Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections

Commonly Raised Objections

Actualism is Dogmatism and Ideological Purity

I find your insistence on ideological purity worrying too ...

Many of us think of despots when we hear notions of ‘the one true way’ or in your case ‘the one true way so far’.

I have been inviting the actualism club members to consider the possibility that what they are most intent on doing is making everyone else on the planet wrong.

I think my case that you are a nitpicker to the nth degree is now closed.

Why do you get so nit-picky about the meaning of words and go to dictionaries to try to prove a point?

Peter, your (or Richard’s) criticisms of Einstein sound anything but down-to-earth or sensible at this stage. I think No 56’s phrase ‘boneheaded absolutism’ describes it somewhat more accurately. Absolute doctrine: The universe is infinite and eternal. Absolute principle: (?) Absolute standard: The PCE. Absolute value: The universe is perfect. The ‘boneheaded’ aspect of this is that you don’t see that these are anything but objective facts.

And even if actualism would be practiced by many people (say 500 millions), it would not be an identical process to everyone, as a matter-of-fact it would get distorted, it would degenerate as with everything which happened on a mass scale in the history of humankind and over an extended period of time. Nothing remains the same. Yes, the PCE might be identical to everyone, but the process of becoming free will inevitably be distorted, there will be countless ‘branded’ versions of becoming free. This will serve the innate human need for diversity and tolerance.

Your language has evolved over the years and become very precise and novices to your web site are not totally familiar with all the exact definitions or words and experience, which words are affective or, for that matter even what ‘affective’ means. So instead of answering a question genuinely and help the person see what is wrong with their thinking, you nit-pick at the word ‘feel’ and go off on a tangent. I mean, does a normal person have to fully absorb your terminology and use precise wording and carry a dictionary in their pocket before they can have a meaningful discussion with your?

It tells me a lot about Actualism that you cannot tolerate or put aside what you label as deficient thinking in another and still keep a dialogue going. If that’s how you approach your fellow humans then I can see that your ‘deep regard’ for them runs to a mere skin depth. You have a higher regard for your Oxford dictionary.

Sorry but this is part and parcel of your method ... As it is your neurotic, anal obsession to pin labels on all and sundry, even though you claim there are no such labels in the actual world ... I will pass on joining in and playing your juvenile game of pin the tail on the spiritualists. Thus any examination of said labels, that don’t exist in actuality anyways, would be a fruitless endeavour and a waste of my time.

Design ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-.  All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity