Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

RESPONDENT: Although I generally agree and enjoy many of the things stated on AF website, I have some doubts and I thought you might found them worth of attention. The first one concerns the writing style of some older actualists, like Peter, Alan and Vineeto, which is similar in its form and content with Richard’s.

RICHARD: Aye ... and that would be because each person, myself included, is talking about, referring to or describing the same identical thing. For example, if you were the first to go outside in the morning to experience the weather, and consequently report that the sky is blue today, then when I too go outside to experience the weather I would similarly say that the sky is blue.

It is nothing more mysterious than an agreement that our experiences match.

RESPONDENT: What I want to say is that when a person belongs to a group whether an actual or a virtual one, a characteristic he acquires is the lack of originality in its thinking, the ability to use new words in describing one’s experiences.

RICHARD: As none of the three people you mention belong to a group then your conclusion is a non-sequitur.

Just as a matter of interest: how many original ways can a person say ‘blue sky’ (bearing in mind that there are 6.0 billion people on the planet)? As for ‘new words’ ... this is how I answered someone else when they raised this same point last year:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Speaking the same lingo [the same words] ... is a hallmark of cultism’ .
• [Richard]: ‘Perhaps you may be able to assist me in something rather important? My computer is making both groaning and grumbling noises and when I type in run-commands there is no response ... this is my take on what is going on: I figure that the wheelbarrow is conflicting with the scotch mist – both of which, as you would know, share the same chewing gum – and I am wondering whether it would be best to replace the wheelbarrow or the scotch mist. Do you have any suggestions, tips, hints or clues that might assist me? Maybe I should replace both? Or should I make adjustments to the chewing gum ... and if so, what would be the best way to go about it?’

If there were 6.0 billion people all using ‘new words’ to describe the same thing then effective communication would be a thing of the past.

RICHARD: The archives of the Mailing List in question are in the public domain ... anyone can subscribe; anyone can access them; it is all computer automated; no human vets subscription and/or access; it is an un-moderated list.

RESPONDENT: For what it’s worth, I didn’t find this ‘Mailing List in question’ to be un-moderated at all.

RICHARD: It is definitely an un-moderated list ... all E-Mails posted are automatically duplicated and copies are sent out to all subscribers via a fully computerised process. No posts are viewed, let alone vetted, by a human before release for mass publication.

RESPONDENT: I found it to be extremely moderated seeing as how I wasn’t free to be there unless I wanted to be a true-believing Actualist who practices Actualism.

RICHARD: It would appear that you are tilting against what may seem to be an insurmountable problem for some people: a name, a classification, a descriptive label. However, it is impossible to be ‘a true-believing Actualist who practices Actualism’ because belief – the very activity of believing per se – prevents one from ever being an actualist and thus blocks one from ever experiencing what actualism is all about. Perhaps some dictionary definitions (which is where the names originate) will throw some light upon the matter for you? Viz.:

• materialism (noun): the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications and that consciousness and will are wholly due to the operation of material agencies: materialist (noun): an adherent of materialism: materialistic (adjective): pertaining to, characterised by, or devoted to materialism.

• spiritualism (noun): the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality; any philosophical or religious doctrine stressing the importance of spiritual as opposed to material things: spiritualist (noun): an adherent of spiritualism who regards or interprets things from a spiritual point of view: spiritualistic (adjective): of or pertaining to spiritualism.

• actualism (noun): the theory that nothing is merely passive (now rare): actualist (noun): an advocate of actualism: actualistic (adjective): of the nature of actualism.

In the English language, the application of ‘-ist’ and ‘-ism’ has a very common usage ... it enables someone to say, for example, ‘I am an artist’ or ‘I am a scientist’ or ‘I am a pianist’ or ‘I am an atheist’ or ‘I am a communist’ or ‘I am an actualist’ (and so on) and ‘I am studying feudalism’ or ‘I am learning about existentialism’ or ‘I am interested in relativism’ or ‘I am exploring actualism’ (and so on). It may be helpful to give an example of how this simplification into a single word, of what would otherwise be a long-winded description each time one talked about oneself and one’s interests, actually works in practise ... when I first wrote to this Mailing List over two and a half years ago the following exchange took place:

• [Richard]: ‘This flesh and blood body is very simple. It is the identity that is complex ... because it is a mental-emotional construct. Being thus imaginary, it can be almost infinitely complex.
• [Respondent]: ‘What is flesh and blood about the mind?
• [Richard]: ‘If by ‘the mind’ you mean ‘consciousness’ – as in being awake and conscious as compared with being asleep or unconscious – then it is very much a product of flesh and blood. When the body dies, consciousness dies. Death is the end. Finish.
• [Respondent]: ‘Are you a materialist? Certainly all evidence points to the dependence of mind on body, but that does not mean that the one is the other. I am dependent on eating food, but I am not the food.
• [Richard]: ‘Well, speaking personally, I am indeed the food. I come out of the ground in the form of carrots, lettuce, celery, and etcetera. When I eat cheese, it is made from milk which the cow produces by eating grass – which comes out of the ground. The same goes for eggs and meat ... everything edible. This body is, literally, of the ground. Along with water, sunlight and air, everything comes out of the ground – from this very earth under my feet. As this earth is hanging in space, then it is clear that I am made of the very stuff of the physical universe. I was not created ‘outside’ of this universe by some mysterious god and planted ‘in’ here for some inscrutable reason. I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. I am this body only ... and this body is of this physical universe. If that makes me a ‘materialist’ then so be it ... I am certainly not a ‘spiritualist’. However, I find the word ‘materialist’ too restrictive, for it implies deadness, inertness. I would rather call myself an ‘actualist’. An actualist is a person who sees that matter is not merely passive. (http://flp.cs.tu-berlin.de:1895/listening-l/html/archive9802/msg01181.html).

I am only too happy to expand on this subject if the above explanation leaves you unsatisfied ... after all it was me who chose the names ‘actualist’ and ‘actualism’ out of the dictionary when I first started writing about my discovery that there is an actual world right under everybody’s nose, as it were. This actual world is evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) in all its sensuous quality of magical perfection and purity. This actual world is where everything and everybody has a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, wondrous, scintillating vitality that makes everything alive and sparkling ... even the very earth beneath one’s feet. There is an actual intimacy with everything – the rocks, the concrete buildings, a piece of paper – literally everything is as if it were alive (a rock is not, of course, alive as humans are, or as animals are, or as trees are). This ‘aliveness’ is the very actuality of all existence – the actualness of everything and everybody – for one is not living in an inert universe.

Speaking personally, I am very happy to call myself an actualist ... and I thoroughly recommend a study of actualism.

RESPONDENT: I must admit that I have not seen anybody denying any life after death so clearly (except Charvaka philosophy, which is infamous for being materialistic, and I have not read it in detail.)

RICHARD: Aye, I am not a materialist, I am an actualist – which is the experiential understanding that nothing physical is merely passive – and is evidenced with the personal experience of the universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being (as opposed to a cerebral or affective perception). The Carvarka or Lokayata philosophy as propounded by Mr. Brhaspati has some similarities to the Epicurean philosophy of the West. The Carvakas sought to establish their materialism on an epistemological basis and in their ethics they upheld a hedonistic theory according to which enjoyment of the maximum amount of sensual pleasure here in this life and avoidance of pain that is likely to accompany such enjoyment are the only two goals that humans ought to pursue. There is no evidence that they addressed the issue of consciousness per se ... that is: what to do about the persistence of ‘self’.

RICHARD: These entities go by many names, according to the culture, but it is generally accepted in English speaking countries that each individual has both and ego and a soul. The ego is the psychological entity and the soul is the psychic entity. They are born out of the instinctual fear and aggression that blind nature endows all sentient beings with at birth to aid the survival of the species.

RESPONDENT: So you are saying that the ego and the soul are bogus?

RICHARD: Yes. They may seem to be real – very real, at times – but they are not actual.

RESPONDENT: So you are saying that ‘one’ refers to ‘the flesh and blood body’?

RICHARD: In the context that I was using it – yes.

RESPONDENT: So it’s just shorthand for something far more complex?

RICHARD: No. This ‘flesh and blood body’ is very simple. It is the identity that is complex ... because it is a mental-emotional construct. Being thus imaginary, it can be almost infinitely complex.

RESPONDENT: What is flesh and blood about the mind?

RICHARD: If by the ‘mind’ you mean ‘consciousness’ – as in being awake and conscious as compared with being asleep or unconscious – then it is very much a product of flesh and blood. When the body dies, consciousness dies. Death is the end. Finish.

RESPONDENT: Are you a materialist? Certainly all evidence points to the dependence of mind on body, but that does not mean that the one is the other. I am dependent on eating food, but I am not the food.

RICHARD: Well, speaking personally, I am indeed the food. I come out of the ground in the form of carrots, lettuce, celery, and etcetera. When I eat cheese, it is made from milk which the cow produces by eating grass – which comes out of the ground. The same goes for eggs and meat ... everything edible. This body is, literally, of the ground. Along with water, sunlight and air, everything comes out of the ground – from this very earth under my feet. As this earth is hanging in space, then it is clear that I am made of the very stuff of the physical universe. I was not created ‘outside’ of this universe by some mysterious god and planted ‘in’ here for some inscrutable reason. I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. I am this body only ... and this body is of this physical universe.

If that makes me a ‘materialist’ then so be it ... I am certainly not a ‘spiritualist’. However, I find the word ‘materialist’ too restrictive, for it implies deadness, inertness. I would rather call myself an ‘actualist’. An actualist is a person who sees that matter is not merely passive.

RICHARD: I call this an actual freedom and yes, I was ‘astonished to find it’ but I am exceedingly happy to talk about it because the very talking cannot destroy an actual freedom. I communicate it very freely, to whomsoever is vitally interested in peace-on-earth in this life-time, and have no qualms whatsoever about it being organised. I have labelled it ‘actual freedom’ myself; I personally chose the labels ‘actualism’ and ‘actualist’ out of the dictionary as being the most apt words to describe what I experience twenty four hours a day and it is of no consequence whatsoever what other peoples label it as. Nobody – nobody whatsoever – can negate me and/or an actual freedom or diminish me and/or an actual freedom in any way, shape or form. This freedom is actual ... not a fantasy.

And I will never be sorry that I ever told anyone about it.

RICHARD: I am having a dialogue with a fantasist. (Definition: fantasist n. [Orig. from: med. L from: Gk. Phantastes: boaster; later through Gk. Phantast .] 1. A visionary; one who lives in a world of fancy and imagination. 2. A dreamer; one who has ideas or conceives projects regarded as impractical. 3. a flighty impulsive person).

KONRAD: What a mistake to call me names, like Fantasist.

RICHARD: This is a typical New Age/ Spiritual kind of statement ... ‘Thou shalt not label’. However, like with most of those idealistically perfectionistic commandments, it is impossible to act – or function at all – in everyday life if one tries to live in obedience to them ... it is simply impossible. In everyday life we all operate according to this epigram: ‘If it looks like a duck; if it waddles like a duck; if it quacks like a duck ... it is a duck’. I am not a pious hypocrite, Konrad, going around mouthing impracticable and unachievable decrees to all and sundry.

KONRAD: I have made so many mistakes with dialogues through the e-mail medium, and even through the normal mail, that I do not believe any more that a clear picture can be formed about who or what is at the other end. I observe, that not only I make mistakes about others, but I clearly see others making mistakes about me. This has convinced me, that the forming of pictures of persons, whether as a ‘who’ or a ‘what’, from material sent by the e-mail medium is simply impossible. I suggest you to investigate this yourself.

RICHARD: Whoa up there, Konrad, I am not ‘making mistakes about you’ ... you told me yourself that you fantasise about reality. Remember? That makes you a fantasist. Whereas I experience the actual world directly ... that makes me an actualist.

KONRAD: Every warning you give that my descriptions about you are wrong I therefore acknowledge. But I also warn you, that your descriptions of me are also wrong. I suggest, therefore, that we continue our conversation not about ourselves, and who or what we represent, but that we have conversations about subjects and contents.

RICHARD: If I am wrong about you being a fantasist then it is because you were wrong in telling me about your method of discerning reality indirectly by fantasising. I can only go on what you write.

KONRAD: Oh, yes. I apologize for calling you anything, and representing you in any way. All of those things you say are my fantasies about you are indeed that. Fantasies.

RICHARD: Well, then ... this makes you a fantasist, does it not? They are your words, not mine.

KONRAD: However, I do not think that this is just a flaw in me, but it is also due to a limitation of the e-mail system. It is simply impossible to form a clear picture from each other just by written communication.

RICHARD: Some other people who have read what I write have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding me

KONRAD: It might even be impossible by other means of communication, too. Maybe K was totally right, for he asserted that much. The forming of pictures is in every case incorrect, and should not be part of any communication.

RICHARD: But I am not ‘forming a picture’ ... you are telling me how you operate and function. You say: ‘I fantasise about reality’.

KONRAD: Still, I do not blame you for doing this. For it was indeed me who believed that such statements can be made. Therefore it deserves me well when others do that to me. I asked for it, and I got it.

RICHARD: My word, how grandiosely forgiving you are ... ‘I do not blame you for doing this’ ... you just do not get it, do you? I did not ‘do that to you’ ... you told me that you fantasise. You even explained why. You say that direct experience of actuality is impossible, therefore you fantasise about reality.

RESPONDENT: Richard, while reading www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-benevolence.htm I was bemused by your use of the term ‘semi autobiographical novel’ to describe your journal ... I was under the impression that it (being a journal) was a factual account.

RICHARD: It is indeed a factual account ... although Articles 1 to 8, being pieced together from recollection and undated jotted notes and scraps of writings from over the years so as to add some measure of sequence to the story, would not be a strictly accurate rendition.

The remainder was written as it happened though ... hence the word ‘journal’.

Nor is it always depicting other persons faithfully – for reasons of anonymity – as not only are a lot of my face-to-face conversations held in confidence but the coastal village where I reside is small enough for a literal depiction to be recognisable (for example an older woman may very well be described as an older man, a young woman, a young man, or even an older woman, and vice versa, and an older man may very well be described as being an older woman, a young man, a young woman or even an older man ... and in some cases may even be a composite).

RESPONDENT: Could you explain which portions of Richard’s Journal are fictional?

RICHARD: None of it is fictional ... I used word ‘semi’ because the journal is only partly autobiographical as the earlier articles were co-written, and not just edited, by my previous companion and, although I revised them when she moved out, they still contain – and reflect – what she had to say about human conditioning rather than the human condition itself (which is more my topic).

The later articles however, apart from the italicised sections, are both my writing and my editing and nobody else’s.

RESPONDENT: The American Heritage dictionary defines autobiographical as: ‘adjective: of, relating to, or being a work that falls between fiction and autobiography’ [endquote] and fiction, ironically (in this context) as; ‘an imaginative creation or a pretence that does not represent actuality but has been invented’. [endquote].

RICHARD: I presume you meant to write that The American Heritage Dictionary defines ‘semiautobiographical’ as being that because it describes ‘autobiographical’ as [quote] ‘the biography of a person written by that person’ [endquote] ... and, apart from the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary which defines ‘semiautobiographical’ as [quote] ‘partly autobiographical’ [endquote], I have been unable to find that word (coined in 1939) in any other dictionary.

If nothing else I have learned a new word today and, in view of that definition, I see that I could have phrased it better to convey that I meant the journal was not to be taken as a typical autobiography with names and dates and places complete with anecdotes about childhood, schooling, career, marriage, parentage, and so on ... nor is it meant to be a scholarly dissertation or a treatise either but rather a medium to convey what happened over a selected period of specific interest and how and why. The whole life-story/plenary disquisition complete with where and when and who are incidental to such a depiction and neither add to nor detract from the import of what is being presented.

An unabridged and chronologically accurate account could only be of peripheral interest.