Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections

RESPONDENT: Richard, would you say that it takes quite a bit of effort and determination to follow through in asking the question to it’s conclusion?

RICHARD: I do say it takes some doing to start off with yet, with application and diligence and patience and perseverance, one soon gets the knack of it and more and more time is spent enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and, as the slightest diminishment of such felicity and innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently wandered off the way, it is remarkably simple in practice ... and thus easy.

Furthermore, it is fun to find out what makes one ‘tick’.

RESPONDENT: I find it takes a lot of effort to resist being pulled into negative imaginary scenarios. It seems to be easier to just go with them, get sucked into negativity, rant inside for quite some time, then eventually let it pass. Of course, I’ve wasted all of that time in an imaginary story line rather than enjoying the only moment I have to be alive. Would say it is similar to the movie ‘The Matrix’, in that all imaginary memory based knowledge seems to want to keep us locked in it’s grid?

RICHARD: As I have not seen that movie (I rarely, if ever, watch/read science fiction) I have nothing to say other than I accessed a website, when asked about it earlier this year, and gained the impression of it being a modern-day variation on an epical dystopic-exile/ exilic-restoration theme of yore.

As to the essence of your query – ‘all imaginary memory based knowledge seems to want to keep us locked in its grid’ – it is pertinent to add that the entire real-world (both the ‘inner’ world and its ‘outer’ world) is itself imaginary and any solution/salvation or restoration/redemption to be found therein, being an intuitional functioning of that ‘grid’, is but a delusion born out of an illusion.

RESPONDENT: Would you say it takes a lot of effort?

RICHARD: No ... sincerity is the key to an unlocking of effortlessness.

RESPONDENT: I don’t understand the AF method instructions.

RICHARD: The actualism method is remarkably simple in practice:

• [Richard]: ‘It is really very, very simple (which is possibly why it has never been discovered before this): one felt good previously; one is not feeling good now; something happened to one to end that felicitous/ innocuous feeling; one finds out what happened; one sees how silly that is (no matter what it was); one is once more feeling good’.

RESPONDENT: I can’t remember a PCE either ...

RICHARD: As your [quote] ‘either’ [endquote] links the lack of remembrance of a pure consciousness experience (PCE) with not understanding the essence of the way I have previously described the workings of the actualism method it is pertinent to point out that such is not initially necessary in order to feel as felicitous/innocuous as is possible whilst one goes about one’s everyday life.

RESPONDENT: ... [I can’t remember a PCE either], and I don’t think a fear of having ‘me’ eliminated is valid because I have no idea what that would be like.

RICHARD: Well then ... that is two possible reasons (for not understanding something so simple that anyone old enough to read these words can comprehend) out of the way.

*

RESPONDENT: I should be able to get the method to work once I understand it.

RICHARD: Do you comprehend that, although the past was actual when it was happening, it is not actual now and that, although the future will be actual when it does happen, it is not actual now ... that only this moment is actual?

If so, do you further comprehend that anytime you felt good/will feel good does not mean a thing if you are not currently feeling good (a general sense of well-being) ... that a remembered occasion/an anticipated occasion pales into insignificance if you are presently feeling bad (a general sense of ill-being)?

Furthermore, do you understand that to be living this moment – the only moment you are ever alive – by feeling bad is to be frittering away a vital opportunity to be fully alive ... to totally enjoy and appreciate being what you indubitably are (a sensate creature) whilst you are here on this planet?

If so, is it not silly to waste this only moment you are ever alive by feeling bad ... when you could be feeling good?

RESPONDENT: 1) Asking HAIETMOBA at times seems to create irritation that was not present before I asked it. Yesterday, I wondered why not just simply say to oneself: ‘I’m experiencing (then focus on what your feeling and then verbally label what you find) irritation (just an example). Or ‘I’m feeling sad’ instead of asking HAIETMOBA and then saying ‘I’m feeling anxiety’ after that. I find it difficult to run the question while doing certain tasks at work, mainly from its whopping 16 syllables going threw my head while I try to think through or do something.

RICHARD: I have located the following text:

• [Respondent]: ‘The whole phrase seems like a lot when I’m doing something at times.
• [Richard]: ‘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’.

RESPONDENT: 2) Sometimes I just feel ‘shitty’, but I can’t pin point it as irritation (anger), anxiety (fear), or sadness (sorrow). What to do?

RICHARD: All it takes is to trace back to when feeling awful began, ascertain what happened to trigger it off, see how silly it is to have such an event as that (no matter what it is) hijack the enjoyment and appreciation of simply being alive, and thus recommence feeling good once more.

RESPONDENT: If I keep trying to figure it out, I usually feel worse.

RICHARD: I have located the following text:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) any analysing and/or psychologising and/or philosophising whilst one is in the grip of debilitating feelings usually does not achieve much (other than spiralling around and around in varying degrees of despair and despondency or whatever) anyway’.

What the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago would do is first get back to feeling good and then, and only then, suss out where, when, how, why – and what for – feeling bad happened as experience had shown ‘him’ that it was counter-productive to do otherwise.

What ‘he’ always did however, as it was often tempting to just get on with life then, was to examine what it was all about within half-an-hour of getting back to feeling good (while the memory was still fresh) even if it meant sometimes falling back into feeling bad by doing so ... else it would crop up again sooner or later.

Nothing, but nothing, can be swept under the carpet.

RESPONDENT: So, sometimes I just accept that I can’t label the feeling and go on with life (why ruin this only moment of living?).

RICHARD: But you did label the feeling ... here:

• [Respondent]: ‘Sometimes I just feel ‘shitty’ ...’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: While it seems No. 60 has more frequent and intense reactions from HAIETMOBA, I can relate to some extent.

RICHARD: Well now ... if one turns an otherwise very simple query (‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’) into being a computer-like procedure or set of rules for problem-solving, and then hate, resent, and rebel against that, what else can one expect but frequent and intense reactions?

RESPONDENT: While, I’ve had a easier time shortening the question to ‘how am I feeling?’ I’ve chosen to ‘stick it out’ with the original method to possibly figure ‘why’ I have a problem with it ‘as it stands’. Oh, how I wish it to become a ‘nonverbal approach to life’! (whatever that means).

RICHARD: It means that the words ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ simply refer the make-up of the attentiveness being applied ... as distinct from, say, the buddhistic ‘mindfulness’ (which is another ball-game entirely).

In other words the focus is upon how identity in toto is standing in the way of the already always existing peace-on-earth being apparent just here right now.

RESPONDENT: Does that mean that the question eventually ‘stops’ as you’re always attentive to your experience?

RICHARD: Yes (it is that simple).

RESPONDENT: While, I consider your description of how you experience life to not only be perfect and peerless, that does not negate problems on my part in getting there.

RICHARD: Okay ... basically the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ means ‘what is preventing a pure consciousness experience (PCE) from happening at this moment?’ Or, to put it another way, ‘what is preventing the already always existing peace-on-earth (as evidenced in the PCE) from being apparent?

Perfect peace and harmony is just here – right now – for the very asking.

RESPONDENT: Who can vouch for this method with 100% sincerity?

RICHARD: This particular flesh and blood body typing these words can, of course, as this very discussion would not be taking place had the method not been 100% effective (which is not to forget to mention that the mailing list and the web site owe their very existence to its efficacy).

Meanwhile, back at the topic you chose, the method (which has not only already enabled one human being to be actually free from the human condition but has also enabled others to be virtually free of same) is just sitting there ... quite ready to be utilised by anyone who is prepared to give the minimisation effect of it a goodly chance to work its magical-like way of maximising felicity and innocuity.

And here is a clue to make things go tickety-tick: naiveté, being guaranteed to reawaken a child-like sensuosity, means one walks about in a state of wide-eyed wonder, simply marvelling at being just here right now.

And all the while leaving intellectualisation to the avidly-grazing intellectuals.

RESPONDENT: The problem with HAIETMOBA is H.

RICHARD: Spelt out in full what you are saying looks something like this:

• [example only]: ‘The problem with asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) is ‘how’.

As Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, for instance, has made a big thing about not asking ‘how’ – and his admonitions not to have passed into modern-day spiritual lore – it may be apposite to point out that ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ could just as easily be formulated as ‘in what way am I experiencing this moment of being alive’.

RESPONDENT: As soon as one is aware of a feeling or thought manifesting, the questioner kicks in to action.

RICHARD: Hmm ... how about ‘as soon as one is aware that one is no longer happy and harmless that very awareness kicks sensibility into action and one is soon back to being happy and harmless again’?

RESPONDENT: This triggers the whole labelling and subsequent analytical process.

RICHARD: As Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, for instance, has made a big thing about not labelling – and bags analysis like all get-out – it may very well be worthwhile to trace the source of your (borrowed) wisdom.

RESPONDENT: At that point you’re screwed because you have suckered for the same old trap.

RICHARD: Do you see just how far you have moved away from the actualism method ... and only in three short sentences?

Perhaps the following may be of interest to you:

• [Respondent]: ‘I’ve found that this matter of intent is a deceptively subtle aspect of this process. I’ve spent considerable effort in the ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ mode, with the attendant ‘self’ observation. While this in itself has proven to be very valuable, I realize I’ve been giving short shrift to the ‘clear intent to become more happy and more harmless’. After all, that’s the whole point of this, isn’t it? Not just to unravel the accrued identity, but to be happy and harmless. The method is incredibly simple: I am not happy now; I was happy a minute/hour/year ago; Ascertain what caused me to stop being happy; Get back to being happy as quickly as possible. No wonder this is so radical – it has none of the trappings and dogma that humans seem to need to create around such an elemental concept. Of course, sometimes simple things are the hardest to understand. (Tuesday 6/05/2003).

RESPONDENT: What if you were to merely be aware and observe without labelling?

RICHARD: Hmm ... ‘merely be aware’ of what? The way in which this moment of being alive is being experienced, perchance?

RESPONDENT: If fear arises, and you don’t call it ‘fear’, what is it?

RICHARD: It is anything but being happy and harmless (which is the whole point of asking how one is experiencing this moment of being alive), eh?

RESPONDENT: This has proven to be very interesting to me.

RICHARD: But has it enabled happiness and harmlessness at this moment of being alive?

CO-RESPONDENT: (...) I’m going to investigate it [ALL the human pains] with an electron microscope. Should I?

RICHARD: A sincere, dedicated attentiveness to how you are experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive) will do just fine.

RESPONDENT: The word ‘how’ makes it difficult for me to grasp.

RICHARD: Am I to take it that nobody has ever greeted you with either (the formal) ‘how do you do’ solicitation, as to your well-being, or with (the informal) ‘how are you going’ query?

RESPONDENT: What sort of answer – experiential or otherwise does it beg?

RICHARD: It does not beg anything ... it is a straightforward query as to what way or manner one is experiencing the only moment one is ever alive.

RESPONDENT: Bit like asking: how am I typing this? Why with my hands!

RICHARD: Try this on for size and see how it fits:

• [example only]: ‘In what way or manner am I experiencing this moment of being alive whilst typing this with my hands? [end example].

RESPONDENT: Or: With pleasure.

RICHARD: In which case you are sensibly enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive (whereas were the answer to be ‘with displeasure’, for instance, then you have something to investigate so as to find out why you are wasting the only moment you are ever alive in such a silly way).

RESPONDENT: Or: I just am.

RICHARD: In which case you have something to investigate so as to find out why you are frittering away the only moment you are ever alive by being neutral.

RESPONDENT: Or: By intending to.

RICHARD: And now that you are carrying out what you intended in what way or manner are you experiencing this moment of being alive whilst doing that?

RESPONDENT: See what I mean?

RICHARD: What I see is that you have taken a straightforward query about how one is experiencing something (the only moment one is ever alive) and turned it into being about how one is doing something (as if the word ‘experiencing’ is irrelevant) and are now asking me if such silliness constitutes sensible dialogue.

*

RESPONDENT: What does how mean?

RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say:

• ‘how: (a question as to) the way or manner (of doing something)’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Thus ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ could just as easily be formulated as ‘in what way am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ or ‘in what manner am I experiencing this moment of being alive’.

RESPONDENT: It can either point to: with what method? ... or: what are its characteristics/what is it like?

RICHARD: Am I to take it that when someone – anyone – being solicitous as to your well-being asks ‘how do you do’/‘how are you going’ you have difficulty in grasping whether they are enquiring as to with what mode of procedure it is you are utilising for salubrity or what its quality is/its features-attributes-properties are?

*

RESPONDENT: How is your sentence different from: ‘Notice what you are experiencing with your senses now?’

RICHARD: First of all, your sentence does not indicate that it is this moment of being alive (the only moment anyone is ever alive) which you are experiencing; second, by specifying that it be your sensate experiencing it leaves out both your affective and cognitive experiencing; third, the word ‘notice’ (as in observe, heed, and so on) is passive, impersonal/ detached, and not interrogative, personal/ involved.

RESPONDENT: Which is the same as: ‘Look closely at what is happening now’.

RICHARD: Again there is no indication that it is this moment of being alive (the only moment anyone is ever alive) which is the happening being looked closely at – as with your first sentence it could be any thing/any creature/any event which is being noticed/observed closely – and neither does it accommodate affective and cognitive perception nor is it explicitly inquisitive, necessarily intimate, or specifically an engagement.

RESPONDENT: Or: ‘Be conscious of what is happening’ ...

RICHARD: In what way does that (a) designate that it is this moment of being alive (the only moment anyone is ever alive) which is the happening to be conscious of ... and (b) include being conscious of sensitive and affective and cognitive experiencing ... and (c) inextricably implicate being conscious in a questioning and subjectively participatory manner?

RESPONDENT: ... which is what your mother meant when you used a big knife as a kid: ‘Think about what you are doing!’

RICHARD: No parent I have ever met, heard of, or read about, ever meant ‘how are you experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive)’ when they exclaimed ‘think about what you are doing (with that big knife)’.

RESPONDENT: All of the above are new-age clichés.

RICHARD: Ah, that would explain why none of them bear any relationship whatsoever to what the actualism method is on about.

RESPONDENT: Nothing wrong with that but they have been practised without success by many people. I would guess millions.

RICHARD: Well now ... it was high time, then, that someone came up with something entirely new, eh?

*

RESPONDENT: Now (‘this moment’) = the only moment you are ever alive is a 100% cliché ...

RICHARD: Here is the full version:

• [Richard]: ‘It is essential for success to grasp the fact that this is your only moment of being alive. The past, although it did happen, is not actual now. The future, though it will happen, is not actual now. Only now is actual. Yesterday’s happiness and harmlessness does not mean a thing if one is miserable and malicious now ... and a hoped-for happiness and harmlessness tomorrow is to but waste this moment of being alive in waiting. All you get by waiting is more waiting’.

RESPONDENT: Again nothing wrong with that but it so not new ... and makes no difference in my experience.

RICHARD: Do you comprehend that, although the past was actual when it was happening, it is not actual now and that, although the future will be actual when it does happen, it is not actual now ... that only this moment is actual?

If so, do you further comprehend that anytime you felt happy and harmless/will feel happy and harmless does not mean a thing if you are not feeling happy and harmless now ... that a remembered occasion/an anticipated occasion pales into insignificance if you are currently feeling malicious and sorrowful?

Furthermore, do you understand that to be living this moment – the only moment you are ever alive – by feeling malicious and sorrowful is to be frittering away a vital opportunity to be fully alive ... to totally enjoy and appreciate being what you indubitably are (a sensate creature) whilst you are here on this planet?

If so, is it not silly to waste this only moment you are ever alive by feeling malicious and sorrowful ... when you could be feeling happy and harmless?

RESPONDENT: Having your sentence there often is like someone trying to give up smoking/go on a diet/start jogging ...

RICHARD: In what way is how I have previously explained the workings of the actualism method like trying to follow the dictates of neo-puritanical social engineers masquerading as public health officials? Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... if ‘I’ am not feeling good then ‘I’ have something to look at to find out why. What has happened, between the last time ‘I’ felt good and now? When did ‘I’ feel good last? Five minutes ago? Five hours ago? What happened to end those felicitous feelings? Ahh ... yes: ‘He said that and I ...’. Or: ‘She didn’t do this and I ...’. Or: ‘What I wanted was ...’. Or: ‘I didn’t do ...’. And so on and so on ... one does not have to trace back into one’s childhood ... usually no more than yesterday afternoon at the most (‘feeling good’ is an unambiguous term – it is a general sense of well-being – and if anyone wants to argue about what feeling good means ... then do not even bother trying to do this at all). Once the specific moment of ceasing to feel good is pin-pointed, and the silliness of having such an incident as that (no matter what it is) take away one’s enjoyment and appreciation of this only moment of being alive is seen for what it is – usually some habitual reactive response – one is once more feeling good ... but with a pin-pointed cue to watch out for next time so as to not have that trigger off yet another bout of the same-old same-old. This is called nipping it in the bud before it gets out of hand ... with application and diligence and patience and perseverance one soon gets the knack of this and more and more time is spent enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. And, of course, once one does get the knack of this, one up-levels ‘feeling good’, as a bottom line each moment again, to ‘feeling happy and harmless’ ... and after that to ‘feeling perfect’ (...)’.

RESPONDENT: ... it is fine for a bit after the newness of the decision but within days or weeks it is forgotten and life continues as it was before. That is exactly what has happened with your sentence to me, or was I not sincere enough?

RICHARD: Going solely by what you have written – and it can only be but a guess – I would suggest looking up what the word ‘cynical’ means in a few good dictionaries.

RESPONDENT No 33: No 60 has not shown readiness in tracing the root cause for his ‘tantrum’ despite many questions from Richard.

RESPONDENT: Excuse me for interjecting, but that is neither fair nor true. I am, of course, aware that Richard was giving a practical demonstration of how the method works in practice ... i.e. what happened between [one date] and [another date] to trigger the loss of felicitous feelings? In the course of daily life, lots of things can and do happen to cause or diminish felicitous feelings ...

RESPONDENT No 33: If you do not find the root cause/trigger of what has caused the loss of felicitous feeling, then the method has not been given its full chance.

I had this experience yesterday: I suddenly found myself amidst deep sorrow which I had described before. it was growing taking various shapes, calling all those instances that I had erred, guilt ridden, feeling other person’s sorrow, blaming how cold I had been to ‘No 60’ in my mails, fearing an attack from ‘No 60’ and ‘No 53’ etc. I was once again in the midst of some seemingly unresolvable situation.

Then I said, no matter what I am going to exactly practise actualism method. I am going to recollect the last moment I felt good, and trace the trigger. I couldn’t do it. amazing amount of resistance. I hated the method. I didn’t want to go ahead. I wanted to watch the growing sorrow instead. But I said, I have to do it. No other choice. It took me 10 minutes or so and finally I was convinced that I had to find out the trigger.

And the trigger I found. I wasn’t convinced ... it was a lot of trial and error search ... but I found it all right. I couldn’t have found it from watching the evolution of the feelings ... it was totally different. It was a total surprise. Then I finally understood actualism method. You keep finding the triggers to feeling bad and replace them with sense and disable them ... you do it with common sense by feeling good as soon as possible. As long as you do not do this, you will be triggered again and again and again and you will experience the same old in different forms due to the same reasons.

So, actualism method does exactly what is required: not more, not less.

I am more and more surprised that in spite of my participation and claiming various things all along, I hadn’t put the method into practise 100%. I talk more, contradict myself a lot. But I am glad that things are dropping.

I read Vineeto’s mail and followed the conversation she pointed to that I had with Richard... if only I had understood all those a while ago, I would have saved all these turmoil.

RESPONDENT: But here is the key point, the one that almost every respondent seems to have overlooked ... the reaction I have described occurs independently of those events and independently of my current attitude toward actualism/actualists. I am not bullshitting about this.

RESPONDENT No 33: It is possible. I thought I experienced briefly what you describe as feedback loop. Then I said: why am I doing this? Why should I feel bad because of this question? Why should I avoid the light of awareness? Why should I throw a tantrum? Is it not clear that unless I find out every moment and again what is going on, good/bad, I can never progress? Isn’t it the darkness where the dark side flourishes? Talking to myself thus, I was finally able to see sense and stopped my tantrum.

RESPONDENT: I could be having a great day, could be on fine terms with actualists, could be very enthusiastic about actualism ... yet when I start asking myself ‘How ....?’ ... inevitably before very long, without anything necessarily having happened other than beginning to ask the question and become self-consciously seeking to maintain felicitous feelings, the feedback loop sets in exactly as I have described it.

I’ve said this repeatedly: the problem I had with the method was unrelated to any and all problems that the method revealed, and unrelated to any and all events that arose in daily life. It itself created a problem that is not otherwise present.

RESPONDENT No 33: Fair. But then it is ‘you’ who is creating the problem and you have to find out why. The method may or may not deliver the goods... but if you have a ‘reaction’ to that method, it is your reaction only.

It is true for any method... not just actualism. Any reaction is yours. And any affective reaction, doubly so.

RESPONDENT: In any case, the mystery is solved now ... and the matter is over and done with. I just find it extraordinary that you would consider these responses:

From Vineeto: ‘... ... ... ...’

RESPONDENT No 33: I think Vineeto’s mails are simply great... Peter has a certain flavour (no nonsense... no dilly dallying) and Vineeto gives practical stuff more, Richard with his extensive research and economy... etc.

RESPONDENT: From Peter: ‘If all else fails, read the instructions.’

RESPONDENT No 33: Amicus No 60 – magis amica veritas. Your mails are/were very interesting. you write well. you are an interesting person. you have friendliness, certain amount of exploratory nature... etc. But I think you have believed in the writings more than you should. I think you have taken certain stuff from the writings without validation.

I think your wisdom is a mixture of your experience with some projections that concur with actualism. Therefore there are a lot of falsities in it. You may not like what I am saying, but if necessary we can go into this. My case is the same... I do not deny it.

So I say: Peter is right... you need little more reading.

RESPONDENT: From Richard: ‘I have no intention whatsoever of even beginning to think about providing some reasonable explanation, as to why you have what you characterise as being a feedback loop problem with the actualism method, let alone doing so.’

RESPONDENT No 33: Finally it is a do it yourself business. Richard in his wisdom might consider leaving ‘me’ to figure out its tricks for itself. Richard has somewhere encouraged the practising actualists to write so that this kind of exploration is documented and people can relate to – otherwise they will be lost due to fallibility of memory.

It is more or less clear for me that nobody has clearly understood actualism and put fully into practise except Richard, Alan, Peter, Vineeto, Gary ... their writing clearly demonstrates that to me...

No 66 seems to be doing a good job but I am not sure if has had the taste of passions, No 32 has a great understanding of the stuff but I am not sure if he is moving vertically or horizontally :) ... as for me, I have a long way to go but I have my engine started and I have started enjoying the scenery :). No 37 has got a great intellectual grip as well, he has put them in practise as well, but maybe he is not giving it 100% ... No 04 I am not sure if he has cracked the stuff. this is what I have concluded from my study of the mails.

RESPONDENT: ... As ‘100% sense’ in responding to the problem I described, or that you would consider them to be telling it like it is, telling the plain truth, giving one’s fellow human being the bitter medicine he needs, or other macho nonsense.

RESPONDENT No 33: I don’t think they are like Gurdjieff giving the ‘bitter pill’ or a ‘zen blow’... they are simply stating the facts.

Sometimes No 60 ... you may not be able to see ‘No 60’ ... but ‘No 60’ may be visible to others in the form of various things you write. It will be for you too, if for some strange weird desire you do post mortem of your mails.

*

RESPONDENT No 33: And that tells me that he has to go little further deep before he can disown the method.

RESPONDENT: Disowned it already chum, and life is better already. Feel like I’ve cast off a straightjacket.

RESPONDENT No 33: I have disowned the method/actualism more than once ... and I felt a great relief. but then, I realized that I had merely lost the beliefs ... believing in actualism is not practising actualism. No 33 to No 60, 31.5.2005

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). Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... I have never followed anyone; I have never been part of any religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical group; I have never done any disciplines, practices or exercises at all; I have never done any meditation, any yoga, any chanting of mantras, any tai chi, any breathing exercises, any praying, any fasting, any flagellations, any ... any of those ‘Tried and True’ inanities; nor did I endlessly analyse my childhood for ever and a day; nor did I do never-ending therapies wherein one expresses oneself again and again ... and again and again’.

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:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Whatever presents itself in terms of divisive thought and feeling can dissolve in awareness.
• [Richard]: ‘Nothing substantive can happen in awareness while the instinctual survival passions dominate ... and the word ‘survival’ should explain why.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘It comes through earnest self-study.
• [Richard]: ‘If the above quoted understanding [‘the self is nothing other than conditioning, the thinker/feeler/doer is thought’] is what comes through ‘earnest self-study’ then perhaps something else is called for.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You mean simplistic advice like keep asking ‘what am I experiencing?’ ;-)
• [Richard]: ‘Ahh ... I always like it when someone says something like this as it shows that they are beginning to take notice that when I say naiveté I mean naiveté.
Maybe its very simplicity is why it has been overlooked all these aeons?

In a nutshell: to the cultured sophisticate to be simple is to be simplistic.

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)?

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 awareness-cum-attentiveness ... let alone to a degree that others do not.

*

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 [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: 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 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:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I think its important to be free of malice (...) but I’m not sure why we need to free of sorrow.
• [Richard]: ‘You do not need to be free of sorrow (or malice) ... it is your choice, and your choice alone, each moment again as to how you prefer to experience this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive)’.

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 possibly 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 and thus resume being happy (and harmless) forthwith.

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.

RICHARD: Look, ‘he’ [the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body back in 1981] 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: 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 No. 68: 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:

• [Richard]: ‘... it is your choice, and your choice alone, each moment again as to how you prefer to experience this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive)’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: That being the case, all that would be necessary is to stay aware, stay alert to what is felt, and if one catches oneself feeling something less than <good, excellent, perfect> one could just elect to feel <good, excellent, perfect> again. Gosh. No wonder you say this method is so simple, and you wonder what all the fuss is about.

RICHARD: Aye, it is so very simple that some find its radicality hard to understand ... for instance:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘(...) After all, that’s the whole point of this, isn’t it? Not just to unravel the accrued identity, but to be happy and harmless. The method is incredibly simple: I am not happy now; I was happy a minute/ hour/ year ago; Ascertain what caused me to stop being happy; Get back to being happy as quickly as possible. No wonder this is so radical – it has none of the trappings and dogma that humans seem to need to create around such an elemental concept. Of course, sometimes simple things are the hardest to understand’. (Tuesday 6/05/2003 11:22 PM AEST).

Or that its utter simplicity escapes them:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I have spent a lot of the last 18 months thinking about actualism, but the utter simplicity of it has escaped me. Let me take a snapshot before it flies away again. The idea is to spend as much time as possible feeling good, great, excellent or perfect. The universe itself needs no work, it is already fine. The peak experience shows that when we are okay the universe is perfect beyond compare. Human life can be fantastic. The universe doesn’t need to be improved before people can be happy. All we have to do is eliminate our own misery and malice, which resides right here in the breast (or brain stem)’. (Sunday 1/05/2005 11:44 AM AEST).

RESPONDENT: Speaking for myself alone now ... it does not work/has not worked that way. Why I do not know, but I would like to find out.

RICHARD: Simply this: the method you have been applying is not the method on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site.

(...)

RESPONDENT: I do not experience it as possible to choose how I am feeling at any given moment.

RICHARD: If it be not you who is doing that choosing then who is? For instance: who was it who chose to [quote] ‘feel continually wretched and frustrated and miserable’ [endquote] whilst trying to hoist themself into the air by their shoelaces if it was not you? And who, for another instance, preferred to [quote] ‘gradually yet persistently add feelings of frustration and bewilderment’ [endquote], at the fact that the method you have been applying was not working, if not you?

Or, for yet another instance, who is it that decides, on occasion, to deal with the vicissitudes of life by [quote] ‘throwing a tantrum’ [endquote] if it be not you?

*

RESPONDENT: Nay. Feelings happen involuntarily ...

RICHARD: You may have missed the following yesterday as it was in a post to another:

• [Respondent]: ‘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.
(...)
• [Richard]: ‘... 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. (...) 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: ... incidentally, Richard, how can they be ‘an hereditary occurrence’ and be of my choosing at the same time?

RICHARD: You do comprehend that you are your feelings/ your feelings are you (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) do you not? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘It has taken me a hell of a long time to understand the difference between *having* feelings and *being* those feelings. Because I have not clearly understood this, I’ve never quite got the hang of paying attention to feelings without praise or blame, and without notions of innocence and culpability, right and wrong, etc getting in the way.
This makes things very interesting. The moment I regard my ‘self’ as ‘having’ a feeling, I’m split down the middle and there’s a secondary reaction on the part of the social identity (an urge to "do something" about the feeling, which in turn evokes more feelings, and so on). Conversely, if I recognise that I *am* the feeling, it most often dissolves into thin air – and usually pretty quickly too.
This is great. It’s especially helpful with regard to anger and frustration which have been two of my biggest hurdles to date. Previously, when I caught myself being angry, annoyed or frustrated, identifying and paying attention to this feeling would NOT cause it to disappear. On the contrary, the feeling and the awareness of myself as ‘having’ it would sometimes become like a microphone and amplifier locked into a screaming feedback loop.
I’m really pleased that this is no longer happening. It seems almost too easy’. [emphasis in original]. (Thursday 28/10/2004 6:55 PM AEST).

And again there is a reference to how ‘almost too easy’ actualism is.

*

RESPONDENT: Richard, *IF* it is possible for anyone to feel excellent simply by choosing to feel excellent, why aren’t they?

RICHARD: Why ask me (and not them)?

RESPONDENT: It is not as if people through the ages have not wanted/ tried to feel good, is it?

RICHARD: No ... yet mostly when I have asked others they generally come out with some variation on the hoary ‘you can’t change human nature’ adage.

RESPONDENT: What was the difference between you and them?

RICHARD: I am none too sure there was any difference: I was a normal person; I was born of normal parents; I had normal siblings; I had a normal upbringing; I attended a normal (state) school; I obtained a normal occupation; I had a normal wife; I had normal children ... and so on and so forth.

RESPONDENT: The way you describe it, it wasn’t even that much of a struggle for you (found the secret to life inside the first three months???).

RICHARD: It was inside the first few weeks, actually, of putting into action what was startlingly evident in the four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) which had finally provided the direction my otherwise following-the-herd way of living was singularly lacking (although there was a six-month incubation period between the PCE and the application thereof).

I distinctly recall informing my then-wife at the time that I had ‘done it their way’, for 34 years and to no avail, and that it was high-time I did it my way (and when she asked what way that was I said that I did not know but that it would become progressively apparent with each step I took).

RESPONDENT: So why haven’t millions of others discovered that they can feel excellent by choosing to ...

RICHARD: Quite possibly – and I am not being facetious here – they were/ are waiting for someone else to do it/ show the way (for, despite many peoples huff-and-puff about leaders, there have always been pioneers, who have blazed the trails others follow, and always will be).

RESPONDENT: ... unless, of course, they can’t ...

RICHARD: It is not so much a case of they can not but, rather, that they will not.

RESPONDENT: ... [unless, of course, they can’t] without a radical shift in their understanding of self/ world/ reality *engendering* such change?

RICHARD: My experience with the peoples who have chosen to give felicity/ innocuity a go is, as a generalisation, that the necessary paradigm shift has usually been a gradual process of comprehension – not necessarily an instantaneous shift – and which paradigmatical change commences because of that choice ... and that choice mainly comes after a gestation period (which itself follows intelligent appraisal/ thoughtful consideration).

And, by way of personal example, I need only point to the six-month incubation period already mentioned.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

P.S.: For what it is worth: a true rebel wears their motorbike helmet (for instance) without any protest/ without any resentment whatsoever.

RESPONDENT: I should have trusted my own judgement all along. This ‘happy and harmless as humanly possible while remaining a self’ bullshit ... it’s just delaying the inevitable (and maybe getting so comfortable with it that there’s no longer a powerful enough incentive to go the rest of the way). No two ways about it, ‘self’-immolation is out and out suicide, an all-or-nothing affair if ever there was one ... and all the happy/ harmless minimise-this-feeling maximise-that-feeling is no more than another game of ego, another way of jerking off and jerking oneself around. No thanks.

VINEETO: There is another option.

Think of the following scenario – one foot is tied to the bed while the other foot is trying to walk out the door, enticed by reports of Richard’s discovery of the actual world and one’s own memories of experiences of perfection.

It is obvious that a person in the above situation would not be able to walk out the door and as such may well find teachings of the ilk that ‘everything is already ok as it is’ becoming more and more appealing.

It would explain why some people say that the actualism method is as easy as putting one foot in front of the other while others seem to encounter unsurmountable difficulties.

Just an idea that may be of help to you in making sense of your current situation.

RESPONDENT: Since I last felt good (6/7 hours ago), I have been trying to re-commence feeling good with no success.

RICHARD: Okay, it is all as simple as this ... trace back by asking yourself such questions as: what happened 6/7 hours ago which occasioned me to cease feeling good? Where was I, back then? What was I doing/what was happening? Was I by myself/ was I with company? Once you start to recall where you were/what you were doing/what was happening/ who was there, and so on, just prior to ceasing to feel good you will find it a lot easier to pin-point the precise moment when those felicitous/innocuous feelings came to an end ... and, thus, just what it was which did that. In short: go back (in memory) to when you were last feeling good and then come forward, step-by-step, until that moment.

RESPONDENT: That sounds very difficult.

RICHARD: Here is a word-of-the-day for you:

• ‘defeatism: conduct or thinking encouraging the expectation or acceptance of defeat; disposition to accept defeat’. (Oxford Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: I can remember – just barely this time – that it was thoughts about tomorrow and decision-making that probably ended the felicitous feelings.

RICHARD: Presumably by [quote] ‘this time’ [endquote] you are referring to the following:

• [Respondent]: ‘I have seen the silliness in letting those thoughts about work to do for tomorrow (and a stream of similar future worries) impair my experiencing of this moment. That was earlier, though. Since I last felt good (6/7 hours ago), I have been trying to re-commence feeling good with no success’. [endquote]

Given that you have more recently reported that tracking back and investigating has not made you feel any better then on that earlier occasion, of seeing the silliness in letting thoughts about work to do for tomorrow (and a stream of similar future worries) impair your experiencing of this moment, did feeling good recommence?

RESPONDENT: It was indeed silly to allow that to happen.

RICHARD: Unless it really occurred – rather than it [quote] ‘probably’ [endquote] happened – that can only be an armchair assertion.

RESPONDENT: Meanwhile, here I am feeling ‘not-so-good’, lacklustre, flat, a little frustrated.

RICHARD: Hmm ... it could be said that such is the lot of defeatists who speculate about what most likely occurred (rather than actively finding out).

RESPONDENT: How do I get back to feeling good?

RICHARD: Quite simply ... by actively tracing back to when you last felt good (a general sense of well-being) through literally asking yourself such questions as: what happened 6/7 hours ago which occasioned me to cease feeling good? Where was I, back then? What was I doing/what was happening? Was I by myself/was I with company?

Once you actually start to recall where you were/what you were doing/what was happening/who was there, and so on, just prior to ceasing to feel good you will find it a lot easier to pin-point the precise moment when those felicitous/innocuous feelings came to an end ... and, thus, just what it was which really did that.

In short: consciously go back (in memory) to when you were last feeling good and then heuristically come forward (in memory), step-by-step, until that moment.

GARDOL: I had questions about the HAIETMOBA, and kept searching the site for answers, since I could not get answers from Vineeto or Richard.

RICHARD: As they pertain to Gardol’s (purported) persistence in searching The Actual Freedom Trust website for answers here, then, are those three questions (which came at the very end of his 4,992-word email):

• [Gardol]: ‘1) How do I do the HAIETMOBA in those moments when I suffer from physical pain, extreme fatigue, or low blood sugar, and therefore cannot find the requisite thought at cause?
• [Gardol]: ‘2) How do I avoid slipping into Essential Oneness in order to feel happy when I feel myself in desolation, sorrow, and emptiness?
• [Gardol]: ‘3) How do I upgrade from feeling good to feeling happy, without subscribing to the Actual Freedom meaning system? In other words, what cause do I have to feel happy or perfect, other than the one that I have described above?

And there, in a nutshell, the crux of the issue is laid bare ... namely: for all of Gardol’s (purported) persistence in searching the website for answers he demonstrably has no comprehension of even the most basic, or essential, elements which set actualism distinctly apart from the two other alternatives (materialism and spiritualism).

The first question, for instance, comes complete with the (mainly spiritual) assumption that thought, and not feelings, are the problem ... yet it is writ large all throughout website that feelings (at root the instinctual passions), and not thought per se, are the problem.

Also, the initial query in the third question is of similar ilk ... it comes replete with the nonsensical assumption that unconditional happiness (aka uncaused happiness) is the outcome of a meaning system. Vis.:

• [Gardol to Vineeto]: ‘I think you feel perfect because you have found a meaning system that works for you. (...) To put this in a more concrete way, it strikes me as hypocritical to heap criticism on the ‘Enlightened Teachers’ for posing as the ‘Saviours of Mankind’, when you, Peter, and Richard have taken the same essential position, albeit with slightly less arrogance. You all must feel good, happy, or even perfect, knowing that you have found the One Solution to all of mankind’s problems. If the rest of the world would listen to you, read and follow your instructions on the Only Way of becoming actually free, then we would have paradise on Earth’. (groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/messages/1231).

As the follow-up query in the third question refers to a cause (for feeling happy or perfect) which is described earlier then that description is particularly illuminating in regards his dearth of even the most basic, or essential, comprehension:

• [Gardol to Vineeto]: ‘... I only feel happy when something extra fun occurs. So, for a trivial example, when I hear a great song on the radio or Internet, for example, I feel happy and great. When the song ends, I feel merely good. What happened that stopped me from feeling happy? That song ended’. (groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/messages/1231).

And, lastly, here is some of the background information to the second question:

• [Gardol to Vineeto]: ‘I notice myself feeling emptiness/ void/ anxiety/ sorrow. *I follow the feeling* of sorrow and emptiness more and more fully. *This feeling I feel*, without labels, then transmutes into the Joy of Unity or Essential Unity *as I feel into it*. In Essential Unity, I would say I feel happy’. [emphasises added]. (groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/messages/1231).

‘Tis no wonder that Gardol elected to base his sledgehammer-and-blowtorch repudiation of the whole website and enterprise on the academic epistemological argument which exercised the minds of several and various correspondents ... for to have done otherwise would have required comprehending just what it is that is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust website.

Here is a useful word:

•  ‘ignoration: the action of ignoring or disregarding someone or something; the fact of being ignored’. (Oxford Dictionary).

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless