Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections

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

RICHARD: As actualism is not an ideology your worrying is a self-created worry.

RESPONDENT: Okay, actualism isn’t an ideology but it is conveyed using a body of language, right?

RICHARD: Having taken pause to read the above you will see that what is being conveyed is that actualism is the direct experience that matter is not merely passive.

RESPONDENT: The body of language is an ideology that attempts to point to actualism.

RICHARD: No, the words are a description of the direct experience that matter is not merely passive.

Or, to put that another way, the words and writings on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site make it quite clear that actualism – the third alternative to either materialism or spiritualism – is not ‘an ideology that attempts to point to actualism’ ... they are an invitation for the reader to directly experience for themself that they do not live in an inert universe.

Put succinctly: actualism is experiential not ideological.

And just so that there is no misunderstanding: actualism is not an ideal either ... or an idea, a belief, a concept, an opinion, a conjecture, a speculation, an assumption, a presumption, a supposition, a surmise, an inference, a judgement, an intellectualisation, an imagination, a posit, an image, an analysis, a viewpoint, a view, a stance, a perspective, a standpoint, a position, a world-view, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, or any other of the 101 ways of dismissing a direct report of what it is to be actually free from the human condition and living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe actually is.

RESPONDENT: 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’.

RICHARD: As no other method has set any body free from the human condition just what makes you think of despots when I say it is the only method which has been effective thus far?

RESPONDENT: The only differentiating barrier you have between yourself and other people who have found what you have found, is a very thin one crafted from language.

RICHARD: What ‘other people’ are you referring to? If the one example you offered up is anything to go by then none of them have found what I have found.

RESPONDENT: This is why you get very picky with your terminology.

RICHARD: No, that is why clarity in communication is essential.

RESPONDENT: Take away the strict and narrow definitions and your claims of uniqueness (or uniqueness so far!) evaporate.

RICHARD: Yet can you take away what you describe as ‘the strict and narrow definitions’ without being silly? For just one example: I report being this flesh and blood body only (sans identity/affections in toto) ... what is left if you take that away?

*

RESPONDENT: But I do believe that freedom seeking ideologies such as yours that attempt negate other modes of freedom seeking are fascist in nature and doomed to starve from a lack of input from the wider ecology of ideas and modes of perception.

RICHARD: Ha ... so the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition – being as happy and as harmless as is humanly possible (virtually free from malice and sorrow) whilst still being a ‘self’ – which is a path marked by the sheer delight at the enjoyment and appreciation engendered by being here on this verdant and azure planet is a ‘fascist’ ideology in your eyes because it negates everything which is not actual, eh? Perhaps, upon sober reflection, you may care to re-examine your belief?

RESPONDENT: 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.

RICHARD: ‘Tis impossible to be ‘making’ everyone else on the planet wrong ... they are already. Unless, of course, you consider that the global malice and sorrow which gives rise to all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on are somehow ‘right’?

RESPONDENT: Really I am so thankful they came along. Without them I would be a spiritualist. Or normal. And look at me now.

RICHARD: I am ... and I see that you have reduced yourself to being nothing but a ‘viewpoint’ with a meteoric ‘point of view’ (which sometimes changes even in the same e-mail) in your frantic efforts to avoid being categorised and labelled.

RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘Yet all traditional religions, all social and economic ideologies, and all political parties, are alike in one respect. They ignore the biochemical roots of our ill-being. So the noisy trivia of party-politics distract us from what needs to be done [endquote]. The above par applies equally to actualism as any other ism from ayranism thru jesusism and oshoism to zenism? For in essence what is the method of actualism. An enquiry via the actualist mantra. The target is missed. The target is physical, actual, and hittable.

RICHARD: I would have said that ignoring ‘the biochemical roots of our ill-being’ applies to the method of viewpointism rather than actualism.

RESPONDENT: LOL. Viewpointism is not a method at all;

RICHARD: My mistake ... I should have said that ignoring ‘the biochemical roots of our ill-being’ applies to the way of viewpointism rather than actualism (even though the first synonym for ‘way’ in the right-click thesaurus of ‘Word 2000’ is ‘method’). But, apart from all that ... is not a method implicit in the ‘in order to’ phrase in the sentence ‘... in order to bring an end to suffering and malice and sorrow and ignorance’ ?

RESPONDENT: ... it is one of many possible ways of formulating an understanding and a communication of such an understanding to one’s fellow humans of what it means to be human.

RICHARD: I am having some difficulty in equating what you say here to the way of viewpointism as expressly detailed by yourself to me (along with a lengthy dissertation on where, when, how and why I was amiss) in December last. Vis.:

1. [Respondent]: ‘There is only one position to take ...’. (The Actual Freedom Mailing List; December 17 2000).
2. [Respondent]: ‘It is one of many possible ways of ...’. (The Actual Freedom Mailing List; July 22 2001).

RESPONDENT: Earlier today I was going through your 2nd in command’s (Peter) personal story ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? You are doing exactly the same thing here – making an assumption – yet when I set the record straight in the earlier instance you told me I was nit-picking and made it into an issue that went on and on until it became a distraction in your eyes. In this instance, however, you cannot even say you ‘mistakenly’ referred to somebody being a second-in-command because of the following information:

• [Respondent]: ‘... why put yourself above all others?
• [Richard]: ‘... there is no putting of oneself above all others ... that hierarchical model is what you make of it. I am a fellow human being (albeit sans identity in toto). (October 16 2003) .

And:

• [Respondent]: ‘Any such plans?
• [Richard]: ‘None at all. Vis.: ‘I have no plan whatsoever... there is no authority here in charge of a hierarchical organisation’. (October 25 2003).

RESPONDENT: ... and he [Peter] had this to say: And I quote ... ‘I was fascinated to learn that Richard had been Enlightened and had now found a state that he said was vastly superior to Enlightenment’ [endquote].

RICHARD: Aye, that is from page 9 of ‘Peter’s Journal’ where he is describing what he was understanding [quote] ‘within a few short weeks’ [endquote] of first meeting me.

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

RICHARD: Why? Just because a fellow human being, whom you elevate to the status of second-in-command in a non-existent hierarchy, is honestly describing what he made of what he was hearing in the first few weeks?

Should he now modify his journal, rewrite history, so as to make out that he was savvy enough right from the beginning to comprehend that what Richard was talking about was not an altered state of consciousness (ASC) but something entirely different?

If so, should he also revise his journal, modify history, where he says he took me to be yet another guru in those early days (else someone else should come along one day and say that, even though Richard says he is not a guru, here is his ... um ... chief disciple saying he is)?

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

RICHARD: I get ‘nit-picky’ about the meaning of words because people so dearly love to cover up their ineptitude by using words in a slippery manner. No one, it seems, likes to be pinned down to a clear-cut definition. I also get this a lot in my face-to-face discussions with people here ... they like to ‘keep things open’ or ‘be flexible’ or ‘don’t be so fixed’ or ‘things aren’t black and white’ and so on. I happen to like the English language ... it has upwards of 650,000 words in it and one can clearly communicate with another if a little rigour is applied. However, people like to hide behind words; they like to utter pithy aphorisms like: ‘The Truth is Ineffable’.

It is up to me to make sure that the other understands what I am saying – whether they agree with me or not – because if I assume that they have the same meaning to a word as I do is just plain silly. A dictionary is a handy reference point to establish a meaning ... if we want to give a particular twist or meaning to a word we can ... but we need to know what base we start from. Otherwise anything means whatever we want it too ... and confusion reigns supreme.

Which is the current situation.

RESPONDENT: 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.

RICHARD: I am somewhat bemused as to why you would say that what I wrote regarding Mr. Albert Einstein sounds anything but down-to-earth or sensible ... let alone endorsing another’s phrase ‘boneheaded absolutism’ as describing it more accurately. Vis.: ‘boneheaded:. (slang) thick-headed, stupid’. (Oxford Dictionary). ‘absolutism: an absolute doctrine, principle, or standard’. (American Heritage® Dictionary). Whereabouts in my e-mail discussion with you have I ever departed from being down-to-earth or sensible ... let alone been a thick-headed, stupid person who holds an absolute doctrine, principle, or standard?

RESPONDENT: ... sorry for the ‘boneheaded’ comment. I used it fairly light-heartedly but the disrespect was unjustified.

RICHARD: Yet I never asked for an apology for ‘the ‘boneheaded’ comment’ – and both respect and disrespect are like water off a duck’s back to me anyway –

RESPONDENT: I know that. But they are not to me.

RICHARD: I am not even going to try and work that one out ... besides which you have reinstated the ‘boneheaded’ part of what you said is the somewhat more accurate description anyway (further below).

*

RICHARD: I specifically asked whereabouts in my e-mail discussion with you had I ever departed from being down-to-earth or sensible (let alone been a thick-headed, stupid person who holds an absolute doctrine, principle, or standard) as that is what is of interest to me.

RESPONDENT: Ok. Absolute doctrine: The universe is infinite and eternal. Absolute principle: (?) Absolute standard: The PCE. Absolute value: The universe is perfect.

RICHARD: Ahh ... so not only have you reinstated the ‘boneheaded’ part of what you said is the somewhat more accurate description but the ‘absolutism’ aspect is still firmly in place as well (albeit misrepresented).

Could it be that it was the apology which was used ‘fairly light-heartedly’ after all ... and not what you said is the somewhat more accurate description?

*

RICHARD: Whereabouts?

RESPONDENT: See?

RICHARD: If I could see in what I wrote regarding Mr. Albert Einstein, in my e-mail discussion with you, anything which sounded anything but down-to-earth or sensible – such as to occasion you to endorse another’s phrase ‘boneheaded absolutism’ as describing it somewhat more accurately – I would not have asked you whereabouts it was in the first place.

Are you having some difficulty in providing the instances?

RESPONDENT: The ‘boneheaded’ aspect of this is that you don’t see that these are anything but objective facts.

RICHARD: As I recall the only ‘objective facts’ I wrote about in that discussion were in regards to what was actually happening for (a) an observer falling from the roof of a house... and (b) objects falling long before humans were on this planet ... and (c) a roof-tile falling ... and (d) rain-drops falling ...and (e) a United States Air Force pilot falling from the edge of space.

And I cannot see how writing about what actually happens is anything but being down-to-earth or sensible (let alone being somewhat more accurately described as boneheaded absolutism).

Which is why I am bemused as to how it sounds otherwise to you.

RESPONDENT: 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.

RICHARD: You are referring that which is new – thus without precedent – and which is actual, and not fantasy, and are comparing it to not only that which is old but that which is a massive delusion into the bargain, in order to come to your conclusions.

RESPONDENT: Nothing remains the same. Yes, the PCE might be identical to everyone, but ...

RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on with your ‘but ...’)? If, as you say, nothing remains the same, how can you then say, in virtually the same breath, that the pure consciousness experience (PCE) be *identical* to everyone?

RESPONDENT: ...[but] the process of becoming free will inevitably be distorted, there will be countless ‘branded’ versions of becoming free.

RICHARD: As the PCE is essential to the process of becoming actually free from the human condition then any method other than the only one that has worked so far to deliver the goods will be similarly bench-marked ... ‘tis not for nothing that clarity in communication (what some classify as pedantic nit-picking) is the hall-mark of actualism words and writings.

RESPONDENT: This will serve the innate human need for diversity and tolerance.

RICHARD: Those that choose diversity and tolerance over happiness and harmlessness are simply wasting their only moment of being alive ... frittering a vital opportunity away on more of the ‘Tried and True’ in yet another guise.

RESPONDENT: Further down this discussion you wrote [quote] ‘As this is the second occasion wherein you have described your peak experience as affective – as in your ‘feels’ phrasing just above (and your ‘enormous feeling’ phrasing further above) – it is pertinent to point out, at this stage, that if there be any feelings whatsoever in such an experience one thing is for sure ... it ain’t a PCE’ [endquote]. You know that other people do not live in actual freedom.

RICHARD: What I know is what my co-respondent types out and sends ... and the following is how you began your previous e-mail:

• [Respondent]: ‘Now that I have had a chance to read a lot of the information on the web site as well as a large portion of Richard’s journal and having experienced a few PCE’s (*or perhaps excellence experiences*) lasting for half a day at a time as well as remembered quite a few other PCE’s, I have some observations to make and questions to ask’. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: You also know that other people when outside of PCE do not express themselves in exactly the same way that you do.

RICHARD: Nor necessarily whilst having a pure consciousness experience (PCE) either ... and I have been with more than a few persons having such an experience. For instance:

• [Richard]: ‘... very early in the piece I asked my current companion, once the PCE was definitely happening, what she had to say now about love (always a hot topic):
‘Love?’ she said, ‘Why there is no room for love here!’
She went on to expand, saying there was no need for love as everything was already perfect, and there was no separation, and so on ... but she had said enough in her initial response to both satisfy and delight me.

Now, I have never used such an expression – ‘there is no room for love here’ – yet I knew perfectly well what was being conveyed.

RESPONDENT: 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.

RICHARD: Maybe this will be of assistance:

• ‘affective (see affect): of or pertaining to the affections [the emotions, the feelings; esp. feelings as opp. to reason; the passions]; emotional’. (Oxford Dictionary).
• ‘affective: relating to, arising from, or influencing feelings or emotions: emotional [of or relating to emotion]; expressing emotion’. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
• ‘affective: (psychology) influenced by or resulting from the emotions; concerned with or arousing feelings [susceptibility to emotional response; sensibilities] or emotions; emotional’. (American Heritage® Dictionary).
• ‘affective: characterised by emotion; affectional, emotive’. (WordNet 2.0).

• ‘affect: (psychol.) an emotion, a mood; (affectless: without emotion, incapable of feeling emotion)’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Apart from that: the words in question are ‘feels’ – as in your ‘one feels so good, at ease, benevolent, fulfilled (as in nothing is missing) and secure’ phrasing – and ‘feeling’ (as in your ‘there is an enormous feeling of well being’ phrasing) ... and I am yet to come across someone who does not know what those words mean.

RESPONDENT: So instead of answering a question genuinely ...

RICHARD: And just what question would that be? The only one in the entire paragraph which I responded to the first three sentences of was of the ‘rhetorical question’ variety (a question to which no answer is expected, often used for rhetorical effect (American Heritage® Dictionary)) ... to wit: a ‘who will promote it’ lead-in to your own immediate answer.

RESPONDENT: ... [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.

RICHARD: If I may point out? It was you who said that your experiences were [quote] ‘or perhaps excellence experiences’ [endquote] ... and not me.

RESPONDENT: Does one have to substitute a word ‘feel’ for ‘experience’ or another word that meets your approval before one can engage in an open discussion with you?

RICHARD: It is not a matter of substitution at all ... it is a matter of what the experiences really were.

RESPONDENT: This attitude does seem rather silly and I have seen countless examples of this sort of thing on the web site.

RICHARD: And just what ‘countless’ examples of this sort of thing would they be?

RESPONDENT: 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?

RICHARD: As I am yet to come across someone who does not know what the words ‘feels’ and ‘feeling’ mean then ... no.

RESPONDENT: Quite frankly, when I started reading your web site, there were quite a few words that I did not understand and in fact encountered here for the first time in my life (and I have a university degree).

RICHARD: Meanwhile, back at my query: where have I been (1) evasive in answering a direct question ... and (2) avoided answering a difficult or an uncomfortable question (whatever they may be) ... and (3) refused to really listen to anybody else?

RESPONDENT: (...) 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.

RICHARD: How on earth can I keep a dialogue going when the very evidence offered in response to requests for same is dismissed out of hand as being an expounding of theory?

RESPONDENT: 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.

RICHARD: It is because of my regard – there is no ‘deep’ without feelings – for my fellow human being that I have no interest (and thus no intention) whatsoever in having an identity and/or its beliefs dictate the way I conduct my correspondence.

Put differently: I did not come onto the internet in order to be run by another’s feelings.

RESPONDENT: You have a higher regard for your Oxford dictionary.

RICHARD: No, the reason why I provide dictionary definitions of words – which definitions are descriptive and not prescriptive – is for the sake of clarity in communication ... you can have any word mean whatever you wish, of course, but if you want to communicate effectively you will have to explain what that word means to you.

Look, it is your life you are living, when all is said and done, and I can only suggest ... what you do with my suggestions is, of course, entirely up to you as it is you who gets to either reap the rewards or pay the consequences for any action or inaction that you may or may not do. Provided you comply with the legal laws and observe the social protocols you will be left alone to live your life as wisely or as foolishly as you wish.

Put succinctly: your freedom, or lack thereof, is in your hands and your hands alone.

RICHARD: There is nothing like bringing an issue out into the open so that it can be examined, eh?
RESPONDENT: If the issue is important, I suppose that would be correct.

(...)

RESPONDENT: ... lets assume, that because of A, B & C, that one can logically arrive at the premise that I am a spiritualist or spiritual in nature; what then?

RICHARD: Then the issue is out in the open so that it can be examined.

RESPONDENT: What is the point of defining me?

RICHARD: So that the issue can be out in the open and thus examinable.

RESPONDENT: Where to from there?

RICHARD: To the examination, of course.

RESPONDENT: What good is this label you are sticking on me ...?

RICHARD: The good (as in ‘benefit’) that an examination can bring.

RESPONDENT: What good (as in ‘benefit’) does an examination bring?

RICHARD: The good (as in ‘benefit’) that only an examination can bring.

RESPONDENT: Sorry but this is part and parcel of your method ...

RICHARD: This has nothing whatsoever to do with the method – asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) – that the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago devised and successfully applied ... this is the straightforward business of examining (aka inspecting) an out-in-the-open issue in order to ‘investigate its nature, condition, or qualities’ (Oxford Dictionary) and, as human history attests to the good (as in ‘benefit’) which that action of ‘searching, investigating, or inquiring’ (Oxford Dictionary) can bring about with virtually any subject, your apology (as in your ‘sorry’ phrasing) for not proceeding with what you provisionally agreed with (as in your ‘let’s assume’ phrasing) is not only ill-founded but smacks of grandstanding into the bargain as nobody can be that ignorant of such a well-established activity as the examining process indubitably is.

RESPONDENT: 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 ...

RICHARD: If I may point out? I have never said there are no short classifying phrases or names, such as materialist/ spiritualist, here in this actual world – both the spoken word and the printed word do indeed exist – rather it is what they describe, designate or categorise that has no existence in actuality. Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... there is neither materialism nor spiritualism here in this actual world (the former being an illusion and the latter a delusion born out of the illusion).

The use of -ism on the end of a word (from the Latin ‘isma’ meaning ‘of action, something done’) simply indicates the characteristics of a person or a thing – it is used to form a noun of action naming the process, the completed action or the result, with emphasis on character or conduct (it is the forming of a term denoting a trait or peculiarity) – and the use of -ist on the end of a word (from the Latin ‘ista’ for forming agent-nouns from verbs) merely denotes a person studying, practicing, or being occupied with something either professionally or on a large scale ... that you see their usage as neurotic, anally-obsessive, or juvenile is your trip, not mine.

RESPONDENT: ... 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.

RICHARD: As it was you who chose to write to me in the first place (to inform me that you use the label ‘materialist’ to define yourself) it would appear that fruitless endeavouring and time-wasting has a certain attraction despite your protestations to the contrary.

Moreover, four e-mails ago I explicitly stated that if you writing to inform me you use the label ‘materialist’ to define yourself was nothing other than the incidental issue of correcting my misapprehension then that was, of course, the end of the matter ... yet you chose to propose a ‘let’s suppose’ scenario, instead of ending the issue there and then, and have fruitlessly endeavoured and time-wastefully used much bandwidth in pursuing the matter ever since.

It would appear that your protestations are as hollow as your avowed dismissal of labels and labelling.

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless