Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions

RICHARD: No, the utter reliability of being always happy and harmless replaces the onerous burden of being responsible ... and actuality’s blithe sincerity dispenses with the gloomy seriousness that epitomises adulthood.

It is funny – in a peculiar way – for I often gain the impression when I speak to others, that I am spoiling their game-plan. It seems as if they wish to search forever ... they consider arriving to be boring. How can unconditional peace and happiness, twenty-four-hours-a-day, possibly be boring? Is a carefree life all that difficult to comprehend? Why persist in a sick game ... and defend one’s right to do so? Why insist on suffering when blitheness is freely available here and now? Is a life of perennial gaiety something to be scorned? I have even had people say, accusingly, that I could not possibly be happy when there is so much suffering going on in the world. The logic of this defies credibility: Am I to wait until everybody else is happy before I am? If I was to wait, I would be waiting forever ... for under this twisted rationale, no one would dare to be the first to be happy. Their peculiar reasoning allows only for a mass happiness to occur globally; overnight success, as it were. Someone has to be intrepid enough to be first, to show what is possible to a benighted humanity.

One has to face the opprobrium of one’s ill-informed peers.

RESPONDENT: Do you live a moral life? If so, why?

RICHARD: Being free from malice and sorrow, I am automatically happy and harmless. Thus I have no need for morals whatsoever. Morals are designed to control the wayward self.

RESPONDENT: Would you lie, cheat and steal?

RICHARD: If the situation calls for it, yes indeed. Whilst some semblance of social order prevails, such actions as stealing are not necessary. The government bureaucracy however, being adversarial by nature, occasionally calls for some creative massaging of the truth regarding my life-style.

RESPONDENT: Which morals are your own and which are seen to exist already?

RICHARD: Whilst not having any morals of my own, living in this particular country and benefiting from human ingenuity and inventiveness as I do, I am more than happy to comply with the legal laws and follow the established social protocols ... except for those that are too trifling to conform to and that I cannot be bothered observing anyway.

For example: I do not vote ... even though voting is compulsory in this country. The unelected public servants actually run the country, so I could not care less which political party struts the stage. Mostly, their policies are knee-jerk reactions to public opinion polls anyway ... so when some earnest scribe knocks on my door to ask my opinion I invite them in for a cup of coffee. I then hold forth with my views on everything and anything until they stagger out the door with a glazed look on their face.

It does not change anything at all, though.

*

RESPONDENT: If there is no good or evil, right or wrong, why would you want to get rid of human sorrow?? That in itself is a value inferring that those things exist, are to be avoided, and should be eliminated.

RICHARD: It is not a value ... it is simply sensible. Do you want to suffer? Do you really enjoy it all that much? Is this not silly? We are talking of peace-on-earth ... and peace-on-earth is freedom from the Human Condition. The Human Condition is a term that refers to the situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies. The term refers to the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of so-called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun.

Freedom from the Human Condition is the ending of the ‘self’. The elimination of the ‘self’ is the demise of both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ within oneself. Then ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ vanish forever along with the dissolution of the psyche itself ... which is the only place they can live in.

Because there is no good or evil in the actual world of sensual delight – where I live as this flesh and blood body – one then lives freely in the magical paradise that this verdant earth floating in the infinitude of the universe actually is. Being here at this moment in time and this place in space is to be living in a fairy-tale-like ambience that is never-ending.

I can heartily recommend committing both psychological and psychic suicide.

RESPONDENT: And does your freedom entail the total and complete erasure of the human consciousness that moves the common herd or just only the moral conditioning – the sense of right and wrong, good and evil?

RICHARD: Yes, the total and complete erasure of the ‘human’ consciousness ... not just conditioning. The moral conditioning – the sense of right and wrong and what you called the knowledge of good and evil – are well-meant endeavours by countless peoples over countless aeons to seek to curb the instinctual passions. By and large this enterprise has proved to be relatively effective ... only a minority of citizens fail to behave in a socially acceptable manner. And although well-meant, it is but an ultimately short-sighted effort to prevent gaols from being filled to over-flowing, because people are irked by the restraints imposed upon what they indulgently imagine is the freedom of the natural state. Now, while most people paddle around on the surface and re-arrange the conditioning to ease their lot somewhat, some people – seeking to be free of all human conditioning – fondly imagine that by putting on a face-mask and snorkel that they have gone deep-sea diving with a scuba outfit ... deep into the human condition. They have not ... they have gone deep only into the human conditioning. When they tip upon the instincts – which are both savage (fear and aggression) and tender (nurture and desire) – they grab for the tender (the ‘good’ side) and blow them up all out of proportion. If they succeed in this self-aggrandising hallucination they start talking twaddle dressed up as sagacity such as: ‘There is a good that knows no evil’ or ‘There is a love that knows no opposite’ or ‘There is a compassion that sorrow has never touched’ and so on. This is because it takes nerves of steel to don such an aqua-lung and plunge deep in the stygian depths of the human psyche ... it is not for the faint of heart or the weak of knee. For the deletion of the software package is the extinction of ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’. That is, ‘being’ itself expires.

The reward for so doing is immeasurable, however.

The altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ needs to be talked about and exposed for what it is so that nobody need venture up that blind alley ever again. There is another way and another goal. The main trouble with enlightenment is that whilst the identity as ego dissolves, the identity as soul remains intact. No longer identifying as a personal ego-bound identity, one then identifies as an impersonal soul-bound identity ... ‘I am That’ or ‘I am God’ or ‘I am The Supreme’ or ‘I am The Absolute’ or ‘I am The Buddha’ and so on. This is the delusion, the mirage, the deception ... and it is extremely difficult to see it for oneself, for one is in an august state. This second identity – the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) fame – is a difficult one to shake, maybe more difficult than the first; for who is brave enough to voluntarily give up fame and fortune, reverence and worship, status and security? One has to be scrupulously honest with oneself to go all the way and no longer be a someone, a somebody of importance. One faces extinction; ‘I’ will cease to be, there will be no ‘being’ whatsoever, no ‘presence’ at all. It is impossible to imagine, not only the complete and utter cessation of ‘me’ in ‘my’ entirety, but the end of any ‘Ultimate Being’ or ‘Absolute Presence’ in any way, shape or form. It means that no one or no thing is in charge of the universe ... that there is no ‘Ultimate Authority’. It means that all values are but human values, with no absolute values at all to fall back upon. It is impossible for one to conceive that without a wayward ‘I’ there is no need for either a compliant ‘me’ or any values whatsoever ... or an ‘Ultimate Authority’.

This is what freedom from the Human Condition is.

RESPONDENT: Does actualism reject the useful application of empirical wisdom such as ethics and psychology?

RICHARD: You may find the following illuminating:

• [Richard]: ‘I am not at all altruistic – nor unselfish – let alone nurturing ... ‘twas the identity inhabiting the body who was. And the altruism I spoke of (further above) – altruistic ‘self’-immolation – is a once-in-a-lifetime event and not the real-world day-to-day altruism (unselfishness) ... such everyday unselfishness falls under the category of morality or ethicality. Where I use the word altruism in a non-biological sense is where it is synonymic to the magnanimity of benevolence ... for example:

[Richard]: ‘In order to mutate from the self-centred licentiousness to a self-less sensualism, one must have confidence in the ultimate beneficence of the universe. This confidence – this surety – can be gained from a pure consciousness experience, wherein ‘I’, the psychological entity [and ‘me’, the psychic entity], temporarily ceases to exist. Life is briefly seen to be already perfect and innocent ... it is a life-changing experience. One is physically experiencing first-hand, albeit momentarily, this actual world – a spontaneously benevolent world – that antedates the normal world. The normal world is commonly known as the real world or reality. (...) The experience of purity is a benefaction. Out of this blessing comes pure intent, which will consistently guide one through the travails of daily life, gently ushering in an increasing ease and generosity of character. With this growing magnanimity, one becomes more and more anonymous, more and more self-less. With this expanding altruism one becomes less and less self-centred, less and less egocentric. Eventually the moment comes wherein something definitive happens, physically, inside the brain and ‘I’ am nevermore. ‘Being’ ceases – it was only a psychic apparition anyway – and war is over, forever, in one human being’. (pages 124-125: ‘Richard’s Journal’ ©The Actual Freedom Trust 1997).

The growing magnanimity (an increasing generosity of character) referred to as an expanding altruism is a munificent well-wishing ... the etymological root of the word benevolent is the Latin ‘benne velle’ (meaning ‘wish well’). And well-wishing stems from fellowship regard – like species recognise like species throughout the animal world – for we are all fellow human beings and have the capacity for what is called a ‘theory of mind’.
The way to an actual freedom from the human condition is the same as an actual freedom from the human condition – the means to the end are not different from the end – inasmuch that where one is happy and harmless as an on-going modus operandi benevolence operates of its own accord ... you partly indicated this (above) where you commented that people are generally helpful toward each other when feeling happy. Where benevolence is flourishing morals and ethics, as a matter of course, fall redundant by the wayside ... unused, unneeded and unnecessary.

RESPONDENT: And I mean empirical (proven results through the scientific method).

RICHARD: I will rephrase the last sentence (of the above quote) for emphasis:

• Where benevolence is flourishing ‘empirical (proven results through the scientific method)’ morals and ethics, as a matter of course, fall redundant by the wayside ... unused, unneeded and unnecessary.

RESPONDENT: I mean some very complex ethical issues in my Mental Health work require me to be able to reason Consequentially (i.e. Utilitarian, Situational Ethics), utilize ethical principles (Social Work Values, deontological principles), and have a virtue ethic (having pro-social habits – now actualism (and being in the moment with one’s senses/emotions/thought – which is a part of actualism but not exclusive to actualism) comes in here as it removes the ego/soul which of course has the pro-social benefit of altruism. Does actualism deny all this?

RICHARD: First of all, ‘being in the moment’ with one’s senses/emotions/thoughts is not part of actualism ... thus any question about exclusivity is without substance.

Second, actualism does not come ‘in here’ (in here with utilitarian ethics, situational ethics, ethical principles, social work values, deontological principles, a virtue ethic) at all.

Last, but not least, the ending of both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul does not have the ‘pro-social benefit of altruism’. For just one example:

• [Richard]: ‘I am not altruistic – altruism is an instinctual inheritance which expires as the identity – and any and all (seemingly altruistic) actions are motivated solely by the fellowship regard engendered by an actual intimacy with every body and every thing and every event.
It is all so simple here in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: I’m sorry, being selfless cannot answer a complex ethical situation with multiple parties where some of the party’s happiness must be sacrificed because of limited resources.

RICHARD: Being ‘self’-less in toto renders any ‘complex ethical situation’ (and any complex ethical solution) null and void.

RESPONDENT: Do you see what I’m trying to convey?

RICHARD: Yes.

RESPONDENT: Have I missed something?

RICHARD: Yes.

RESPONDENT: Now that my mind is no longer shackled by religion (and actualism was a major determinate of this secular shift, which I of course had no real free choice in the first place since we are all organisms of causality) I am seeing the richness and sometimes the complexity of life situations.

RICHARD: If actualism has been a major determinant in your shift from spiritualism to materialism then you are not the first to report such an event ... and probably will not be the last.

Howsoever, actualism – the third alternative to both materialism and spiritualism – has nowt to do with either.

*

RESPONDENT: I meant by philosophy the ‘love of wisdom’ ...

RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-phrase my response so as to be in accord with what you mean by saying that actualism is a philosophy: as actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is not ‘the love of wisdom’ then the question as to whether or not it is well-rounded and/or all-embracing and/or sensible and/or narrow love of wisdom is irrelevant. And just so that there is no misunderstanding: actualism is not the love of an ideology either ... or of an idea, an ideal, a belief, a concept, an opinion, a conjecture, a speculation, an assumption, a presumption, a supposition, a surmise, an inference, a judgement, an intellectualisation, an imagination, a posit, an image, an analysis, a viewpoint, a view, a stance, a perspective, a standpoint, a position, a world-view, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, a metaphysics or any other of the 101 ways of down-playing/dismissing a direct report of what it is to be actually free from the human condition and living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe actually is.

RESPONDENT: [I meant by philosophy the ‘love of wisdom’] which is an experiential knowledge, application, and living of wisdom.

RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-phrase my response so as to be in accord with what you mean by saying that actualism is a love of wisdom: as actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is not ‘an experiential knowledge, application, and living of wisdom’ then the question as to whether or not it is well-rounded and/or all-embracing and/or sensible and/or narrow experiential knowledge, application, and living of wisdom is irrelevant. And just so that there is no misunderstanding: actualism is not an experiential knowledge, application, and living of an ideology either ... or of an idea, an ideal, a belief, a concept, an opinion, a conjecture, a speculation, an assumption, a presumption, a supposition, a surmise, an inference, a judgement, an intellectualisation, an imagination, a posit, an image, an analysis, a viewpoint, a view, a stance, a perspective, a standpoint, a position, a world-view, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, a metaphysics or any other of the 101 ways of down-playing/dismissing a direct report of what it is to be actually free from the human condition and living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe actually is.

RESPONDENT: Actualism’s living w/o ego/soul falls under this description.

RICHARD: Au contraire ... it does no such thing.

RESPONDENT: Ok. One can call a philosophy of life simply empirical things like its healthy to get enough sleep, get movement in (i.e. reasonable exercise), eat a well balanced diet of foods, learn a language, play music, play chess (if one enjoys it of course), engage the mind in mathematics and science, learn to think, feel one’s feelings, etc.

RICHARD: As you have increasingly down-played actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – to the point of now equating it to vague generalisations, which you say can constitute a philosophy of life, about some unspecified health benefits of enough sleep, reasonable exercise, well-balanced diet, learning language, playing music, playing chess (provided it be enjoyable), mind-engagement in mathematics and science, learning to think, feeling one’s emotions and passions, and so on, there is obviously no point in me continuing to report/ describe/ explain what actualism actually is ... and what it is not.

Especially so in view of the fact that your very next e-mail (to another) after this one espouses the virtues of materialism.

*

RESPONDENT: Maybe, I’m not writing well.

RICHARD: You have been abundantly clear all along ... and you are not the first to have taken the report/ description/ explanation of life here in this actual world and endeavoured to turn it into, and/or relate it to, ethicalistic/ moralistic principles and/or values and/or virtues and/or standards and/or models and/or systems and/or conventions and/or norms and/or mores and/or maxims and/or axioms and/or postulates and/or dictums and/or directives and/or tenets and/or doctrines and/or policies and/or codes and/or canons and/or rules and/or regulations and/or laws, and so on, and you probably will not be the last.

RESPONDENT: Richard, as you have used LeDoux, perhaps this [General Sensate Focusing Technique] can be of service. (snip link).

RICHARD: First of all, the only use I have ever made of Mr. Joseph LeDoux is his laboratory evidence that a sensate signal goes first to the affective circuitry (albeit a split-second first) and then to the cognitive circuitry ... for example [snip examples].:

RESPONDENT: Ok.

RICHARD: This is the ‘only use’ being referred to (in the first example provided of what I have written on other occasions on this topic):

• [Richard]: ‘... the only reason that any reference is made to them [to scientific studies such as Mr. Joseph LeDoux’s laboratory evidence] on The Actual Freedom Web Page *is so that other people do not have to take my word for it* that the feelings arise before thought in the reactionary process (albeit a split-second first). [emphasis added].

In other words, I have never, ever, personally ‘used LeDoux’ ... as made crystal clear with this sentence:

• [Richard]: ‘And, furthermore, his [Mr. Joseph LeDoux’s] laboratory work *played no part whatsoever* in becoming actually free from the human condition. [emphasis added].

Thus all that is left of your (further above) sentence is this:

• [example only]: ‘Richard, perhaps Mr. Ilan Shalif’s General Sensate Focusing Technique can be of service. [end example].

And just whom might it be ‘of service’ to? None other than this person (from further below):

• [Respondent]: ‘Perhaps his [Mr. Ilan Shalif’s] detailed instruction of how to sensately focus could be of use for a beginning actualist’. [endquote].

As Mr. Joseph LeDoux’s laboratory evidence is qualitatively different to Mr. Ilan Shalif’s psychological management technique here is my question: why would his, or any, psychological management technique be of use/be of service to a person setting foot on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition? Vis.:

• [Mr. Ilan Shalif]: ‘I sought for a better way to *manage* the human emotional life. (...) After locating new ways to *manage* the emotional and sensual part of life, it seemed suitable to share it with others’. [emphasises added]. (http://shalif.com/psychology/content1.htm#PROLOGUE).

RESPONDENT: It ain’t AF, but he does a precise job instructing how to focus on sensations and feelings. It would be up to any individual to discover if that could be of any use to them. It is of no use to you, clear enough.

RICHARD: As nothing is of use to me personally – including the actualism method – then obviously I am not making myself clear: Mr. Ilan Shalif’s psychological management technique, which is qualitatively different to Mr. Joseph LeDoux’s laboratory evidence, is of no use whatsoever to a person setting foot upon the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition ... whereas Mr. Joseph LeDoux’s laboratory evidence can be of use inasmuch such a person need not take my word for it that the feelings arise before thought in the reactionary process (albeit a split-second first).

If this is now clear – that you unwarrantedly linked the two persons, thus falsely ascribing an associative value to the second person, in your intro to the link you provided – then we can look at your (revised) reason as to why you are promoting/endorsing Mr. Ilan Shalif’s psychological management technique on a mailing list set-up to discuss peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body ... to wit: that he (purportedly) does a precise job instructing how to focus on sensations and feelings and that it would be up to any individual (presumably a beginning actualist) to discover if that could be of any use to them (presumably in conjunction with the actualism method).

Okay?

*

RICHARD: In short (more on this below): actualism is not a management technique, a coping mechanism, or any other kind of psychological system.

RESPONDENT: I know.

RICHARD: Then why would you promote/endorse such a system on a mailing list set-up to discuss peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body?

*

RICHARD: As for the link you provided to Mr. Ilan Shalif’s web site ... if you could provide an example of how his ‘General Sensate Focusing Technique’ has been, or is being, ‘of service’ to you in regards to the actualism method there will then be something of substance to discuss.

RESPONDENT: 1) The GSFT was a pointer that peace could be found out side of spirituality – thus a precursor to be being open to AF.

RICHARD: I copy-pasted the word <peace> into a search engine and sent it through Mr. Ilan Shalif’s entire web site ... only to have it return nil hits. Howsoever the word ‘serenity’ features several times ... for instance:

• [Mr. Ilan Shalif]: ‘... those [ongoing appraisals] of the structure in charge of assessing the amount of present and future dangers, are made along the ‘Fear-Serenity’ continuum which is better known as the Basic Emotion of ‘fear’. (http://shalif.com/psychology/content1.htm#KEY TO).

The ‘Fear-Serenity continuum’ referred to there is otherwise known as Mr. Charles Darwin’s second principle in his theory of emotion. Vis.:

• [Mr. Ilan Shalif]: ‘In the second principle of his [Mr. Charles Darwin’s] theory, he claimed that each of the basic emotions consists of a pair of bipolar antitheses – like the two opposing poles of fear and serenity’. (http://shalif.com/psychology/who-win.htm).

And:

• [Mr. Ilan Shalif]: ‘A study was carried out (...) Results support Darwin’s claim that each of the basic emotions is a bipolar entity. (http://shalif.com/psychology/who-win.htm#Top).

And:

• [Mr. Ilan Shalif]: ‘... our study gives substantial support to Darwin’s (1872) second principle of emotion which claims that the inborn emotions are bipolar. The bipolar findings are also congruent with findings of modern neurological studies of the Amigdala of the Limbic system of the brain. Clearly demonstrating this are findings about the bipolarity function of the Amigdala in the creation of the emotional experience of the basic emotions – as showed by Fonberg (1986) and Panksep (1986). (http://shalif.com/psychology/who-win.htm).

Thus if ‘serenity’ is indeed the ‘peace’ you are referring to then it is to be found somewhere towards one pole of the ‘fear-serenity continuum’ in what Mr. Ilan Shalif classifies as ‘the Basic [bipolar] Emotion of ‘fear’’ ... which means that, for there to be serenity in his management plan, the instinctual passion of fear must persist.

RESPONDENT: 2) I have broke some habits with it: a) obsessive TV watching. b) smoking. c) overeating. c) and others of a more personal nature.

RICHARD: As most things humans do are habitual then for no other reason than because you say ‘obsessive’ in regards television viewing, and as ‘overeating’ is another way of saying ‘excessive’, I will presume you are referring to habits which fall into the obsessive-compulsive-excessive category – else it makes no sense to single out a few amongst the many for attention – such as obsessive and/or compulsive and/or excessive hand-washing, for an obvious instance, or obsessive and/or compulsive and/or excessive sex, for another (there are a multitude of such usual, regular, routine, consistent, normal, customary, ordinary, everyday activities which can become a concern for such obsessive-compulsive-excessive reasons).

As Mr. Ilan Shalif makes no secret of the fact that his technique is designed to dispense with having to have recourse to counsellors, therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and any other professionals of that ilk, it is not all that surprising you have had success in those areas. Vis.:

• [Mr. Ilan Shalif]: ‘The popularity of dealing with psychology in the past decades, has resulted in an increased awareness of the different processes which occur within the individual. (...) There are also more people who are no longer content – and thus *do not consent to leave their feelings and ‘emotional problems’ to the professionals who specialize in this field*. This trend is similar to the spreading tendency to take part in sports and other physical activities for health and body maintenance outside of any formal framework or organization. This tendency expresses – among other things – the wish to eliminate the monopoly of orthopedics and other specialists on the maintenance of the well-being of the skeleton and muscles. Similar tendencies can be found in the wide stream of movements for *the liberation of the individual from the reign of ‘Professionals and authorities in their field’*. This stream expresses the growing tendency of people to take responsibility for their own functioning and place in the world. (‘Eliminating School’ and ‘Medicine’s revenge’ of Ivan Ilitch are among the outstanding books aimed at achieving this end through ‘destructive’ means. They try to do it through their contribution of ‘Exposing the conspiracy of the experts of the establishment’.) There are also ‘constructive’ means to meet this end. Many people take the trouble to make organized knowledge – based on applied sciences – available (accessible) to the layman. They take the pain to ‘translate’ scientific findings and professional publications into texts written in everyday language, and invent new techniques of the ‘do it yourself’ type. And so, the previously mysterious knowledge of the chosen few becomes intelligible to the ordinary person, who with this help *can becomes (sic) independent of professional assistance*. The knowledge accumulated by me and my trainees and brought to this book – and especially that which is brought to the chapter ‘Do it yourself’ is of the ‘constructionist’ kind. It contributes our share to the growing body of knowledge that *enables the liberation of the individual from total dependency on professionals*. This growing body of knowledge contributes more than any other modern factor to the growing feeling of the freedom of people in modern times. *One is no longer forced to choose, again and again, between self-neglect or fearfully submitting to the experts* ...’ [emphasises added]. (http://shalif.com/psychology/content1.htm#FOR WHOM).

RESPONDENT: Sure – there is something to it – and its free.

RICHARD: If I may point out? There is probably ‘something to’ all of the 101 psychological management techniques available these days to the lay public ... quite possibly any one of them could have enabled you to have had success in those obsessive-compulsive-excessive areas.

*

RESPONDENT: 3) I have improved my emotional climate: a) I have reduced the intensity and frequency of ‘being angry’. b) I have reduced the intensity and frequency of anxiety.

RICHARD: There are, of course, 101 psychological management techniques available these days to the lay public and, as you have made it known previously you work in the mental health field, it is understandable that you would have an interest in that area ... howsoever, as psychology/psychiatry has not brought, is not bringing, and will not bring, peace-on-earth, nothing that a psychological/psychiatric approach has to offer has, is, or will, be of use/be of service to a person setting foot on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition.

RESPONDENT: All w/o god, spirituality, meditation, therapy, money, ideology, ‘positive’ thinking. 10 months of off and on again use. I do wish I would have done it intensively before AF, so I could have a better contrast. I thought the scientific study of the emotions with a corresponding non-spiritual method might be of interest to you.

RICHARD: I came across Mr. Ilan Shalif’s web site about two-three years ago ... psychological/psychiatric management techniques/coping mechanisms hold no interest to me.

Moreover, on his other web site, where he promotes and promulgates [quote] ‘anarchism and other communist libertarian’ [endquote] societies, he has the following quotes and comments:

• ‘Without struggle, there is no progress’ (Frederick Douglass). Let’s struggle.
• ‘We cannot dismantle the master’s house using the master’s tools’ (Audre Lorde). Let’s create new tools.
• ‘... by any means necessary’ (Malcolm X). Let’s strategize, mobilize and generate the means. (http://shalif.com/anarchy/).

The carte blanche nature of that last quote – ‘by any means necessary’ – leaves me totally uninterested in anything at all he has to say.

RESPONDENT: Perhaps his detailed instruction of how to sensately focus could be of use for a beginning actualist.

RICHARD: Given that Mr. Ilan Shalif’s management plan depends upon the instinctual passions remaining firmly in situ forever in just what way could his detailed instruction on how to ‘sensately focus’ be of use for a beginning actualist?

RESPONDENT: Of course GSFT is not AF.

RICHARD: Of course not ... and, as the elimination of fear (for just one instance) would mean, for a General Sensate Focusing Technique practitioner, the ending of their serenity, it never will be.

Just as no other psychological/psychiatric management technique ever will either.

RESPONDENT: Until psychological/psychiatric management techniques start sensible talk about self-immolating, AF will have no cousins, let alone sisters, brothers or parents.

RICHARD: Which, of course, includes the ‘General Sensate Focusing [Management] Technique’ and, speaking personally, I will not be holding my breath whilst waiting for them to start as job security, if nothing else, will hinder such ‘sensible talk’ as you refer to.

And here is a clue as to why: it will not only mean the ending of psychological/psychiatric management techniques/coping mechanisms but the end of psychology/psychiatry per se.

What do you reckon the first five letters in both those words refers to?

Given that psychiatry has had at least 150+ years to demonstrate its efficacy in dealing with human suffering – without a single recorded success in bringing such suffering to an end, forever, in any human being anywhere in the world – it is surely an exercise in futility to even think for a moment (let alone type-out a commendation and click ‘send’) that an assistant professor researching social behaviour at the Stanford Social Neuroscience Laboratory would have anything at all to contribute to a discussion about a caring which is entirely new to human experience/ human history. 

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless