On The Actual Freedom Mailing List
With Correspondent No. 72
RESPONDENT: I’ve come across a lot of stuff over the last several months, the actual freedom stuff included in the lot. Here’s a link to something that might go along with it. I’d like to know from you actualists out there if this seems like a method that would fit in with the endorsed way of working toward actual freedom; deals with an ‘original belief’ in the brain.
RICHARD: Rather than being a method of working toward an actual freedom from the human condition Mr. Wolfgang Bernard’s ‘Original Belief© Process’ is a method of working away from it … 180 degrees in the opposite direction, in fact.
RESPONDENT: Here it is ... www.wbern.firstream.net/. Read one of the top 2 articles to get the gist.
RICHARD: Okay … here is the gist of the first article, then:
An actual freedom from the human condition is what ensues when [quote] ‘our innermost being’ [endquote] altruistically ‘self’-immolates for the benefit of this body and that body and every body … which means that [quote] ‘the dimension of pre-sensory perception’ [endquote] also ceases to exist.
‘Twas but a massive delusion … which, incidentally, has held humankind in thralldom for millennia.
RESPONDENT: I don’t really understand what motivates you to sit at the computer constructing the website and corresponding with people like me.
RICHARD: Put succinctly it is benevolence (a munificent well-wishing) ... the etymological root of the word benevolent is the Latin ‘benne velle’ (meaning ‘wish well’). And well-wishing stems from fellowship regard – like species recognise like species throughout the animal world – for we are all fellow human beings and have the capacity for what is called ‘theory of mind’.
RESPONDENT: It can’t be out of pride that you broadcast your findings – that would be far too ironic.
RICHARD: It has nothing to do with irony that it is not ‘out of pride’ … there is no trace of either pride or its companion-in-arms (humility) whatsoever in this flesh and blood body.
RESPONDENT: It can’t be out of boredom, because for the actualist the moment is too rich to allow for boredom.
RICHARD: ‘Tis impossible to ever be bored, here in this actual world, as everything is novel, fresh, always new.
RESPONDENT: I don’t suppose it’s compassionate proselytising, for compassion reeks of instinctual impulse.
RICHARD: As there is neither sorrow nor its antidotal compassion anywhere to be found in this flesh and blood body there is, correspondingly, no urge at all to proselytise.
RESPONDENT: If it’s to establish a pure school of thought that won’t be watered down in a thousand directions ... well, what’s the point, really?
RICHARD: As actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is not a ‘school of thought’ (be it pure or not is besides the point) any speculation about such is irrelevant.
RESPONDENT: I mean, you are going to die; that legacy doesn’t have anything to do with ‘now’ …
RICHARD: If I may interject? There is only now … have you never noticed that it is never not this moment?
RESPONDENT: … [you are going to die; that legacy doesn’t have anything to do with ‘now’]; human beings will continue to be born as instinctually driven human beings …
RICHARD: If I may interject again? If, as you say, humans will continue to be born ‘instinctually driven’ (driven by such instinctual passions as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) then there is all the reason in the world for there to be a do-it-yourself method with a proven track-record, an unambiguous report of pure consciousness experiencing, clear descriptions of life here in this actual world, lucid explanations of how and why, and clarifications of misunderstandings in words and writings for their consideration … is there not?
Otherwise all there is, as an alternative to the norm, is the institutionalised insanity popularly known as ‘spiritual enlightenment’.
RESPONDENT: …[human beings will continue to be born as instinctually driven human beings]; and the majority of people couldn’t care less if they reorient themselves toward an ‘actual’ experience of the ‘now’ …
RICHARD: If I may interject yet again? As ‘the majority of people’ are not cognisant of an actual freedom from the human condition your observation has no relevance to what is actually the case.
RESPONDENT: …[the majority of people couldn’t care less if they reorient themselves toward an ‘actual’ experience of the ‘now’], because they’ve got more pressing matters to attend to.
RICHARD: If (note ‘if’) someone – anyone – has ‘more pressing matters to attend to’ than enabling the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, then that is their business … not mine.
RESPONDENT: (Aside: As a barista at Starbucks, I spend a stretch of 8 hours moving constantly, trying to make drinks as quickly as possible, and attending to customers to provide so-called Legendary Service. If, during that time, I ask myself how I’m experiencing this moment being alive, the answer is going to be something like, ‘Well, I had to wait half a second to put whipped cream on this frappuccino because John needed to reach in front of me to grab a lid for the drink he’s making, which made me impatient for the whole half second, but now I’m pleased to be finishing this drink off to hand to my customer in the drive-thru (is anyone going to be in my way as I walk toward the drive-thru window?) so that I can get started on the next 3 drinks I have to make ... and I really need to get those blenders to the dishwasher because the timer went off and we need to switch those out’.
RICHARD: And all the while that such a commentary is occurring is this moment of being alive – the only moment you are ever alive – being experienced happily and harmlessly (sans sorrow and malice) … as in being gay and benevolent (sans anguish and animosity), as in being blithesome and benign (sans fear and aggression), as in being carefree and considerate (sans nurture and desire), perchance?
Is all of the above occurring in the pristine purity of this actual world (where nothing ‘dirty’, so to speak, can get in)?
RESPONDENT: That sounds really long, but in the blink of an eye I am aware of precisely how I’m experiencing the moment …
RICHARD: If, as you say, you are aware of ‘precisely how’ you are experiencing this moment then you will have no difficulty at all in answering my (above) questions, eh?
RESPONDENT: … [in the blink of an eye I am aware of precisely how I’m experiencing the moment] and it has nothing to do with the human condition …
RICHARD: May I ask? What do the words ‘precisely how’ mean to you, then?
RESPONDENT: … [it has nothing to do with the human condition]; it just has to do with being efficient because if I’m not then I’m not doing a good job, and I need to do a good job in order to remain gainfully employed so that I can pay for rent and bills and groceries. So I can survive.
RICHARD: And you are doing all this in order to survive for … for what?
RESPONDENT: By the way, if you want to send me a fat cheque so that I can quit my shit job and escape from the human condition, then I’m all for it.
RICHARD: Surely you are not really suggesting that someone – anyone – in possession of ‘a fat cheque’ has escaped from the human condition … that they are totally happy and harmless (completely free from malice and sorrow) and thus living in the pristine perfection of this actual world where only purity abounds?
RESPONDENT: While I’m waiting for that cheque, however, I’ll be obliged to conform my behaviour to the expectations of a profit-seeking corporation).
RICHARD: You could, of course, pursue a career in a non-profit organisation (you would still be expected to conform your behaviour but at least you would no longer be able to take cheap shots at a business being successful enough to provide paid employment).
RESPONDENT: Don’t get side-tracked by my rant like I did, though.
RICHARD: Sure … you may find the following to be of interest, however:
Put simply: actualism works in the market-place. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Tell me, what is the point of telling people about actualism?
RICHARD: Has it ever occurred to you that if nobody passed-on what they discovered we would all still be sitting in caves or bough shelters, dressed in animal skins and covered with lice, gnawing on raw brontosaurus bones?
Here are a few examples of how I have responded to such a question (you can take your pick):
RESPONDENT: I would think that sitting on the back porch, listening to birds, looking at the wind blow through trees, and sipping on some herbal tea would provide a much better series of moments than the ones spent haggling with so many dolts who have it 180 degrees wrong.
RICHARD: As an actual freedom from the human condition is an unconditional happiness and harmlessness no such conditions are required. Vis.:
In short: I like my fellow human being … no matter what mischief they get up to.
RESPONDENT: Let’s lay down a few givens before I pose the question:
• We human beings have biologically evolved over a great span of time.
• At an earlier time in the earth’s history, when our long-ago ancestors do not communicate verbally in any way that we would consider to be a use of ‘language,’ animal instincts are necessary for the survival of the species.
• Jumping ahead to when verbal communication is somewhat developed, these instincts are still in operation.
• Jumping even further ahead to when full-blown language function is part and parcel with what it means to be human, the animal instincts are still with us.
Okay, so all through the history of the species the brain has been evolving to allow for more and more sophisticated cognitive processes. Whatever adaptations have brought the species to its present form whereby language is essential to survival have been built up in support of the always-present animal survival instincts. That said, is it reasonable to conclude that language itself, as an auxiliary function of the more basic animal instincts, is coded in a way that the animal instincts require?
RICHARD: No … language itself is coded in a way that efficacious communication requires.
RESPONDENT: To state it another way, if language arose for survival (and why else?) …
RICHARD: Language arose to facilitate efficacious communication. Virtually all animals communicate – consciously via sound, gesture, posture, and facial expression and non-consciously by scent/flavour, colour/engorgement, emotionally/passionally, and intuitively/psychically – to some degree yet communication is not necessarily language: the main hallmarks of a communication being a language are displacement (the ability to communicate about things or situations not currently present in space and time), narration (the ability to convey a meaningful chronicle/story or account/illustration), and productivity (the communication is able to be expanded to include new signals if and when necessary) ... all of which require a connection and relation between the strung-together signals (some form of grammatical syntax).
RESPONDENT: … then doesn’t it make sense that language is always aiming back at the survival instincts?
RICHARD: No … if anything language is always aiming forward (to evermore efficacious forms of communication).
RESPONDENT: See, if this is so, and of course that is what I am proposing, then I don’t see how an ‘actualist’ could possibly use language without falling back into the good ol’ human condition.
RICHARD: Speaking personally, I use language for its efficacy in communication … for example:
RESPONDENT: I don’t really understand what motivates you to sit at the computer constructing the website and corresponding with people like me.
RICHARD: Put succinctly it is benevolence (a munificent well-wishing) …
RESPONDENT: Your response is not surprising; it’s somehow reassuring. I’m sure you understand the frustration of investigating so many claims to an eyes-fully-open way of living. My favourite test is to try to expose some hypocrisy or contradiction, and if my instigating fails, then I feel the idea merits further investigation. I guess I’m holding out on too-good-to-be-true reservations. A few years ago I entered into a painful time of questioning my deeply held theistic beliefs and came out of it a convinced and intellectually contented atheist. Now, it seems, is a time to question beliefs even deeper and much more close to home. Maybe to question beliefs altogether, eh?
RICHARD: Better still ... the very action of believing itself – etymologically the word ‘believe’ is derived from the Old English ‘geliefa’ (belief, faith) from the West Saxon ‘geliefan’/‘beliefan’ (to believe, trust) from the Germanic ‘galaubjan’ (to hold dear, esteem, trust) – as beliefs are emotion-backed thoughts.
You may find the following exchange illustrative (abridged for the sake of brevity):
RESPONDENT: Let me pose a couple possible PCE’s to see if you could tell me whether either of them seem to be right on.
1. I’m sitting on the steps of the library on my university campus. It’s the last half hour of daylight, with the rays of the sun and the shadows from trees and buildings creating a special light for the stage that I observe. In front of me, my fellow students cross the stage that is my field of vision, coming from left and right, moving on. As I watch I have no concerns that they might observe me or evaluate me or have any judgments in mind. As I look from person to person, it occurs to me that they are all very pleasant-looking. If one’s nose would normally seem ‘too big,’ for instance, now it seems to go perfectly with the rest of their features, even their gait. No one is inferior or superior – these thoughts don’t even come to mind. We are who we are and we are there, for the moment.
2. I’ve just left a little store in Bern, Switzerland. Having travelled an hour by train from Lausanne, I have finally gotten into my hands the marijuana that I have so badly wanted. My days are normally long drug-induced journeys into the subconscious, into the strange world of language and culture as I learn and speak French, and I regularly marvel at the beauty of lake Geneva and the mountains on the other side. But today, with this marijuana in my satchel, headed toward the central park where hippies and the like normally sit on the grass smoking their weed, I decide to wait. I will not drug myself, but enjoy the beautiful city that I am in, for I will not always be able to be here. Nearly as soon as I decide to wander and explore, I am struck with a sense of awe about everything. It’s like my brain is so prepped up to get stoned and to battle losing consciousness that I’m skyrocketed into a very intense consciousness. As I walk, gravity is barely an issue. Everywhere I turn my eyes there is intense beauty, but not because I say so, just because it is strange and wonderful. I look at two young women passing by on the street and wonder if they realize how wonderful everything is. They look back at me and it doesn’t seem to matter if they realize it or not because I’ll never know anyway. Nevertheless, there seems to be a brightness there in their eyes that I don’t usually notice in my fellow man.
I don’t know what it would be like to live in #2. It seems it would be overwhelming. As for #1, well it was nice to be out of the usual judging/critical/worrisome mode ... well, actually, #2 might have been especially nice because of the sort of exotic environment I was in.
RICHARD: The key-words in description No. 1 would seem to be ‘no one is inferior or superior’ (hence the lack of concern over others observing, evaluating, or judging you) and what stands out in description No. 2 is ‘how wonderful everything is’ … however the references to ‘a sense of awe’ and the lightness of being (as expressed in your ‘gravity is barely an issue’ phrasing) and ‘there is intense beauty’ may be an indication of an altered state of consciousness (ASC) rather than a pure consciousness experience (PCE).
Needless is it to add the qualifier that there actually is insufficient information for me to comment meaningfully? Besides which I am somewhat reluctant to appraise another’s description anyway (unless it be strikingly obvious just what it was) as experience has shown that when another asks whether such-and-such is a PCE or not it is, generally speaking, not … in a PCE it is startlingly apparent to the experient that is indeed a PCE. For just one example:
RESPONDENT: Thanks for your consideration.
RICHARD: You are very welcome … and it is at this stage I usually append a stock-standard disclaimer such as this: I am simply reporting my experience and it is entirely up to the other to do with it what they will ... and I stress that it is the PCE that is one’s guiding light – one’s authority or one’s teacher – and not me or my description of a PCE. The evidence of human history demonstrates that there is a distinct possibility that things can go awry wherever the human psyche is being subjectively investigated. Yet there are some notable people (or notorious people) in this field of endeavour who have rashly promised that they will take care of everything if only the person investigating will believe them and/or have faith in them and/or trust them and/or surrender to them and/or obey them ... and so on. And there are more than a few of these gullible persons currently occupying places in psychiatric wards as a direct result ... and the person who promised to ‘take care of everything’ is remarkably unforthcoming (it is counsellors and therapists and psychologists and psychiatrists who have to pick up the pieces).
I cannot save anybody at all.
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.