|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 68
RESPONDENT: My name is <name deleted> and I’ve been reading the website. RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list ... although the website has grown exponentially due to feedback on mailing lists the essential point to grasp is that, just as the ego-self dies so as to become awakened/ enlightened, so too does the soul-self/ spirit-self die so as to be actually free from the human condition. RESPONDENT: Oddly enough I stumbled upon it with the Google search ‘Buddhism and watchfulness’ or close to it. So, it was not really something I was looking for but I have been intrigued and challenged by my reading. Just to let you know where I’m coming from (and how hard it will be for me to ‘go all the way’) I’m a practicing Eastern Orthodox Christian – i.e. I have a morning and evening prayer rule before my altar of Icons, pray before eating, travelling, undertaking work, have two spiritual reading times where I read the Lives of the Saints, The Scriptures, and the writings of the Saints, and practice times of stillness throughout the day in general. I practice the ‘Fourth Way’ as a natural complement to Eastern Christianity. There is my biases. However, in the end what seems to be most important is to be at peace and harmless to my fellow man. RICHARD: Indeed ... yet there is more to an actual freedom from the human condition than peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body only: the meaning of life (or the reason for existence/ the purpose of the universe or however one’s quest may be phrased) is apparent twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, in this actual world. And this is truly wonderful. RESPONDENT: Those were the reasons I became Orthodox in the first place after studying and practicing Protestant Fundamentalism (Nazarene), New Ageism, Judaism, Islam, (Eastern Orthodoxy), Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and back to Orthodoxy (all this is in chronological order). I think that my investigation and practice of Eastern religion and my discovery that they were certainly inferior to Orthodoxy and far as happy and harmless goes will be a stumbling block in my communication with Peter and Richard because they only experienced the indeed sick religion of Western Christianity and found it obviously less healthy than Eastern Religion. RICHARD: As all religions are sick (to use your terminology) it really makes no difference which one you currently subscribe to in regards it being a stumbling block in your communication ... all and any religiosity, spirituality, mysticality, and metaphysicality is rotten to the core. RESPONDENT: But I have read enough of the site to give a real jumping into this for 6-12 months to see where it goes. I stopped going to Church (even though the chanting in Church is my favourite part of my week), praying (though it gives me peace), and meditating for now. I have many questions of course but this is a long message and if anyone has a response I’ll hold off in writing more. RICHARD: Okay ... another essential point to grasp is that, although the past was actual when it was happening, it is not actual now; although the future will be actual when it happens, it is not actual now; only this moment is actual. And, as this moment is one’s only moment of being alive, it is of vital importance to be aware of how it is being experienced – obviously yesterday’s happiness and harmlessness is of no use if one is not happy and harmless (free from malice and sorrow) now – and to wait for happiness and harmlessness to happen tomorrow is to be wasting an opportunity to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth to be apparent ... all one gets by waiting is more waiting. Hence the actualism method, first put into practice in 1981 and the only method thus far to deliver the goods, revolves around
asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: I’ve been asking the HAIETMOBA throughout my day. I have a hard time seeing how this will eventually lead to self immolation, but I’m giving it a go anyways. RICHARD: Perhaps this may be of assistance:
RESPONDENT: I was wondering if the question could ever be shortened to ‘how am I experiencing’ or ‘what am I experiencing’ sometimes. RICHARD: As the ‘how’ refers to the way or manner this moment of being alive is being experienced the word ‘what’ does not equate ... and to only ask oneself how one is experiencing, without nominating what it is that is being experienced, makes the question so amorphous as to be ineffective. And I say this because the main reason for asking oneself how one is experiencing this moment of being alive is to be aware of/ attentive to the way or manner in which one is experiencing the only moment one is ever alive ... although the past was actual when it was happening, it is not actual now; although the future will be actual when it happens, it is not actual now; only this moment is actual. RESPONDENT: The whole phrase seems like a lot when I’m doing something at times. RICHARD: It is a question, not a phrase to be memorised and repeated slogan-like (or as if chanting a mantra for instance), and it soon becomes a non-verbal attitude to life ... a wordless approach each moment again whereupon one cannot be anything else but aware of one’s every instinctual impulse/affective feeling, and thus self-centred thought, as it is happening. RESPONDENT: Also, you claim that their is no self ... RICHARD: I report that there is no self (or Self) here in this actual world ... but that is not the experience of perhaps 6.0 billion peoples world-wide. RESPONDENT: ... so would it not be more on target to say ‘what is this body experiencing’ or ‘how is this body experiencing this moment of being alive’ (HITBETMOBA)? RICHARD: Where there is no self (or Self) extant then apperception – unmediated awareness – occurs automatically
irregardless of whether thought is operating or not ... which apperception is what the exquisite Incidentally, there is nothing strange, mysterious, or profound, about the question itself ... it is a simple, straight-forward query.
RESPONDENT: I have known for years that believing in god, soul, afterlife, and free will are all becoming increasingly suspect, but I would always think: hey what’s the alternative – to live a godless, nihilistic, unhappy life? Now I know from personal experience that removing superstition from life can clear the way to a abundantly happy life if one has a good secular philosophy(ies). I’m loving life as it is right now, and having a blast trying to leave a positive impact on this world right now and hopefully this effect will even pass on to the next generation. Actualism has been helpful in this journey, but I have serious doubts about it as a well rounded, all embracing philosophy. It is very sensible in some areas, but seems very narrow. RICHARD: As actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is not a philosophy
RESPONDENT: I have known for years that believing in god, soul, afterlife, and free will are all becoming increasingly suspect, but I would always think: hey what’s the alternative – to live a godless, nihilistic, unhappy life? Now I know from personal experience that removing superstition from life can clear the way to a abundantly happy life if one has a good secular philosophy(ies). I’m loving life as it is right now, and having a blast trying to leave a positive impact on this world right now and hopefully this effect will even pass on to the next generation. Actualism has been helpful in this journey, but I have serious doubts about it as a well rounded, all embracing philosophy. It is very sensible in some areas, but seems very narrow. RICHARD: As actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is not a philosophy then the question as to whether or not it is well-rounded and/or all-embracing and/or sensible and/or narrow one is irrelevant. For example:
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:
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:
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: Does actualism reject the useful application of empirical wisdom such as ethics and psychology? RICHARD: You may find the following illuminating:
RESPONDENT: And I mean empirical (proven results through the scientific method). RICHARD: I will rephrase the last sentence (of the above quote) for emphasis:
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:
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 have known for years that believing in god, soul, afterlife, and free will are all becoming increasingly suspect, but I would always think: hey what’s the alternative – to live a godless, nihilistic, unhappy life? Now I know from personal experience that removing superstition from life can clear the way to a abundantly happy life if one has a good secular philosophy(ies). I’m loving life as it is right now, and having a blast trying to leave a positive impact on this world right now and hopefully this effect will even pass on to the next generation. Actualism has been helpful in this journey, but I have serious doubts about it as a well rounded, all embracing philosophy. It is very sensible in some areas, but seems very narrow. RICHARD: As actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is not a philosophy then the question as to whether or not it is well-rounded and/or all-embracing and/or sensible and/or narrow one is irrelevant. For example:
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: OK Richard, could you just answer the only question I was really asking in the first place which is: this is the MAIN question I have here that you did not answer. RICHARD: I did answer your question. Viz.:
Just because it is (presumably) not the answer you expected/ wanted/ whatever does not mean that I did not answer it.
RESPONDENT: OK Richard, could you just answer the only question I was really asking in the first place which is: this is the MAIN question I have here that you did not answer. RICHARD: I did answer your question. Viz.:
Just because it is (presumably) not the answer you expected/ wanted/ whatever does not mean that I did not answer it. 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: If (or when) I have children would it be ‘inappropriate’ according to actualism to say ‘I love you’ back to my child when he/she says ‘I love you daddy’? RICHARD: As actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is not an ethicalistic/ moralistic set of principles/values what would actually be ‘inappropriate’ is to turn it into one. RESPONDENT: That question is from my wife. RICHARD: And what was your response to her asking you this question? RESPONDENT: This is an important question because it certainly could be HARMFUL to a child to never hear ‘I love you’ from their parents. RICHARD: How could it ‘certainly’ be harmful to a child to never hear that?
RESPONDENT: Actualists appear to have some feelings or how could you use words like delight, benign, beneficent, happy, etc.? RICHARD: You may find the following informative in this regard:
RESPONDENT: I can see having no passions (violent emotions) but ... RICHARD: If I may interject? Is that how you experience passion (as a ‘violent’ emotion)? RESPONDENT: ... [but] there seems to be something of the emotional capacity (or feeling capacity) left. I have been practicing the AF method intensively the last few months and I am certainly much less emotional, but it seems that even in what seemed to be PCE or mini ones) some sort of a well-being sense – which in scientific categories of emotion is still considered an emotion or feeling. RICHARD: It is quite simple: if there be affective feelings (under any categorisation) in a peak-experience then it is not a pure consciousness experience (PCE). This may be an apt moment to point out that the word ‘feeling’ (in its affective usage and not in its sensate usage) does not always refer to the exact same thing as the words ‘emotion’ and ‘passion’ do. For example, to say ‘I am emotional about (whatever)’ is not the same as saying ‘I am passionate about (whatever)’ ... whereas to say ‘I feel deeply about (whatever)’ or to say ‘I feel strongly about (whatever)’ is. Generally speaking a passion is a deep feeling/a strong feeling whereas an emotion is more a nervous feeling/an agitated feeling ... for instance, to say ‘I am emotionally in love with (whomever)’ does not convey what saying ‘I am passionately in love with (whomever)’ does. RESPONDENT: Perhaps, this is more a problem with British versus American English. RICHARD: I do not find that ... for here is a truncated version of what one dictionary from the USA has to say, for example, about the word ‘passion’:
And here are those synonyms at ‘feeling’:
Most of that is, more or less, how I have always understood it. RESPONDENT: Or more to the point, a problem with the strict dictionary use of a term versus a psychological (or evolutionary use of) use of the term emotion to refer to all feelings as being ‘emotional’. RICHARD: Hence I tend to use the word ‘affective’ (it being a ‘catch-all’ word).
RESPONDENT: Since much of ‘nature’ is indeed ‘red in tooth and claw’ i.e. some species eat their babies, violence in animals is MUCH more common than in people, primitive ‘natural people’ have a homicide rate between 10-60% as opposed to Europe’s 1-2% (US a little higher 3-4% I think), how is nature ‘safe’ and ‘perfect’? RICHARD: If you could provide a quote from what I have written wherein I describe nature as being ‘safe’ and ‘perfect’ I may be able to respond constructively to your query. RESPONDENT: In having some PCE’s (or something ‘close’). I do understand the ‘feeling’ of experiencing nature as a delight to the eyes, ears, nose, skin, etc. ... but I know that if I walk in the wrong part of Florida that I could be lunch for an alligator or the same with a shark while swimming. Just curious if I have misunderstood what was meant by nature being ‘perfect’ and even more so ‘safe’. RICHARD: Again, if you could provide a quote from what I have written wherein I describe nature as being ‘perfect’ and as being ‘safe’ I may be able to respond constructively to your query.
RESPONDENT: Will I eventually lose my ability to do geometry and other mathematics and sciences since they require the ability to visualize? RICHARD: As you expressly say they ‘require the ability to visualise’ then (obviously) the answer to your question has to be in the affirmative. RESPONDENT: I won’t write much here, since others have taken up this important question. RICHARD: Okay.
RESPONDENT: Could one still effectively engage in the process to eliminate the ‘self’ and still disagree with certain things Richard says along the way? RICHARD: On what certain grounds would such disagreement with certain things be based? RESPONDENT: I mean could I simply withhold judgement either way as to whether I will have absolutely no emotions/feelings, the safety of nature, and the disabling of visualization skills. RICHARD: For an actual freedom from the human condition to occur identity in toto disappears forever (as in extinct) ... and, as identity is the affective feelings (‘I’ am the feelings and the feelings are ‘me’), the entire affective faculty – which includes the intuitive/ imaginative facility – will likewise be extinct. How you could contemplate being able to ‘withhold judgement’ about whether or not an actual freedom from the human condition entails the entire affective faculty (which includes the intuitive/imaginative facility) being extinct has got me beat. RESPONDENT: Could I just rigorously practice the method (which I have been, more and more and more) and just wait for the ACTUAL results? RICHARD: And just what ‘ACTUAL results’ might those be (such as to motivate you to rigorously practise the method in the first place)? RESPONDENT: Perhaps, my experience of actual freedom will be a little different because I will not go through enlightenment first? RICHARD: I cannot put it more simply than this: if your experience were to be that part of the affective faculty – such as some affective feelings and an intact intuitive/ imaginative facility for instance – still be intact then it will not be an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: Perhaps Richard is simply different genetically or environmentally, which will leave some room for differentiation. RICHARD: If the ‘differentiation’ you are referring to is of the magnitude of part of the affective faculty – such as some affective feelings and an intact intuitive/ imaginative facility for instance – still being in situ then one thing is for sure ... it is not an actual freedom from the human condition. And I ought to know as I coined the term. RESPONDENT: This is not naysaying, but rather the application of the scientific method to thinking. RICHARD: As ‘naysaying’ (the act of saying no to a request) is an action of refusal/ denial I would suggest that, despite an avouchment to the contrary, the above may very well be just that ... albeit under the guise of (supposedly) being an application of the scientific method to thinking. Quite simply, the differentiation you allude to is too much a departure from the original to rate as being scientific.
RESPONDENT: I have now read every word of the AF site (and printed a lot of it too), except for some of the correspondences. A great and very enjoyable ride. Is there anything in Richard’s Journal that is not on the site ... i.e., would it benefit me to still get the Journal or would it be redundant? RICHARD: If, as you say, you have read ‘every word’ on The Actual Freedom Trust web site – somewhere in the vicinity of 4.0 million words – except for some of the correspondence and yet still have reason to ask whether there is anything in ‘Richard’s Journal’ that would benefit you then all I can say is ... no, it would be a waste of both your time and your money. You would be better off going ahead, sooner rather than later, with what you mention en passant in another e-mail
CORRESPONDENT No. 68 (Part Two) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
