|
Proceed with what Richard? Or your need to look Intelligent? Or your need to control? All of
your messages I have read are you saying the same thing which is HEY look at ME I am the authority!! 
|
|
|
It really worries me that you are introducing a subtle form of authority here. If you are an
authority on something that lies beyond enlightenment I have to believe you at your word. You told me what you think of that and I agree,
mostly. If enlightenment can be discarded altogether than actuality is the main thing. But that implies that I should try to grasp beyond
something I haven’t even experienced! So again I need a guru to tell me where to go? I hope you see the mistake if you are making one,
because claiming authority is ‘not harmless’. I am only shortly beginning to understand that more fully.
|
|
|
I wouldn’t wish to be an authority on any part of inner existence. In this respect your
lasting question about experiencing now is consistent with that. If only you would acknowledge your pattern of authority ... ‘sigh’.
|
|
|
For my own sanity, I’m beginning to compile an informal catalogue of techniques, tactics
and antics that I find most detrimental to mutual understanding. The likelihood that new mindfucks will be discovered here is small.
Most of them are ancient, but there may be a few that are specific to actualism. If you repeatedly encounter a technique that drives you
up the wall, let me know.
|
|
|
I am saying you have a tendency to want to be right. And to achieve that you read meanings
into people’s communication that suits your purpose. And that is the underlying dynamic of Actualism that you have passed onto the
‘inner circle’ as I call it facetiously. Period. Examine it. Or don’t. Richard, this is kindergarten stuff ... pass the blame to
the self. Tell everyone you don’t have one. Tell them you are special. Because you are free. Yeah sure baby.
|
|
|
Have the actualists solved the riddle of nature vs. nurture? The theories about the role
of instincts on the website are confidently expressed as if they are describing something factual but there is considerable debate
amongst researchers about the role of genes and environment on conditioning. See www.beyondintractability.org/m/aggression.jsp
for an overview of theories on aggression. Clearly, there’s not a consensus amongst researchers but actualists seem confident. How
is it known that any of the programming removed by the actualist method is actually genetically endowed programming? Seems like a
sweeping statement about an area that is little understood.
|
|
|
You ask people not to accept anything you say without verifying it for themselves. Yet
when they come back and question your theories you throw out the last card in your deck – ‘what I have to report/ describe/
explain is experiential ... as in coming out of ‘direct experience’ and hence forthwith it is now as if carved in stone.
According to you, unless they come back from ‘verifying it for themselves’ and agree with you, they would be wrong ... and they
will continue to be wrong until they agree with you. They can question your theories till the cows come home but you have laid down
the laws of the universe this universe according to your understanding of it or what you like to call ‘experiential’ and now your
words are to be carved in stone because you hold the trump card of what you like to call ‘direct experience’.
|
|
|
My interpretation from the way you correspond (steamroll/verbally attack) is that peace
on earth is no where to be found in your correspondence. You are just another vain ego on your pedestal imagining your own
subjective interpretation (and that is all it can ever be, verbal or otherwise) is the final arbiter. And the interpretations of
your correspondents amount to jack shit.
|
