Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions

RESPONDENT: Gurdjieff made a big deal out of the realization that ‘we’ cannot do ... that everything happens to ‘us’. I guess he was referring to the ‘ego’ and the illusion ‘he’ is under that ‘he’ can do things the way ‘he’ wants (and thus by extension deriving the notion of free will and freedom).

RICHARD: Are you referring to what is commonly known as fatalism?

RESPONDENT: I’m referring to the spiritual strivings to become free, to become enlightened, etc. George said that this is an important realization on the path, that ‘I’ can do nothing. If out of this comes fatalism and ‘Make Thy Will’ and all sorts of other truisms is a side issue. What I’m interested is whether this is a fact or not and it seems that it is as long as ‘I’ (the ego-self) am only reactive to what happens. I’m a puppet on the strings believing myself to be the ‘operant’ of those strings.

RICHARD: The realisation – ‘that ‘I’ can do nothing’ – in the context you are speaking of is the precursor to having ‘I’ as ego surrender/ dissolve/ die/ whatever so that ‘me’ as soul (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself) can regain its rightful place on the throne which the ego-self has usurped.

*

RICHARD: ... I can recall, back in 1981, explaining to another that ‘I’ had realised – via pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) – that ‘I’ was not needed to run the show (‘steer the ship’) because all decisions were already made deeper down anyway and that any decision ‘I’ appeared to make was an after-the-event usurpation ... albeit a split-second after-the-event arrogation of the decision-making process. In other words ‘I’ was the last person, as it were, who got to know what direction the vessel would take ... ‘I’ only had the appearance of being in charge.

RESPONDENT: Yes, but it seems to me from what you say that ‘I’, the ego, is very necessary after all: to give direction, to orientate the ship, to react in the appropriate way when the situation demands it. Even if it’s a split second after the event but am ‘I’ not improving the situation/event to which I’m reacting?

RICHARD: I was speaking in the context of normal, everyday people in normal, everyday society, of course, when I wrote that (further above) ... else the gaols would be full to overflowing.

Unless one has the pure intent to be happy and harmless (free from malice and sorrow) one is well-advised to not let go of the controls.

RESPONDENT: Richard, I have been considering what people mean by ‘free-will’ or ‘freedom of choice’, etc.

RICHARD: You may find the following to be of interest:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You think you have free will?
• [Richard]: ‘No.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘What determines your actions?
• [Richard]: ‘The situation and the circumstances in the world of people, things and events’. (Richard, List C, No. 2a, 13 March 2000a).

And:

• [Richard]: ‘The ego – or even the soul as pure spirit – is not to be confused with will. The bodily needs are what motivates will – and will is nothing more grand than the nerve-organising data-correlating ability of the body – and it is will that is essential in order to operate and function ... not an identity. Will is an organising process, an activity of the brain that correlates all the information and data that streams through the bodily senses. Will is not a ‘thing’, a subjectively substantial passionate ‘object’, like the identity is. Will, freed of the encumbrance of the ego and soul – which are born out of instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire – can operate smoothly, with actual sagacity. The operation of this freed will is called intelligence. This intelligence is the body’s native intelligence ... and has naught to do with any disembodied ‘Intelligence behind the Universe’ It is a joy to be me going about my business with freed-will in this wonderful physical world’. (page 76, Article 10; ‘Richard’s Journal’; Second Edition ©2004 The Actual Freedom Trust).

RESPONDENT: I had a vague recollection of you saying something about the subject – so I dug up the following quote:

[Richard]: ‘One can argue about a belief, an opinion, a theory, an ideal and so on ... but a fact: never. One can deny a fact – pretend that it is not there – but once seen, a fact brings freedom from choice and decision. Most people think and feel that choice implies freedom – having the freedom to choose – but this is not the case. Freedom lies in seeing the obvious, and *in seeing the obvious there is no choice, no deliberation, no agonising over the ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ judgment. In the freedom of seeing the fact there is only action*. [My emphasis]. (Richard, List A, No. 16, #No. 02).

The context isn’t relevant for my question, so I will leave off a link to the text, especially since it can be easily located in many places on the actualism website. My question for you is whether, being actually free from the human condition, you experience making a ‘choice’ at all or ‘deliberating?’

RICHARD: Yes ... mainly based upon preference (ease of living, creature comforts, life-style options, and so on) and on being pragmatic/ practical (as contrasted to being principled/ logical) as in utility/ serviceability and effectivity/ efficacy.

To be able to safely be pragmatic/ practical does, of course, depend upon being happy and harmless (and thus having no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive).

RESPONDENT: I know a few places where you have talked about the existence of options or making a choice – so I’m wondering whether you would say that when one is actually free ... do choice and deliberation disappear completely – or is it possibly only ‘affectively influenced’ choices and deliberation that disappear.

RICHARD: As the choice and deliberation in the quoted text was specifically about ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ judgments as opposed to seeing the fact – and as it is the fact (the situation and the circumstances) which determines the appropriate response – there is really no need of affectively influenced choices and deliberation for anyone ... for anyone who sees that (that very factuality/ facticity), that is.

For to be in accord with the fact (being aligned with factuality/ staying true to facticity) is what being sincere is ... being authentic/ guileless, genuine/ artless, straightforward/ ingenuous.

RESPONDENT: From my own experience, it appears that deliberation by an affective being is often accompanied by at minimum mild anxiety and doubt – yet at the same time, there is a kind of deliberation that is more straightforward and matter of fact, where one simply ‘chooses’ the most sensible of several possible avenues – not turning the choice into anything even mildly anxiety provoking. I can only guess that the choices made by a flesh and blood body – sans identity – would be of the latter kind.

RICHARD: Yes, of the matter-of-fact (of what pertains to the realm of fact) and of the sensible (of the down-to earth) kind – in conjunction with being of the practical, judicious, prudent, provident, and so forth, kind as well – all of which are greatly facilitated by a sense of humour.

Life is way too much fun to take it seriously.

RESPONDENT: You say are just a body and a body is material and as such has no choice separate from the rest of the universe. So you have no choice i.e. there is no you. You don’t appear to point this out, why is that?

RICHARD: I have located the following text:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘(...) there is some force that created the universe.
• [Richard]: ‘This infinite and eternal physical universe, being boundless and limitless, beginningless and endless, unborn and undying, has always been and always will be. As there is no creation there is no ‘force that created the universe’.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘That force directs your life.
• [Richard]: ‘That ‘force’ may very well direct your life ... but I can assure you that no ‘force’ directs me: I am a thorough-going atheist through and through. There is not the slightest trace of religiosity, spirituality, mysticality or metaphysicality in me whatsoever. I am an actualist ... not a spiritualist.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You think you have free will?
• [Richard]: ‘No.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘What determines your actions?
• [Richard]: ‘The situation and the circumstances in the world of people, things and events.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Your thoughts – right?
• [Richard]: ‘Not necessarily ... mostly ‘automatic pilot’ operates via habituation. Something new to experience requires thought ... reflecting, comparing, evaluating, considering and then implementing. Altogether a rather delightful episodic event.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Do you control your thoughts?
• [Richard]: ‘This brain thinks thoughts perfectly without any ‘I’ or ‘me’ in there stuffing things up.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Where do they come from?
• [Richard]: ‘Are not thoughts neuronal activity betwixt the synapses? An electro-chemical process? As such they come from the calorific energy of foodstuffs plus oxygen from the air breathed.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Can you CREATE thoughts?
• [Richard]: ‘This brain thinks thoughts all of its own accord ... easily, simply and fluently. It is altogether a marvellous occurrence’. (Richard, List C, No. 2a, 13 March 2000a).

RESPONDENT: The same is true for everyone surely ...

RICHARD: If I may interject? Were the same indeed true for everyone then both The Actual Freedom Trust web site and The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list would not exist ... the very fact that many and various peoples both read the website and subscribe to its associated forum self-evidently indicates that it be not true for everyone.

RESPONDENT: ... [The same is true for everyone surely] as the self/ soul is a ghost, some unhelpful wiring – there is no self anywhere and hence no choosing anywhere – to follow the method or not right?

RICHARD: Whilst there is no identity whatsoever in actuality, in this actual world (the sensate world), there are perhaps 6.0+ billion identities in reality, in the real world (the world of the psyche), hence the choice exists, each moment again, for each and every one of those identities vitally interested in the meaning of life/ peace on earth (as distinct from those only interested in punditry) to follow the method or not.

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless