Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Flogged Misconceptions
Frequently Flogged Misconceptions
Actualists Don’t Care
RESPONDENT: I want to say greetings. How has life
been treating you?
Are you well as ever? Of course you are. I can only imagine, which is itself
impossible. Alas, there are the two PCEs.
RICHARD: I have had G’day No 11, And greetings to you. I have been treating life
perfectly, thanks. If you mean physically well ... as well as to be expected, I guess, for a sexagenarian. If you mean mentally well ... as
excellent as ever. If you mean emotionally well ... n/a.
Now that you have had those two PCE’s, alas, what are you going to do about them? Keep them right
to the forefront of memory? (As in the number one priority in life). File them away for safe-keeping? (As in not really a priority right now).
If it is the first option ... there is no need to ask how to have more happen. If it is the latter option ... there is no point in asking how
to have any happen.
RESPONDENT: I mean mentally and physically. It’s good to know
that you are. I have been trying to be for myself. But have not been as successful as I would like to be due to physical limitations.
Does actual freedom make you respond as though you were in complete freedom
from social graces too?
RICHARD: I must acknowledge I am somewhat nonplussed regarding the nature of that (loaded)
question of yours. To explain:
1. I responded first with a salutation. Vis.:
‘salutation: (...) an utterance, form of words, or gesture by which one person greets another on
meeting, at the beginning of a letter, etc.’. (Oxford Dictionary).
Here it is again (to save you scrolling upwards):
• [Richard]: ‘G’day No. 11’ [endquote].
2. I then returned your greetings in kind. Vis.:
‘greet: receive or meet with demonstrations of welcome’. (Oxford
Here it is again:
• [Respondent]: ‘I want to say greetings.
• [Richard]: ‘And greetings to you’. [endquote].
3. I did not overlook your very first query (although, not having a victim mentality, my response
is not strictly in kind). Vis.:
• [Respondent]: ‘How has life been treating you?
• [Richard]: ‘I have been treating life perfectly, thanks’. [endquote]
4. I answered your second (albeit a self-answered and codicillary) query with the detail such a
contradictory codicil required. Vis.:
• [Respondent]: ‘Are you well as ever? Of course you are. I can only imagine, which is itself
• [Richard]: ‘If you mean physically well ... as well as to be expected, I guess, for a
sexagenarian. If you mean mentally well ... as excellent as ever. If you mean emotionally well ... n/a. [endquote].
5. As that second question was the last of your queries I responded succinctly to the unhappiness
and/or grief and/or pity and/or concern you expressed regarding the two pure consciousness experiences you referred to. Vis.:
• [Respondent]: ‘Alas, there are the two PCEs I have had.
• [Richard]: ‘Now that you have had those two PCE’s, alas, what are you going to do about
them? Keep them right to the forefront of memory? (As in the number one priority in life).
File them away for safe-keeping? (As in not really a priority right now). If it is the first option
... there is no need to ask how to have more happen. If it is the latter option ... there is no point in asking how to have any happen’.
In doing so I was able to incorporate your eight previous queries since I subscribed (and
subscribed solely for one purpose only at that). Vis.:
• [Respondent]: ‘How do ‘I’ step aside to allow the PCE as you have done? Is there a method
that you put into place? (message/5147).
• [Respondent]: ‘What do ‘I’ do as has Richard done to bring about peace on earth to all
and sundry? How can I pretend as is recommended in the following example: [snip quote]. What is this garbage? Is he telling us to put on a
show of delectation, enjoyment, and all that other drizzle? (message/5167).
• [Respondent]: ‘Don’t you want to be happy and harmless? How can I go from sadness to
happiness on my own as if I had control? (message/5168).
• [Respondent]: ‘Richard, what do ‘I’ do as you have done to bring peace on earth to all
and sundry? (message/5351).
• [Respondent]: ‘Richard, is there a method to epitomize the ‘I’? To shrink it if you will?
• [Respondent]: ‘How do I evoke a PCE? Can one know a PCE? (message/5509).
• [Respondent]: ‘Richard, can you tell me how I can reach the state otherwise known as the PCE?
• [Respondent]: ‘Richard, can you tell me how I can reach the state otherwise known as the PCE?
Put tersely: when (or if) those two PCE’s are the number one priority in your life there is no
need to ask how to have more happen.
6. I then expressed benevolence (from ‘bene velle’ meaning ‘wish well’) or good will. Vis.:
‘regards: an expression of goodwill in a letter etc’. (Oxford
Here it is again (to save you scrolling upwards):
• [Richard]: ‘Regards’ [endquote].
7. I then authenticated/ confirmed my post with a familiar (digital) signature. Vis.:
‘signature: ... authenticate or confirm by one’s signature.
Here it is again:
• [Richard]: ‘Richard’ [endquote].
Yet your (presumably) considered response to all the above is to ask me a (loaded) question about
me responding as though I were in complete freedom from social graces (per favour an actual freedom from the human condition). Vis.:
• [Respondent]: ‘Does actual freedom make you respond as though you were in complete freedom
from social graces too? [endquote].
As a loaded question (such as in ‘have you stopped beating you spouse yet’, for example, or in
‘have you stopped growing horns’, for instance) cannot be easily answered as-is (in a yes/ no manner) you would be well-advised to re-ask
your query in way which pre-empts the need for your co-respondent to first un-pack it in order to reply in a simple way.
In the meanwhile here is a query for you: have you heard of the expression ‘frittering away a
RESPONDENT: Now you’ve pulled out your history
of grudges against the identity formally known as <No. 56> ...
RICHARD: If I may interject (before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you
already have)? You do appear to have overlooked the following ...
RESPONDENT: Don’t feel you have to protect me ...
RICHARD: If I may interject (before you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you
already have)? You do appear to have overlooked the following:
• [Respondent]: ‘Would you mourn for a second or longer?
• [Richard]: ‘I did not ‘mourn’ at all – let alone for a second – as grief has no existence in actuality.
• [Respondent]: ‘No wonder you come across like an automaton, Dr Spock. (Friday 14/01/2005 AEDST).
And especially this:
• [Respondent]: ‘Peace on earth in this lifetime? Maybe for the lobotomised such as yourself. (Sunday 16/01/2005 AEDST).
Apart from the obvious implication (in your automaton ascription/ android attribution and your
rhetorical query/ smart-aleckry answer), that peace-on-earth in this lifetime is not on your agenda, you are quite capable of comprehending
that there is no affective faculty extant in this flesh and blood body when it suits your modus operandi to do so, yet when the tire meets the
road you automatically revert to assuming that my caring for my fellow human is identical to yours.
Put simply: an actual caring is vastly different to a feeling of caring.
RESPONDENT: I know, it was a cheap shot but it was fun.
RICHARD: If it is cheap fun that you get your rocks off with then I was well-advised to have
my e-mail programme automatically put your e-mails in a folder titled ‘Actual Freedom Silly’ nearly a year ago.
RESPONDENT: And yet you still reply.
RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
• [Respondent]: ‘If you were at peace you wouldn’t even bother to respond to those
challenging religionists, spiritualists, mystics, and metaphysicalists.
• [Richard]: ‘Oh, it is no ‘bother’ at all ... I like my fellow human being, no matter what mischief they get up to, and prefer
only the best for them. (Wednesday 12/01/2005 AEDST).
I will say it again for emphasis: an actual caring is vastly different to a feeling of caring.
RESPONDENT to Vineeto: Actualism won’t spread
like a chain letter till we ‘actually care’ enough to learn how to observe and examine human instincts without ‘investigating’ them as
though they are criminal.
PETER: Your comment ‘till we ‘actually care’ enough’ caught
my eye as I recently had a wide ranging conversation with someone about the topic of caring and sensitivity. We soon fell to swapping stories
about certain events in our lives which proved to be significant in widening our outlook from purely self-centred to including a concern for
the antagonism and despair that we both saw as inherent to the human condition. I particularly enjoyed the conversation, not only because my
friend was willing to relate his stories but also that it set me thinking about the topic in general. As such I thought it worthwhile to share
some of my stories of the significant events that served to set me caring about what is often called the ‘plight of humanity’.
The first event of significance happened to me when I was about 9 or 10 years old. My parents had
bought a television for the first time and I developed a habit of sneaking into the living room and watching it with the sound turned down
after they had gone to bed. One night, as I sat on the floor in front of the set, a documentary about the Nazi extermination camps came on.
For a little boy who had a sheltered life in a ‘fortunate’ country that had never directly experienced a war fought on its territory, the
sudden appearance of irrefutable evidence of what human beings were capable of doing to each other was both shocking and appalling. Not a loss
of innocence but a loss of ignorance.
The next event of significance was leaving the working class suburbs that I had lived in all my
life and heading off to other side of town to go to university. I was then confronted with the inequities of class, privilege, power and
wealth that typify every society and again this left a lasting impression. In the middle of my studies at university, I travelled by ship to
London to do a practical year in an architect’s office, stopping off in Durban, South Africa. Durban was a wealthy seaside holiday town for
Whites during the Apartheid years and I remember seeing a little dark-skinned boy peeking through a gap in the fence of a Whites-only
amusement park on the sea-side promenade. Bus stops had shelters for Whites-only and restaurant toilets had signs that said Whites only. Again
the extent of man’s inhumanity to man was shockingly evident.
When I eventually got to Europe and travelled around I remember being taken aback not only at how
old and ‘set in aspic’ human culture is but also of being aware that literally every square metre of Europe’s soil had been drenched in
blood from millennia upon millennia of almost continuous tribal warfare and reigns of terror imposed by autocratic and theocratic regimes.
Travelling overland on my way home to Australia, I left what could loosely be termed ‘civilized
Europe’ and travelled through what was largely at the time a dark, feudal, tribal, superstition-ridden land between Europe and Asia to
eventually arrive in the mayhem of an over-populated India. Here I was confronted by poverty the likes of which I had never seen before as
well as levels of squalor and disease that were mind-numbing. An incident I found particularly disturbing was being confronted in the streets
of Madras by children thrusting the leprosy-ridden stumps of what remained of their hands at me, shouting ‘please Saab’ and begging for
From Madras I then flew from a poor, unhygienic, unhealthy and over-crowded India to a wealthy,
clean, healthy and sparsely populated Australia in a matter of hours … and the sudden contrast was shocking, to say the least. I remember
musing for a long time at what seemed the inherent unfairness that I should be born into a position of privilege whilst billions of my fellow
human beings were born less privileged than I. In the end the experience had such a profound effect on me that it was one of the reasons that
led me not to pursue a materialist life – the other reason being that I had observed first-hand, and experienced first-hand, that
accumulation of possessions and wealth with its subsequent power are by no means prerequisites for happiness.
The next significant event in my life was marriage and child-rearing, both of which failed to
quell by what was now a underlying discontent – a background sometimes-subtle, sometimes-more-evident feeling of ‘Is this all there is to
life?’ In hindsight, it is quite a radical change to leave the childhood family nest and strike off on one’s own into the world at large
and discover by trial and error and circumstance that, to put it bluntly, ‘the real world sucks’. And not only that, it was evident to me
that everybody else was more or less in the same boat – everybody’s happiness was both conditional and brittle and harmony amongst human
beings was surface-deep at best. Again in hindsight, this lack of contentment with materialism meant I was ripe for the next turning point in
The event that instigated this change of course was the collapse of my marriage. I was plunged into
a ‘dark-night-of-the-soul’ despair as my world collapsed around me … and lo and behold, I found Spirituality. I say ‘lo and behold’
because finding God is a common occurrence after a dark night of the soul experience, so my experience was in no way as unique or as special
as I though t it was at the time. A whole alternative world opened up to me and in my despair fairy tales similar to those I thought to have
been weird as a kid suddenly seem to be revelations to me. Of course, my desperation at the time made me blind to the fact that what I had
unwittingly fallen into was the honey-trap of religious belief largely because the stories, myths and legends were different to those of the
monotheistic religion I was familiar with. At the time however, I was hooked, so much so that I left the real-world behind and plunged into
living in a spiritual commune and living the spiritual life.
The next event of consequence that occurred was the ending of the Rajneesh empire in the U.S. with
the subsequent revelations of despotism, corruption, murder, xenophobia and acts of terrorism. I was shocked at what blind faith en masse can
manifest within the human condition – indeed the combination of faith and loyalty has produced some of the most horrendous acts in humanity’s
long history of heinous brutalities. After this the order of the day for Rajneesh and Rajneesh’s followers became individual responsibility,
which by and large meant an individual faith.
I have described what effect the death of my teenage son had on me in my Journal but that was a
seminal event in my life in that it gave my search for freedom both impetus and urgency. I then knew it was up to me as an adult to be able to
pass on – by example, not by theory – that it is possible to become free of the torments that typify the human condition.
Within a few months of my son’s death I had an insight one evening which allowed me to
clearly see that the spiritual world that I had got myself into was nothing other than ‘Olde Time Religion’ albeit one of the Eastern
varieties as opposed to one of the Western versions. It took a few years and a good deal more trial and error experimenting with yet more
variations of spirituality before I was finally convinced that any form of metaphysical/spiritual/mystical belief is an impassioned escapist
charade perpetuated by the eons-old myth that ‘I’ can survive physical death.
I then found myself at a cusp in my life – I had thoroughly road-tested the two basic
alternative life pursuits that were available for a human being, materialism and spiritualism, for many years of my life and found them both
to be lacking credibility and sensibility.
As I looked around I found many of my friends taking the middle path of compromise – a foot in
both camps as it were. Most of them went back to materialist pursuits, some of them accumulating wealth and power by inculcating yet another
unsuspecting generation into Eastern Spiritualism and Mysticism, others turned snake-oil sellers by offering healings, readings and therapies
to the many who have a penchant for superstition, whilst the majority became full-time materialists and part-time spiritualists – still
talking the talk but having given up walking the walk.
The death of my son had ruled such compromise out for me and the next serendipitous event proved
another of life’s major turning points. It proved to be the most significant event because it presented me with the chance to put into
action the legacy of caring I had built up from all of the preceding events in my life that had left me with both a burning discontent with
the human condition and the impetus to find a way to finally bring an end to the tenacious instinctual grip it imposes upon each and every
human being born.
Needless to say you know what that event was so I have no need to go on. I realize that this is
rather a long post, but I thought it appropriate that at least someone on this list said something substantive about actually caring.
I, for one, care enough about peace on earth to actually do something about bringing an end to my
malice and my sorrow – that’s what I call actually caring.
RESPONDENT to Richard: Your inability to
discern the difference in impact between individuals dying daily of old age accident disease or ignorance, and this on-going horror as
millions of human beings try to deal with a mass tragedy on a scale never experienced in our lifetimes reveals you to be a callous and
mentally dissociated sick human being. Mass vs. Daily Death 30/12/2004
PETER: I thought it might be an opportune moment to continue our conversation on the topic
of actual caring given that you have weighed in on the current ‘lets-put-the-boot-into-Richard-because-he-doesn’t-care’ posts to the
I’ll repost a section of our previous conversation on the topic of actually caring in case you
have forgotten the gist of what I was saying at the time –
And just to remind you of some of what you said to me in reply –
Re: actually caring 7.12.2004
Respondent: Well thanks for that Peter, I appreciate the effort. So often
AFers assume no one else is capable of comprehending that actual, practical caring is minus the self-indulgent warm fuzzies and that neither
does it kowtow to protect the self or others from the [dreaded] facts. Quite a change to see you step off the AF pedestal and simply share
instead of preach or coach, even though there is still an element of it in your reply. No doubt the ulterior motive is to get me to engage in
dialogue, so you can indulge your favourite pass-time, arguing. Not a hope. I will share this though, as I am free to.
From my observations Peter, Vineeto and yourself come across as a little simple to put it mildly.
You both seem to have a type of mentality that is very easily impressed, therefore easily psychologically infested/corrupted. <…> Now
this particular virus [Richard’s] is a rather insidious one since it seems to delete or translocate the play function and present as a
serious case of cloned mannerisms. I shan’t pretend that ‘its got me beat’ why an instinctually aggressive self would want to emulate
Richard’s moronically alienating debating techniques for it is after all only the survival instincts at work. <…>
On close inspection, although Actualism claims to be 180 degrees in the opposite to spiritualism,
it also does an about face by focus on the self thereby inflating its naaasty behaviour, as evidenced by the three of you and therefore peace
is not at the top of its agenda either. <…> … there is a serious short-sightedness and lack of generosity in AFers so I for one (and
most probably many others) will continue each day to share, minus the AF aggro, what I learn here and without one reference to this motley
site ever passing my lips.
When I read your reply it became clear to me that your idea of sharing is radically different to
mine, which is why I didn’t bother to continue the conversation at the time.
As I said at the start, the time does now seem ripe to share a few more stories about certain
events that have proved to be significant in widening my outlook from purely self-centred to actually caring about the antagonism and despair
that is instinctually-intrinsic to the human condition.
As you may have noticed the events I previously shared with you were events that occurred prior to
my coming across actualism and were some of those that in hindsight proved to be significant in my making the decision to set off on the path
to becoming both happy and harmless. I would like to now move on to some insights that I gleaned from watching reports on natural
disasters after becoming an actualist as the topic of natural disasters has been raised on the list following the under-sea earthquake and the
subsequent flooding of many low-lying coastal areas in the Indian Ocean.
Several years ago I remember watching news reports of the devastation following an earthquake in
Turkey that resulted in an estimated 17,118 deaths and over 50,000 injuries. As I watched the reports and the struggles of the local people,
government officials and aid-workers to cope with the crisis, I was struck by the fact that, as I was watching this, all over the planet there
are literally millions of trained men and mountains of equipment on permanent stand-by ready to be deployed in case they are needed to defend
against the attack of another army or to attack another army, not to mention the millions of men and women who are employed in other aspects
of ‘keeping the lid on human malice and violence’ – police, security guards, lawyers, judges, prison guards and so on. It then occurred
to me that if only human beings weren’t so utterly pre-occupied with being malevolent towards their fellow human beings these very
same men and women and resources could then be available as a world-wide natural disaster rapid-response team that would not only provide
immediate aid but would easily have the capacity to then totally rebuild and renew houses, towns, cities and infrastructure.
Given that I had been a practicing actualist for a few years at the time I watched the reports of
the 1999 earthquake, I knew that such an ‘if only’ scenario need not necessarily be a pipe dream because I knew by my own
experience that it is possible for anyone, given sufficient intent, to become at least virtually free of malice and sorrow. As more and more
people decide to do likewise the need for the likes of armies, police, security guards, lawyers, judges, prison guards, social workers,
psychologists, and so on to ‘keep the lid on human malice and violence’ and deal with the outcomes will subsequently and proportionately
So the facts that I came to clearly see was that the pain and suffering that human beings inflict
upon each other is far, far more substantial than the pain and suffering that result from natural disasters and as a consequence the amount of
people and resources devoted to attempting to rectify or cope with the aftermath of human-inflicted misery and mayhem is many, many times more
than that devoted to preparing for and coping with the aftermath of earthquakes, floods, droughts and the like.
The next fact then follows from this fact. If I really want to make a practical difference in my
lifetime to elevating suffering then I need to do what I can do that will have the most practical effect – to devote my life to ending ‘my’
malice and sorrow. And since ‘I’ am my feelings and my feelings are ‘me’ this process will inevitably result in the ending of ‘me’,
thereby ensuring what I have long sought since I first became aware of the insidious nature of the human condition – an actual freedom from
the human condition.
The other insight also relates to what are termed ‘natural’ disasters (presumably
human-inflicted disasters are considered somehow unnatural). At the time I was watching television reports of severe bushfires that ringed a
city some 500 hundred kilometres to the south of where I live and I became aware of the proficiency of the response of the fire fighters,
police and so on who were involved. I was particularly interested because I had been involved in fighting several large fires as a teenager so
I was impressed at how much progress had been made in training, equipment, co-ordination and effectiveness. I became absorbed in watching the
response to the situation and was particularly struck by the comments made by the chief fire officer in an interview conducted when the fires
were finally brought under control.
He said that the emergency services had learnt much from the natural disasters that had happened in
this country over the years and that they had recently set up a response system that was world-class, so much so that many countries had
emulated it or wanted to emulate it. Basically the approach involved the establishment of a single emergency-response command-and-control
centre which acts as the co-ordinating hub of all the specialist branches of emergency response, be they metropolitan fire brigade, rural
volunteer fire brigades, police, volunteer emergency response teams, ambulance, army, army reserve, health services, electricity, water, gas
and telephone services and so on. Whenever an emergency arises or a natural disaster happens the appropriate emergency service immediately
takes the commanding role within the centre – if it is a rural fire, then the rural fire service takes charge with the other services
providing whatever support is required; if it is a terrorist attack then the police take charge; if it is an epidemic, the health service
takes charge, and so on.
I was struck by the practicality of the system that had been worked out and with the efficiency
with which it worked in practice. Here was an example of human ingenuity, co-operation and practicality at its best. Seeing what human beings
are capable in such situations despite the human condition (many of the fires were in fact deliberately lit by human beings) brought a
tear to my eye at the time because I could see not only altruism in action but also the unfettered actual caring and consideration that
individual members of the human species are sometimes capable of. Whilst I was aware that this potential is very often only realized in times
of adversity and disaster, it did beg a question for me – if it can be so in those circumstances, why can it not be so in every moment of my
mundane experience and in every interaction with my fellow human beings?
As you can see, these events – or rather clearly seeing the facts that were there for the seeing
in these events – acted as spurs along the path of becoming free of malice and sorrow. And if I can just return to your comment that
instigated this thread –
Respondent to Vineeto: Actualism won’t spread like a chain letter till
we ‘actually care’ enough to learn how to observe and examine human instincts without ‘investigating’ them as though they are
criminal. Re: Investigating Feelings, 4.12.2004
– what you may have noticed from this post is that I do not ‘observe and examine human
instincts … as though they are criminal’, I observe and examine them by simply taking a clear-eyed look at the facts of the human
animal instincts in action.
RESPONDENT to Richard: What a degenerate world
this would be if all human beings were sick actualists like you, smuggly sitting back feet up watching tragedies from the comfort of your
government funded lounge room, rising reluctantly off your bludging arse between rollies and decaf to tap out trite words about the virtues of
doing nothing and the marvels of having no desire to help not to mention nothing to donate. Brain damaged (and therefore) on a government
pension pretending no one cares or cared about any other deaths so why should they (or you) care about this horrific tragedy?
One can only hope you are a ‘one and only’ never to foul this earth again. RE: Mass vs. Daily Deaths, 6.1.2005
PETER: Switching topics is one of the standard ploys that have been consistently used by
many who find discussing the instinctual passions ‘too close to the bone’. Whilst other reactions include stony silence, withdrawal,
indignance, shame, guilt, denial, befuddlement and obscuration, shifting topic is very common, right up there along with mudslinging and
The most common reaction from having to face the fact that human are instinctually-driven beings
is, and always has been, to seek the moral high ground – as is evidenced by the bulk of the correspondence to this mailing list. This
habitual reaction is understandable because each and every child born on this planet is, one way or another, indoctrinated into believing in
Good and Evil – whether it be good and evil forces, energies, entities, spirits or humans.
Variations of this basic reaction that have become evident on this mailing list over time are that
of the spiritual-nihilists who seek an even higher moral high ground by making sacred the notion that nothing can be done or indeed needs to
be done about human malice and sorrow and that of the spiritual-intellectuals who claim their particular brand of spiritual belief is so
refined and so rarefied that it cannot even be called a spiritual belief. The other refuge from having to face the fact that human are
instinctually-driven beings is that of seeking the ethical high ground. This approach is usually taken by those who call themselves humanists
and/or atheists. However, a little digging inevitable reveals most of them to be closet spiritualists (many Buddhists call themselves atheists
with nay a blush) in one form or other, to some degree or other.
We have also had several correspondents come to this mailing list and as a consequence become so
aware of the folly of their own religious, spiritual or metaphysical beliefs that they ostensibly abandon them … only to then revert to one
or other of the usual ploys in order not to engage in a sensible discussion about the fact that human are instinctually-driven beings.
Whilst I am on the topic of being averse to discussing and investigating the instinctual
passions, you might remember I recently posted the following quote with a comment to the list –
‘Ironically, the biggest challenge in exploring the biology behind human
behaviour is not the difficult scientific research it demands. Rather, it is the difficulty of overcoming the fear of the results of such
research. Many academicians throw up their hands and insist that if natural selection has indeed equipped us with violent emotions, our
destiny is hopeless, because we cannot resist surrendering to those inescapable puppet masters. Many add that it would be better if we did not
even talk about biological theory in connection with human behaviour. (…)
Unfortunately, this head-in-the-sand attitude permeates a lot of American social science dedicated
to the idea that by twisting the dials of society, we can tune out all its ills. Such denial, however, serves only to foster a new dark age.
Biology tells us fairly that the human psyche, and its chemical programming of emotions, is a product of nature.’ p51, The Dark Side of Man, Michael P. Ghiglieri, Helix Books, 1999
This head-in-the-sand attitude that Ghiglieri talks of is in no way confined to the social
sciences. The current ‘new dark age’ is fuelled by an increasingly mindless fervour for all things spiritual, mystical and metaphysical, a
fervour that is exemplified by the ascendancy of pantheistic and animistic beliefs that are the very core of the new world-wide religion of
Obviously breaking free of all head-in-the-sand belief is the necessary first step to take before
one can be able to freely discuss the pivotal role that the genetically-encoded instinctual passions have in both generating and perpetuating
human animosity and anguish.
Which, curiously enough, is what actualism is about. Peter, The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, No 60, 17.12.2004
I don’t know whether you currently have your head in the sand or whether you still have your
head-in the clouds but whatever your current beliefs are, you sure have a bee in your bonnet about actualism. So much so that you reply –
laughing out loud with a smile on your face – that there is not a hope of you even entering into a discussion with me on the subject of how
to ‘learn how to observe and examine human instincts without ‘investigating’ them as though they are criminal’. And then in
your very next post to the list you merrily rejoin the mob of brickbat throwers who are giving full reign to their instinctual passions –
Respondent to Richard: What a degenerate world this would be if all human
beings were sick actualists like you, smuggly sitting back feet up watching tragedies from the comfort of your government funded lounge room,
rising reluctantly off your bludging arse between rollies and decaf to tap out trite words about the virtues of doing nothing and the marvels
of having no desire to help not to mention nothing to donate. Brain damaged (and therefore) on a government pension pretending no one cares or
cared about any other deaths so why should they (or you) care about this horrific tragedy? One can only hope you are a ‘one and only’
never to foul this earth again. Mass vs. Daily Deaths, 6.1.2005
There does seem to be a yawning chasm between what you admonish others to do on this list –
Respondent to Vineeto: Actualism won’t spread like a chain letter till
we ‘actually care’ enough to learn how to observe and examine human instincts without ‘investigating’ them as though they are
criminal. Investigating Feelings, 4.12.2004
and what you do … or rather don’t do … in practice.
PETER: I thought to interject in your recent tirade against Richard not
only because you have made a number of comments which are distortions of the facts, and blatant inventions but also because you make
accusations that refer to me as well.
RESPONDENT to Richard: In spite of my clear explanation, you still
haven’t gotten it. No surprise there. But you keep on with your latest theme of promotion, no matter how lame. Flog it to death if you wish.
Its all a smoke screen to the issue at hand which is your assertion that ‘life is too much fun to take serious or seriously or to be serious’
or whatever version you choose.
I suppose we should not take the fact of our parents coming down with some disease seriously. I
suppose we should not take the fact of one of our children’s untimely deaths seriously & see how much fun that whole episode brings to
each and every one of us. I suppose we should abandon our young children to trot the globe in pursuit of our deluded dreams of becoming the
first actually free person ever. That would explain why life is too much fun to take serious or seriously or to be serious. I suppose all
these wars, rapes, murders, injustices of man on his fellow man would qualify as not serious, not to be taken seriously or just to be plain
PETER: You have again deliberately chosen to distort what Richard actually said –
Richard: Ha ... I never advise being serious; sincere, yes, but serious? No
way ... life is too much fun to take it seriously. Re Feelings, 24.12.204
– by leaving out any reference at all to the word sincere, thereby attempting to put your own
cynical twist to what he in fact said. Now that your beat up about the recent natural disaster has been exposed for what it was, you have
since resorted to an even more desperate extrapolation alleging that Richard is supposedly saying that ‘all these wars, rapes, murders,
injustices of man on his fellow man … be plain fun.’
(And all this from a correspondent who is on record as complimenting the Introduction to Actual
Freedom – which is all about using the actualism method to finally bring an end to ‘wars, rapes, murders, injustices of man on his
Respondent to Richard: ‘I was going through your intro. It’s pretty
impressive in its simplicity and logic. If you really want to have an effect on this world, you have the perfect framework for a standard
education course. Surely the world is ready for this subject ... what could be more important? You must have thought of this, no? Any such
plans?’ A Couple of (Business) Questions 25.10.2003
The more pertinent question surely is whether or not those who are currently acquainted with
actualism are ‘ready for this subject’: not whether or not the ‘world’ is ready for it?)
Whilst I do realize that you admitted to being disturbed at the time you wrote this post, your
mention of ‘I suppose we should not take the fact of one of our children’s untimely deaths seriously & see how much fun that whole
episode brings to each and every one of us’ means that your latest wild accusations are not only aimed at Richard but also include me as
The reason I mention this is that the death of my 15-year-old son was not ‘plain fun’ for me,
as you would have it. It was, however, an event that had a profound effect on me in that it spurred me on to find out the meaning of life
mainly in order that that future generations of children should not have to suffer the angst of being instinctually-driven beings – and
puberty is a particularly angst filled time for all teenagers due to the rapid onset of the sexual imperative. I also wanted to offer by
living example a practical down-to-earth alternative such that they should not have to waste their lives by searching for meaning in the
pursuit of a ‘spiritual’ freedom or by meekly following the herd that insist that you can’t change human nature.
Given that you have been a contributor to this mailing list for several years I am somewhat
surprised that you made specific reference to the death of one’s children in your rant as it raises the possibility that it was a barb
deliberately aimed at me to see if I would bite (a tactic you have admitted to employing in the past). As can be seen from the link provided I specifically made
mention of the death of my son and the effect it had on my life only a month ago on this very mailing list. As well as this the event is also
prominent in my journal and many references to it are scattered through all of my correspondence. If you care to read the link below – do
you see any mention at all where I describe the death of my son as being ‘plain fun’, or more to the point of what Richard actually
said, do you regard my reaction to my son’s death as being other than sincere?
In order to demonstrate your sincerity, would you care to engage in a conversation with me about
the subject of caring … or was the flippant mention you made of the death of children merely another of your unsubstantiated hit-and-run
RESPONDENT: On further reflection, Richard, I don’t
see much point in thinking about you ...
RICHARD: Except that you are not thinking about me ... you are instead thinking about a
non-easeful and non-friendly prick who is defensive, pedantic, prone to rub people’s noses in their every mistake, lord it over people, put
them down, and etcetera (see further below).
RESPONDENT: ...[I don’t see much point in thinking about you] or
your claims any longer. Whatever it is you’ve discovered ...
RICHARD: There is no need to be coy ... you know quite well what it is. For example:
• [Respondent]: ‘Trying to imagine someone who has no feelings, someone who is incapable of
empathy, incapable of feeling sorrow or compassion, one naturally tends to think either of someone who is heartless, uncaring, ruthlessly
self-centred (a ‘psychopath’ in popular parlance), or someone who is dull, lifeless, emotionally flattened. I am still bothered by this
sometimes, even though I know it needn’t be so.
I was thinking this over again recently when I remembered the day two summers ago when I took a long walk in the country, ate two ‘magic’
psilocybin mushrooms, and had 4 hours of PCE on earth. Back at home (still on the fringes of the aptly described ‘magical fairytale-like
paradise’) I was talking to my girlfriend on the phone in Sydney. She was crying, telling me about a problem at work that was getting her
down. As she was going into the details I was lying there on a sofa looking out a window, watching the sky, observing a magnificent
snowy-white cloud drifting way up there in the cool blue immensity. Everything was utterly immaculate. (...)’. (Wednesday, 16/02/2005 6:27 PM AEDST).
RESPONDENT: ... [Whatever it is you’ve discovered] I’m sure it
is great fun for you ...
RICHARD: As what you are sure is great fun has an obvious (to you) brokenness in it
somewhere your insincerity is ... um ... is almost palpable.
RESPONDENT: ... [I’m sure it is great fun for you] but there is
also an obvious (to me) brokenness in there somewhere ... and it is not something I want.
RICHARD: Here is what you went on to say (in that e-mail of yours already part-quoted above)
a year ago to the day:
• [Respondent]: ‘... [Everything was utterly immaculate]. What she was telling me belonged to a
different world altogether. I heard it, I understood it, I knew she was concerned about it, but it had no relevance here. And the important
thing is, I knew it had no relevance *there* either – but there was no way she could really *see* that unless she could
experience ... this’. [emphasises in original]. (Wednesday, 16/02/2005 6:27 PM AEDST).
RESPONDENT: Selflessness, absence of malice and sorrow, should (I
think, and remember from various times in life, not just PCE’s) result in an easeful and friendly manner that isn’t defensive, pedantic,
prone to rub people’s noses in their every mistake, lord it over people, put them down, etc. It should be an obvious improvement that
everyone wants to emulate ... but instead you seem for all money to be a prick that everyone bends over backwards to make allowances for on
account of you having something to offer.
RICHARD: And here is the very next paragraph (from that e-mail you wrote a year ago to the
• [Respondent]: ‘To say that I was callous, cold, indifferent, uncaring, flat, dull or lifeless
at that moment would be totally off the mark. No way! What I really wanted was for her to experience the world this way, and to realise that
whatever problem she had was made redundant by the perfection of the sky, the clouds, the trees, the air. It’s true to say there was no
compassion in me, none whatsoever, because there was no sorrow, and no way I could endorse anyone else’s unnecessary sorrow either. At that
moment I was literally incapable of conventional compassion ... but there was genuine caring, and plenty of it’. (Wednesday, 16/02/2005 6:27 PM AEDST).
RESPONDENT: Whatever you’ve got, enjoy it, but keep it.
RICHARD: As what you are telling me to keep and enjoy has an obvious (to you) brokenness in
it somewhere – which apparent brokenness presumably gives rise to that non-easeful and non-friendly prick you keep on seeing who is
defensive, pedantic, prone to rub people’s noses in their every mistake, lord it over people, put them down, and etcetera – would it be a
fair assessment to say there is a marked absence of [quote] ‘genuine caring’ [endquote] in that throwaway line of yours?
RESPONDENT: I’ve seen enough.
RICHARD: It can be quite amazing, at times, to see just how deep shallowness extends.
RESPONDENT: Over and out.
RICHARD: Reading you loud and clear, Agent 86, loud and clear.
RESPONDENT: Richard, why do you say you are free
of malice ...
RICHARD: For no other reason than, being sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in
toto, it is impossible for any emotional/ passional feelings whatsoever to occur.
RESPONDENT: ... [why do you say you are free of malice] when you
make the decision to occasionally say something to someone on this list that would obviously insult/ upset/ piss off?
RICHARD: Just for starters, I do not make any such decision – either occasionally or
otherwise – and the following is a classic example of it making no difference whatsoever anyway how I might couch my responses:
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You are a malicious sod, a repulsive cyber guru that gets me nausea because
my feelings are not extinct and listening your shit is too much for my ego. Was not clear that you are a pure fallacy, was not clear my
• [Richard]: ‘Am I to take it that, because you feel nausea (and, previously, repugnance) when reading my words, these feelings then prove
that I am ‘a pure fallacy’? In other words, your feelings are to be taken as being the arbiter of what I am? Are you really telling
me that I am to be guided by your feelings?
I did not spend eleven years, delving deep into the depths of ‘my’ psyche (which is the ‘human’ psyche) exposing, and thus eliminating
through the exposure, anything whatsoever that was insalubrious ... only to be run by your feelings when I came onto the internet to share my
discoveries with my fellow human being.
Look, it is this simple: for as long as you continue to be as you currently are then I am sure you will find, as a consequence, that other
people’s responses will have the self-induced effect on you of you feeling nausea, repugnance or whatever other feeling that you may thus
activate in that entire repertoire of feelings you nurse to your bosom’.
Put succinctly: it is what is being said, and not how it is being said, which gets up some people’s
RESPONDENT: Just very recently you told No. 53 that he might not be
able to understand grown-up words ... remember?
RICHARD: In all of my experience I cannot recall any teenager feeling insulted/ upset/
annoyed when it was suggested they may have to ask an adult what certain words/ concepts mean – or, for that matter, that they look them up
in a dictionary/ encyclopaedia – as it is all part and parcel of the learning process.
If (note ‘if’) one was to have such a chip on their shoulder as to feel that way about learning
something new then that contrariousness is their business, not mine, as I did not go public
just to be run by another’s feelings about any advancement of or improvement to their knowledge, their rationality, their discussional
skills, and so on, and so forth.
RESPONDENT: I didn’t know that No. 53 is a teenager. Is this a
RICHARD: No adult – or, at least no adult in their right mind, that is – would type out and send to this mailing list
what juveniles usually daub on the walls of public lavatories ... for just a few instances (cropped and edited for reasons of space):
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘That deluded arrogant slut, Vineeto ...’. (Thursday, 22/04/2004 1:34 AM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Vineeto .... you pathetic, arrogant, deluded slut!’ (Thursday, 22/04/2004
12:34 AM AEST)
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘You are a nauseating, ignorant, deluded slut’. (Saturday, 24/04/2004 8:09 PM
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘... arrogant, deluded, sick slut’. (Saturday, 24/04/2004 8:09 PM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Yeah Vineeto, you are just soooo different now aren’t you? You dumb slut ...’. (Friday, 21/01/2005 12:09 AM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Only an oxygen deprived slut would tout how much everyone likes her and brag how she gets on well with
everyone/people as they are ...’. (Thursday, 9/12/2004 4:37 AM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Dump that useless bag of endless drivel and dribble ---> Vineeto. How you put up with that annoying slut has
got to be one of the wonders of this world (...) your sperm receptacle aka Vineeto’. (Wednesday, 8/12/2004
2:23 PM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘... the slut and her pimp, Mr. Codswallop’. (Friday, 15/10/2004 10:53 AM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘ ... that mega-self-conscious slut of spirituality and now actualism herself, Vinotatallneeto ...’. (Friday, 8/10/2004 12:18 PM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Personally, I like sluts, except annoying, self-absorbed ones like Vinotsoneeto’. (Monday, 4/10/2004 9:24 AM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Vineeto, the slut to end all sluts (no offence to pros and amateurs alike) and her boyfriend, the desperado pimp
...’. (Tuesday, 28/09/2004 11:59 AM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘... either dump that bitch who incessantly rambles on & on & on at the push of her actualist buttons; or
slap her rambling on & on ass silly. How you can put up with that warty outgrowth of the human survival package has got me beat’. (Friday, 17/12/2004 9:34 PM AEDST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Vineeto you dumb slut ... when you give one blow job and one ball massage to one of your clients ...’ (Monday, 11/04/2005 5:44 AM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘You dum dumb slut ...’ (Sunday, 24/04/2005 1:46 AM AEST).
• [Respondent No. 53]: ‘Yo, you lying bitch (...) Ok you lying kunt (...) The next time you feel a need to puke your nonsense from your
oral organ all over these pages or to any other fellow human being that happens to be in your crossfire, just unzip Peters pants and put your
kisser to work’. (Monday, 12/04/2004 1:00 AM AEST).
RESPONDENT: Wow! But still, didn’t you know that to say what you
said when you said it would make him mad?
RICHARD: Here is a useful link: www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
Richard's & Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity