinterpret the experience as first I died an agonizing death by having revealed to me the stupid games I was playing in my life, then I experienced everything as clear and luminous and benevolent, then I classified this everything as a beautiful, loving and ferocious God (is this pantheism?) and identified myself as unified with it and thus immortal. RICHARD: Aye, to be in union with one’s eternal self is the goal of all mysticism ... ‘tis but narcissism writ large. RESPONDENT: Next I had the dreadful sensation that immortality was worse than death because I would have to keep on being this grandiose deity for all eternity. RICHARD: Well said ... I have often remarked that if it were not for death one could not be happy and harmless. RESPONDENT: So I take this to be the danger of enlightenment. RICHARD: The main ‘danger of enlightenment’ (apart from missing out on the meaning of life) lies in its blatant disregard for peace-on-earth and its wilful retardation of human progress: western civilisation, which has struggled to get out of superstition and medieval ignorance, is in danger of slipping back into the supernatural as the eastern mystical wisdom, that is beginning to have its strangle-hold upon otherwise intelligent people, is becoming more and more widespread. The ancient wisdom has even infiltrated modern physics. * RESPONDENT: I knew I’d be challenged if I used the word ‘faith’, but it was there and I wanted it cleared up. I had read with interest the posting about confidence in the PCE. What trips me up is that when the PCE is over I doubt it because it didn’t last. If it fades so easily maybe it’s false. I don’t actually believe this because when it’s there it seems the realest thing I have ever known. Perhaps it’s how I evade looking at the causes of its disappearance ... RICHARD: Yes, this seems to be more the reason as ‘I’ who am doing the looking am the very cause of its disappearance (‘I’ am standing in the way of the already always existing peace-on-earth being apparent) ... when ‘I’ disappear perfection appears/when ‘I’ appear perfection disappears. Another reason for difficulty in remembrance is that the PCE, being a non-affective experience, is not stored in the affective memory-banks. RESPONDENT: ... secondly there is my social programming that classifies such things as craziness. RICHARD: Aye, I do find it cute that an actual freedom from the human condition – peace-on-earth in this life-time as this flesh and blood body – is classified as a severe and incurable psychotic disorder. RESPONDENT: So aside from my tendency to ‘appreciate’ in an instinctual, nurturing way, which I confess to (a function of building alliances for future protection?), I do appreciate the chance to share in the assimilation and expression of some very rare and thrilling ideas. Thank you, Richard and all, for your patience and energy. RICHARD: You are very welcome – not that patience and energy has anything to do with it – as all I ever wanted was the words and writings of an actual freedom from the human condition to exist in the world ... I scoured the books to no avail for eleven years and would rather have it that nobody else need to go through what I went through. I am well pleased that the third alternative to materialism and spiritualism is now available throughout the world. * RICHARD: ... in order to be satirical satire has to be able to accurately hit its mark and expose absurdity. RESPONDENT: Yes, I’m corrected there. I often wondered why the author(s) of Satsang MLM expended so much energy to put down the Advaita teachers and what they would offer instead. RICHARD: Presumably they would offer a direct relationship with Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain (aka ‘Osho’) instead ... one of the authors wrote to Peter a few years ago:
The reason for the ‘Satsang MLM’ (Multi-Level Marketing) website was, basically, that the authors objected to the advaita/ nonduality peoples associating themselves/ their truth with Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain/his truth ... and thus raking in lots of loot by tapping into the lucrative ‘Sannyasins’/ ‘Friends Of Osho’ market. Initially they published their objections in a short-lived printed magazine – called ‘Byron Satsang’ – before creating their website. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: I was reading many of the Advaita web sites at the same time. I did enjoy a laugh at their expense though and I’ll admit that laughing at the expense of others may come from malevolence. I knew the site poked at you, I didn’t understand what they were getting at. I thought that I might if I kept reading, then the site disappeared. RICHARD: I have no idea as to why actualism featured on their website at all ... it has nothing to do with Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain whatsoever (let alone ‘guru-circuit’ marketing). RESPONDENT: My intro to you through them was something like, ‘this is the funniest site on the web if you’ve got a couple of days to read it’. I went to your site and wondered what was supposed to be funny ... RICHARD: It says a lot about the human condition that peace-on-earth should be deemed a matter of derision. RESPONDENT: ... and how anyone could read it in two days. It has taken me months and I still have miles to go. RICHARD: Just in case all the words ever get too much here is a précis: Or even more succinctly: RESPONDENT: I aspire to have the stamina and quick wittedness to write clearly and completely the way you do and for today the old lady’s out of steam. RICHARD: As is evidenced in a PCE it is remarkably easy to talk meaningfully about being alive when one is free of the human condition ... it all being so patently obvious and simple.
RESPONDENT No. 59: Vineeto, here in Mexico people are No. 1 at seeing words as having double meaning ... this is mainly how humour is expressed here, it is even seen as a desirable quality, and there are contests where people try to convey the best hidden meaning in words which imply something else. I have seen that taking words at face value gives others the impression of me being innocent but in an ignorant way ... and thus they sometimes try to take advantage of me; however, at the same time, most feel they can trust me. The thing is, I have seen how Actualists always take words for exactly what they mean, should I continue strictly attending to the words of others without ‘imagining’ or trying to find out what the hidden double meaning is? What others are really thinking? I am still distrustful of the words of some but because of several past and present experiences. VINEETO: I remember that in the early years of writing about actualism I tried to figure out ‘the hidden double meaning’, the emotional agenda, the context of feelings and beliefs in which the post was written and I got hopelessly entangled in the psychic web of other people’s malice and sorrow and was consequently unable to give a clear response. I found I first had to untangle myself from the emotional web in order to be able to think straight and write clearly about my experience of freeing myself from my spiritual beliefs and emotional burdens. Taking people’s word’s at face value has nothing to do with trust or mistrust, but is a matter of a simple and straight-forward way to communicate. A ‘hidden double meaning’ is almost always an emotionally charged meaning and trying to second-guess what this is in any situation does nothing to enhance sensible communication. Nowadays I always assume that if people find it important that I take notice of any ‘hidden’ meaning then they will tell me – it is not my responsibility to discern what another is trying to convey through unmentioned hints and allusions. As for being ‘distrustful of the words of some’ – the good news for me was that by examining and understanding my own social and instinctual identity I had less and less reason to fear that people would emotionally hurt me with insinuations or outright sarcasm – identity-slashing intimations from others now rarely reach a target. RESPONDENT No. 59: Understood. My problem is that I sometimes forget to focus on the content because of distractions of how it is conveyed. VINEETO: Of course, that is the very purpose of people conveying a message in an emotional way. Those ‘distractions’ are the very stuff to explore in order to determine how you are in relation to other people. Other than the words themselves there is usually a whole layer of invisible and inaudible interaction happening and this is how Richard explained it: [quote] ‘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’. Feeling threatened or intimidated can result from the obvious cues – the offering of physical violence and/or verbal violence – or from the less obvious ... ‘vibe’ violence (to use a ‘60’s term) and/or psychic violence. Similarly, feeling accepted can occur via the same signals or intimations. Power trips – coercion or manipulation of any kind – whether for ‘good’ or ‘bad’ purposes, are all psychic at root ... the psychic currents are the most effective power plays for they are the most insidious (charisma, for example).’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT No. 23: This could explain why I have a sense of not belonging here or anywhere else for that matter because there is no psychic connection. I am an actualist in the sense that I have seen that matter is animate thru a PCE although I am not positive of this because it could be a physiological process in my own body that makes matter look that way. Also, I don’t practice Actualism per se because it seems that would connect me to the group I see here. I also don’t feel I belong on any spiritual list or group. Not having any psychic connection could explain why I don’t belong and don’t want to belong as opposed to the usual use of belonging which means one wants to belong. Makes sense? RESPONDENT: I think that’s a legitimate question. The PCE could be, in fact, what else could it be, a product of my own body experiencing itself without the usual imaginary filters. A question to Richard: What about this psychic web? It seems at odds with the here and now down to earth stuff. Especially when it refers to ‘vibes’ between people who are present. I was taught in psychology classes that the verbal message is only 20 percent of the message, the rest being expression and body language. I do think I’ve observed some patterns that aren’t explainable by obvious physical forces such as synchronicity – the seeming grouping of events in themes, sometimes seeming to have meaning, sometimes not, but this is a separate subject. RICHARD: As I am none too sure what your question to me is actually about I have situated the quote of mine back into the discussion it was first used in as it is quite self-explanatory in reference to the subject then under discussion ... please correct me if I am in error but you do seem to have taken it as a given that there is in fact [quote] ‘the group’ [endquote] which another sees which does in fact require a [quote] ‘psychic connection’ [endquote] in order to in fact [quote] ‘belong’ [endquote] to and are then asking me if this is not at odds with the ‘here and now down to earth stuff’ as if it were a legitimate question I can meaningfully respond to. There is no group (aka ‘cult’) to connect with/belong to – either emotionally/passionally or intuitively/psychically – as the word ‘actualism’ refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive (which, incidentally, does not mean that matter is animate) and the word ‘actualist’ refers to the experient. Vis.:
Put succinctly: there is no psychic web in this actual world – the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum – to be at odds with the ‘here and now down to earth stuff’. Your co-respondent is but tilting at windmills (again).
RICHARD: As I am none too sure what your question to me is actually about I have situated the quote of mine back into the discussion it was first used in as it is quite self-explanatory in reference to the subject then under discussion ... RESPONDENT: I was asking about the psychic web Vineeto writes of in her post that you supplied. I had read it as some sort of ethereal network connecting all minds or universal flow or some such – Vibes. I was asking if that is what is meant. I wanted to know if you, Richard say that. RICHARD: It is not just the emotional/passional ‘vibes’ which constitute the ethereal network but, more insidiously, the psychic currents – a network of intuitive/affective energies that range from ‘good’ to ‘bad’ (aka ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’) – which stem from ‘being’ itself (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) irregardless of conscious intent. There are some peoples, of course, who cultivate these psychic currents such that they do become conscious intent (as in
psychic powers). RESPONDENT: I assumed that Vineeto was – maybe I am mistaken about what she meant. I was saying that consciously or unconsciously perceived body-language can be an explanation for much of the ‘vibes’ perceived in close range to another person. RICHARD: The colloquialism ‘vibes’ does not refer to body-language but to the affective feelings and gained currency in the ‘sixties (as in ‘I can feel your pain’ or ‘I can feel your anger’ and so on) – even the military are well aware of this as I had it impressed upon me, prior to going to war in my youth, that fear is contagious and can spread like wildfire if unchecked – and another example is being in the presence of an enlightened being (known as ‘Darshan’ in the Indian tradition) so as to be bathed in the overwhelming love and compassion such a being radiates. Yet behind the feelings lie the psychic energies/ currents which emanate from being itself. * RICHARD: Put succinctly: there is no psychic web in this actual world – the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum – to be at odds with the ‘here and now down to earth stuff’. RESPONDENT: So I understand this to mean that the psychic web is something in the real world as opposed to the actual world and as such has no actual existence outside imagination. RICHARD: It has no existence outside of the psyche – which includes the imaginative/intuitive faculty of course – and whilst the psyche is in situ the psychic currents reign supreme ... albeit behind the scenes, as it were, and most often overlooked/unnoticed. Hence my observation regarding them being the most effective power plays.
PETER: ... if your sole aim is ‘to get rid of the negative’, as in stopping being cynical,
the tendency is then to not replace it with anything – to not feel anything – to become an emotional emasculate if you like. Contrary to what
some people think, actualism is not about not feeling. The actualism method is about minimizing the debilitating effects of the ‘bad’ emotions
(malice, anxiety, resentment, sorrow, etc.) as well as minimizing the debilitating effects of the antidotal ‘good’ emotions (love, bliss,
compassion, etc.) and actively promoting the felicitous/ innocuous emotions – the feelings that are associated with naiveté – a childlike
curiosity, a fascination with being here, bonhomie, friendliness, amiability, cordiality, delight, wonder, amazement and so on. RESPONDENT: Richard, would you concur with what Peter says? RICHARD: Here is an example of what I have had to say on this very topic:
RESPONDENT: My formal education is in psychology. It’s been a while, but reading all the psychological terms used here on the list have encouraged me to refresh my memory. Cognitive dissonance is a theory of one of the ways the mind or brain functions. What it says is that if something is presented to a mind that is different enough from the thought/memory/belief of that mind, the mind receiving the dissonant input will not recognize it. The dissonant input will not be consciously recognized. It may not even be accepted on an unconscious level (we don’t know yet). Getting annoyed at something is not cognitive dissonance. We can be aware of annoyance. The theory of cognitive dissonance is that we are not aware of the too-foreign input. Why it is interesting in the context of this group is that it may be that some ideas do not get across because they are so at odds to what has been previously accepted or believed that those ideas are not even accessible to the person receiving them. (...) I do think that AF has a lot to say to psychology and I’d like to see the terms used in ways that I understand or at least redefined so that we all know what we are talking about. RICHARD: Here is the way I have described, on many an occasion, what I mean when I use the term ‘cognitive dissonance’:
Is this use of the term a way that you understand ... or does it need re-defining? RESPONDENT: Another comment. Much research supports the idea that a great amount of communication comes from body language and voice inflection. We miss all that with e-mail. I even received an office memo that told us to be careful with e-mail. That it can give unwanted impressions and that even the use of smiley faces does not prevent much innocently intended e-mail from being construed as cold or critical. We were encouraged to communicate face to face at regular intervals in order to avoid fixed impressions of unfriendliness from developing. I do think that happens here to some extent. It may be another contributor to the impressions of misunderstanding. RICHARD: As you specifically asked me about [quote] ‘this psychic web’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘vibes’
[endquote] in November/ December of last year Also, what you refer to as ‘smiley faces’ are more properly known as ‘emoticons’ for a very good reason.
RESPONDENT: Here’s a bit more on the double bind. Do we see some or several of these invalidations cropping up on this list? Is this why there seems to be so much misunderstanding of words or phrases? These invalidations are very common in life and it looks like they are pretty common here too. I have not followed the exchanges about your ‘spirituality’ closely because it’s way too tedious for me. When people get into these tussles I skim quickly and go to another post. I’m lazy and my time is limited too. (...) In 1967 a team of researchers published the results of their further investigation of the double bind. They proposed that the operational component of the double bind is its pattern of disqualification – the means by which one person’s experience is invalidated as a result of the imposed bind. They cited five methods for disqualifying the previous communication. (snip). RICHARD: As by your own admission you have not followed the exchanges closely (because of tedium, skimming, laziness, and prioritisation) your answer – ‘it looks like they [double bind invalidations] are pretty common here’ – to your queries, as to (a) whether some or several double bind invalidations are cropping up on this mailing list ...and (b) whether this is why there seems to be so much misunderstanding of words or phrases, amounts to nothing more than supposition ... at best. The main reason for what you call ‘these tussles’ is, when it is *not* cognitive dissonance, feigned ignorance for an ulterior motive ... to wit: to preserve the status-quo. This mailing list has been operational for nearly six years now ... and what you call ‘these tussles’ only occur when peoples of a religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical persuasion drop by to give a practical example of why the ‘Tried and True’ is the ‘Tried and Failed’. If nothing else a valuable service is provided ... one demonstration is worth a thousand words.
RESPONDENT: Original link: www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbraintrans.shtml (snip) NARRATOR: What is almost certainly true is that religious experience is far more complex than can be explained simply by activity in one area of the brain. Dr Persinger's work is only the beginning. Many scientists now suspect there must be far more to the relationship between the brain and belief. A research team has come up with a unique way of exploring this relationship. They examined what happened at the precise moment the brain had a genuine religious experience. It was the mind of Michael Baime that provided the moment of insight. DR MICHAEL BAIME: You could describe this experience of meditation, of really deep meditation, as a kind of a oneness. NARRATOR: Michael is a Buddhist, a faith that requires its followers to enter into the spiritual through medication. BAIME: As you relax more and more and let go of the boundary between oneself and everything else begins to dissolve, so there's more and more of a feeling of identity with the rest of the world and less and less separateness. NARRATOR: Researcher Dr Andrew Newberg set up a brain imaging system that could for the very first time track exactly what happened inside Michael's brain as he meditated. DR ANDREW NEWBERG (Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania): When the subject first comes into our laboratory, what we normally do is bring them into a fairly quiet room. They would then begin the mediation. We were normally not even in the room so that we would actually minimise any kind of distractions to them. The only way that we had some kind of contact with them is that they had a little piece of string that would sit next to their side. They would tug on this string a little bit which meant that now they were beginning to head towards their peak of meditation. (snip). RICHARD: What I find cute, in the above portion of the transcript you provided, is that in order to facilitate the ‘a kind of a oneness’ which the Buddhist Mr. Michael Baime says he can have via meditation – ‘a feeling of identity with the rest of the world’ – the only representatives from the rest of the world then actually present in the room absented themselves so as to not distract him from dissolving the boundaries he had in order for there to be less and less separateness from them ... so much so that his only contact was via a little piece of string. It does give a whole new meaning to the word ‘intimacy’, eh? A married couple of many years, in a marriage which has waned to the point of separate bedrooms, could sit mediating on their individual beds at night – connected via a little piece of string across the hallway – and signal to each other, as they each head towards the peak of their meditation, to indicate when their respective moment of oneness is nigh (as their respective boundaries are dissolving and their respective separateness is becoming less and less) so the other can know that the other’s feeling of identity is about to expand and encompass the rest of the world ... string-tugging moments of conjugal bliss such as this might very well save many a marriage from its creeping ennui. I am reminded of a photograph in the ‘National Geographic’ (page 84, September
1994) taken in Japan of four monks sitting in a row meditating: they were all seated, cross-legged with eyes cast down,
before a blank wall and thus with their backs to the world, so to speak, as they sought their original face The words ‘a feeling of identity’ says it all.
RESPONDENT No 67: Ever wonder why people are doing this, taking this approach? To me, it is not orderly and the product of a somewhat confused mind. RESPONDENT: Yes I have wondered. I’ve left the question open because the only answer I have is that I’ve seen it before, in classrooms, families, parties, community organizations, offices, spiritual groups, churches. I see it as argumentativeness, one-upmanship and defensiveness. That’s how I see the questionable communication (or lack thereof). RICHARD: Perhaps this may be of assistance:
Here is another:
And another:
There are many more examples ... here is one that is particularly apt:
Put simply: there is no way I can politely say ‘everyone is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction’ without getting up someone’s nose. * Also, and this is a related issue, what did you intend to convey by italicising the word ‘apparent’, in an earlier e-mail where you referred to the ‘apparent’ emotional tone in Richard’s writing, plus later on speculating whether (as in your ‘if’ phraseology) Richard can be emotional from time to time? The only reason I ask is because, as you have earlier reported that your formal education is in psychology and that you had warned of the possibility of innocently intended e-mails being construed as cold or critical (aka affective) by virtue of the very nature of the medium, it is doubly-peculiar that you would phrase what you did in that somewhat suggestive manner when it is openly displayed on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site that I was examined by two accredited psychiatrists (one of which was over a three-year period), face-to-face in their rooms, as well as by an accredited psychologist for the same three-year period, person-to-person in my own home, and repeatedly and consistently found to have no emotional/passional response/reaction whatsoever (amongst other official findings). In other words, despite your formal education in psychology and despite your clearly expressed awareness of misconstruing communication via the words-only e-mail format, you disregard the personal evaluation/assessment of accredited members of the psychiatric/psychological profession and choose to not only read into my words something which is not there but also encourage others to do so as well by the (nearly if not in fact) insinuating way you are publicly phrasing your ill-founded imputations – as is evidenced by this e-mail exchange you invited from another already publicly vehement in their condemnation of my approach – which choice is rendered all the more obvious coming, as it is, hot on the heels of your un-researched ‘double-blind invalidations’ allegation. ‘Tis an odd way, to say the least, of taking the words on offer at face-value.
RESPONDENT: My formal education is in psychology. It’s been a while, but reading all the psychological terms used here on the list have encouraged me to refresh my memory. Cognitive dissonance is a theory of one of the ways the mind or brain functions. What it says is that if something is presented to a mind that is different enough from the thought/memory/belief of that mind, the mind receiving the dissonant input will not recognize it. The dissonant input will not be consciously recognized. It may not even be accepted on an unconscious level (we don’t know yet). Getting annoyed at something is not cognitive dissonance. We can be aware of annoyance. The theory of cognitive dissonance is that we are not aware of the too-foreign input. Why it is interesting in the context of this group is that it may be that some ideas do not get across because they are so at odds to what has been previously accepted or believed that those ideas are not even accessible to the person receiving them. (...) I do think that AF has a lot to say to psychology and I’d like to see the terms used in ways that I understand or at least redefined so that we all know what we are talking about. RICHARD: Here is the way I have described, on many an occasion, what I mean when I use the term ‘cognitive dissonance’: (snip description). Is this use of the term a way that you understand ... or does it need re-defining? RESPONDENT: Another comment. Much research supports the idea that a great amount of communication comes from body language and voice inflection. We miss all that with e-mail. I even received an office memo that told us to be careful with e-mail. That it can give unwanted impressions and that even the use of smiley faces does not prevent much innocently intended e-mail from being construed as cold or critical. We were encouraged to communicate face to face at regular intervals in order to avoid fixed impressions of unfriendliness from developing. I do think that happens here to some extent. It may be another contributor to the impressions of misunderstanding. RICHARD: As you specifically asked me about [quote] ‘this psychic web’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘vibes’ [endquote] in November/December of last year it may very well be the case that I should have sent my response in the form of an office memo, if that is what it takes to convey a ... um ... a too-foreign input successfully, as there is much more to face-to-face communication amongst normal human beings than merely body language and voice inflection ... much, much more. Also, what you refer to as ‘smiley faces’ are more properly known as ‘emoticons’ for a very good reason. [italics added]. RESPONDENT: I wanted to ask you about this before, but I just came across it again. This italicised bit looks to me like a disdainful statement. Is it meant that way? Or does it only seem that way to me? Is it Something that is apparent to me and not to others? That’s why I used the italics in my other post. That’s why I bring up the body Language. I don’t know if this interpretation is my defensiveness, Or your intent. RICHARD: I have been examined by two accredited psychiatrists (one of which was over a three-year period), face-to-face in their rooms, as well as by an accredited psychologist for the same three-year period, person-to-person in my own home, and repeatedly and consistently found to have no emotional/passional response/reaction whatsoever (amongst other official findings). These professionals not only had the added advantage of being able to assess the [quote] ‘body language and voice inflection’ [endquote] you refer to, further above, but also ascertain whether vibes and/or psychic currents played any part in my communication. As you have reported that your formal education is in psychology, and that you have warned of the possibility of innocently intended e-mails being construed as cold or critical (aka affective) by virtue of the very nature of the medium, it is doubly-peculiar that you would continue to persist in reading into my words something which is not there. RESPONDENT: The ‘much, much, more’ is a bit strange too. It reads to me as if I am supposed to know and don’t. It looks dramatically vague. I don’t know what the much, much more is. I have an inkling what You mean by the ‘psychic web’ but it’s not really clear to me what It actually is. RICHARD: Here is the exchange in question (edited for length):
What is it that is not really clear to you in that exchange? * RESPONDENT: Then the bit about the ‘emoticons’. Something else it looks like I Am supposed to know already and don’t ... RICHARD: I have never had an exchange with you about emoticons before ... it is the ‘a great amount of communication comes from body language and voice inflection’ topic we have discussed before. RESPONDENT: ... like a heedless child Maybe? RICHARD: No ... like a person cognitively dissonant (hence my remark about an office memo). RESPONDENT: I had seen that word once before. Emoticon – it does Look more proper – but what is the very good reason? Maybe Because it conveys emotion? RICHARD: It does indeed ... it comes from ‘emote’ + ‘icon’. RESPONDENT: Then how might one convey friendliness And respect? RICHARD: By being happy and harmless (free of malice and sorrow).
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 |
