(List D refers to Richard’s List D and his Respondent Numbers)
From Basic Freedom to Full Actual Freedom Part Two: The Social Identity (Peasant Mentality) Vineeto The peasant mentality is the largest component of the social identity, laying down the rules how one is to think and act in society at large, which side to take in the permanent battle of ‘good and evil’, which beliefs of what is ‘right and wrong’, which political views and opinions to defend and which class structure to uphold. Richard further emphasized that there is no rôle whatsoever for the peasant mentality in Terra Actualis –
* RESPONDENT: You are involved with your own feelings of power. RICHARD: As I have neither power nor feelings (which are one and the same thing) I cannot possibly be involved in what you hypothesise at all. RESPONDENT: It is apparent to anyone who wants to look at it. RICHARD: I am looking at it ... I am not seeing what you see. I am seeing there is *equity and parity* (not to be confused with equality) in all of my interactions with my fellow human beings. Again, if you re-read the exchange (further above) this will become obvious ... provided you are not looking for equality. I am as honest about explaining my interactions as I am in the actuality of my participation. (Richard, List B, No. 21b, 18 March 2000a). (...elided...). RESPONDENT: You think the problem is a matter of equality. RICHARD: Not at all ... and I made this clear right from the beginning when I initially wrote: [quote]: “...it is the need for power itself that is the problem – not who currently overtly or covertly holds it – which is why I suggested coming out of the ’sixties and here into the ’naughties, where *equity and parity* is the key to success”. [endquote]. So as to explicate why *equity and parity* is the sensible approach, perhaps you may be inclined to consider two very common platitudes ... but juxtaposed for clarity. Viz.: ‘we are all unique’ | ‘we are all equal’. (Richard, List B, No. 21b, 22 March 2000). * [Richard]: Fortunately, for yours truly and any body whose resident identity is taking notice of these words, ‘he’ had absorbed the hard-won revelations of one of the peasants who, having sought fame and fortune to escape a working-class childhood, had achieved a considerable degree of success in that enterprise (becoming a member of the world’s pecuniary super-elite, those 200,000-odd persons known to be of $30 million net-worth and above, who constitute something like 0.003% of the population by some accounts). Viz.:
The peculiar aspect of this ‘disguised slavery’ system is, then, the vacuity of the peasant-mentality which dumbly perpetuates it. In a nutshell: what the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body circa 1978-79 began calling a ‘peasant mentality’ was exemplified by that vast majority of peoples not only just dumbly accepting and perpetuating this undeniably-rigged socio-economic system (known to hipsters as ‘The Establishment’) as being ‘just the way it is’ but being fiercely loyal to it, into the bargain, and defensive of it amongst themselves (to the point of defending it unto death, even, in shooting wars against other peasants similarly defending their elite few). I kid you not; on many an occasion back then, when that identity would share ‘his’ insights with ‘his’ fellow-peasants, they would object most strenuously – especially the salaried peasants (those ‘white-collar workers’ who fondly imagined themselves to be a cut above peasant-hood) – and would vigorously defend the status-quo in a manner not all that dissimilar to what is known in psychological/ psychiatric terms as ‘capture-bonding’ (popularly known as ‘The Stockholm Syndrome’, when localised, and ‘The Oslo Syndrome’, when communalised). Interestingly enough, some symptoms of ‘capture-bonding’ have been identified, in regards to criminal hostage situations, prisoners of war/ concentration camp internees, controlling/ intimidating relationships (battered wives/ hen-pecked husbands/ abused children), cult members, incest victims, and the like, [...] The hallmark of ‘peasant-mentality’ is, in a word, loyalty. (Richard, List D, Claudiu3, 28 May 2015). * Here is a report that Richard, ‘Peter’ and ‘Vineeto’ had indeed talked about peasant mentality, though it wasn’t named as such at the time –
I remember this course of events very well, I remember that feeling being ‘Vineeto’ sat on the floor next to Richard, leaning against the wall in his living room when ‘she’ had this fascinating discussion with him about loyalty. ‘She’ was telling him about ‘her’ concerns that ‘she’ was being traitor to ‘her’ community of Rajneeshees, including the people ‘she’ worked for as an employee, when ‘she’ was doubting and questioning the validity and efficacy of ‘her’ belief in, and dedication to, ‘her’ Master and spiritual enlightenment, after ‘she’ had had a glimpse from the conversations with Richard that there might be something superior on offer. Richard listened intently and at the end of the conversation said to ‘her’ “Ah, you are talking about loyalty”. This really had hit a chord. Was ‘her’ apparently multifaceted concern really only about loyalty? Loyalty was something ‘she’ could understand, and ‘she’ recalled many times in ‘her’ life where ‘she’ had changed loyalty to something which suited ‘her’ search for meaning better than ‘her’ previous pursuit, for instance as Richard described it in the above correspondence. And ‘she’ had landed here, in Richard's living room, in a small seaside town in Australia. It was quite amazing. It still took several more months, in which ‘she’ discovered that there was something presented to ‘her’ which was utterly fresh, sensible, sincere and, contrary to spiritual belief, appealed to ‘her’ intelligence. Besides, ‘she’ realized eventually that ‘she’ had nothing to lose but ‘her’ weakening spiritual dreams and ‘her’ devotion for a dead master. ‘Vineeto’ wrote about one decisive incident –
On the last day of the visit from Jonathan, Claudiu, Srinath, Alan and Adam, Richard introduced the topic of Peasant Mentality. * RESPONDENT No. 32: Hey Jon...really enjoyed your post. Can you elaborate a bit more on that ‘peasant mentality’ which Richard discussed with you ?CLAUDIU: Oh I found the concept of the peasant mentality really awesome actuality. I hadn’t heard anybody else put it that way before. Let me try to formulate it properly. The idea is that sometime before today, it wasn’t the case that everything was owned. Like when America was uncolonized, you could just get in a wagon, ride west for however long, then stake out a territory and start farming it. But nowadays, everything is already owned. Everything is walled-off and fenced-off. When you are born you own nothing, and everything else is already owned. Those owners want to make you work for it, like you have to earn your keep, earn your right to live. If you do, then they give you some of the stuff they already own. If you work really hard, you get more stuff. If you are really corrupt then you can become an owner too, but still only by playing their game. This is the ‘peasant mentality’ – that you have to work to earn the right to live. That because you work, you deserve something. But really in a state of nature nothing is owned, you can just go wherever and do whatever you want. So the fact that everything is owned is artificial. Maybe uncolonized America was a bad example, maybe a better example is before civilization. I think that’s what Richard meant by peasant mentality, and he said how a while back he recognized this and decided not to play into it anymore, not to play the game that the owners have set up before you were even born. [...] RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, Yes, the better example is indeed ‘before civilisation’ as to ‘stake out a territory and start farming it’ marks the shift from a ‘free-range’ life-style to the ‘property-rights’ way of life (and, thereby, to the arising of a ‘peasant-mentality’). To explain: for a hunter-gatherer, the free-range life-style was epitomised by, basically, just helping oneself to whatever was available. With the advent of the property-rights way of life, however, any such ‘helping oneself’ transmogrified into being theft, larceny, stealing, despoliation, direption, and etcetera. Millennia later, all of this results in feeling-beings atavistically harbouring a deep, primordial *feeling* of being somehow disfranchised – the instinctual passions, being primeval, are still ‘wired’ for hunter-gathering – from some ancient ‘golden age’, wherein life was in some ill-defined way ‘free’ (e.g., ‘The Garden of Eden’), such as to affectively underpin all the class-wars (between the ‘haves and have-nots’) down through the ages. Unless this rudimentary *feeling* of disfranchisement – of *feeling* somehow deprived of a fundamental franchise (franchise = the territory or limits within which immunity, privileges, rights, powers, etcetera may be exercised) – is primarily understood (to the point of being viscerally felt, even) any explanation of ‘peasant-mentality’ will be of superficial use only. A footnote appended to a 2005 online response of mine is as good a place to start as any. Viz.:
The following day another respondent queried me on my above response; in my clarification I referred to the term ‘wage-slave’ as being, perhaps more correctly, ‘modern-day serfdom’. [...] Which neatly brings me to the point of detailing these above examples: understanding the ‘whys and wherefores’ of peasant-mentality is not about effecting social change but being free of it in oneself. In the seventh paragraph of ‘Article 20’ (appended further below) I have highlighted the relevant sentence. Viz.:
In other words, one is then free to conform with the legal laws and observe the social protocols – to ‘go along with’, to ‘pay lip-service to’ – whilst no longer believing in them. ‘Tis a remarkable freedom in itself – with no need to rebel at all – as all rebellion stems, primarily, from that deeply-held primordial *feeling* of disfranchisement (and its associated feelings of resentment, envy, cynicism, and so on and so forth). (Richard, List D, Claudiu3, 18 May 2015) .* RICHARD: Going by those ways of expressing it then that feeling you have had, in the past, may very well be in the direction of that deep and primordial feeling referred to, further above, of being somehow disfranchised from just helping yourself to whatever was available (per favour the ‘free-range’ life-style of a hunter-gatherer) and, thereby, being subject to the arising of a ‘peasant-mentality’ (via enforced-employment under the ‘property-rights’ way of life). The question which engaged the attention of the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago went something like this: ‘Where is it carved in stone that the very earth beneath our feet – the source and nourishment of life itself – is to be alienated, from the vast majority of the peoples it engenders and sustains, by a minority of those persons for the maximum enrichment of that commandeering minority’? (For that is the essence of the famed ‘rule of law’ which lies at the heart of many National Constitutions world-wide). It is nowhere ‘carved in stone’ (of course) as the famed ‘rule of law’ is nothing other than an invention of the various warlords desirous of establishing an ideological system with which to continuously enrich themselves, and their idle off-spring, at the expense of the disfranchised majority. Furthermore: ‘How come that vast majority of peoples supplicate themselves at the feet of this commandeering minority, for the sake of ‘a few crumbs from their table’ (laden with the suppliants’ produce), and defend those alienators unto death, even, when attacked in force by another alienator’s suppliants bent upon enlarging their commandeering minority’s alienated territory for the sake of those very-same crumbs’? (Please bear in mind that the identity within had directed this flesh-and-blood body to go to war as a gilded youth – thereby risking ‘life and limb’ for the perpetuation of privately-owned capitalistic economic enterprise, as exemplified in the near-defunct USA system, over publicly-owned capitalistic economic enterprise, as exemplified in the now-defunct USSR system – in order to comprehend the context in which such questions arose). Moreover: ‘Who suffers the most – as in, who faces the greater loss – when the commandeering minority’s dominion, over a land they alienated from the common weal, is threatened via an invasion from without ... the suppliants or the dominators’? It is the strangest of incongruities that peasant will fight peasant en masse – for the further enrichment of their respective dominators – when the end result no matter the outcome either way is but ‘a few crumbs’ from their dominator’s table (laden with the peasants’ produce) just as before. Hence the term ‘peasant-mentality’. To add insult to injury, as it were, the peasants are told that, by partaking of those ‘few crumbs’, they have thereby ‘signed’ an invisible ‘social contract’ wherein – to paraphrase the words of Mr. Jean-Jacques Rousseau – each person and all their power has been put in common under the supreme direction of the general will where, at once and in place of the individual personality of each contractor, this very act of association has created a moral and collective body.> The end result of all this is the current situation where the vast majority – upwards of at least 98% or more – of the peoples alive today have to give of their physical or mental labour and time (to that commandeering minority) so as to be grudgingly granted in return (by that commandeering minority) a portion of the total ascribed value of what they produced (for that commandeering minority) so as to be able to purchase (from that commandeering minority) sufficient liquids, comestibles, shelter, raiment, medicaments, and any other such essential matériel, for everyday survival purposes. ‘Tis truly a rigged system ... rigged to ever-enrich an already obscenely rich elite. In effect it is a system of disguised slavery – a lugubrious legacy which everyone alive today has unwittingly inherited from long-dead peoples of long-ago eras – wherein the only way to escape subservient compliance (inasmuch all the ‘free-range’ was long-ago commandeered by ‘privateers’, so to speak, or otherwise alienated from the common weal) is to try to become one of the elite few and similarly exploit one’s fellow human beings. (Richard, List D, Claudiu3, 28 May 2015). * RICHARD to Claudiu: (...). Also, something I wrote in 1998 will help set the scene for what else the term ‘peasant-mentality’ meant to the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body circa 1978-1988 (a ‘turning-point’ decade in which ‘he’ sussed-out much of what has been going down for millennia). Viz.: [...snip discussion about Ms. Ayn Rand’s use of the word ‘parasites’ (as in her ‘parasites incapable of survival’ phrasing) to depict any people who ‘attempt to survive’ by defrauding/ looting/ robbing/ cheating/ enslaving the ‘men who produce’ – specifically, those who ‘choose to think and to produce the goods’, that is – whom she otherwise characterises as those ‘who are capable’ and who pursue ‘a course of action proper to man’ in an essay on Objectivist Ethics...]. The main point to get about the mechanisation/ robotisation/ computerisation of productive work is the work which the now-made-redundant workers once carried out still gets done – indeed productivity increases many-fold due solely to such ingenious ‘labour-saving’ devices – yet the dispossessed workers are castigated just as the peasants of yore were (way back when peasants not working meant the work did not get done). The made-redundant person (or a person unable to gain paid employment in the first place) who buys into such epithets a ‘dole-bludger’ and the ilk – and dutifully self-castigates – is thus another example of a person with a ‘peasant-mentality’. (...). In the seventh paragraph of ‘Article 20’ (appended further below) I have highlighted the relevant sentence. Viz.:
In other words, one is then free to conform with the legal laws and observe the social protocols – to ‘go along with’, to ‘pay lip-service to’ – whilst no longer believing in them. ‘Tis a remarkable freedom in itself – with no need to rebel at all – as all rebellion stems, primarily, from that deeply-held primordial *feeling* of disfranchisement (and its associated feelings of resentment, envy, cynicism, and so on and so forth). (Richard, List D, Claudiu3, 18 May 2015). * ANDREW: Hi Richard, that’s a great read indeed! Thanks for taking the time to put it together. It helps to hear also of the work you did during the late 70s through to mid 80s looking into these issues. RICHARD: G’day Andrew, Yes, the resolution of the above issue (the implications and ramifications of the mechanisation/ robotisation/ computerisation of productive work) came to a head in the late 1970’s whilst listening to a Parliamentary Broadcast, on the National Radio, of the then-Prime Minister’s speech about the necessity of importing the latest electronics technology – despite it putting tens of thousands of current and future employees out of work – in order for the nation to remain competitive on the world market. In other words, it was a deliberate Government Policy to add even more hapless citizens to the rising double-digit pool of unemployed – the days of full employment, in developed countries, had ended during the early 1970’s world-wide economic crises – and yet, despite this remarkably frank public admission, disparaging epithets such as ‘dole-bludgers’ and similar continued unabated. Obviously, for him and his ilk such ingenious labour-saving devices were not designed to release peoples from having to ‘earn their (daily) bread by the sweat of the brow’ – even though productive work not only still got done but productivity increased many-fold as well – but were avariciously arrogated to serve as saving-labour costs instead and, thus, increase their profits many-fold. Howsoever, those words from that wealthy pastoralist – a man infamous for forcing the nation into a constitutional crisis, so he could gain such political power he was then liberally exercising, and notorious for saying that ‘life wasn’t meant to be easy’ (despite a privileged Grammar School education and an Oxford degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics) – were the final straw in regards the hallowed ‘Protestant Work-Ethic’ which had been thoroughly inculcated, from early childhood onward, into the identity then-inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body, such as to occasion ‘him’ to work 12-14 hours a day 6-7 days a week. Now, whilst ‘he’ did not have an Economics Degree (let alone from a prestigious university) ‘his’ egalitarian far-sightedness enabled ‘him’ to see that unless productive workers – including those displaced by the ingenious mechanisation, robotisation, and computerisation of productive work – receive monies sufficient enough to purchase those goods produced then any such increased productivity decreases accordingly, with the economy correspondingly going into slow-down, whereupon workers are laid-off, and the economy goes into melt-down. Evidentially, however, avaritia leads to short-sightedness. [...] Ha ... that which you read about is a classic example of the ‘peasant-mentality’ in action (you obviously missed my final words – ‘no need to rebel at all’ – written just above my signature/sign-off). (Richard, List D, Andrew, 22 May 2015).* Kuba recently gave a insightful report how he was able to fade out and step out of his life-long belief in authority, power, hierarchy and ‘humanity’s wisdom’ which is clearly a feature of peasant mentality – KUBA: I am finding lately that an aspect of ‘myself’ which ‘I’ have carried so deeply for so many years is disappearing. It is to do with authority and the resultant lack of confidence, this deep feeling that no matter what ‘I’ do ‘I’ will never be good enough. It is funny to look at it now, because all ‘my’ life ‘I’ crippled ‘myself’ because of ‘my’ own belief in the absolute power of authority, no wonder ‘I’ never felt good enough as ‘I’ was only comparing ‘my’ performance to ‘their’ beliefs/values/morals etc. So ‘my’ life was a life of always second guessing ‘myself’, always feeling like there is a ‘big daddy’ who knows better, of always trying to work out just what the ‘right’ thing to do is. Always trying to act out the best performance but painfully falling short each time, then castigating ‘myself’ for failing to live up to ‘their’ borrowed values! What I am getting a taste of these days is as Richard described – “Here is a total lack of conformity and compromise” (Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Nine). There is such a freedom to no longer being crippled by one’s belief in authority. Interestingly enough with the belief in authority fading, the feeling of ‘me’ never being good enough also fades, as after all it was ‘their’ beliefs which were the benchmark ‘I’ was comparing ‘myself’ against, constantly. The question is why were ‘they’ given such credibility in the first place? When it was clearly not warranted. But it was the belief in authority itself which made ‘me’ cling to ‘their’ values even though ‘I’ knew deep down that they were faulty.
It is funny, me and Sonya went out for a fancy Japanese meal the other day, it was a very intimate ambience with only the chef and 4 people in the room. The other 2 was a couple with the boyfriend being a ‘new money’ kinda guy. Of course he spent the whole time trying to impress upon us his achievements. I ended up talking with him to some depth and it very quickly became clear to him that I simply didn’t agree with his borrowed wisdom, felicitously. He attempted to advise me by pointing out that trees grow to their max potential but only humans limit themselves, funnily enough in the next sentence he equated that ‘maximum potential’ with how many G wagons one is driving :laughing: The bizarre thing happened next when he offered to pay our bill (which was pretty substantial due to the kind of restaurant we were at), I am not sure if this was him throwing the last punch or perhaps he appreciated that I was able to talk with him in a way that was genuine and amicable, despite his attempts at impressing his superiority. But this gives an example as to the quality of this highly venerated ‘human wisdom’. * To emphasize again – all one’s beliefs, truths, values, principles, prejudices, habits, ideas, etcetera, which remain after becoming basically free from the instinctual passions and the identity formed thereof, will have to be examined and dissolved, *one by one*. The guardian cannot be thrown out all at once. In fact the guardian a.k.a. the social identity cannot be seen in its totality until it is emptied out of its content.⁽*⁾
The time this will take depends on how much one has seen through one’s beliefs, habits, values and behaviour patterns before becoming basically free, and how quickly one can recognize and discard the patterns of the various aspects of this conglomerated guardian who has taken control and maintained control of how ‘an actualist’ should think and act. Any thought of ‘should’ and ‘shouldn’t’ and ‘need to’ is an indicator for the guardian in action. Only when this social identity is hollowed out of its content, so to speak, can it be seen as a whole, seen for what it is – a *centre-creating identity*, an unpassionate but nevertheless controlling and limiting centre, separating you from what you are in actuality – a sensate and reflective human being living the magical perfection of the purity and experiencing the vast stillness of infinitude. Abandoning Humanity The very presence of social identity/peasant mentality clearly indicates that one hasn’t abandoned humanity as yet, and one notable issue of needing to belong to a smaller or larger group of humanity is lack of self-esteem despite the absence of one’s instinctual passions. The process is very similar to before becoming free when investigating any aspect of the social identity – seeing each particular aspect in its totality, upon exposure dissolution occurs. Many social identity aspects can be described as having to do with ‘self-worth’ (and self-worth as derived from other people’s opinion – social status, respect, acceptance, authority, control, pride – in other words, inequity and imparity, the very components which stand in the way to peace-on-earth amongst fellow human beings. Whereas when pure intent is allowed to operate freely intimacy, fellow-ship regard, magnanimity and tenderness can flourish. Autonomy can only be achieved when one’s ‘self-worth’ is no longer of any concern. I am reminded of this “Wonder-land Tale” from Richard, which informs in detail how self-worth is not worth anything when one understands and experiences the very nature of pure intent –
With fully recognizing the uselessness of self-esteem/ self-worth, “(and self-worth as derived from others’ opinion at that)” there is no need to uphold this link to humanity any longer. However, each individual will have a different sequence of tackling their issues of the social identity. * As loyalty plays a major part in maintaining one’s peasant mentality, here is an example that might be of use – RESPONDENT: I am interested in a more in-depth explanation of this topic by yourself. RICHARD: Okay ... nationalism, and thus patriotism with all its heroic evils, is an amplified form of tribalism: tribalism is an augmentation of clanism; clanism, being familistical, is but a much larger extension of the extended-family; and the extended-family stems, of course, from where blood is the thickest it can ever possibly be than water ... to wit: the core family group itself. Now, although the root cause of war itself is the instinctual passions in action, the primary impulse for warfare at large is, more often than not, none other than kinship bonds (or any extension thereof no matter how attenuated in modern-day nations) and yet the ties of consanguinity are widely held in high esteem, almost to the point of being subject to taboo, and thus generally exempt from an investigation into the human condition (as is evidenced from time-to-time both on this mailing list and others, for example, by derogatory comments about the way I interact with the fellow human beings who happen to be my progeny). Here in this actual world, where everybody is special simply by being alive as a flesh and blood body, kinship ties/ family bonds are nowhere to be found ... which means that, not only is the root cause of war eliminated, the fundamental impulse for warfare at large, generally speaking, has been similarly eradicated. It is all so simple, here. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 68b, 6 May 2005a). * Richard had always referred to abandoning humanity as the penultimate step.
Here he wrote to feeling being ‘Vineeto’ in 1999 when ‘she’ had asked him about what belonging to humanity means –
Upon reflection, it appears that after the opening of the Direct Route on 30th of December 2009 abandoning humanity is happening both before and after becoming newly free. It is still the penultimate step to a full actual freedom. So one can appreciate that it’s not a little thing to be engaged in. As I said before, it is made so much easier because after becoming newly free there are no instinctual survival passions to get in the way, no psychic web to confuse and distort, *and* because pure intent is so much easier to access for guidance, perseverance and the wonder-ful appreciation of the magicality of it all. * And now we come to the description of Geoffrey’s process towards the end of his investigations into the social identity after all individual topics had been dealt with and he had ‘emptied out’ the shell of his social identity –
Geoffrey's comment that “I can’t imagine what it must be like” turned out to be his last objection which held the “snow-globe” in place, because shortly after he wrote –
And there you have it – it is indeed possible to become entirely free from the social identity and its associated peasant mentality and thus begin the process to gradually allow experiencing the full extent of infinitude of the universe as infinite space, eternal time and perpetual matter.
Richard’s & Vineeto’s & Geoffrey’s Text ©The Actual
Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity |