|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 68
(...) CO-RESPONDENT: People born blind have no capacity to form mental images (no imagination) in contrast to acquired blindness, where there still is an ability to imagine. Yet born-blinds have the psyche/ affective faculty still extant, which means that there is no cause and effect relationship between the psyche/ affective faculty and imagination, contradicting Richard’s claim to the contrary. RESPONDENT: Basically a blind person has an affective faculty, but is missing one of its *normal* components – the imaginative faculty. I could ‘lose’ my imagination from a brain injury and still have feelings, however that by no means proves that imagination is not connected to feelings (as it obviously is). RICHARD: Congenitally blind persons do have the capacity for mental imagery (typically audile, haptic, olfactory and
kinaesthetic imagery) and only tend to lack the ability to form visual imagery – there are some apparent exceptions For instance: five examples of the art-work by a congenitally blind person can be viewed at the following URL: www.zoot.net/theviewfromhere/j_cadiz/index.htm Just in case that page is inaccessible here is the accompanying text:
RESPONDENT: When an actualist finds a belief is that ‘enough’ or does one benefit by ‘replacing’ the belief ‘I’m a loser because I fail at blank’ with a sensible cognition like ‘failing at a task doesn’t make one a loser. Thinking about oneself like that is only going to cause pain, so I’m not going to feed that thought. I can be happy w/o blank ... .’ RICHARD: If failing at a task does not make one a loser then what does succeeding at a task not make one?
RESPONDENT: When an actualist finds a belief is that ‘enough’ or does one benefit by ‘replacing’ the belief ‘I’m a loser because I fail at blank’ with a sensible cognition like ‘failing at a task doesn’t make one a loser. Thinking about oneself like that is only going to cause pain, so I’m not going to feed that thought. I can be happy w/o blank ... .’ RICHARD: If failing at a task does not make one a loser then what does succeeding at a task not make one? RESPONDENT: Are you saying that if you tried something and could not do it that you would be stupid, and pathetic (which is what the label ‘loser’; means from my part of earth)? RICHARD: I am only too happy to rephrase my query:
RESPONDENT: Succeeding at a task doesn’t make one anything. RICHARD: Ha ... and judging another to be a loving and compassionate being is to not be judgemental either (yet judging another to be malicious and sorrowful being is), eh? RESPONDENT: Its just the body succeeding at a task. RICHARD: Oh? Since when has a body ever cognised that thinking about itself like that – [quote] ‘I’m a loser because I fail at blank’ [endquote] – is only going to cause pain? RESPONDENT: Why tack on a identity to that? RICHARD: Put succinctly: that pain has no existence here in this actual world. Perhaps a personal anecdote may be explanatory: many years ago, when in the company of three others, the identity then inhabiting the flesh and blood body typing these words was waxing eloquent about what ‘he’ had achieved/what ‘he’ was yet to achieve, thus far, whereupon a person of the ‘thou shalt not be judgemental’ ilk, who had been listening somewhat impatiently, interrupted the flow of experiential knowledgeability rather brusquely so as to (non-judgementally) assert that ‘his’ problem was that ‘he’ saw life in terms of winners and losers ... to which averment ‘he’ replied, with words to the effect, that ‘he’ had no intention whatsoever of allowing blind nature to be the winner. Needless is it to add that, had it not been for that identity’s totally dedicated/utterly devoted pure intent to not have intelligence be the loser, yet again for the umpteenth billionth time, this conversation would not be taking place (and that neither would this mailing list exist either)? By the way ... another thing ‘he’ would stress, over and again, was that one is to be scrupulously honest with oneself if one is to succeed at that task.
RESPONDENT: When an actualist finds a belief is that ‘enough’ or does one benefit by ‘replacing’ the belief ‘I’m a loser because I fail at blank’ with a sensible cognition like ‘failing at a task doesn’t make one a loser. Thinking about oneself like that is only going to cause pain, so I’m not going to feed that thought. I can be happy w/o blank ... .’ RICHARD: If failing at a task does not make one a loser then what does succeeding at a task not make one? RESPONDENT: Are you saying that if you tried something and could not do it that you would be stupid, and pathetic (which is what the label ‘loser’; means from my part of earth)? RICHARD: I am only too happy to rephrase my query: If failing at a task does not make one stupid and pathetic then what does succeeding at a task not make one? RESPONDENT: I’ll admit it here flatly. Sometimes, I just don’t get what your trying to get me to understand. RICHARD: I am asking a very simple question ... perhaps an analogy will demonstrate: two people are playing chess; the person playing white succeeds in the task of checkmating the person playing black/the person playing black fails in the task of checkmating the person playing white; the person playing white, who succeeded in the task, is said to have won the game/the person playing black, who failed in the task, is said to have lost the game; the person having won is said to be the winner/ the person having lost is said to be the loser. Now, and in my initial understanding of the word ‘loser’, if failing at that task does not make the person playing black a loser then what does succeeding at that task not make the person playing white (if not the antonym of that word)? Given that you have since explained that by the word loser you meant stupid and pathetic (antonyms of intelligent/clever and admirable/ excellent) then if failing at a task does not make one stupid and pathetic then what does succeeding at a task not make one (if not intelligent/clever and admirable/excellent)? In other words, how can one evaluate one’s success/failure if [quote] ‘succeeding at a task doesn’t make one anything’ [endquote]? RESPONDENT: Why does any behaviour have to ‘make’ one anything? RICHARD: Since when has having/holding a belief been behaviour? Viz.:
For example:
RESPONDENT: What’s the point in torturing oneself like that? RICHARD: Here is the essence of the question you asked:
What I am asking is does the obverse also hold true? For example:
What is the point of replacing a belief with another belief (albeit disguised as a sensible cognition)? RESPONDENT: And yes, I always remember I’m talking to a certified madman. RICHARD: Well now ... as this certified madman nevertheless not only comprehends the distinction between belief and behaviour but also the difference betwixt emotional pain and bodily pain there may very well be something to be said for a total absence of sanity, eh? * RESPONDENT: Succeeding at a task doesn’t make one anything. RICHARD: Ha ... and judging another to be a loving and compassionate being is to not be judgemental either (yet judging another to be malicious and sorrowful being is), eh? RESPONDENT: I smell (perhaps imaginatively) pin the spiritualist donkey on No. 68 game. RICHARD: No, either modern-day psychotherapy (as in positive affirmations) or folk-lore remedies (look for the good). RESPONDENT: So, your saying determining that one is sorrowful is just a fact, not a judgement? RICHARD: No, determining oneself to be anything is to be appraising/evaluating oneself ... and all such judgment starts the moment one wakes up and continues throughout the day until one goes to sleep. RESPONDENT: Likewise with recognizing one as a loving being. Ok, I think I’m with you there. It is a ascertainment of fact. RICHARD: Here is how your question at the top of this page began:
In a word: yes. In several words: not if the same-same belief keeps cropping up over and again. Put succinctly: when one finds a belief the very seeing that it is a belief is the end of it being a truth; if the same-same belief keeps cropping up, over and again, as a truth then its very nature remains to be seen. In short: what makes a belief a truth is its affective component (as in one’s investment in holding it to be so). * RESPONDENT: Its just the body succeeding at a task. RICHARD: Oh? Since when has a body ever cognised that thinking about itself like that – [quote] ‘I’m a loser because I fail at blank’ [endquote] – is only going to cause pain? RESPONDENT: Um ... ok, it is an identity that cognates that. RICHARD: Aye, and it is identity who dictates behaviour (persuades the body to do and say all manner of things) per favour its beliefs. RESPONDENT: However, it is a reasonable thought to stop treating oneself ‘harshly’ in one’s ‘head’ (i.e. self talk/mental talk). RICHARD: Is it also a reasonable thought to stop treating oneself ‘gently’ in one’s ‘head’ (i.e. self talk/mental talk)? RESPONDENT: I would figure a body sans identity as you would never, ever think ‘I’m pathetic, I’m a loser, I can’t believe how stupid I am ... etc’. RICHARD: A flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto cannot believe, period. RESPONDENT: Its just crazy to think like that. RICHARD: It is crazy (as in foolish) to believe, period. RESPONDENT: Madness. RICHARD: Nope ... it is sanity in action (all over the world billions of people believe in believing). * RESPONDENT: Why tack on a identity to that? RICHARD: Put succinctly: that pain has no existence here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Ah ... are you trying to say that no matter what you think you never suffer? RICHARD: No thought can, of course, ever make me suffer (induce affective pain) ... but that is not what I was saying: you had said that succeeding at a task does not make one anything/it is just the body succeeding at a task/why tack an identity onto to that despite the fact that only an identity can generate that pain (affective suffering). RESPONDENT: I understand that, but what I think about my self can indeed cause me to suffer. RICHARD: Indeed ... thus succeeding at a task does make one something/it is not just the body succeeding at a task/an identity is not being tacked onto the body. * RICHARD: Perhaps a personal anecdote may be explanatory: many years ago, when in the company of three others, the identity then inhabiting the flesh and blood body typing these words was waxing eloquent about what ‘he’ had achieved/what ‘he’ was yet to achieve, thus far, whereupon a person of the ‘thou shalt not be judgemental’ ilk, who had been listening somewhat impatiently, interrupted the flow of experiential knowledgeability rather brusquely so as to (non-judgementally) assert that ‘his’ problem was that ‘he’ saw life in terms of winners and losers ... to which averment ‘he’ replied, with words to the effect, that ‘he’ had no intention whatsoever of allowing blind nature to be the winner. RESPONDENT: Was it ‘you’ or him who said ‘he’ had no intention whatsoever of allowing blind nature to be the winner’? RICHARD: So as not to get lost in a mind-field of scare-quotes: this flesh and blood body did not say or do anything ... it was the identity within who did all the work. RESPONDENT: Basically you used the urge to be a winner to make the human condition the ‘loser’? RICHARD: To succeed where no-one had succeeded previously the identity in residence all those years ago desired success like it had never been desired before. * RICHARD: Needless is it to add that, had it not been for that identity’s totally dedicated/utterly devoted pure intent to not have intelligence be the loser, yet again for the umpteenth billionth time, this conversation would not be taking place (and that neither would this mailing list exist either)? RESPONDENT: Intelligence won and your identity ‘lost’, right? RICHARD: No, blind nature lost ... the identity got precisely what ‘he’ wanted more than anything else (the blessed release into oblivion) thereby allowing intelligence to operate unimpeded. * RICHARD: By the way ... another thing ‘he’ would stress, over and again, was that one is to be scrupulously honest with oneself if one is to succeed at that task. RESPONDENT: This is part of my problem as it is easy to not see my own self-deception. I figure having a more systematic ‘method’ of inquiry could help with that, but perhaps I’m mistaken. RICHARD: The actualism method is an Any and all enquiry has far more chance of success when one is back on track again. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: When an actualist finds a belief is that ‘enough’ or does one benefit by ‘replacing’ the belief ‘I’m a loser because I fail at blank’ with a sensible cognition like ‘failing at a task doesn’t make one a loser. Thinking about oneself like that is only going to cause pain, so I’m not going to feed that thought. I can be happy w/o blank ... .’ RICHARD: If failing at a task does not make one a loser then what does succeeding at a task not make one? RESPONDENT: Are you saying that if you tried something and could not do it that you would be stupid, and pathetic (which is what the label ‘loser’; means from my part of earth)? RICHARD: I am only too happy to rephrase my query: if failing at a task does not make one stupid and pathetic then what does succeeding at a task not make one? RESPONDENT: I’ll admit it here flatly. Sometimes, I just don’t get what your trying to get me to understand. RICHARD: I am asking a very simple question ... perhaps an analogy will demonstrate: two people are playing chess; the person playing white succeeds in the task of checkmating the person playing black/the person playing black fails in the task of checkmating the person playing white; the person playing white, who succeeded in the task, is said to have won the game/the person playing black, who failed in the task, is said to have lost the game; the person having won is said to be the winner/the person having lost is said to be the loser. Now, and in my initial understanding of the word ‘loser’, if failing at that task does not make the person playing black a loser then what does succeeding at that task not make the person playing white (if not the antonym of that word)? RESPONDENT: One could say he is the winner and the other chap the loser, yes. RICHARD: As that is not what I am asking I will put it this way: as you say it is a sensible cognition, that failing at a task does not make one a loser, then is it also a sensible cognition that succeeding at a task does not make one a winner? There is nothing mysterious about what I am getting at ... all I want to know is whether, according to cognitive therapists/cognitive psychology, the obverse also holds true and, if so, is thinking about oneself like that only going to cause pleasure (inasmuch one will not keep feeding that thought but instead be happy without what one succeeded at). For example:
* RICHARD: What is the point of replacing a belief with another belief (albeit disguised as a sensible cognition)? RESPONDENT: Ah ... they are both beliefs? RICHARD: First of all, it was you who said that being a loser because of failing at a task is a belief, was it not? Viz.:
All that remains to be seen now is whether [quote] ‘failing at a task doesn’t make one a loser’ [endquote] is a belief cunningly disguised as a truth (by renaming it a sensible cognition) so as to render invisible the very facticity of being a loser by craftily seeing it to be a truth that [quote] ‘I’m a loser because I fail at blank’ [endquote] is a belief and not a fact. Were this to be seen, for yourself and by yourself, then it will be patently obvious that the belief being replaced by a belief is the belief about the truth of there being no facticity to being a loser and the belief which is replacing that belief is the belief that the truth about failure not begetting a loser being a sensible cognition (rather than a belief cunningly disguised as a truth). This may be an apt place to point out something I have oft-times observed: peoples who have clued themselves up about the many and various psycho-therapies (be they either spiritualists or materialists has made little difference) invariably doubly-complicate matters by layering a second layer of deceit over the normal human deceit yet all the while considering themselves to be a cut above the average. To put it in the jargon: they become far too clever by half for their own good * RESPONDENT: I would figure a body sans identity as you would never, ever think ‘I’m pathetic, I’m a loser, I can’t believe how stupid I am ... etc’. RICHARD: A flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto cannot believe, period. RESPONDENT: Ok, yes. No *feeling backed* thoughts for you. Got it, but how for me to get there in the mean time without treating myself harshly is what I’m wondering about. RICHARD: Simple: take the affective component (stupid and pathetic) back out of the word loser so as to restore it to its original meaning. Viz.:
Both winning and losing are a fact of life ... nobody, but nobody, can be a winner all of the time, at all things, on all occasions, without exception.
RICHARD: Both winning and losing are a fact of life ... nobody, but nobody, can be a winner all of the time, at all things, on all occasions, without exception. RESPONDENT: I see. That is a basic, simple, common sense, matter of fact way of seeing it. And yet I barely was able to discern that that was what you were getting at. Interesting. RICHARD: The word ‘loser’ does not have anywhere near the same connotations in this neck of the woods (at least not for my generation anyway) as it does in your part of the world ... whereas the word ‘failure’ (as in ‘I am a failure’) does. Speaking personally, and by any objective criteria, I am a failure big-time: I was a high-school dropout; I was a wartime
coward/a peacetime pacifist; I was still a teenager when first married/my first marriage was a shotgun wedding; I had a mental breakdown/identity
crisis in my early thirties; I lost my sanity, my wife, my family, my house, my car, my business, my career; I was a homeless person for five
years/a bare-footed vagrant sleeping rough; I remarried only to lose my second wife, after the loss of insanity, of identity, of feelings, of
reality, of truth, due to the total and permanent incapacity to be loving/ compassionate and/or affectionate/ empathetic; I am classified as
suffering from a chronic and incurable psychotic disorder/ I am derealised, depersonalised, alexithymic, anhedonic What a failure (a loser) I am, eh? * RICHARD: Here is how your question at the top of this page began: [Respondent]: ‘When an actualist finds a belief is that ‘enough’ ...? [endquote]. In a word: yes. RESPONDENT: Ok! I thought so. Just seems to simple! RICHARD: Aye ... I have often said that it is pure intent which does most of the work (which is not to deny the value of nutting things out). * RICHARD: In several words: not if the same-same belief keeps cropping up over and again. RESPONDENT: Ok, one needs to investigate it more if it keeps coming up. RICHARD: The identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago was wont to say, whenever ‘he’ would get a bit cocky about being on top of it all, that an everyday life situation would invariably tap ‘him’ behind the knees, so to speak, and bring ‘him’ back down-to-earth ... and that, furthermore, life was very good at doing just that. You see, that is because actualism is all about being actual (and not about going on a therapeutical mind-game/a metaphysical heart-trip where anything goes). * RICHARD: Put succinctly: when one finds a belief the very seeing that it is a belief is the end of it being a truth; if the same-same belief keeps cropping up, over and again, as a truth then its very nature remains to be seen. RESPONDENT: One must then keep digging for core beliefs. RICHARD: As a general rule of thumb: anything with a sticker reading ‘this is a truth; do not remove’ plastered over it is always well worth a second look. * RICHARD: In short: what makes a belief a truth is its affective component (as in one’s investment in holding it to be so). RESPONDENT: Ok, makes sense. Basically, just a simple ‘negative’ thought may cause little disturbance in me if I don’t really believe it much, while a seemingly less ‘negative’ thought could really get me upset because deep down I believe it more intensely? RICHARD: So much so as to have it be (turn it into) a truth, yes. * RICHARD: By the way ... another thing ‘he’ [the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago] would stress, over and again, was that one is to be scrupulously honest with oneself if one is to succeed at that task. RESPONDENT: This is part of my problem as it is easy to not see my own self-deception. I figure having a more systematic ‘method’ of inquiry could help with that, but perhaps I’m mistaken. RICHARD: The actualism method is an RESPONDENT: And I should have had that in mind all along! We’ve been here before. And yet, I’ve always had the impression that *inquiry* was very much a part of the method as well. but if I understand you correctly then attentiveness, sensuousness, and apperceptiveness *are* the actualism method. so, inquiry ‘merely’ helps clear away the garbage (beliefs) so sensuousness can become apperceptiveness? RICHARD: Any investigation/ examination is so as to not have a particular belief/truth habitually trigger off yet another bout of the same-old same-old and thus take one away from being as happy and as harmless (as free from both malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) as is humanly possible at this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive). * RICHARD: ... [the actualism method is an awareness-cum-attentiveness method RESPONDENT: Ok. good. So, if I got it right, you’re saying getting back to feeling good, then excellent, which becoming a more stable condition allows for the possibility of the ‘big event’ to happen and investigating beliefs is only necessary insofar as that works toward that ultimate goal? RICHARD: Aye ... the purpose of applying the method, which the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago both devised and put into full effect, is two-fold – to be of an immediate benefit (an ongoing affective felicity/ innocuity) and an ultimate benefaction (an enduring actual felicity/ innocuity) – and is thus a win-win situation inasmuch as in the meanwhile, if the ultimate be yet to come about, a virtual freedom is way, way beyond normal human expectations. I cannot stress enough how, with a virtual freedom being more or less the norm worldwide, global amity and equity would be an on-going state of affairs. * RICHARD: Any and all enquiry has far more chance of success when one is back on track again. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: That is still good advice. I’ll go back at it again. And it has saved me much wasted time as well. RICHARD: As you have just recently asked elsewhere for a specific example of replacing a belief with a fact (which may be better put as a specific example of how seeing a fact displaces a belief/a truth) then here is an obvious one which serves well as a template:
* RICHARD: Viz.: [Richard to Respondent]: ‘(...) It is a question, not a phrase to be memorised and repeated slogan-like (or as if chanting a mantra for instance), and it soon becomes a non-verbal attitude to life ... a wordless approach each moment again whereupon one cannot be anything else but [affectively] aware of one’s every instinctual impulse/ affective feeling, and thus self-centred thought, as it is happening. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: That was helpful as well. So one’s attentiveness must always be ‘scanning’ the belly/ chest/ throat/ face area for feelings? RICHARD: No, all it takes is to be aware of/ attentive to the slightest diminishment of whatever degree of felicity/innocuity one is currently experiencing. RESPONDENT: What about when one is absorbed in the visual experience (like a mini PCE)? RICHARD: Again, attentiveness to any diminishment of whatever degree of felicity/innocuity one is currently experiencing is all it takes. RESPONDENT: At that time one’s attention would only be lightly (if at all) on any small emotional occurrences in the chest per say. RICHARD: With practise even the slightest diminishment of whatever degree of felicity/ innocuity one is currently experiencing is unavoidably noticed, and thus attended to forthwith, so as to recommence feeling felicitous/innocuous sooner rather than later. RESPONDENT: Basically attentiveness (to feelings in chest) and sensuousness (to visual field, air on skin, etc.) seem to be similar yet have different ‘areas’ of focus. It seems that I can only do one well at a time, yet I get the impression that you’d say *both* must occur simultaneously for anything *substantial* to take place in my very nature. Am I correct? RICHARD: Nope ... all it takes is to be aware of/ attentive to the quality of the felicity/innocuity one is currently experiencing and, with the pure intent born of naiveté, the requisite noticing of/attending to happens virtually of its own accord. And the key to unlocking naiveté is sincerity, pure and simple.
(...) RESPONDENT: (...) So one’s attentiveness must always be ‘scanning’ the belly/ chest/ throat/ face area for feelings? RICHARD: No, all it takes is to be aware of/ attentive to the slightest diminishment of whatever degree of felicity/ innocuity one is currently experiencing. RESPONDENT: So its a more general ‘attentiveness’ rather than a specific bodily attentiveness to the chest? RICHARD: No, it is an attentiveness to the quality of whatever felicity/innocuity it is that one is currently experiencing (as any diminishment of same will automatically direct attention to the reason for such). * RICHARD: With practise even the slightest diminishment of whatever degree of felicity/ innocuity one is currently experiencing is unavoidably noticed, and thus attended to forthwith, so as to recommence feeling felicitous/innocuous sooner rather than later. RESPONDENT: This kind of attentiveness sounds more like awareness (a more relaxed, general, yet alert awareness, rather than a focused, more one pointed attentiveness). RICHARD: As I have never used the term ‘one pointed’ (or ‘one-pointed’) you can only be referring to someone else’s method. * RESPONDENT: Basically attentiveness (to feelings in chest) and sensuousness (to visual field, air on skin, etc.) seem to be similar yet have different ‘areas’ of focus. It seems that I can only do one well at a time, yet I get the impression that you’d say *both* must occur simultaneously for anything *substantial* to take place in my very nature. Am I correct? RICHARD: Nope ... all it takes is to be aware of / attentive to the quality of the felicity/innocuity one is currently experiencing and, with the pure intent born of naiveté, the requisite noticing of/attending to happens virtually of its own accord. RESPONDENT: Hmm ... it seems I have some experimentation to do. RICHARD: Obviously (else you would never have asked whether finding a belief were enough in the first place). * RICHARD: And the key to unlocking naiveté is sincerity, pure and simple. RESPONDENT: Can one ‘try’ to be more sincere? Curious. RICHARD: Sincerity, or any expansion thereof, is not a matter of trying: anybody can be sincere (about anything) – all it takes is seeing the fact (of anything) – and in this instance the perspicuous awareness of blind nature’s legacy being the arch-crippler of intelligence ensures one stays true to/correctly aligned with that (that very factuality/ facticity seen). And which (being aligned with factuality/ staying true to facticity) is what being sincere
RESPONDENT: I think I have found perhaps why some struggle with this method. 1) unless like Vineeto and Peter you have a history of training of the attention (i.e. meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation) your control over your attention will likely not be stable enough to usefully examine feelings and beliefs. RICHARD: There is, of course, a major flaw in your thought ... to wit: the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, had no history whatsoever of attention-training (as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation). Viz.:
RESPONDENT: One could benefit in practicing attentiveness sitting down with a simple focus like the darkness you see when you close your eyes. RICHARD: Or, alternatively, one could ask oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) whilst going about one’s normal everyday life. RESPONDENT: After you gain some control over your attention you could start practicing attentiveness to a not to changed belief before you move on to bigger stuff. RICHARD: Or, alternatively, one could be attentive to whatever felicity/ innocuity one is currently experiencing because, with practise, even the slightest diminishment of that happiness/harmlessness is then unavoidably noticed, and thus attended to forthwith, so as to recommence feeling felicitous/innocuous sooner rather than later. RESPONDENT: After you get good at this you could work on attaining a degree of apperceptiveness. RICHARD: Hmm ... in a manner somewhat similar to being partly pregnant, perchance? RESPONDENT: Once you can do that somewhat you could then delve in experientially to feelings that are seemingly not really tied to thoughts. By fully experiencing them with apperceptiveness one can begin to disempower then more and more until they minimise from non-use. RICHARD: In actualism the term ‘apperception’ refers to unmediated perception – and for perception to be unmediated it needs to be sans mediator (aka without identity) – and as an identity is its feelings (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) there are no feelings to experientially delve into/fully experience apperceptively ... let alone disempower until minimised from disuse. RESPONDENT: Basically I think ‘actualism’ asks too much for many people. RICHARD: Whereas the actualism on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site asks very little ... so little as to appear simplistic to some. For instance:
In a nutshell: to the cultured sophisticate RESPONDENT: Some training in attentiveness could be helpful. Those with experience or with a ‘knack’ for this kind of thing would not of course. RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well the identity in residence all those years ago never had you to advise ‘him’ (else this conversation would not be taking place), eh?
RESPONDENT: I think I have found perhaps why some struggle with this method. 1) unless like Vineeto and Peter you have a history of training of the attention (i.e. meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation) your control over your attention will likely not be stable enough to usefully examine feelings and beliefs. RICHARD: There is, of course, a major flaw in your thought ... to wit: the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, had no history whatsoever of attention-training (as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation). RESPONDENT: Yes, I knew that, which is why I referred to Peter and Vineeto instead. To be objective, it has not been determined that you are not a freak of nature yet. RICHARD: Surely you are not suggesting that the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, was a freak of nature just because ‘he’ required no attention-training – as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation – before both devising and putting into effect what has nowadays become known as the actualism method (being acutely conscious [i.e., affectively aware] as to how one is experiencing each and every moment of being alive)? Look, ‘he’ was just a simple boy from the farm (not at all sophisticated) and what ‘he’ set about doing, consciously and with knowledge aforethought, was to deliberately imitate the actual – as experienced six months prior in a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) – each moment again for as far as was humanly possible ... and there is nothing freakish about that, quite prosaic, action of consciously channelling all ‘his’ affective energy into the felicitous/ innocuous feelings whilst simultaneously being conscious [i.e., affectively aware] of the slightest diminution of such felicity/ innocuity. Indeed, as success begets success it becomes so laughably easy, to be happy and harmless, one does wonder what all the fuss is about.
RESPONDENT: I think I have found perhaps why some struggle with this method. 1) unless like Vineeto and Peter you have a history of training of the attention (i.e. meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation) your control over your attention will likely not be stable enough to usefully examine feelings and beliefs. RICHARD: There is, of course, a major flaw in your thought ... to wit: the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, had no history whatsoever of attention-training (as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation). RESPONDENT: Yes, I knew that, which is why I referred to Peter and Vineeto instead. To be objective, it has not been determined that you are not a freak of nature yet. RICHARD: Surely you are not suggesting that the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, was a freak of nature just because ‘he’ required no attention-training – as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation – before both devising and putting into effect what has nowadays become known as the actualism method (being acutely conscious [i.e., affectively aware] as to how one is experiencing each and every moment of being alive)? Look, ‘he’ was just a simple boy from the farm (not at all sophisticated) and what ‘he’ set about doing, consciously and with knowledge aforethought, was to deliberately imitate the actual – as experienced six months prior in a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) – each moment again for as far as was humanly possible ... and there is nothing freakish about that, quite prosaic, action of consciously channelling all ‘his’ affective energy into the felicitous/ innocuous feelings whilst simultaneously being conscious [i.e., affectively aware] of the slightest diminution of such felicity/ innocuity. Indeed, as success begets success it becomes so laughably easy, to be happy and harmless, one does wonder what all the fuss is about. RESPONDENT No. 60: The way Richard put it, it sounded like he was able to simply *choose* the way he felt, and seemed surprised that others could not. RESPONDENT: It does sort of give that impression. RICHARD: It does far more than merely give that impression ... it is precisely what I am saying. For a recent instance:
If then choosing to be as happy and as harmless (as free of both malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) as was humanly possible thus makes the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, a freak of nature then so too is my current companion as she comprehended right from the beginning that it is her choice, and her choice alone, each moment again as to how she prefers to experience this moment of being alive (the only moment she is ever alive) ... and which would also make my previous companion a freak of nature as well (not forgetting to mention, of course and for the very reason of it being topical, both Peter and Vineeto too). Incidentally, the identity in residence in 1981 was not surprised that others could not but, rather, that others would not (having a victim mentality, it turned out, ran much deeper than the singular mentation such nomenclature indicates). Much, much deeper ... so much so as to be past fixation, entrenchment, and well into being an impressment, an embedment bordering on an embodiment. RESPONDENT: Interestingly ‘the option method’ is built upon the premise that one can choose at any moment happiness ... interesting. RICHARD: ‘Tis not a [quote] ‘premise’ [endquote] that one can choose to be as happy (and as harmless) as is
humanly possible each moment again – it is experientially evident that it be possible – and the main thrust of the actualism method is to be
[affectively] aware of the quality of such felicity and innocuity, via enjoyment and appreciation of simply being so delightfully alive at this
very moment (the only moment which is dynamic), inasmuch the slightest diminishment thereof is unavoidably noticed as to occasion an immediate
attendance to whatever caused that diminution It all depends upon whether one is going to continue to be a victim of one’s moods or a victor – or, in the jargon, whether one is going to take charge of one’s life, in this regard, or not – and, yes, that too is a choice. Your felicity and innocuity, or lack thereof, is in your hands and your hands alone.
RESPONDENT: I think I have found perhaps why some struggle with this method. 1) unless like Vineeto and Peter you have a history of training of the attention (i.e. meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation) your control over your attention will likely not be stable enough to usefully examine feelings and beliefs. RICHARD: There is, of course, a major flaw in your thought ... to wit: the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, had no history whatsoever of attention-training (as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation). RESPONDENT: Yes, I knew that, which is why I referred to Peter and Vineeto instead. To be objective, it has not been determined that you are not a freak of nature yet. RICHARD: Surely you are not suggesting that the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, was a freak of nature just because ‘he’ required no attention-training – as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation – before both devising and putting into effect what has nowadays become known as the actualism method (being acutely conscious [i.e., affectively aware] as to how one is experiencing each and every moment of being alive)? RESPONDENT: I’m sure you’re aware that certain folks have highly developed aptitudes that others don’t? RICHARD: The identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, had no highly developed aptitude for * RICHARD: Look, ‘he’ was just a simple boy from the farm (not at all sophisticated) and what ‘he’ set about doing, consciously and with knowledge aforethought, was to deliberately imitate the actual – as experienced six months prior in a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) – each moment again for as far as was humanly possible ... and there is nothing freakish about that, quite prosaic, action of consciously channelling all ‘his’ affective energy into the felicitous/ innocuous feelings whilst simultaneously being conscious of the slightest diminution of such felicity/ innocuity. Indeed, as success begets success it becomes so laughably easy, to be happy and harmless, one does wonder what all the fuss is about. RESPONDENT: Oh I don’t doubt others can do this your way, but it seems others undoubtingly need something else. RICHARD: I can say this much: the something else which those others you refer to do not need is a history of
attention-training (as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation) ... if anything they need to unlearn/ discard all of those
tried and failed disciplines And unless/ until that much is crystal-clear there is no point in discussing just what the something else was, which the identity in residence circa the ‘eighties decade had in abundance, which those others you refer to may very well be in need of.
RESPONDENT: Richard, from recent correspondence with you its been pointed out that I’ve misused the word apperception. Here is a dialog between me and another which raises some questions that I have no ready answer to.
It’s funny that I never really questioned the ‘mind being aware of mind’ thing much. RICHARD: You may find the following to be of interest:
There is nothing mystical about a mind perceiving itself – it is simply a matter of a living brain, sans identity in toto, being conscious of being conscious/ being aware of being aware – that there need be any question whatsoever about what the nature is of that which is aware of being aware/ that which is conscious of being conscious ... unless, of course, one is unable/ incapable or unwilling/ disinclined to discern the difference between consciousness (the state or condition of a body being conscious) and identity (the genetically-inherited instinctual passions in action).
RESPONDENT: Richard, I was wondering if you have experientially noticed whether or not your body responds more favourably towards certain foods. It would seem common sense to me that if one is serious about becoming free one would want all the vitality possible in order to fuel this pursuit. RICHARD: I have indeed noticed whether or not I respond more favourably towards certain foods (in terms of being able to have all the vitality possible in order to become actually free from the human condition) .... else I would never have written the following:
I expressly mentioned what provides all the vitality possible (‘energises’ = ‘vitalises’) only the day before you posted this e-mail I am responding to:
And the following has been re-posted twice this week by others (‘vivacity’ = ‘vitality’):
RESPONDENT: Richard, I was wondering if you have experientially noticed whether or not your body responds more favourably towards certain foods. It would seem common sense to me that if one is serious about becoming free one would want all the vitality possible in order to fuel this pursuit. RICHARD: I have indeed noticed whether or not I respond more favourably towards certain foods (in terms of being able to have all the vitality possible in order to become actually free from the human condition) .... else I would never have written the following:
I expressly mentioned what provides all the vitality possible (‘energises’ = ‘vitalises’) only the day before you posted this e-mail I am responding to:
And the following has been re-posted twice this week by others (‘vivacity’ = ‘vitality’):
RESPONDENT: One thing that I have found is it is indeed ‘pure intent’ that makes the difference between ‘stunning success’ and ‘so-so success’ in my practice of the actualism method. RICHARD: The pure intent to ... to what? RESPONDENT: Sometimes my intent is a bit grey. RICHARD: Why is your intent sometimes a bit grey ... is it because of having lapsed from a [quote] ‘whole foods’ [endquote] diet into eating processed meat and pasteurised/homogenised dairy products (for instance) or is it because it has waned-declined and/or flagged-deteriorated and/or faded-degenerated and/or decayed-disappeared through the lack of having that ‘magic elixir’ (one’s destiny) inexorably drawing one on, like a moth to a candle, in the first place? (...) RESPONDENT: I am surprised that your body seemingly is equally vital, no matter what you ingest (that is what I gather from your above requotes). RICHARD: I never said that I was equally vital (seemingly or otherwise) no matter what I ingest ... I was speaking in terms of an identity having [quote] ‘all the vitality possible’ [endquote], in order for an actual freedom from the human condition to come about, as I was answering your query to that very effect. To explain: the identity in residence all those years ago had me ingest all manner of different diets (such as vegetarianism, veganism, and fruitarianism, for instance), in place of the common or garden variety of omnivorism prevalent in mainstream western societies, and it made absolutely no difference – none whatsoever – in regards to ‘him’ having [quote] ‘all the vitality possible’ [endquote] so as to bring about an actual freedom from the human condition for me. In other words, ‘he’ could have put me on a bread-and-water diet (as in solitary confinement in some insalubrious penitentiary) and yet, because there was that ‘magic elixir’ energising the means, ‘he’ would still have had all the vitality necessary – bucket-loads of it in fact – in order for an actual freedom from the human condition to come about for me Put simply: ‘you’ are not the body ‘you’ are inhabiting – never have been and never will be – despite any and all attempts to identify as same. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Just so that there is no misunderstanding:
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
RESPONDENT: At a raw food potluck, after someone asked me ‘what percent raw’ are you, and me answering that I’m neither vegan (I eat meat) nor a raw foodist (I eat cooked and raw food), I was dubbed a ‘cooked foodist’. That really clarified the whole ‘ist’ furphy even more for me. All of us who drive to work are ‘drivists’ etc . All us who eat are ‘foodists’. This shows that a ‘ist’ truly does not have to involve any dogma or belief whatsoever (of course, any sensible person already knows that, but I still found this little incident interesting nonetheless). A ‘ist’ can simply be an activity one does. Such as a actualist – ie one who applies attentiveness with the pure intent to end malice and sorrow in themselves. RICHARD: Copy-paste the following into the search-engine box at www.onelook.com/ ... the entire range, from abacist (a person who makes calculations with an abacus), to zymurgist (a person who studies the chemical process of fermentation in brewing and distilling) runs into the thousands:
There is the occasional oddity ... for example:
Even though it is probably nothing more than the Oxford Dons just having an off-day, when they penned that definition, I cannot resist ... I hereby declare myself to be an unabacist/ an unzymurgist.
RESPONDENT: At a raw food potluck, after someone asked me ‘what percent raw’ are you, and me answering that I’m neither vegan (I eat meat) nor a raw foodist (I eat cooked and raw food), I was dubbed a ‘cooked foodist’. That really clarified the whole ‘ist’ furphy even more for me. All of us who drive to work are ‘drivists’ etc . All us who eat are ‘foodists’. This shows that a ‘ist’ truly does not have to involve any dogma or belief whatsoever (of course, any sensible person already knows that, but I still found this little incident interesting nonetheless). A ‘ist’ can simply be an activity one does. Such as a actualist – ie one who applies attentiveness with the pure intent to end malice and sorrow in themselves. RICHARD: Copy-paste the following into the search-engine box at www.onelook.com/ ... the entire range, from abacist (a person who makes calculations with an abacus), to zymurgist (a person who studies the chemical process of fermentation in brewing and distilling) runs into the thousands:
There is the occasional oddity ... for example:
Even though it is probably nothing more than the Oxford Dons just having an off-day, when they penned that definition, I cannot resist ... I hereby declare myself to be an unabacist/ an unzymurgist. RESPONDENT: They had a interesting definition of Actualist: n. One who deals with or considers actually existing facts and conditions, rather than fancies or theories; – opposed to idealist. [Source: Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.]. RICHARD: That definition is sourced from a 1913 Webster’s Dictionary and, whilst more or less relating to the modern-day usage of the word realist – as derived from ‘realism: concern for fact or reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary’ (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary) in 1817 – it has, by and large, been superseded by the 1936 coinage of the word factualist (as derived from ‘factualism: an adherence or dedication to facts’) … neither of which are at all related to the now rare definition (according to the Oxford Dictionary) of an actualist as being an advocate of the theory that nothing is merely passive. Having been both a duly-qualified art teacher and an artist – ‘a person who cultivates or practises one of the fine arts, now esp. painting’ (Oxford Dictionary) – for the period in my life immediately preceding the indelible four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) in 1980, which enabled this actual world to be memorably apparent, those dogma or belief connotations you referred to further above, which append to some of the words with the suffixes ‘-ist’ and ‘-ism’, were never a feature for me … indeed the very word artist, just like the word pianist or scientist (for instance), simply refers to a specific activity. RESPONDENT: And ism: ‘The English suffix -ism was first used to form a noun of action from a verb. It is taken from the Greek suffix -ismos that likewise forms abstract nouns from verbal stems. An example is baptism, from Greek baptismos ‘immersion’, derived from baptizein, a Greek verb meaning ‘to immerse’. Its usage was later extended to signify larger organized systems and concepts – in belief, ideology, doctrine, and ritual practice. The first recorded usage of the suffix ism as a separate word in its own right was in 1680. By the nineteenth century it was being used by Thomas Carlyle to signify a pre-packaged ideology. It was later used in this sense by such writers as Julian Huxley and George Bernard Shaw. In the present day, it appears in the title of a standard survey of political thought, Today’s ISMS by William Ebenstein, first published in the 1950s, and now in its 11th edition. Many isms are defined as an act or practice by some, while also being defined as the doctrine or philosophy behind the act or practice by others. Examples include activism, altruism, despotism, elitism, optimism, sexism and terrorism’. [endquote]. RICHARD: And even though it is clearly stated that many isms are just defined as an act or practice there are those who
attempt to get mileage out the word actualism, as it is used on The Actual Freedom Trust web site I kid you not. RESPONDENT: I confess to be a unalienist. Recant! RICHARD: Ha … and whilst freely acknowledging being a colloquist – one engaging in discourse or dialogue (an act of conversing either spoken or written) – I have no intention of renouncing that activity. Nor is there any chance of ceasing to be a nullibist … or a nullifidian
(...) RICHARD: Nor is there any chance of [me] ceasing to be a nullibist … or a nullifidian RESPONDENT: There was a time when I could still go back to them spiritual days, but alas, that door is forever closed. Heretic am I, hear me roar. RICHARD: As there is no spirit (aka incorporeal being) here in this actual world there is no such door for this nullibist. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: So, being that your obviously the antichrist ... RICHARD: Ha ... as the scriptural text (1 John 4: 1-3) which specifically refers to ‘antichristou’ (literally ‘instead of the anointed one’) delineates such a being as ‘pneuma’ (aka spirit) your apostatical bellowing is not really worth hearing. RESPONDENT: ... [being that your obviously the antichrist] you’ve got some work ahead of you before you can lead the world into darkness ... RICHARD: As the scriptural text (1 John 2: 10-11) which specifically refers to ‘antichristos’ (literally ‘instead of the spirit who anoints’) clearly describes being in that (spiritual) darkness as hating one’s fellow human being – instead of loving them and thus being in the (spiritual) light – it would appear that some fleshing-out of just what the third alternative (an actual intimacy) is may be in order. Here is what the ‘null’ of the word nullify can mean:
When the affective being inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago altruistically ‘self’-immolated, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body, the ability to either feel loving/hateful or to lead others into feeling same was similarly nullified/ annulled/ cancelled/ made void/ reduced to nothing/ destroyed/ effaced completely. Put succinctly: as there is no separative ‘being’ whatsoever in this flesh and blood body there is no separation to be bridged via the affections. RESPONDENT: ... (108 Correspondents isn’t going to cut it). RICHARD: Presuming that you are referring to the (current) number of subscribers to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing
list this is an apt place to point out that (a) quite possibly up to half of those currently subscribed have forgotten they ever did To pay any heed at all to a myopic analysis of the on-line influence of actualism
(...) RESPONDENT: [Heretic am I, hear me roar]. So, being that your obviously the antichrist ... RICHARD: Ha ... as the scriptural text (1 John 4: 1-3) which specifically refers to ‘antichristou’ (literally ‘instead of the anointed one’) delineates such a being as ‘pneuma’ (aka spirit) your apostatical bellowing is not really worth hearing. RESPONDENT: Oh, quite the contrary dearest Richard. No antichristos worth his salt would show himself as ‘spirit’. Too easy for the fundamentalists to warn everyone. RICHARD: As such a being does have to be spirit (aka pneuma) in the first place, so as to be able to not show itself as such, your contrariness has no substance whatsoever. RESPONDENT: If there ever was a antichristos, you would be indeed perfect as you hold out a secular, atheist path to the total elimination of all suffering ... RICHARD: As the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition has, as its blessed conclusion RESPONDENT: ... (making spirituality, let alone religion and God totally unnecessary). As a former Christian, I can think of nothing more insidious than that! RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well you are not a former Muslim else you would be heretically roaring about Dajjal (literally ‘the deceiver’) ... or maybe about Mara, if formerly Buddhist, or perhaps even about Maya, if formerly Hindu, and so on and so forth, through all the many variations on the divine/diabolical (delusory/deceptive) alternative. There is neither duality nor non-duality in this actual world (the sensate world) ... it being so pure and perfect nothing ‘dirty’can ever gain an entrance here. (...) RESPONDENT: I must confess, that I’m not sure at this point that you understood my original ‘antichrist’ post as a joke! RICHARD: As I expressly prefaced my response with [quote] ‘Ha ...’ [endquote] your unsurety is incongruous. Viz.:
(...) RESPONDENT: I’m curious as to what Richard, Peter or Vineeto might have to say about this ‘Images In PCE’ thread. RICHARD: Where imagination is operating in a peak experience – including forming images/ picturing in the mind’s eye – it is not, or is no longer, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) as the imaginative/ intuitive facility, intrinsic to the affective faculty, has no existence in actuality. Put simply: unless identity is in total abeyance there is no way it can be a PCE. Continued on Mailing List ‘D’: No. 12
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 |
