Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

September 15 2004

RESPONDENT: I was wondering why the phenomena of sub-personalities (SP’s)/ personality clusters (PC’s) has not come up on the AF. This is something humankind has noticed for awhile and has been/is being researched by modern psychology. In observing my psyche it sure seems that I can identify a ‘kind No. 68’, ‘No. 68 around wife’, ‘No. 68 around friends’, ‘No. 68 around Tom’, ‘No. 68 around mom’, ‘hungry No. 68’, ‘philosophical No. 68’, ‘Angry No. 68’, ‘work No. 68’ and the list goes on. Now, in practicing actualism I realize that all these identities are basically many ‘selves’ making up in total my ‘self’. I’m not trying to contradict the AF insight of eliminating the ego/soul, social/instinctual self. It just seems that all this talk about ‘self’ rather than ‘selves’ is perhaps leaving out the seeing the ‘village’ of ‘selves’ that we ‘are’.

RICHARD: Did you not come across the following whilst reading [quote] ‘every word’ [endquote] on The Actual Freedom Trust web site (except for some of the correspondence)? Viz.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You claim that ‘this body called Richard hosts no identity whatsoever’. I would like to understand more deeply what it is that the body called Richard does not host. What do you mean by ‘identity’?
• [Richard]: ‘I was born in Australia, of an English/Scottish Hong Kong-born father and an English/English Australia-born mother. With this British background, I was enculturated into believing that I was, literally, an Australian citizen ... but with British blood. Now, blood is blood ... there is no such ‘thing’ as an ‘Australian’, an ‘American’, a ‘German’, a ‘Japanese’ and so on. Thus the wars and the suicides – the blood shed and the tears shed – are precipitated because of the absurdity of identification ... is not all this acculturation ridiculous! However, as an infant, a child, a youth and then a man, I was so programmed as to be unable to discriminate fact from fiction. I had no terms of reference that I could use as a standard to determine which was which, as every single human being on this planet was not simply a flesh and blood body ... but similarly conditioned into being an ‘ethnic’ human being.
Thus I bought the whole package. Hook, line and sinker.
As I slowly started to unravel the mess that humankind was deeply mired in by unravelling it in me, I discovered a second layer under ‘my’ acculturated ethnicity ... ‘I’ was brainwashed into being a ‘man’ and not simply a flesh and blood male body. Under the enculturated layers lies a further identity ... the genetically-inherited animal ‘self’. It took me years and years of exploration and discovery to find out that ‘I’ was a ‘me’ – a ‘being’ – and not simply a flesh and blood body. By identification as ‘me’, a psychological/psychic entity was able to ‘possess’ this body. It is not unlike those Christians who are said to be possessed by an evil entity and require exorcism. Only this ‘possession’ was called being normal. Therefore, every human being is thus possessed by an ‘alien entity’ ... I discovered that a ‘walk-in’ was in control of this body and that this ‘walk-in’ was ‘me’.
So, superficially there is a composite conditioned social identity that encompasses:
1. A vocational identity as ‘employee’/‘employer’, ‘worker’/‘pensioner’, ‘junior/‘senior’ and so on.
2. A national identity as ‘English’, ‘American’, ‘Australian’ and etcetera.
3. A racial identity as ‘white’, ‘black’, ‘brown’ or whatever.
4. A religious/spiritual identity as a ‘Hindu’, a ‘Muslim’, a ‘Christian’, a ‘Buddhist’ ad infinitum.
5. A ideological identity as a ‘Capitalist’, a ‘Communist’, a ‘Monarchist’, a ‘Fascist’ and etcetera.
6. A political identity as a ‘Democrat’, a ‘Tory’, a ‘Republican’, a ‘Liberal’ and all the rest.
7. A family identity as ‘son’/‘daughter’, ‘brother’/‘sister’, ‘father’/‘mother’ and the whole raft of relatives.
8. A gender identity as ‘boy’/‘girl’, ‘man’/‘woman’.
These are related to roles, rank, positions, station, status, class, age, gender ... the whole organisation of hierarchical control. But behind all that – underlying all socialised classifications – is the persistent feeling of being an identity inhabiting the body: an affective ‘entity’ as in a deep, abiding and profound feeling of being an occupant, a tenant, a squatter or a phantom hiding behind a façade, a mask, a persona; as a subjective emotional psychological ‘self’ and/or a passionate psychic ‘being’ (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) inhabiting the psyche; a deep feeling of being a ‘spirit’; a consciousness of the immanence of ‘presence’ (which exists immortally); an awareness of being an autological ‘being’ ... the realisation of ‘Being’ itself. In other words: everything you think, feel and instinctually know yourself to be.
Your feeling of being – the real ‘me’ – is evidenced when one says: ‘But what about me, nobody loves me for me’. For a woman it may be: ‘You only want me for my body ... and not for me’. For a man it may be: ‘You only want me for my money ... and not for me’. For a child it may be: ‘You only want to be my friend because of my toys (or sweets or whatever)’. That deep feeling of ‘me’ – that ‘being’ itself – is at the core of identity. It arises out of the basic instincts that blind nature endowed all human beings with as a rough and ready ‘soft-ware’ package to make a start in life. These instincts – mainly fear and aggression and nurture and desire – appear as a rudimentary self common to all sentient beings. This is why it is felt to be one’s ‘Original Face’ – to use the Zen terminology – when one accesses it in religious/ spiritual/ mystical meditation practices and disciplines. This is the source of ‘we are all one’, because ‘we’ are all the same-same blind instinctual self that stretches back beyond the dawn of human memory. It is a very, very ancient genetic memory.
Hoariness does not make it automatically wise, however, despite desperate belief to the contrary. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 12a, 28 January 1999).

Variations of that very detailed passage appear ten (10) times on my portion of the web site alone ... and specifically feature in (not all that surprisingly) the ‘Selected Correspondence’ page entitled ‘Social Identity’ and the ‘Selected Correspondence’ page entitled ‘Identity’ and the ‘Selected Correspondence’ page entitled ‘I’ as an ‘Identity’, ‘I’ as a ‘Being’.

RESPONDENT: And it seems to recognize the ‘legion’, ‘village’, ‘city’ or ‘society’ or ‘jungle’ within would help immensely in the elimination of it.

RICHARD: In which case you may find the following (for just one example) to be of interest:

• [Co-Respondent]: The novelty of the quest you propose here is that the Self is also to vanish (or not to arise altogether), and you say that the method for this to happen is by deleting the instinctual program (and thus avoiding the ‘trap’ of enlightenment when deleting only the self-social construct with the instinctual passions left intact).
• [Richard]: ‘The ‘social construct’ part of what you describe as the ‘self-social construct’ is what I call the social identity ... it is otherwise known as a conscience, a moral/ ethical and principled entity, with inculcated societal knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, overlaid upon the identity within (anybody who is or has been a parent will know that it is considered the parents’ duty to instil cultural values in their off-spring).
The identity within is a two-part identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul/spirit) and enlightenment is when the ego-self collapses, dies, dissolves, or merges with the soul-self/ spirit-self (whereupon there is a rapid expansion of identity until it becomes All That Is, or Self, God, Truth, Being, That, Suchness, Isness and so on and so on) ... whereas an actual freedom from the human condition only happens when the identity in toto becomes extinct.
As ‘I’ am the instinctual passions and the instinctual passions are ‘me’ then altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto is the deletion of the instinctual passions ... in other words you cannot delete ‘the instinctual programme’ without deleting yourself.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I must confess that it sounds logical and sane enough.
• [Richard]: ‘Okay ... one starts where one is at: the social identity cannot safely be whittled away unless there be the pure intent to be happy and harmless, each moment again, because this socialised conscience, the moral/ ethical and principled entity with its inculcated societal knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ (cultural values), has been implanted for a very good reason.
It is there to control the wayward self which lurks within the human breast ... which is why dedication to peace-on-earth is paramount. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25b, 24 June 2003).

RESPONDENT: I look forward to this investigation.

RICHARD: What investigation would that be ... the one ‘modern psychology’ carries out, perchance?

September 24 2004

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: Good point – inappropriate was not only the wrong word, but the wrong concept. I know that using the word ‘wrong’ is incorrect. So please read incorrect (I think that is better).

RICHARD: It is not a matter of political correctness ... to turn others’ reports of the direct experience of actuality (or even one’s own) into an ‘according to ...’ system (a set of rules, by whatever name, wherein one’s day-to-day conduct is codified) is to miss the point of why they are sharing their experience.

*

RESPONDENT: That question is from my wife.

RICHARD: And what was your response to her asking you this question?

RESPONDENT: I said: that is an interesting question. I don’t know what Richard will say. I’m ‘afraid’ that he will say that saying the phrase ‘I love you’ would be something that could be done away with. It seems that this would be harmful to a child, BUT in my exploration of Actualism, things that seemed one way or the other often looked different after investigation.

RICHARD: Okay ... given that the question is a hypothetical one (as in your ‘if (or when) I have children’ phrasing) perhaps you could ask your wife whether she would say ‘I hate you’ back to her child when he/she says ‘I hate you mummy’.

*

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: I guess my using both ‘could’ and ‘certainly’ contradict each other. Please remove ‘certainly from the question. It would seem that if ones child said ‘I love you daddy,’ and if one just looked it them and gave them a hug or something that they might wonder if you loved them and therefore it could cause psycho-emotional pain for them.

RICHARD: As love is a feeling – and the words ‘I love you’ are a verbalisation of that feeling (unless one has been sucked into psycho-political correctness) – is the ‘hug or something’ to be a physical expression of that feeling?

If it is, then to also verbalise the love one is feeling would ensure that there be no wondering as to what is motivating such physical expressiveness. If it is not, then to verbalise what it is a physical expression of would similarly ensure that there be no doubt.

September 24 2004

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: (snip referenced description/ explanation of the vivification which occasions the words chosen to express it and what the choice of words is limited by). (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 68, 15 September 2004a).

RESPONDENT: Thank you. That was helpful. Basically, you did/do the best one can do within the limitations of words and the affective people who coined them. When reading your answer I ‘sensed’ that whatever part of me that still resists Actualism is very afraid that any objections it raises can more than adequately be answered.

RICHARD: Aye ... that would be because actualism is, as the very name implies, actual – ‘existing in act or fact’ (Oxford Dictionary) – and thus cannot be faulted. There have been, of course, many who did try to find fault – as evidenced in the correspondence section of The Actual Freedom Trust web site – but to no avail.

And being faultless means not only can it not go awry but that it is perfect.

*

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: When I use the word passion it is coming from my stoic classical Christian back ground of ‘freedom from the passions’. I use the word to speak of strong lust, hate, anger, sorrow. It need not necessarily be ‘violent’.

RICHARD: Would you say that deep affection (the passion known as love) and deep pity (the passion known as compassion) need not necessarily be violent also?

*

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).

RESPONDENT: I accept this. I don’t claim to be having a PCE, but I do claim to sometimes look with my eyes and everything is so crisp and clear – my peripheral vision is within awareness and the seeing is ‘perfect’. Feeling abate, but they come back.

RICHARD: All I was going by was your ‘but there seems to be ... ‘ and your ‘but it seems that even in ...’ phrasing.

*

RICHARD: 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: I see. I guess from working in social work and mental health I tend to see most sensations in or around the face, chest, abdomen as emotions. That is how the word is generally used in the books and research.

RICHARD: Given that I was responding to you drawing a distinction between passions (now advised as being of a stoic classical religious kind), and what in scientific categorisations are considered emotions or feelings (now advised as being of the social work/mental health kind), I will add to my above generalisations accordingly.

For example: ‘freedom from the passions’ in a stoic classical religious usage is not the same as what is presented on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list ... the former indicating an avoidance and/or a suppression of the ‘bad’ passions (strong feelings such as hate) in conjunction with an embracing and/or an expression of the ‘good’ passions (deep feelings such as love) whereas the latter is the elimination of both the strong and the deep feelings (be they either of the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ variety) in their entirety.

Thus where you say you ‘can see having no passions’ in a stoic classical religious sense (further above) yet indicate there seems to be ‘something of the emotional capacity (or feeling capacity) left’ in a social work/mental health sense – even in certain crisp/clear and perfect-seeing moments – it would appear that the mixing/ mingling of spiritualist and materialist terminology whilst attempting to comprehend actualism both intellectually and experientially has compounded the confusion already rife in each of the former alternatives.

What I would suggest is to feel – as in affectively feel – for yourself that which you describe as ‘sensations’ in or around the face, chest, abdomen, (or wherever) the next occasion they occur ... then your seeing will be of an experiential nature rather than of a learnt kind.

September 24 2004

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: I have tried to locate this and have failed so far, so I will continue to looks. I think what you actually said was something like the world (I took that as nature – perhaps wrongly) you live in is perfect and safe.

RICHARD: I see ... so maybe you are not asking me how nature is safe and perfect after all.

RESPONDENT: Does that ring a bell?

RICHARD: I have of-times said the world I live in is perfect – peerless – and safe, utterly safe.

*

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: The ball’s in my court, I’ll keep dribbling and shoot when I find the spot.

RICHARD: Okay.

September 24 2004

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: Are you hinting that they don’t ‘require’ visualization or that if I had a job as a geometrician, mathematical, or scientist, that I might lose it because I would indeed lose the skill that got me the job?

RICHARD: I was not hinting at anything ... I was simply answering your question as asked.

September 25 2004

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: None other than the phrase ‘the proof is in the pudding’.

RICHARD: Presuming that you are referring to the proverb, dating back to the 1300’s, ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’ (literally, one does not know whether food has been cooked properly until one tries it oneself; figuratively, do not assume that something is in order or believe what one is told but, rather, judge the matter by testing it oneself) then you are not disagreeing – synonyms: ‘differing, failing to agree, dissenting, standing opposed, being in dispute/ contention, being at variance/odds, diverging, being in disaccord’ (Oxford Dictionary) – with ‘certain’ things on certain grounds but are disagreeing as a matter of course.

In other words, to ask if one could still effectively engage in the process to eliminate the ‘self’ (the ‘self’ as detailed on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and not the ‘self’ as per materialism and spiritualism) and still disagree with certain things, as also detailed on The Actual Freedom Trust web site (such as just what constitutes the aforementioned ‘self’ one is supposedly going to be effectively engaged in the process of eliminating), on no other grounds than you will not know whether those ‘certain’ things be actually so until the ‘self’ in question is eliminated is to ask whether a carte blanche approach will result in an actual freedom from the human condition.

In a word: no ... and I say this because, if anything, one would become enlightened/ awakened/ illuminated/ self-realised instead.

I kid you not.

*

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.

RESPONDENT: Ok, I was having trouble understanding the possibility of ALL feelings going bye-bye, but your answers have helped with this.

RICHARD: Are you really saying that all it took was my above sentence, containing forty-eight (48) words, to be able to do what your reading, for 2-4 hours per day from April through to September this year, of all the articles – at least as far as you can tell – on The Actual Freedom Trust web site was not able to do?

*

RICHARD: 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: I guess, I don’t yet see how the ability to ‘picture’ where this body put its keys in its house as connoting anything emotional whatsoever. That seems no more affective than the words you and I use to write right now.

RICHARD: To trivialise that which has kept humankind in thralldom for aeons – the (intuitive/ imaginative) ability to be sucked into the massive delusion popularly known as spiritual/ mystical illumination, enlightenment, awakening, self-realisation, and so on – by referring to it as the ability to picture where one’s house keys are makes a mockery of just what it was you were doing, for all those years that you were studying and practicing Protestant Fundamentalism (Nazarene), New Ageism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Eastern Orthodox Christianity (with the ‘Fourth Way’ as a natural complement), when you were chanting, praying, meditating and walking around with a constant feeling of a god’s presence, of love, peace, and joy, during nearly all waking hours (which, sleeping only three hours a day, means twenty-one hours a day) plus supposedly seeing Divine Light (aka Divine Energies) ... all to such an extent that the only people you met who had gone farther into the Christian Mystery were some other Eastern Orthodox monks and priests (and a few Catholic monks).

RESPONDENT: I get the emotional part now (I think I do – I’m sure I’ll be called on my ignorance many more times).

RICHARD: Hmm ... becoming all-of-sudden humble despite having read, for 2-4 hours per day from April through to September this year, all the articles – at least as far as you can tell – on The Actual Freedom Trust web site just does not wash with me.

*

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: The elimination of all suffering ...

RICHARD: Given that the elimination of all suffering requires the elimination of the cause of all that suffering then how is that elimination going to come about unless one knows both what the cause is and what it is made up of?

Or, to put that another way, how is one going to practice the method rigorously – synonyms: exactly, precisely, accurately, meticulously, punctiliously, painstakingly, thoroughly, scrupulously, conscientiously – if one does not know the the why and the whereof and the wherefore of that very method.

RESPONDENT: ... and delighting to be hear in this actual world.

RICHARD: As the pronoun ‘this’ refers to the thing or person present at the time of speaking or writing (as in now) – specifically the place where the speaker or writer is (as in here) – you have to be kidding yourself.

RESPONDENT: Virtual Freedom itself seems more than worthy to work for (and it seems more understandable and conceivable too).

RICHARD: This may be an apt moment to point out that the identity inhabiting this body all those years ago lived in the state of excellence, nowadays known as a virtual freedom, for the six months or so which immediately preceded becoming (because of the lack of a precedent) spiritually enlightened/ mystically awakened for the next eleven years ... instead of there and then (which is where and when the opportunity arose) enabling an actual freedom from the human condition.

It is this simple: I would be doing my fellow human being no favour were I to stand idly by, saying nothing, as they proceed to corrupt the purity of the direct experience of actuality into being nothing but another variation on the oh-so-slippery ‘his’ truth and ‘her’ truth and ‘my’ truth (as in ‘his’ experience of actual freedom and ‘her’ experience of actual freedom and ‘my’ experience of actual freedom).

*

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 ...

RESPONDENT: Understood.

RICHARD: Okay.

*

RICHARD: ... [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 in situ then it will not be an actual freedom from the human condition.

RESPONDENT: Not sure about the visualization thing yet.

RICHARD: Hmm ... in light of being reminded of what took place in your ten years or so of religious orthodoxy are you still sure you are not sure?

*

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: Well yes, only you so far FULLY know of what you speak. Furthermore, I have read about 500 spiritual books from various traditions and I have not read of an account or condition that is exactly what you claim.

RICHARD: Meanwhile, back at the point I was making, 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.

*

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.

RESPONDENT: It could be, but that is not my intent nor wish (or if it is, it is a unconscious part of my identify that I’m not fully aware of).

RICHARD: Given that you titled this e-mail ‘Actualism And ‘Richardism’’ it might just be that the ... um ... the unconscious part of you as identity is in the process of carving out some territory for future residence via a splitting-off, of the very person that coined the term, from that which the term refers to.

Moreover, it may also be that the unconscious part is none other than the intuitive/ imaginative facility, eh?

*

RICHARD: Quite simply, the differentiation you allude to is too much a departure from the original to rate as being scientific.

RESPONDENT: How is observation, hypothesis, experimenting, conclusion not ‘scientific’ ...

RICHARD: I never said that ‘observation, hypothesis, experimenting, conclusion’ is not scientific ... I specifically said that the differentiation you allude to is too much a departure from the original (as in of such a magnitude as to not be just a little different) to rate as being scientific 

RESPONDENT: ... for that is what I an attempting here.

RICHARD: If that is indeed what you are attempting I would suggest you brush-up on your ‘observation’ skills; find out what a feasible ‘hypothesis’ looks like; ensure that any ‘experimenting’ is indeed proof by empirical trial/practical test; and be wary of any ‘conclusion’ preceded by a hop, a skip, and a jump.

RESPONDENT: Whether or not it is successful is another matter.

RICHARD: Successful at what ... a break-way movement called neo-actualism, perchance?

September 25 2004

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 ...

RESPONDENT: I having been reading about actualism for about 2-4 hours per day since April and I’m a fast reader, though its hard to imagine I’ve read millions of words. I of course have only read a fraction of the correspondences (so I’m really saying I’ve read all the articles – at least as far as I can tell).

RICHARD: Okay ... if, as you say, you have been reading about actualism for about 2-4 hours per day from April through to September and yet having read all the articles – at least as far as you can tell – 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.

*

RICHARD: ... 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.

RESPONDENT: I was only asking if your Journal would assist me in the practice of actualism over and beyond your excellent website.

RICHARD: In which case I was only replying by saying ... no, it would not assist you in the practice of actualism, it would be a waste of both your time and your money.

RESPONDENT: It seems you present the website as ‘complete’ and I was inquiring as to whether I was correct in that.

RICHARD: All that is essential is to be found on the home-page – all on just one page – of my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site.

*

RICHARD: You would be better off going ahead, sooner rather than later, with what you mention en passant in another e-mail.

RESPONDENT: Is this response encouraging me to go away? Or is it trying to alert me to my own ignorance? Both? Neither?

RICHARD: This is what you mention en passant in another e-mail:

• [Respondent]: ‘If I was ever to abandon the practice of actualism, this [an emotional growth and human potential website] and cognitive psychology would be where I rest my hat’.

My response is just what it says: if, as you say, you have been reading about actualism for about 2-4 hours per day from April through to September and yet having read all the articles – at least as far as you can tell – still have reason to ask whether there is anything in ‘Richard’s Journal’ that would assist you in the practice of actualism then you would be better off going ahead, sooner rather than later, with what you mentioned en passant in that e-mail.

It is a straight-forward and unambiguous response written with no other agenda than that of saving you from wasting both your time and your money.

September 29 2004

RESPONDENT: That question [about saying ‘I love you’ back to one’s child when he/she says ‘I love you daddy’] is from my wife.

RICHARD: And what was your response to her asking you this question?

RESPONDENT: I said: that is an interesting question. I don’t know what Richard will say. I’m ‘afraid’ that he will say that saying the phrase ‘I love you’ would be something that could be done away with. It seems that this would be harmful to a child, BUT in my exploration of Actualism, things that seemed one way or the other often looked different after investigation.

RICHARD: Okay ... given that the question is a hypothetical one (as in your ‘if (or when) I have children’ phrasing) perhaps you could ask your wife whether she would say ‘I hate you’ back to her child when he/she says ‘I hate you mummy’.

RESPONDENT: Okay, I see the implication that there is no need to respond with the same words that a child uses.

RICHARD: Not unless that is indeed what the parent is feeling (feelings are contagious). I have written about this elsewhere ... for example:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... consciously or unconsciously perceived body-language can be an explanation for much of the ‘vibes’ perceived in close range to another person.
• [Richard]: ‘The colloquialism ‘vibes’ does not refer to body-language but to the affective feelings and gained currency in the ‘sixties (as in ‘I can feel your pain’ or ‘I can feel your anger’ and so on) – even the military are well aware of this as I had it impressed upon me, prior to going to war in my youth, that fear is contagious and can spread like wildfire if unchecked – and another example is being in the presence of an enlightened being (known as ‘Darshan’ in the Indian tradition) so as to be bathed in the overwhelming love and compassion such a being radiates.
Yet behind the feelings lie the psychic energies/currents which emanate from being itself. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 41, 3 December 2003).

‘Tis a great adventure you are embarked upon ... a voyage of exploration and discovery the likes of which cannot be equalled by any physical quest (such as, for instance, discovering the source of the Nile).

*

RESPONDENT: ... It would seem that if ones child said ‘I love you daddy,’ and if one just looked it them and gave them a hug or something that they might wonder if you loved them and therefore it could cause psycho-emotional pain for them.

RICHARD: As love is a feeling – and the words ‘I love you’ are a verbalisation of that feeling (unless one has been sucked into psycho-political correctness) – is the ‘hug or something’ to be a physical expression of that feeling?

RESPONDENT: The hug could merely be a physical expression of kindness/caring.

RICHARD: In which case then to also verbalise the kindness/ caring one is feeling would ensure that there be no wondering as to what is motivating such physical expressiveness.

October 26 2004

RESPONDENT: Richard, at (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/attentivenesssensuousnessapperceptiveness.htm) you say [quote] ‘With attentiveness one sees the internal world with blameless references to concepts like ‘my’ or ‘mine’. Suppose there is a feeling of sadness. Ordinary consciousness would say, ‘I am sad’. Using attentiveness, one heedfully notices the feeling as a natural feeling – ‘there is human sadness’ – thus one does not tack on that possessive personal concept of ‘I’ or ‘me’ ... for one is already possessed’. [endquote]. At (www.actualfreedom.com.au/actualism/vineeto/selected-writings/investigatefeelings.htm) Vineeto says: [quote] ‘... acknowledge to myself that ‘I am angry’ or ‘I am pissed off’ or ‘I am feeling scared’. [endquote]. The quote from Vineeto here was not the one I was looking for but it will have to do for now. Basically, it seems you’re saying think: ‘there is sadness’ and Vineeto is saying ‘I am sad’ or ‘I am feeling sad’.

RESPONDENT: I know there is no ‘right or wrong’ here but these two ways of thinking seem different enough to leave open the possibility that one would be more useful or sensible than the other. Some where I could swear Vineeto says that saying: ‘There is sadness arising’ is a Buddhist disassociative technique.

RICHARD: I copy-pasted <there is sadness arising> into the search-engine of my computer and sent it through everything Vineeto has ever written ... only to have it return nil hits: maybe you were reminded of what she wrote about ‘there is anger arising’ to another co-respondent only fourteen days before you wrote this e-mail. Viz.:

• [Vineeto]: ‘(...) Actualism clearly recognizes that ‘I’ am my feelings and my feelings are ‘me’, which is ‘me’ at the core of my ‘being’, and one’s own attentiveness will reveal that this is so. Whenever I am feeling annoyed, it is ‘me’ that is feeling annoyed – ‘I’ am the feeling of annoyance and the feeling of annoyance is ‘me’ in operation as it were. Whenever I am feeling sad, it is ‘me’ that is feeling sad – ‘I’ am the feeling of sadness and the feeling of sadness is ‘me’ in operation as it were … and so on (...)’.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘(...) So it’s not I am annoyed, or I am angry, rather I am Anger. Let me go into this process and see for myself and I shall keep reporting here and maybe troubling Richard, you, Peter, and other actualists a bit.
• [Vineeto]: ‘Yep, when I am angry then ‘I am anger’ as opposed to the spiritual self-observation exercise of *‘there is anger arising’* or ‘I am watching myself experiencing anger’ or ‘anger is happening to this body but that’s not me’. By admitting that ‘I’ am anger I avoid both dissociating from the feeling as well as blaming someone else or some event (be it current or past) for my feelings – instead I pay attention to what kind of feeling I am feeling while it is happening in order to gain valuable information as to how ‘I’ tick, which in turn helps to prevent the same automatic emotive reaction at the next trigger event (...)’. [emphasis added]. (Actualism, Vineeto, Actual Freedom List, No. 72, 19.9.2004).

RESPONDENT: This [‘there is sadness arising’] seems very close to ‘there is human sadness’ or ‘there is sadness’.

RICHARD: The bare phrases have an appearance of similarity ... upon reading what Vineeto actually had to say about ‘there is anger arising’, as contrasted to acknowledging that ‘I’ am anger wherein one avoids both dissociating from the feeling as well as blaming someone else or some event for one’s feelings, any such apparent similarity ends forthwith.

RESPONDENT: I just want to make sure I’m not practicing Buddhism rather then actualism.

RICHARD: I would have considered Vineeto made it very clear both what is and what is not advisable to practice in the e-mail she wrote to you two days before the above post to another (whose query was a response to this post of hers to you anyway):

• [Vineeto]: ‘The idea that one is merely ‘attached’ to one’s emotions is an invention of Eastern spiritualism and a particularly persistent and popular one at that. This theory is integral to the notion that the way to become ‘free’ is to become detached from one’s unwanted feelings (as well as from the corporeal body and the physical world). Becoming detached from one’s unwanted or undesirable feelings inevitably leads to dissociation – the prerequisite to delusionary states such as enlightenment.
This is not what actualism is about – it is impossible to be attentive to the operation of feelings emotions and passions that one is busily being detached from or feeling dissociated from.
*Actualism clearly recognizes that ‘I’ am my feelings and my feelings are ‘me’, which is ‘me’ at the core of my ‘being’ and one’s own attentiveness will reveal that this is so. Whenever I am feeling annoyed, it is ‘me’ that is feeling annoyed – ‘I’ am the feeling of annoyance and the feeling of annoyance is ‘me’ in operation as it were. Whenever I am feeling sad, it is ‘me’ that is feeling sad – ‘I’ am the feeling of sadness and the feeling of sadness is ‘me’ in operation as it were … and so on.*
If one is detached in any way from any of the feelings that are ‘me’ then it is impossible to understand, let alone actively investigate, how ‘I’ am operating at this moment’. [emphasis added]. (Actualism, Vineeto, Actual Freedom List, No. 66a, 17.9.2004).

I have highlighted the relevant portion which evoked the response of another that resulted in Vineeto’s use of the phrase ‘there is anger arising’ (which, perhaps, you may have misremembered as being ‘there is sadness arising’) when referring to disassociative techniques.

RESPONDENT: It makes sense to eliminate answering with ‘I’ in the sentence, but would that not also apply to the ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ question too?

Looking forward to some clarification.

RICHARD: First and foremost: there are many occasions where I have stressed that ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ ... for just one example:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... I recently read where you (Richard) regard having an ‘I’ as socially reprehensible – as in blameworthy. I’m curious as to just what constitutes being ‘socially reprehensible’ for you ... a mere thought or ‘temptation’ – or more concrete action. You have even gone to the point of using the term ‘guilty at conception’. I wonder what guilt could possibly consist of if not in action? To take this to the extreme – would an aborted foetus be ‘guilty’? Or possibly ‘socially reprehensible’? Is one guilty just because they have the potential to do harm?
• [Richard]: ‘First of all a normal person does not have an ‘I’ (or have a ‘me’) as they are an ‘I’ (or are a ‘me’) ... and ‘I’ exist inside the body only because all human beings are genetically endowed at conception with a package of instinctual survival passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) which gives rise to emotions (such as malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) and this emotional and passional package is ‘me’ (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27b, 17 August 2002).

Having established that, and given the article that quote of mine you provide comes from is specifically about just what attentiveness and sensuousness and apperceptiveness are, the keywords in that quote are [quote] ‘with blameless references to concepts like ‘my’ or ‘mine’ [endquote] and might best be explained this way (further on in the above exchange):

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Is one ‘guilty’ just by having a ‘human nature’?
• [Richard]: ‘Not by having a human nature ... by being human nature (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’): ‘I’ am guilty by virtue of ‘my’ very presence: it is ‘me’ as a psychological/ psychic ‘being’ (at root an instinctual ‘being’) who is guilty of being harmful [and sorrowful] just by existing ... but it is not ‘my’ fault as ‘I’ am not to blame for ‘my’ existence (if anything it is blind nature which is at fault or to blame). (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27b, 17 August 2002).

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Personally, I would stay away from phrases like ‘guilty at conception’ or ‘socially reprehensible’ to describe human nature because they imply blame.
• [Richard]: ‘I am well aware that words such as ‘guilty’ and ‘reprehensible’ have blaming implications ... and I invite you to undertake the exercise in futility of putting the blame where it rightly belongs (onto blind nature) so that you can see for yourself how human beings have been unnecessarily berating themselves since time immemorial for something they are simply not to blame for.
What I have observed over many years is that a normal person has a propensity to blame – to find fault rather than to find causes – when it comes to dealing with the human condition ... if for no other reason than that finding the cause means the end of ‘me’ (or the beginning of the end of ‘me’).
Whereas endlessly repeating mea culpa keeps ‘me’ in existence. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 27c, 9 September 2002).

Hence, in the quote of mine you provide, where ordinary consciousness would say ‘I am sad’, in reference to concepts like ‘my’ or ‘mine’, it is usually not a blameless seeing of the inner world ... therefore to notice the feeling as the natural feeling ‘there is human sadness’ is to see beneath the censuring/ disassociating inherent in the concept of it being ‘my’ feeling – as in it being a possession of ‘mine’ (aka ‘baggage’ in the jargon) which ‘I’ carry – rather than it being ‘me’ and, consequently, to no longer unnecessarily berate oneself for having it and/or disassociate from being it.

Thus one does not tack on that possessive personal concept of ‘I’ or ‘me’ because, as ‘I’ am already ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are already ‘me’, one is already possessed.

Or, to put that another way, as the flesh and blood body is already possessed by a very real entity then any concept of ‘I’ or ‘me’ that one may formulate is to intellectually distance oneself from the only person, so to speak, who can undo/dissolve the whole sorry mess.

In other words: your freedom, or lack thereof, is in your hands – and your hands alone – and not in any (supposedly blameworthy) conceptual self’s hands.

Does this distinction, between any concept of ‘I’ or ‘me’ and the very real entity, clear up your query about the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ being replaced with (for instance) ‘what is the human experience of this moment of being alive’?