Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections

RESPONDENT No. 68: As for myself, I already know actualism ‘works’ in making me happier and more harmless ...

RESPONDENT: As for myself, I know that it doesn’t. My experience, observation and reasoning tells me that unless it’s accompanied by an actual pathological process that causes damage to the brain (maybe even be random damage at that), the actualism process is naught but wishful thinking and (at best) a powerful placebo effect. It causes changes, sure ... but those can (best, IMO) be attributed to: (a) finding a meaningful purpose to pursue; (b) being fully committed to a single goal; (c) doing it with a like-minded individual; (d) practising a happy/harmless morality (because that’s all it is unless/until ‘self’-immolation occurs).

(...)

RESPONDENT: The possibility that a rare neurological condition was the driving force behind the remarkable events of your post-1980 life, and that your ‘followers’ were having themselves on, occurred to me right from the start.

RICHARD: Presuming that by ‘a rare neurological condition’ you are meaning something similar to what terms such as ‘a freak of nature’/’a sport of nature’ refer to – and that, therefore, nobody else need even begin trying to emulate – when did it occur to you that ‘a rare neurological condition’ = ‘an actual pathological process’ (involving, caused by, or of the nature of disease or illness)?

RESPONDENT: It occurred to me from the beginning. I say ‘it’ rather than ‘they’ because for me they both are different ways of expressing the same underlying concern.

RICHARD: As the underlying concern that a rare congenital/acquired disease/illness of this flesh and blood body’s nervous system – meaning that, therefore, nobody else need even begin trying to make happen the damage to this flesh and blood body’s brain (maybe even being random damage at that) which you allege the identity in residence all those years ago caused – occurred to you when you first came across The Actual Freedom Trust web site would it be reasonable to say that your subsequent dismissal of any practicing actualists’ success in living a virtual freedom, through the sincere application of the way that particular identity went about achieving same for six months or so in 1981, is predicated upon that very idea?

For the most recent example of this dismissal:

• [Respondent]: ‘I don’t intend any personal offence to anyone here, but the fact is I do not want to be like Peter, or Vineeto, or Gary, or ... whoever’. (‘Virtual Kindergarten’; Wednesday 25/05/2005 12:40 PM AEST).

And why? None other than this:

• [Respondent]: ‘... [because] the practice of actualism is nowt but a minimalistic moral code and an investigative technique’. [endquote].

In other words, unless any practicing actualist also has the same rare congenital/acquired disease/illness of the nervous system that it occurred to you right from the beginning this particular flesh and blood body has they are but straining at a gnat (being unduly fussy or scrupulous about something small and insignificant)?

(...)

RESPONDENT: Instead of saying I am ‘nearly certain’ that your condition is/was pathological, I should say that I simply have not ruled it out ...

RICHARD: I see ... so you have not ruled out that neither the intent itself, to actually be peaceful and harmonious, nor the outcome of that intention involves, is caused by, or is of the nature of disease or illness, then?

RESPONDENT: ‘Caused by’, not ‘is of the nature of’. That’s correct ... I have not ruled out either one.

RICHARD: Just so there is no misunderstanding: you have not ruled out that neither the intent itself, to actually be peaceful and harmonious, nor the outcome of that intention was caused by a disease or illness .... which means that, for there to be global peace-on-earth, 6.0+ billion peoples need to somehow acquire a rare disease and/or illness of the nervous system?

May I ask? What is the likelihood of that (conceptual) neurological disease and/or illness being an infectious one ... and if so by what agent (a mosquito perhaps)?

*

RESPONDENT: ... and its degree of likelihood mysteriously increases when I am throwing a tantrum.

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off this latest tantrum?

RESPONDENT: Yet another instance of this: [‘Problems With The Method’; Monday 16/05/2005 4:40 AM AEST].

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off yet another instance of your problems with the actualism method?

RESPONDENT: Nothing happens to set off an instance of my problem with the method.

RICHARD: Okay ... what happened, then, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST  and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST such as to set-off your latest tantrum?

RESPONDENT: May I ask first, what is the purpose of this line of inquiry?

RICHARD: Sure ... the way the actualism method works is to ask oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) until it becomes a non-verbal attitude towards life, a wordless approach to being alive, so that the slightest deviation from the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition – a way epitomised by a felicitous and innocuous naïve sensuousness – is not only automatically noticed almost immediately but the instance whereby the deviation occurred is readily ascertained such as to enable the resumption of one’s habituated blithesome and benign way again ... sooner rather than later.

By your own words you commenced paying full attention to this moment at 10:38 AM on Saturday the 5/03/2005 AEST and somewhere between then and at 12:47 PM on Friday 13/05/2005 AEST something happened such as to bring about what you described in your own words as throwing a tantrum ... and, unless one is a sicko, throwing a tantrum can hardly fall under the auspices of being [quote] ‘fun’ [endquote].

Obviously it cannot be a problem with the method itself as, by my calculations, 69 days elapsed between your commencement of paying full attention to this moment (on the fifth of March), each moment again, and the onset of your latest tantrum (on the thirteenth of April).

So ... what happened, then, between 10:38 AM Saturday 5/03/2005 AEST and 12:47 PM Friday 13/05/2005 AEST such as to set-off your latest tantrum?

RESPONDENT: In light of your comments to [No. 68] in this exchange: [No. 68]: ‘(...) I’d like to hear some reasonable explanation of why from a experienced actualist. [Richard]: ‘You have to be kidding, surely ... was the following [now snipped] not a clear enough warning for you to *not even begin thinking about providing some reasonable explanation*? [emphasis added]. May I ask whether you have taken your own advice to ‘not even begin thinking about providing some reasonable explanation’?

RICHARD: I really do wonder, now and then, why person after person would consider they can try out smart-aleckry on me, and get away with it, when the evidence of so many e-mails in the archives demonstrates that any such attempt has invariably resulted in them coming off a pathetic second-best (if that).

RESPONDENT: It is a matter of wanting to know what your intentions are in asking me these questions, so that I can make a sensible decision about whether to participate in it or not.

RICHARD: There is only the one question – about what happened, between 10:38 AM Saturday 5/03/2005 AEST and 12:47 PM Friday 13/05/2005 AEST, such as to set-off your latest tantrum – and whether you answer it or not is entirely up to you as it is your life you are living, when all is said and done, and only you get to reap the rewards, or pay the consequences, for any action or inaction you may or may not have eventuate.

RESPONDENT: If you have no interest whatsoever in making a fair-dinkum suggestion regarding the problems I’ve described, what exactly is your intention?

RICHARD: My intention is to keep on asking you what happened between 10:38 AM Saturday 5/03/2005 AEST and 12:47 PM Friday 13/05/2005 AEST, such as to set-off your latest tantrum, until you either answer, drop the topic completely, or even go away to (seemingly) greener pastures.

*

RICHARD: Nevertheless I will continue to play the silliness game accordingly until such peoples wake up to the fact they are frittering away an opportunity ... to wit: where has it even been remotely implied, let alone specifically stated, by me that there has ever been any thought at all about providing some reasonable explanation as to why you have what you characterise, both in the e-mail your co-respondent replied to you in (in the elided section of that quote you provide above) and elsewhere, as being a feedback loop problem with the actualism method?

RESPONDENT: The question makes little sense to me. Where have I implied that you have ‘remotely implied’ or ‘explicitly stated’ that you had given any thought to providing a reasonable explanation (for the feedback loop I’ve described)?

RICHARD: Ha ... where have I implied that you implied that I even remotely implied, let alone specifically stated, that I have given any thought to providing a reasonable explanation (for what you have characterised as being a feedback loop problem with the actualism method)?

RESPONDENT: What I have done is ask what your intentions are ...

RICHARD: If I may point out? You specifically asked me what the purpose of this line of enquiry is (asking what happened, between 10:38 AM Saturday 5/03/2005 AEST and 12:47 PM Friday 13/05/2005 AEST, such as to set-off your latest tantrum) so I explained the way the actualism method actually works ... and then asked the obvious question (again).

And your response (to the fourth occasion of asking that same simple question)? None other than to instead ask me whether I have taken my own advice to another about not even beginning to think about providing some reasonable explanation for what you have characterised as being a feedback loop problem with the actualism method.

RESPONDENT: ... and you appear to be telling me, if I understand you correctly, that – whatever your intentions are – they are NOT to provide a reasonable explanation for the peculiar effect I’ve described.

RICHARD: I neither told you that nor even appeared to be telling you that: I explained the way the actualism method actually works ... and then asked the same simple and obvious question yet again.

RESPONDENT: So I ask again: if your intention is not to provide reasonable explanations, what is it?

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.

I may be a lot of things ... but silly I am not.

RESPONDENT: A straight answer doesn’t strike me as too much to ask.

RICHARD: Okay then ... what happened between 10:38 AM Saturday 5/03/2005 AEST and 12:47 PM Friday 13/05/2005 AEST such as to set-off your latest tantrum?

*

RESPONDENT: So I ask again: if your intention is not to provide reasonable explanations, what is it?

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: In that case we’re wasting our time.

RICHARD: As none of my responses have been a waste of my time you are way, way out there on your own with that observation ... just as you are with endeavouring to divert the course of this particular exchange of e-mails into being yet more grist for your consumptive mill.

On six occasions now I have asked you to put the aforementioned method into practice the way it is actually practiced by those reporting success with it ... maybe the seventh time around might do the trick: what happened, between Saturday 5/03/2005 10:38 AM AEST and Friday 13/05/2005 12:47 PM AEST, such as to set-off this latest tantrum?

It is your call.

*

RESPONDENT (to Co-Respondent): (...) you come across as a pretty sincere and benevolent person to me, and I appreciate the good will you’ve shown. At this point I am more concerned about you being steamrolled by Mr Benevolence as he tries to steamroll me, so stay at a safe distance man. ;-)

RICHARD: As a wink is as good as a nod here is the story so far:

1. You write numerous e-mails to this list detailing what you characterise as a feedback loop problem with the actualism method and ask for responses.
2. You make it abundantly clear that the only acceptable responses will be of a kind in accord with your contention there is something amiss with the method itself.
3. Being able to recognise a set-up when I see one I provide the quotes which particularly make this clear upon your co-respondent asking for some reasonable explanation, regarding said feedback loop, from an actualist that has been around the block more than a few times.
4. You then adroitly switch from being critical of your co-respondent’s responses, as per the set-up, to being laudatory about their character ... and use that as a springboard in futile attempt to score a cheap shot whilst expressing a crocodilian solicitousness.

The only question remaining is how much longer this farce will continue before it too goes the way all those gone before have done.

RESPONDENT No. 60: Nothing happens to set off an instance of my problem with the method. Practising the method itself induces feelings that would not otherwise be present. All I have to do to is start asking myself ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’, and pretty soon it sets off the feedback loop I’ve written about several times now. This does not happen in daily life; it is caused by practising the method. I’ve just this minute been writing about this again here: [‘Re: Some questions on the method to all those practising/practised actualists’; Thursday 26/05/2005 3:36 PM AEST]. I’m no longer interested in practising the method (it’s got so bad that it’s almost like a strong conditioned response now ... ask the question, expect to have poisonous emotions pumping through your veins any minute now ... because it has happened every time). But I’m still very interested in why it is happening. Any ideas? Have you come across this before?

RESPONDENT: [As a guess, I’d have to say you’re too ‘normal’ to be ‘a lone freak in regards to this problem. This will come up again, I think]. I’d like to hear some reasonable explanation of why from a experienced actualist.

RICHARD: You have to be kidding, surely ... were the following [quotes which particularly make abundantly clear that the only acceptable responses will be of a kind in accord with the contention there is something amiss with the method itself] not a clear enough warning for you to not even begin thinking about providing some reasonable explanation?

RESPONDENT: While wishing to know why another is having problems with the method may seem unrelated to my own practice of actualism, in this case I’ve had some experiences that mirror No. 60’s.

RICHARD: As your co-respondent has since explained to another that to ask themself, each moment again, how they are experiencing this moment of being alive is to [quote] ‘have some bloody algorithm mechanically running through my head’ [endquote] – which they hate, resent and rebel against such as to induce poisonous emotions to pump, that would not otherwise be present, in a downward spiralling feedback loop somewhat akin to holding a microphone against amplified loudspeakers – has any light been thrown upon your mirrored experiences?

For this is what a dictionary has to say:

• ‘algorithm: a procedure or set of rules for calculation or problem-solving, now esp. with a computer’. (Oxford Dictionary).

RICHARD: Here the text at that URL which I was referring to by pointing out (further above) that there is ‘the question about what is so different between Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s mindfulness method and the actualism method’ in that e-mail:

• [Respondent]: ‘Buddha taught a technique called ‘mindfulness’ (and most likely the technique was very different 2500 years ago than today) which had as an aim to stop instinctive and affective *behaviour* whether for good or bad. What is so different here to Richard?’ [emphasis added].

There is an enormous difference between merely stopping instinctive and affective behaviour and eliminating the [quote] ‘passionate instincts etc.’ [endquote] themselves ... for the extinction of the latter is the end of the noumenon from which everything (supposedly) arises.

RESPONDENT: Unfortunately, your method has not helped anybody to achieve this lofty goal to extinct the ‘passionate instincts’.

RICHARD: On the contrary ... the very reason why this flesh and blood body is actually free from the human condition (sans the entire affective faculty/identity in toto) is because of the identity in residence all those years ago (1981-1992) utilising the approach ‘he’ devised – a course of action which has become known as the actualism method – to full effect.

RESPONDENT: At best your method has helped people to reduce the effects of their instincts and affections on their behaviour.

RICHARD: Again, what the actualism method did was rid this flesh and blood body of the entire affective faculty/identity in toto.

RESPONDENT: From a practical point of view, it does the same like Buddha’s method.

RICHARD: Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s mindfulness method did not, does not, and never will, rid flesh and blood bodies of the entire affective faculty/identity in toto.

RESPONDENT: Not you, of course ...

RICHARD: The only thing which is an ‘of course’ is you having to exclude the flesh and blood body writing this e-mail ... otherwise that would stuff up your craftily-concocted justification for ignoring the fact that the course of action this flesh and blood body offers, being the one the identity in residence all those years ago both devised and utilised to full effect, was demonstratively effective in achieving the expected goal – enabling the already always existing actual world into being apparent – as contrasted to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s mindfulness method being not the way Mr. Gotama the Sakyan effected ‘his’ goal (of becoming more spiritually enlightened/ mystically awakened than any of ‘his’ peers, who are generally characterised as being ‘Brahmins’, had been up until then).

(...)

RICHARD: Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s mindfulness method did not, does not, and never will, rid flesh and blood bodies of the entire affective faculty/identity in toto.

RESPONDENT: Sure not ...

RICHARD: I am pleased that your question of Monday 2/05/2005 10:45 AM AEST – your ‘What is so different here to Richard?’ query quoted further above – has been finally answered to your satisfaction.

CO-RESPONDENT: When a feeling changes within a person, something supplants the feeling/belief. Feelings and beliefs don’t just disappear. What is the thought, memory, or whatever that is able to permanently eliminate a feeling/belief?

RICHARD: Seeing the fact will set you free of the belief.

CO-RESPONDENT: What is the fact?

RICHARD: What is the belief?

CO-RESPONDENT: Let’s use the example ‘No one really likes me’.

RICHARD: Okay ... here is the way the actualism method works in practice: 1. Was that – your ‘no one really likes me’ example – the feeling which changed within you? 2. If so, what was it that triggered off that feeling (the feeling which changed within you)? 3. What did that feeling which changed within you change into? 4. What was it that triggered off that change? 5. Was it silly to have both event No. 2 and event No. 4 take away your enjoyment and appreciation of being alive at this particular moment (the only moment you are ever alive)?

RESPONDENT: Why is it important to ask question 2, 3 & 4?

RICHARD: So as to ascertain causation – that feeling does not usually arise in vacuo – and the succession (often through nothing other than association).

RESPONDENT: Can one not see the silliness of having the feeling immediately after 1?

RICHARD: If one can see the silliness of having the feeling, period, then surely one can also see the sensibility of determining cause and effect (and succession) so as to pre-empt an otherwise endless arousal of same (and its succession) through ignorance for the remainder of one’s life?

RESPONDENT: Speaking personally I am not able to find the answers to 2, 3 & 4 most of the time, yet I can see the silliness of having the feeling take away my enjoyment.

RICHARD: Just so there is no misunderstanding: you are saying that most of the time, even though you can see the silliness of having the feeling take away your enjoyment and appreciation of being alive at this particular moment (the only moment you are ever alive), you are not able to find (a) what it was that triggered off that feeling ... and (b) what that feeling changed into ... and (c) what it was that triggered off that change?

‘Tis no wonder, then, that you report the actualism method not working for you.

RESPONDENT: Indeed it is no wonder. I make no secret of the fact that I do not understand the method.

RICHARD: Nowhere in the exchange that quote came from did you say that the reason why the actualism method does not work for you was because you do not understand it – despite reporting being on this mailing list for around five years – and your co-respondent expressed their appreciation of your support for their beat-up of same by saying they were [quote] ‘grinning from ear to ear’ [endquote]. Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 60]: ‘How Is The Actualist Method Spoiling This Moment Of Being Alive? 1) By making me aware that no fundamental change is occurring; 2) By making me feel *bad* that no fundamental change is occurring; 2) By making me rebel against an activity that is becoming increasingly boring, unpleasant and unsuccessful; 3) By making me feel that there must be something wrong with me because it’s working fine for other people; 4) By confining my mental processes to an uncharacteristically shallow level; a self watching a self watching a self watching a self to the point where I would like to take this useless voyeur and inquisitor by the throat and dash his brains out against the wall). 5) Go to 1.
• [Respondent]: ‘Hi No. 60, On your point 3, I would like to make a comment which might make you feel a little better. This method doesn’t work for me as well –
• [Respondent No. 60]: ‘I’m sorry to hear that, and *I’m grinning from ear to ear* ;-) I can’t deny it’s reassuring not to be a lone freak!
• [Respondent]: ‘– and I am on this list for around 5 years. I can almost assure you that there are a lot of people for whom it doesn’t work. Feel good.
• [Respondent No. 60]: ‘Thankyou, I do! May I wish you a very happy Christmas in return (with an emphasis on happy)’. [emphasis added]. (Monday 20/12/2004 7:04 PM AEDST).

And that was the end of the matter (unless I have missed some e-mails) ... it was not until five months later that you wrote again (on Wednesday 18/05/2005 5:31 PM AEST) when your co-respondent mentioned your name in regards the actualism method not working for you either (as supporting evidence that it is the method which is at fault and not their misapplication of same) ... and nowhere did you explain then that it was because you did not understand the method (unless I have missed some e-mails).

To reduce the actualism method to just seeing the silliness of having the prominent feelings which are rare for you (like anger, jealousy, malice) arise – and to then drop them immediately as they begin to do so irrespective of what caused them and at what precise point they started – is to render it indistinguishable from the socialised/acculturated technique of suppressing feelings as dutifully practised by billions of peoples world wide ... with the same lack of effect in regards bringing about peace and harmony.

I cannot put it much more bluntly than that.

*

RESPONDENT: Why is it important to ask question 2, 3 & 4?

RICHARD: So as to ascertain causation – that feeling does not usually arise in vacuo – and the succession (often through nothing other than association).

RESPONDENT: Okay, then why is it important to ascertain causation and the succession?

RICHARD: Because my co-respondent has a feeling of being collectively disliked/ unlikeable – a feeling which changes inasmuch something (as yet unspecified) supplants that feeling/belief – and, reporting that the feeling and belief does not just disappear, asks for a panacea.

As there is no such universal cure-all (short of an immediate ‘self’-immolation in toto) then in order to facilitate the prospect of seeing the fact which will set them free, of both the feeling and the something which supplants the feeling/belief, it is necessary for them to ascertain causality – what it was which triggered off that feeling which changed (such as to bring feeling felicitous/innocuous to an end) – and the mechanics of the successivity which followed (what the feeling changed into and the process whereby that supplantation occurred).

As a feeling such as that, involving as it does at least some other human beings, does not usually arise in vacuo then some event (or even a thought about, or a memory of, some event) would have triggered both it and its succession off it behoves them to get off their backside and actually find out, experientially, for themselves just what it was which caused the loss of felicity/innocuity.

Once the specific moment of ceasing to feel felicitous/innocuous is pin-pointed, and the silliness of having such an incident as that (no matter what it is) take away their enjoyment and appreciation of this only moment of being alive is seen for what it is – usually some habitual reactive response – they can be once more feeling felicitous/innocuous ... 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 – pre-empting an otherwise endless arousal of the feeling (and its succession) through ignorance of what triggers same, each occasion again, for the remainder of their life – and with application and diligence and patience and perseverance they can soon get the knack of this and more and more time is spent enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive.

RESPONDENT: I still don’t understand how ascertaining the cause and pinpointing the starting of a feeling can set oneself free from that feeling. However rather than arguing about it, I would try my best to put it into practice and then come back to you.

Now can you please tell me where I am I wrong in applying the method?

RICHARD: A lack of interest, perchance?

RESPONDENT: I think it is lack of understanding.

RICHARD: Why do you think it is lack of understanding?

RESPONDENT: Why do you say ‘lack of interest’?

RICHARD: The following speaks for itself:

• [Respondent]: ‘... I don’t have enough motivation to go beyond this [dropping the feeling so early, upon it beginning to arise, as if it never arose], because this itself is much better than most of my peers’. (Monday 1/08/2005 5:19 PM).

RESPONDENT: How would a person with more interest would go about the scenario I described?

RICHARD: Just for starters ... each moment again (and not just once, eight days after saying they would try their best, and then reporting failure).

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Design, Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity