RESPONDENT: (...) I had been musing on an (admittedly poor) analogy in tipping a waitperson in a restaurant. While using money as a medium for judgement is mildly abhorrent to me, it does make the server have a momentary good feeling. I do exist in a world of imperfect beings and I can choose to either follow my principles and piss off the waiter, or get off my high horse and do something that greases the skids for the immediate micro-culture. I guess that example constitutes a reasonable compromise.

VINEETO: I wonder why you say that ‘using money as a medium for judgement is mildly abhorrent to me’ when thinking about tipping a waiter or waitress? I have been working as a waitress myself and, although I enjoyed a good chit-chat with amicable guests, I much appreciated their tip because it helped paying for my bills. Today I am on the other side of the service contract and when I enjoy friendly service in a restaurant I am happy to contribute to the waiter-customer deal with a tip. I can’t see anything ‘abhorrent’ about this deal – after all, most of us sell our time, skills and services in exchange for money that pays for livelihood, toys and pleasures.

Whilst it is sensible to abide by the legal laws of the society you live in, whether or not you follow the social mores is a matter of choice. To make that choice a matter of principle on the basis of right or wrong, good or bad, can only lead to a surrender in the form of a begrudging acceptance or a victory in terms of a defiant belligerence. It’s my experience that ‘my’ principles stood in the way of me being happy and harmless which is why, whenever ‘my’ principles arose, I always binned them and looked for the sensible approach.

What you term ‘the immediate micro-culture’ I would call the fact that humans exchange goods and services with each other in order to earn a living. If I may say so, I would think your ‘high horse’ in this case is to consider yourself to be outside of this common-to-all necessity of earning a living, from which position you then ‘grease the skids for the immediate micro-culture’. In actuality I am part of the exchange game whenever I am in business with my fellow human beings and, given we humans all play the same game in order to earn a living I aim for a win-win situation for all involved in the situation.

RESPONDENT: I have some long-standing tax and credit problems, which I find make it difficult to free myself from identity issues. I owe tens of thousands in taxes and creditors and they want their money. I would appreciate any advice you have regarding dealing with pragmatics like debts and finances incurred before my interest in actualism. When I ask myself ‘the question’ regarding these matters, I feel angry and afraid that I will have a good part of my money taken from me and also have to do disagreeable jobs in order to rectify the situation.

VINEETO: When I became a practicing actualist, I found it vital to sort out the practicalities of living because I can’t be happy as long as I have debilitating financial worries and I can’t be harmless if I withhold other people’s money or property. As for ‘I will have a good part of my money taken’ – when you owe money to other people it is not really yours, is it?

Spiritualists attempt to spend as much time as possible in their imaginary feel-good world in order to escape having to solve the pragmatic problems of their life. An actualist wants to be here in this physical world as totally as possible and that focus precipitates and involves sorting out one’s day-to-day life in the most sensible and straightforward manner.

As for ‘disagreeable jobs’ – it is a fact for most people that they have to work for money for food, shelter and clothes. When you ask how you are experiencing this moment of being alive and find yourself objecting to the fact of having to do a certain job, then you know that there is something to look at. It was only by slowly whittling away at my objections to the facts of life – the facts of the world-as-it-is and people-as-they-are – that I have incrementally succeeded in becoming happy and harmless.

VINEETO: Did it [your version of the actualism method] enable you to become free from any aspects of your social identity – as a Dutchman, as a white man, as a son, brother, as a male, etc.?

RESPONDENT: The social identity I see basically as a collective belief as to what is appropriate and/or necessary behaviour as for protection of what is agreed upon to be a private space. Basically it comes down to a more or less strict definition as to what is criminal and non-criminal behaviour implies as a Dutchman that differs from ie. a German or a Japanese and so on … depending on the country’s beliefs, as to what law and order is and how it is to be maintained.

On the other hand what is funny and/or tragic is also rather much depended on how one’s conditioning in the nationalistic shell has been brought about. Clearly within this shell is a rather fundamental belief as to what part money plays in daily life and hence my way of going about this issue which is still under investigation as it only seems to become evident as a major aspect in social interaction most interesting btw.

VINEETO: I have learnt to differentiate between the practical value of money as a trading tool for different goods and the emotions surrounding money such as greed, jealousy, envy, competition desire and resentment. The feelings and passions associated with money are not – as many like to believe – the fault of money per se or of the capitalist trading system itself but are caused by natural forces – the instinctual survival passions instilled in every human being.

RESPONDENT: Like every person, except for the ones living in virtual or actual freedom, I am emotional when it comes to money. It seems like a good idea …

VINEETO: Personally I found it a better idea to discover why I was, and on rare occasions am, emotional when it comes to money. I learnt what originated my disdain for money (usually other people’s), what jump-started my fear of not having enough money, and what caused my desire for having more money/goods. Not surprisingly all these emotions about money arose directly from the instinctual survival passions which, when brought to the bright light of awareness, rapidly lost their intensity and their grip.

RESPONDENT: [It seems like a good idea] to establish an income that comes in with very minimal/no work so that if I become unable to work, I can still pay for what I need.

VINEETO: Your suggestion merely tackles the symptom (money) and not the root cause (the instinctual survival passions). Of all the people I know who are sufficiently well off to pay for what they need even if they stopped working, none have stopped being emotional about money.

RESPONDENT: My question is for those in virtual/actual freedom, what is the investment vehicle and strategy that creates this kind of income, that makes the most sense?

VINEETO: The ‘investment vehicle’ for me is to put my attention and effort into eliminating the cause of any worry about money and let my intelligence take care of the practical needs as and when they occur.

VINEETO to Gary: Last week I sent a letter to a German correspondent commenting on two newspaper articles that he had sent me analysing the latest events in the US. As I thought the topic might be of interest to you or others, I am posting the English translation on the list. For you, here is the link for the German version.

*

[Vineeto]: You sent me an article from Peter Lock, ‘Researcher for Peace and Conflict’, on the topic of ‘A Replaceable Figure’, ‘Politics Must Do More Than Hunt For Single Perpetrators’, which I found to be idealistic-ideological rather than pragmatic-practical. The author presents a number of well-known fashionable beliefs and ideas that have little to do with facts or common sense. For instance, he says –

[Web-Respondent No 3]: The causes of terrorism disappear from sight because investigating them would destroy the seeming clarity of one’s political and most probably also military reactions. Even more, one doesn’t ask what the social conditions had been that supported efficient terrorism on a multinational scale ... [endquote].

I consider people who indiscriminately, and at any cost including their own life, set out to harm and deliberately destroy another group of people as a dangerous assembly, even more so in the latest case as they seem to have not only a strong following but also the avowed aim and the means to wage a war of terror. The behaviour and action of such a group, wielding such weapons as hijacked aircrafts laden with jet fuel, cannot be excused by anything, whatever may be the political situation in their country, the tenets of their religion, the ideals of their particular social/political philosophy or whatever injustices they claim to have suffered or how righteous they consider their cause.

In other words, if someone decides to hate me and attack me, I don’t have to understand the particular justification for his or her aggression in order to stop him or her. When someone threatens me I will call the police, whatever the aggressor’s reason or justification for his or her attack may be. It may be pertinent to note that throughout history the only thing that ultimately stops violence is more violence – which is why we have armed police and armies to maintain law and order. The system may not be fair on some but whilst human beings continue to nurse malice and sorrow in their bosoms, what passes for peace will be ultimately maintained at the point of a gun.

Peter Lock continues –

[Web-Respondent No 3]: Further down I will examine the possible topics of the failed dialogue that is now being continued with brutal force. These are in direct connection with the global and economic development, which are apparently the operating basis for terrorism. First one has to understand that the present form of economic globalisation is bypassing the interests of the majority of the world population. Sure indications are the unrelenting polarisation of private income, the structural inability to overcome the hunger in the world and finally the erosion of statehood and the growing importance of violence to regulate economic operations that often escalate into warring activities. [endquote].

I don’t know what kind of economic development the author has in mind, but in contrast to popular opinion, my impression from the countless television reports that I have seen is that globalisation and world trade are enormously beneficial to economic improvement, particularly in developing countries. Economic globalisation often creates work and income in poor areas, brings information and technology into remote regions, supports productivity and innovation, improves communication and trade and gives a lot of people the possibility to earn more money and lead a more comfortable, healthy, pleasurable and safe life than their parents could have ever dreamt of.

In the developing countries, health and education can only improve with increased economic living conditions, and the tackling of the problem of overpopulation – one of the major reasons for hunger and poverty – is only possible through improved education, medical advancement and economic growth. Don’t expect any support from the religions in reducing overpopulation, as pure self-interest drives all religions to increase their numbers by all means. Religions are unison against any kind of birth control – one of the few points of agreement between the various religious beliefs.

However, apart from the ever-growing overpopulation in vast parts of the world, ‘the structural inability to overcome the hunger in the world’ is due to the fact that human beings are continuously and instinctually fighting each other for territorial, religious and tribal-political reasons. This grim battle for survival has gone on unabated for thousands of years – the only difference being it is now fought with much more sophisticated weapons and even more convoluted and pious moral arguments. And yet despite this continual vitriol and maiming and blaming of others it is amazing that at least one third of the world’s population lives in considerable wealth, relative security and enjoys the highly advanced technology that we are using today. It is pertinent to observe that all of the advances in civilizing the human species have come from the practical application of intelligence whilst all of the suffering of the human species has come from a senseless clinging to archaic beliefs, unliveable morals and ethics and a lauding of our instinctual animal passions.

Right now the same people that a little while ago were morally outraged about violations of human rights in Afghanistan are now morally outraged that the Americans are bombing the strongholds of the Taliban, the very regime they originally saw as suppressing the Afghani people. A little reading of history tells us that the Afghani people have been at almost constant war with each other and against their neighbours for centuries. Warfare, with its inevitable suffering and impoverishment is inherent to Afghan history in this barren mountain-desert region. As far as this country is concerned, the unvanquished ‘hunger in the world’ has nothing at all to do with a so-called ‘economic globalisation’ – for decades this country has never known anything but tribal wars and war and conflict causes more suffering and hunger than any other cause. According to a Red Cross estimate some one billion people were effected by warfare in the last half of the twentieth century alone.

As far as ‘the growing importance of violence to regulate economic operations’ is concerned, I don’t see that violence per se has increased but that information and media coverage about violence has improved. Peter Lock does not say relative to which time ‘violence to regulate economic operations’ has increased. Is he comparing today to the times of the brutish Viking invasions, the time when the Romans violently expanded into northern territories, when the Huns overran Europe, the time of the Hundred Year’s War or the time before World War Two? Since which time does the author think the violence between human beings has increased, which is what he seems to be implying? Human history is but a history of territorial warfare, violent conquest and asset raiding. Regulating of economic operations were almost always done at the point of a spear or sword whereas so much is done nowadays by negotiation and exchange of tokens. T’is often no less hard-nosed and ruthless but at least it is less physically violent.

It is fairly easy, one could say even hypocritical, to live in the comfort of a rich democratic, capitalistic nation and attack capitalism, world trade and ‘economic globalisation’ and make them responsible for all the evil of humankind. If, however, one puts aside one’s personal anti-capitalist beliefs and takes a closer look, then the facts of the situation are quite obvious. Money itself is not the problem. In a wealthy country most people’s life expectancy, comfort, health and physical security are usually superior to those in poorer countries. And yet even in wealthy countries the emotions of corruption, greed, righteousness, aggression, fear and competition – that most people consider synonymous with and can’t separate from money and wealth – invariably turn one’s own life and that of others into a living hell. To deny others the benefit of economic and social development via economic globalisation – the opportunity and ability to trade information and goods with others worldwide – due to this emotional misconception is a truly myopic and self-centred opinion.

In short Peter Lock, like countless others of his ilk, has got it 180 degrees wrong in his attempts to lay the blame for violence and suffering at someone else’s door.

Wouldn’t it be much easier, far more realistic and pertinent, to abandon the moral confusion and ethical pros and cons of assorting blame and apportioning guilt and conduct ‘research for peace’ on oneself instead of endlessly pointing fingers at others? Any sincere ‘researcher for peace and conflict’ worthy of his or her name could begin to investigate how it is possible to live with their fellow human beings in complete peace and harmony, be it at home or at work, no matter where they live or who they live with. A ‘researcher for conflict’ could begin to learn about and meticulously investigate the causes of conflict in himself or herself because the causes for conflict are exactly the same in all human beings – our inherent instinctual passions, our animal heritage.

Unless this instinctual animal heritage is acknowledged, recognized, investigated and finally eliminated, what passes for peace on earth between human beings can only ever be maintained at the point of a gun – with police, army and a strong justice system. It is not, as is commonly believed, the social, political or economic environment that makes people aggressive but it is our inherent animal-instinctual aggressive nature that can, when push comes to shove, explode at any time. Everyone knows such out-of-control impulsive moments from one’s own experience. Therefore it is completely useless to blame society – not to mention being practically impossible to change society – because the very people who would form the ‘new’ society would still be inevitably driven by their instinctually passions.

Peter Lock, Researcher for Peace and Conflict. An Exchangeable Figure. Politics Must Do More Than Hunt For Single Perpetrators. Frankfurter Rundschau 13.9.2001

*

[Vineeto]: The article from Dieter Lutz on September 22, 2001 in the Frankfurter Rundschau under the title ‘The Terrorist Attacks Are Also A Warning, Maybe The Last’ reads like yet another description of doomsday. Under the influence of his own emotional impression about the attacks on the World Trade Centre the author offers everything he always hated about the present situation in the world. He lays blame to western society, global warming, the exploitation of natural resources and the battle of the rich and powerful against the poor and weak. He conjures up major catastrophes, chemical warfare, the dying of the forests, the ozone hole and war over drinking water. The article reads like a description of Judgement Day as he mobilizes whatever fear and guilt he can. One could think from his tirade that he was happy that his personal enemies, the Rich and Powerful Ones, had received a severe blow from the terrorists.

In an atmosphere of promoting and maintaining the divisiveness of class warfare and ethical polarisation, theoretical political alienations and moral indignation conflict is only increased and further inflamed, not diminished or dissolved. The author is amplifying the worry and fear of his readers for his own political and emotional satisfaction in a rather irresponsible way when he says –

[Web-Respondent No 3]: Is the only thing left to do in the face of political dilettantism, Gordian complexity and dramatic time pressure the cutting of the convolution, the sword of Alexander the Great? Does this mean war? And dictatorship? [endquote].

Which he then answers with Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker’s advice that –

[Web-Respondent No 3]: ‘World peace demands from us an extraordinary moral effort.’ [endquote].

And in his final conclusion Mr. Lutz explains how his world peace should look like –

[Web-Respondent No 3]: If security policy should not be exhausted in disaster management and disaster care regarding the vulnerability of highly developed societies, in fact of the whole international community, then one needs to finally begin, eleven years after the East-West-conflict, to build a world order based on the power of law and law enforcement, which produces a global home policy and earns its name of ‘just peace’. [endquote].

Who, may I ask, will be the leader or leaders of this ‘world order’, who decides which ‘law’ of the ‘world order’ is being enforced, what are the rules of their ‘global home policy’ and who determines what is a ‘just peace’ and for whom it is just? Who are the powerful ones in this new ‘world order’? And what happens to the critics of this ‘world order’, people who criticize the new order – the next generation of Dieter Lutzes? I do find it amazing that those who have the greatest objections about the way societies are run today are exactly the ones who then propose their own global solution that is more unpractical and dictatorial than the one they see to be so disastrous.

*

[Vineeto]: I am glad that I don’t have the task to finding a political solution to ending violence and suffering because there is no solution to be had within the Human Condition. There is no general political solution, no permanent solution and particularly no world-order solution that will work to bring a genuine peace between human beings as long as people are driven by their instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire. Right now, however, there are only pragmatic law and order answers to be had to present situations and pragmatic solutions are best arrived at by putting aside beliefs and passions as much as possible.

My own solution to finding peace on this paradisiacal earth has been to become aware of my own social and religious conditioning and beliefs, my own ethical and moral values, and my own underlying emotions and instinctual passions. By becoming aware of all this programming that society and blind nature had inevitably thrust upon me I was able to incrementally bring them to light and thus render them impotent. The peace and tranquillity that is achieved in this way is independent from the society I live in, independent of any religious belief whatsoever, independent from the emotions of other people and therefore indestructible. Also, it is much easier, and indeed it is only possible, to change oneself to be a peaceful person rather than changing 6 billion people so as to fit them into a mythical new ‘world order’ of ‘just peace’.

The simple solution of getting rid of malice and sorrow is now available, applicable by anybody who is interested in being happy and harmless, right here on this very earth and right now in this very lifetime.

GARY: Working full-time and having other interests undoubtedly plays a role in this, although I am sure that both you and Peter probably work full-time and somehow find the time to be both very consistent and involved in writing to the list, with brief periods of silence from time to time.

VINEETO: My present job as a self-employed bookkeeper allows me to work ‘in fits and starts’, not according to my whims but according to the requirements of my various clients. Some clients need weekly work but many only need a monthly or even a quarterly visit. But because the quarterly added value tax reports are due for everyone at the same time, those months are always very busy. Right now I am working full time but, come the end of July, I will have only half-time employment until the next busy season.

After I quit my full-time job some four years ago, I discovered that I could reduce my work time simply by reducing my expenses. In fact, the more I unravelled my social identity the less I needed to spend on fashionable accessories in order to be ‘someone’, and the more I became happy the less I needed to buy things to make me happy. To work for sufficient money to provide shelter, food, clothing and a few toys like a computer, a TV and running a small car still leaves me with a good deal of free time to enjoy doing nothing really well.