# Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions Frequently Asked Questions ## What Is the Meaning of ‘Matter Is Not Merely Passive’? RESPONDENT: I find your insistence on ideological purity worrying too ... RICHARD: As actualism is not an ideology your worrying is a self-created worry. RESPONDENT: Okay, actualism isn’t an ideology but ... RICHARD: If I may stop the flow just for a moment (before you continue with your ‘but ...’)? This is what actualism is: • [Richard]: ‘Generally speaking, materialism has that rocks are dead, lifeless (yet only something that was alive can ever be dead) whereas what actualism is on about is the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. I chose the name ‘actualism’ rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of categories and labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 50, 5 October 2003). This is how I describe the direct experience that matter is not merely passive: • [Richard]: ‘... one must be most particular to not confuse an excellence experience with a perfection experience ... and the most outstanding distinction in the excellence experience is the marked absence of what I call the ‘magical’ element. This is where time has no duration as the normal ‘now’ and ‘then’ and space has no distance as the normal ‘here’ and ‘there’ and form has no distinction as the normal ‘was’ and ‘will be’ ... there is only this moment in eternal time at this place in infinite space as this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware (a three hundred and sixty degree awareness, as it were). Everything and everyone is transparently and sparklingly obvious, up-front and out-in-the open ... there is nowhere to hide and no reason to hide as there is no ‘me’ to hide. One is totally exposed and open to the universe: already always just here right now ... actually in time and actually in space as actual form. This apperception (selfless awareness) is an unmediated perspicacity wherein one is this universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being; as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. In a PCE [a pure consciousness experience] one is fully immersed in the infinitude of this fairy-tale-like actual world with its sensuous quality of magical perfection and purity where everything and everyone 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. 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 everyone – for one is not living in an inert universe. It is one’s destiny to be living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe actually is. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Gary, #Apperception). RESPONDENT: ... [but] it is conveyed using a body of language, right? RICHARD: Having taken pause to read the above you will see that what is being conveyed is that actualism is the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. RESPONDENT: The body of language is an ideology that attempts to point to actualism. RICHARD: No, the words are a description of the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. Or, to put that another way, the words and writings on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site make it quite clear that actualism – the third alternative to either materialism or spiritualism – is not ‘an ideology that attempts to point to actualism’ ... they are an invitation for the reader to directly experience for themself that they do not live in an inert universe. Put succinctly: actualism is experiential not ideological. And just so that there is no misunderstanding: actualism is not an ideal either ... or an idea, 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, or any other of the 101 ways of 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 remember seeing something on the site like ‘matter is not merely passive’ – approximate quotation. What do you exactly mean by that? PETER: Matter, the stuff of which a thing is made, is commonly classified into three types – animal, vegetable or mineral. If you asked a biologist, a doctor, a zoologist, a microbiologist, a mother or a teacher whether animal matter is passive, as in inert or inactive, he or she no doubt would look at you askance. That animal matter is ‘not merely passive’ is surely obvious but the extent to which it is not passive is literally breathtaking. As an example, the smallest unit retaining the fundamental properties of life are cells, the ‘atoms’ of the living world. A single cell is often a complete organism in itself, such as a bacterium or yeast. Other cells, by differentiating in order to acquire specialized functions and cooperating with other specialized cells, become the building blocks of large multicellular organisms as complex as the human being. It would require a sheet of about 10,000 human cells to cover the head of a pin, and each human being is composed of more than 75,000,000,000,000 cells. As an individual unit the cell is capable of digesting its own nutrients, providing its own energy, and replicating itself, in order to produce succeeding generations. It can be viewed as an enclosed vessel composed of even smaller units that serve as its skin, skeleton, brain, and digestive tract. Within this cell vessel innumerable chemical reactions take place simultaneously, all of them controlled so that they contribute to the sustenance and procreation of the cell. In a multicellular organism cells specialize to perform different functions. In order to do this each cell keeps in constant communication with its neighbours. As it receives nutrients from and expels wastes into its surroundings, it adheres to and cooperates with other cells. Cooperative assemblies of similar cells form tissues, and a cooperation between tissues in turn forms organs, the functional units of an organism. In other words, the flesh and blood body known as No 32 is a cooperative assembly of cells that has developed from the multiplication of cells produced by the union of a male sex cell and a female sex cell. One day sufficient of these cells will cease to function as living organisms causing the flesh and blood organism known as No 32 to cease to function as a living organism. The dead cells that constitute the organism known as No 32 will then decompose, becoming the minerals of the earth again, and those minerals in turn will to help nourish or form other cells, be they vegetate or animate. The matter that is this planet is in fact in a constant state of being cycled between animal, vegetable and mineral – i.e. matter is ‘not merely passive’. Information on cellular life forms gleaned from Encyclopaedia Britannica If you asked a botanist, a horticulturist or a gardener whether vegetate matter is passive, as in inert or inactive, again the response would be predictable. Having done a little bit of gardening and a good deal of tree planting in my life I am constantly amazed at the variety and virulence, prodigiousness and persistence of vegetate matter on this planet. Indeed scientific research has revealed vegetate matter that uses chemo-synthesis rather than photo-synthesis as its energy source together with many species that blur the distinction between vegetate and mineral matter and between vegetate and animal matter. Similarly, if you asked a geologist, a meteorologist, a mineralogist, a chemist, an engineer or an architect whether mineral matter is passive, the answer again can only be no. It is obvious that inanimate matter is ‘not merely passive’ when in a gaseous state – the ever-changing atmosphere that surrounds this planet consists of a mixture of gases, water vapour and minute solid and liquid particles in suspension – this ever-changingness is what we humans call the ‘weather’. Equally it is obvious that inanimate matter is ‘not merely passive’ when in a liquid state – the very water of this watery planet is a constant hydrologic cycle of evaporation, movement within the atmosphere, precipitation, the downhill flow of river water, lakes, groundwater, ocean currents, glaciers, ice flows and icecaps. What is not so obvious to many is that mineral matter in its solid state is also anything but passive and this is so because of the vast time spans involved in the movements and changes of mineral matter. Geological materials – the solid stuff the earth is made of – consist of mineral crystals continuously being cycled through various forms of host rock types – igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary. This ongoing process – commonly referred to as the rock cycle – is dependant on temperature, pressure, changes in environmental conditions within the earth’s core, within the earth’s crust and at its surface, and time. So slow is the general rate of change that geological changes are measured in millions of years, although events such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions bear instantaneous evidence as to the intensity of change. I recently saw a computer graphic representation of the palaeogeographical changes of the European continent that have been mapped as occurring over several billion years. Whilst the time span is so enormous as to be almost inconceivable, what could be readily seen from the speed-up graphic was the constant rising and falling – literally a wrinkling and buckling – of the earths crust, an example of matter being ‘not merely passive’ on a scale that is astonishing. As if this were not proof enough, one needs only to consider the extent of changes and timescales involved in the study of astro-geology – the scientific discipline concerned with the geological aspects of all of the mineral matter in this infinite and eternal universe. Whilst the fact that matter is ‘not merely passive’ should be patently obvious to modern-day humans, this was not so for those who lived in ancient times when ignorance of the actual nature of the matter of the universe led to the fear-ridden fables, superstitions and beliefs that all matter, be it animate or inanimate, was infused by good and evil spirits. It is obvious that if one ever aspires to live in the actual world, the first necessary step is to stop giving credibility to any of the ancient fables, superstitions and spirit beliefs that constitute so-called ‘ancient wisdom’. RESPONDENT: Is (all) matter (water, trees, animals, various objects) alive and intelligent when experienced in a PCE? PETER: No. Matter, when experienced in a PCE, does not change its properties for the properties of matter are inherent to matter itself. Water is not alive, as is animate matter, nor is it intelligent. Intelligence – the ability to think, reflect, plan, communicate, and to be aware of that ability as it is happening – is a faculty unique to the animate matter of the human brain. Trees are alive in that they are vegetate matter and I have described vegetate matter as being ‘not merely passive’ above. Trees are not intelligent. Animals are alive in that they are organism consisting of cooperate collections of animate matter or living cells. The only animal with the capacity to be intelligent is the human animal – albeit that this intelligence is somewhat impaired by the genetically-encoded rudimentary instinctual survival passions that have now well and truly passed their use-by-date. When the intelligence that is a function of the human brain is temporarily freed to operate unimpeded by the animal survival passions, as ‘experienced in a PCE’, the normal ‘self’-centred values that human beings impose on the matter of the universe – it’s ugly, she’s ugly, it’s abhorrent, he’s abhorrent, it’s dull, he’s dull, she’s dull, it’s depressing, he’s depressing, it’s annoying, she’s annoying, it’s aggravating, he’s aggravating, it’s beautiful, he’s beautiful, she’s beautiful, it’s dear to me, he’s dear to me, she’s dear to me, it’s spiritual, it’s divine, he’s divine, she’s divine, and so on – all fall away, as if a veil has suddenly been lifted. What is suddenly seen is that the matter of the universe – all matter, be it animate or inanimate, be it animal, vegetable or mineral, be it unfashioned by humans or fashioned by humans – has an inherent quality. The inherent quality of matter is something that is experienced sensately and a sensate-only experience of the quality of matter experienced in a PCE is a sensuous experience – it’s warm, it’s cold, it’s moist, it’s dry, it’s shiny, it’s smooth, it’s soft, it’s sweet, it’s tangy, it’s quiet, it’s boisterous, it’s loud, it’s scintillating, it’s fascinating, he’s a fellow human being, she’s a fellow human being, and so on. In a PCE the universe is experienced as it actually is – perfect, pure, pristine and peerless. RESPONDENT: Is there a difference (concerning the quality of the object involved) when looking at a polyester cup in a PCE compared with our ordinary experience of it? PETER: Again, the quality of an object does not change when an object is looked when one is having a pure consciousness experience, because the quality of an object is inherent to the object itself. What happens in a PCE is that ‘I’ temporarily disappear, along with the ‘self’-centred and anthropomorphic values and judgements ‘I’ automatically impose upon all matter, be it inanimate or animate – a constant evaluation of every thing as being good or bad, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly, something to envy, scorn, fear or desire, something felt to be ‘mine’ or ‘yours’, someone felt to be friend or foe, and so on. A currently fashionable value that many people unwittingly impose on objects is that they regard any objects that are fashioned by human beings from the mineral matter of the earth as being ‘unnatural’, hence artificial, going against nature, alien, improper, false, ugly, deviant, corrupted, evil, harmful and so on, whilst they feel matter in its raw state to be natural, wholesome, beautiful, beneficial, good, pure, innocent, true, unadulterated and so on. The root source of these emotion-backed judgements imposed on the objects fashioned by human beings from the mineral matter of the earth, is the belief that human beings were pure and innocent in their primitive stone-age state and that this purity and innocence has been corrupted by the technological progresses of the iron age, the bronze age, the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, the invention of electricity, the silicon chip and so on. In its crudest form this belief manifests as a collective feeling of guilt that human beings are aliens who have and are still corrupting and polluting the natural environment of the planet. As can be seen, for an actualist there is a good deal of work to be done in demolishing these beliefs by replacing them with facts before one can expect to be able to sensuously experience the inherent quality of the matter of the universe, unimpeded by ‘my’ beliefs, values and judgements that ‘I’ unwittingly and automatically superimpose on everything I see, touch, hear, smell and taste as well as every human being I meet in person or hear about. RESPONDENT: And is that perception objective, in the sense ‘that’s the way that cup really is’? PETER: There is a world of difference between the normal human perception of the way it ‘really is’ or the way ‘‘I’ feel it to be’ and the ‘self’-less perception of the actuality of the universe as experienced in a PCE. RESPONDENT: Experienced in an enlightened state, I am the cup and the cup is Me, the cup has intelligence and is not merely dead matter, My perception allows me not only to represent it in the brain but also to Be the elements which make the polyester cup (the atoms and the molecules). PETER: This is an excellent description of the extent of the delusion that can eventuate when someone is afflicted with an altered state of consciousness. Common sense is the first casualty whenever anyone embarks on the spiritual path. RESPONDENT: How can be reconciled the notion (for me) that the Universe is still (according to your experience of this moment) with the observable fact that matter is not passive (events taking place)? RICHARD: The phrase ‘matter is not merely passive’ does not refer to events taking place but is the (geological) equivalent of the (biological) phenomena of aliveness. For example: • [Richard]: ‘... one must be most particular to not confuse an excellence experience with a perfection experience ... and the most outstanding distinction in the excellence experience is the marked absence of what I call the ‘magical’ element. This is where time has no duration as the normal ‘now’ and ‘then’ and space has no distance as the normal ‘here’ and ‘there’ and form has no distinction as the normal ‘was’ and ‘will be’ ... there is only this moment in eternal time at this place in infinite space as this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware (a three hundred and sixty degree awareness, as it were). Everything and everyone is transparently and sparklingly obvious, up-front and out-in-the open ... there is nowhere to hide and no reason to hide as there is no ‘me’ to hide. One is totally exposed and open to the universe: already always just here right now ... actually in time and actually in space as actual form. This apperception (selfless awareness) is an unmediated perspicacity wherein one is this universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being; as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. In a PCE [a pure consciousness experience] one is fully immersed in the infinitude of this fairy-tale-like actual world with its sensuous quality of magical perfection and purity where everything and everyone 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. 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 everyone – for one is not living in an inert universe. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Gary, #apperception). Where I say there is a vast stillness here (in this actual world) I am referring to the fundamental character of its infinitude. For instance: • [Richard]: ‘If you were to hold a hand up before the eyes, palm towards the face, and rotate it slowly through space (all the while considering that the very stuff the hand is comprised of is as old as the universe) whilst looking from the front of the eyes, as it were (and not through the eyes), it may very well become apparent that, as this flesh and blood body only, one is perfection personified ... the perfection of the purity, welling in perpetuum mobilis, that the infinitude this material universe actually is. In short: this ambrosial paradise I refer to as ‘this actual world’ has been no further away, all the while, than coming to your senses. (...) • [Co-Respondent]: ‘... in experience infinity is embedded as experience. Time then becomes merely measured in terms of how many nickels need to be put into a parking meter in order to acquire institutionalised legislated permission to have a car parked, on a particular location for say i.e. 1 hour such as that one has time to go to do some shopping. • [Richard]: ‘There is a distinct difference between the measure of time (as in past/present/future) and time itself: this moment is the arena, so to speak, in which events occur and, just as everything is existing in infinite space, everything is happening in eternal time. There is a vast stillness here ... if you were to listen intently to the jingle of the nickels it may become apparent. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 18e, 25 March 2004). RESPONDENT No. 71: Richard, actualism is experiencing that matter is not merely passive ... what does it mean? RICHARD: Another way of saying it is that actualism is the direct experience that matter is not inert. RESPONDENT No. 71: If you have a stone in your hand (matter), it is passive right? RICHARD: Only in the real-world. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 71, 15 August 2004b). RESPONDENT: [Merriam-Webster Dictionary]: passive: not acting or operating; inert’. [endquote]. The stone in the hand does not act or operate (at the moment you are holding in the hand), right? RICHARD: In the real-world ... yes; in actuality ... no. RESPONDENT: How is it not passive? RICHARD: In actuality matter is vibrant, potent ... literally everything material is intrinsically active, vigorous. This fundamental dynamism, this elemental efficacy, is the very actuality of all existence – the actualness of everything – as matter itself, being of infinite perpetuance/ eternal perdurability, is anything but inoperative (passive) or inactive (inert). And wherever/whenever this perennial matter is sentient the potential exists for it to be conscious of its own essential nature. RESPONDENT: In a PCE everything is magically animate, doing what it’s doing, in a backdrop of infinite depth and stillness. RICHARD: Hmm ... ‘doing what it’s doing’ is about as informative as ‘a rose is a rose’: in actuality (as evidenced in a PCE) it is stunningly apparent that everything is the perfection of the purity which infinitude is and, as such, is perfection personified. RESPONDENT: No principle, no agenda. RICHARD: Ahh ... there is an agenda inasmuch as everything growing (aka ‘life’) is growing in purity as that perfection personified. RESPONDENT: ‘Life’ or liveliness is the way everything exists. RICHARD: As maybe 99.99% (an arbitrary figure) of the universe is inanimate then ‘life’ is not the way everything exists. For example, when some people talk to me about ‘nature’ they become somewhat bemused when I suggest that, as far as space exploration has been able to ascertain, there is no nature on the moon ... meaning that what life actually is is what flora and fauna are and not what rocks are. Now, if by ‘nature’ a person means absolutely everything (as in ‘life’ is the way everything exists) then the glass ashtray on my desk (being mainly silica) is as much ‘nature’ as the trailing plant cascading down from the shelf above the desk next to mine ... yet when I offer such a person a drink from a polystyrene cup they tell me it is not natural. Generally speaking, materialism has that rocks are dead, lifeless (yet only something that was alive can ever be dead) whereas what actualism is on about is the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. I chose the name ‘actualism’ rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of categories and labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism. Thus (to parallel your phraseology): actuality, or actualness, is the way everything exists. RESPONDENT: The ‘direct experience that matter is not merely passive’ is certainly not a moral injunction, I agree. However ... RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on with your ‘however ...’ qualifier)? The direct experience that matter is not merely passive is the actualism which is both presented on The Actual Freedom Trust web site and discussed on The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list ... any other ‘actualism’ that what is so obvious to you persuades you to see in lieu of this is not what is being presented and discussed. RESPONDENT: Is the daily business of trying to abort one’s psyche identical to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive? RICHARD: The moment-to-moment experience of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible (virtually free from malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) is not, of course, ‘identical’ – synonyms: the same, indistinguishable, impossible to tell apart, one and the same, matching, alike, equal – to the direct experience of actuality but the nearest one can whilst remaining an identity. Here is an example of how another subscriber described such a state only four months or so ago: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘There is an increase in sensory clarity, especially visual acuity. Along with this increase in clarity there is a ‘purity’ in everything one perceives. The words ‘immaculate’, ‘perfect’, ‘pure’ capture it quite well; everything is wonderful. Strangely, though, the word ‘beautiful’ does not apply. There is no (felt) affect whatsoever. The purity of perception (and the marvellousness of what is perceived) goes beyond affect, leaving only pure, calm wonder. It’s sensory delight without any emotional resonance at all. The sensory delight I’m talking about is not the usual kind of sensuousness/sensuality that one enjoys in an ordinary state. Rather than being ‘pleasurable’, it is appreciation of the perfection that seems to be inherent in what one is perceiving, which leads to enjoyment of a very different kind. This is quite extraordinary. There is a sensation of softness in the air, which has a pellucid, jelly-like quality (metaphorically speaking). I’m reminded of something you once wrote about the eyes ‘lightly caressing’, as if one is seeing from the front of the eyeball. I also remember you saying ‘nothing dirty can get in’, and that’s exactly the way it is. Objects that would seem drab, dirty, sullied, soiled in ‘reality’ are immaculate in themselves; any ‘dirtiness’ is overlaid by ‘me’. (This is not an intellectual realisation but a direct perception of the fact). In many ways this is like a PCE [a pure consciousness experience]. The mode of perception is strikingly similar to a PCE. But when I turn my attention to the writer of this message, something is different but I can’t put my finger on it. I’m not really sure whether ‘I’ am here at all, or whether ‘I’ am only a thought/feeling that briefly intercedes between perceptions and assumes itself to be the agent of this body’s actions. This sounds awkward in words, but there is nothing at all awkward or confusing about what I’m experiencing. I am not sure that I would call this a ‘self’-less experience because, although there is no affect (none that I recognise, none whatsoever), there is still a sense of agency that could be given the name ‘me’ for convenience. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 60c, 22 March 2004). RESPONDENT: Both seem to go by the name ‘actualism’. In case it is unclear, I am referring to the daily process of aborting oneself and one’s feelings, not the ‘direct experience that matter is merely passive’. RICHARD: Oh, what you are endeavouring to do is most certainly not ‘unclear’ ... it just seems to be such a convoluted way to draw attention to a truism (that a person not actually free from the human condition is not actually free from the human condition) that it is a wonder why you are going on with it. 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: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘You represent the ultimate step of a philosophy that is totally existence oriented. • [Richard]: ‘It is not a philosophy ... it is an accurate description of an on-going and fully-lived experiencing of life ... complete with consciousness operating perfectly well as apperceptive awareness. (Richard, List B, No. 17a, 8 September 1998). 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: 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: 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: ... [Richard is not the first] to understand actualism ... RICHARD: As actualism – the direct experience that matter is not merely passive – is experiential and not philosophical your truism is looking decidedly shakier the more you go on. RESPONDENT: ... [Richard is not the first to understand actualism], that being the knowledge that one has only this moment ... RICHARD: Whereas, where there is the direct experience that matter is not merely passive, time has no duration ... this moment is eternal. RESPONDENT: ... [Richard is not the first to understand actualism, that being the knowledge that one has only this moment] and that at death, the ceasing of brain function and heart pumping that indeed the individual who’s brain and heart I just referred to ceases to function that indeed that being will cease to be. RICHARD: Presuming that by [quote] ‘that being’ [endquote] you are referring to the identity within the body ceasing to be, at bodily death, then that understanding, that knowledge, is a feature of materialism ... whereas, where there is the direct experience that matter is not merely passive, that being has already ceased to be (as in experiential and not philosophical) whilst the flesh and blood body is still alive. RESPONDENT: It is as it always has been and always will be, our individual experiences of the eternal have no impact on the eternal. We are here but for a moment ... RICHARD: As that moment is, in actuality, eternal then there is all the time in the universe, so to speak, for it to be stunningly aware, as an apperceptive human being, of its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful. RESPONDENT: Existence of something is independent of whether it is believed in or not. RICHARD: As the non-existence of any such a creative source/ creator ex nihilo is also independent of disbelieving or not you may find the following, which is of related interest, to be food for thought: • [Co-Respondent]: ‘The universe is finite or infinite, independently of what I think. • [Richard]: ‘Not when the infinitude, which this universe indubitably is, is apparent in all its wondrous amazement – as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – for then this infinite, eternal, and perpetual universe is stunningly aware of its infinitude ... and thus thinking, on occasion, how enormous infinitude is. Because nothing comes bigger than that’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 44c, 15 September 2003). Further to the point, as the direct experience that this infinite and eternal and perdurable universe is a veritable perpetuus mobilis no thought of any creator/ sustainer/ destroyer can ever even begin to get up and running ... let alone any possibility of such a notion being converted into a belief. Put simply: where there is direct experience neither absence of belief nor disbelief has any part to play. RESPONDENT: You ask people not to accept anything you say without verifying it for themselves. RICHARD: Indeed so ... you are obviously referring to something like this: • [Richard]: ‘... I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. What one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus *verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written*. Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 12d, 23 November 2000) RESPONDENT: Yet when they come back and question your theories ... RICHARD: If I might interject? When they come back from ... from where? Clearly, not back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] as they would not be calling them theories, now would they? RESPONDENT: [Yet when they come back and question your theories], you throw out the last card in your deck – ‘what I have to report/ describe/ explain is experiential ... as in coming out of ‘direct experience’. RICHARD: No, that is not the last card in the deck – it is the first one – as well you know. Viz.: • [Respondent]: ‘You ask people not to accept anything you say without *verifying it for themselves*. [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: ... and hence forthwith it is now as if carved in stone. RICHARD: No, it is carved (to use your terminology) in the PCE ... here it is again from that passage of mine you obviously referred to: • [Richard]: ‘Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... *not me or my words*. [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: They can question your theories till the cows come home ... RICHARD: No, were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] they would not be calling them theories. RESPONDENT: ... but you have laid down the laws of the universe ... RICHARD: No, it is the PCE which evidences what you are labelling as ‘the laws of the universe’ ... not me or my words. RESPONDENT: ... this universe according to your understanding of it ... RICHARD: No, this universe according to the direct experience of it in a PCE. RESPONDENT: ... or what you like to call ‘experiential’ ... RICHARD: No, the direct experience in a PCE is not what I like to call experiential ... it is experiential. Viz.: • ‘experiential: of, pertaining to, or derived from experience or observation’. (Oxford Dictionary). RESPONDENT: ... and now your words are to be carved in stone ... RICHARD: No, that that passage of mine you obviously referred to is quite explicit: • [Richard]: ‘Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words *then offer confirmation ... and affirmation* in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path’. [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: ... because you hold the trump card of what you like to call ‘direct experience’ ... RICHARD: No, were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] they would have the entire deck of cards (to keep with your analogy). RESPONDENT: ... which trumps everyone else’s so-called direct experience. RICHARD: No, the PCE is global in its spread. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (which personal experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name). *The PCE occurs globally ... across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age*. However, it is usually interpreted according to cultural beliefs – created and reinforced by the persistence of identity – and devolves into an ASC ...’. (Richard, Homepage) RESPONDENT:You are trying to have it both ways, all ways, as usual ... RICHARD: No, were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] the PCE would be their lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. RESPONDENT: I believe that is call dualism ... RICHARD: No, that is not called dualism. RESPONDENT: ... perhaps you should rename the obviously erroneous name for your millions of words, actualism ... RICHARD: No, the name for my millions of words is not actualism – either erroneously or otherwise – as that is the name for the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘The word actualism refers to the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. I chose the name rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of categories and labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 18a, 14 August 2001) RESPONDENT: ... into dualism ... RICHARD: No, that would be a misnomer for were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] the PCE would be their lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. RESPONDENT: ... or Richardism. RICHARD: No, that too would be a misnomer for were they to have come back from [quote] ‘verifying it for themselves’ [endquote] the PCE would be their lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. Ain’t life grand! RESPONDENT: G’day Richard, I’m a bit confused about Pure Intent here – since it is a life-force, does it exist only in living organisms ? Basically I’m confused with the usage of the word life-force because it is pretty obvious that Pure Intent is not just in living organisms but all the matter of the universe. RICHARD: G’day No. 32, No, not only as living organisms – as in, flora and fauna, that is – but as matter as well (which is what the constituent elements of all flora and fauna are, anyway, as per that “same-same stuff as the very stuff of the universe itself” articulation⁽*⁾ in the email you are responding to). __________ ⁽*⁾Jul 6 2015 RICHARD: ‘(...). In this context, then, as the term ‘pure intent’ refers to an intimate connection betwixt the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté and the pristine-purity of that actual innocence which is inherent to living life as a flesh-and-blood body only (i.e., sans identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty) then the benedictive/ liberative impetus, or agency as such, stems from and/or flows from that which is totally other than ‘me’ and/or completely outside of ‘me’ (this factor is very important as it is vital that such impetus, such agency, be not of ‘me’ or ‘my’ doings) and literally invisible to ‘me’—namely: that flesh-and-blood body only being thus apperceptively conscious (i.e., apperceptively sentient). Now, as a flesh-and-blood body is the same-same stuff as the very stuff of the universe itself—inasmuch each and every one of its constituent elements, all of which are as old as the universe is as matter itself is neither created nor destroyed, come out of the ground in the form of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is digested, in conjunction with the air inhaled and the water swallowed and the sunlight absorbed — then what one is, as an apperceptive flesh-and-blood body, is the universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being; as such this ‘perpetuus mobilis’ universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful’. (Richard, List D, Martin, 6 July 2005). The expression “life-force” – originally one of several English translations of the French “élan vital” coined by Mr. Henri-Louis Bergson (1859-1941), in his 1907 book ‘Creative Evolution’, as a hypothetical explanation for the driving force of evolution (élan = impetus, impulse, momentum) – has become a generic term meaning more-or-less whatever a writer/ a speaker chooses to have it refer to. For example, some 1920’s vitalism proponents gave “élan vital” a pronounced mystico-spiritual meaning (as denoting what is known as ‘prāṇa’ in Sanskrit) whereas latter-day evolutionists, geneticists for instance, were dismissive of any ‘driving-force’ hypothesis (in a similar way to the early 1900’s theoretical physicists’ dismissal of a luminiferous aether being the medium whereby radiant energy propagates through space). As the word ‘life’ itself – just like the word ‘nature’ for instance – is also utilised in a generic (non-specific) way, on occasion, I am reminded of the following brief exchange. Viz.: October 05 2003 RESPONDENT № 50: In a PCE everything is magically animate, doing what it’s doing, in a backdrop of infinite depth and stillness. RICHARD: Hmm ... “doing what it’s doing” is about as informative as ‘a rose is a rose’: in actuality (as evidenced in a PCE) it is stunningly apparent that everything is the perfection of the purity which infinitude is and, as such, is perfection personified. RESPONDENT № 50: No principle, no agenda. RICHARD: Ahh ... there is an agenda inasmuch as everything growing (aka ‘life’) is growing in purity as that perfection personified. RESPONDENT № 50: ‘Life’ or liveliness is the way everything exists. RICHARD: As maybe 99.99% (an arbitrary figure) of the universe is inanimate then “life” is not “the way everything exists”. For example, when some people talk to me about ‘nature’ they become somewhat bemused when I suggest that, as far as space exploration has been able to ascertain, there is no nature on the moon ... meaning that what life actually is is what flora and fauna are and not what rocks are. Now, if by ‘nature’ a person means absolutely everything (as in “life” is the way “everything exists”) then the glass ashtray on my desk (being mainly silica) is as much ‘nature’ as the trailing plant cascading down from the shelf above the desk next to mine ... yet when I offer such a person a drink from a polystyrene cup they tell me it is not natural. Generally speaking, materialism has that rocks are dead, lifeless (yet only something that was alive can ever be dead) whereas what actualism is on about is the direct experience that matter is not merely passive. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 50, 5 October 2003). Thus when I first wrote, some 20-odd years ago in ‘Richard’s Journal’, that “pure intent is a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of...&c...” it is the dynamic factor implicit in the above “matter is not merely passive” observation that the generic term “life-force” refers to (élan vital=lit. vital impetus). I could have as easily written something like: “pure intent is a palpable potency; an actually occurring stream of...&c...”, for instance or, for another example, “pure intent is a palpable puissance; an ever-fresh permeation of ...&c...”, because what is being conveyed by those words is the invigorative quality, or dynamic nature, of that [quote] “immaculate perfection and purity welling ever-fresh as the vast and utter stillness of this universe’s spatial, temporal and material infinitude” [#19982 Richard, List D, Martin, 6 July 2005] which I spoke of intimately experiencing when this ‘perpetuus mobilis’ universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. Viz.: • [Richard to Martin]: “(...) what one is, as an apperceptive flesh-and-blood body, is the universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being; as such this ‘perpetuus mobilis’ universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And this is truly wonderful. This intimate experiencing of an immaculate perfection and purity welling ever-fresh as the vast and utter stillness of this universe’s spatial, temporal and material infinitude is of a distinctive quality in that an impeccable benevolence and benignity (intrinsic to those properties as in pertaining to the very nature of absoluteness as qualitative‌ values) is all-pervading”. ~ (Message № 19982, Richard, List D, Martin, 6 July 2005). And those “qualitative values” referred to are detailed in the following passage where, around a decade ago, I laid-out the properties, qualities and values inherent to the universe in a vaguely technical manner. Viz.: • [Richard to Rick]: “(...) Having no other/ no opposite this infinitude and/or absoluteness has the property of being without compare/ incomparable, as in peerless/ matchless, and is thus perfect (complete-in-itself, consummate, ultimate). And this is truly wonderful to behold. Being perfect this infinitude and/or absoluteness has the qualities (qualia are intrinsic to properties) of being flawless/ faultless, as in impeccable/ immaculate, and is thus pure/ pristine. And which is indubitably a marvellous state of affairs. Inherent to such perfection, such purity, are the values (properties plus qualities equals values) of benignity – as in, ‘of a thing: favourable, propitious, salutary’ – and benevolence (as in, ‘being well-disposed, beneficent, bounteous’, and so on) and which are values in the sense of ‘the quality of a thing considered in respect of its ability to serve a specified purpose or cause an effect’ ~ (definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary). And that, to say the least, is quite amazing”. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Rick, 30 September 2005). ‘Tis a great adventure we are all engaged in, eh? RESPONDENT: Do actualists view consciousness as epiphenomenon of matter? VINEETO: Yes, for an actualist initially this view is based on down-to-earth common sense, a view which soon becomes obvious in one’s everyday experience, whereas spiritualists would have us believe that matter is merely an epiphenomenon of some disembodied ‘Consciousness’. RESPONDENT: In this respect, then actualism is not different from materialism (that the universe is comprised of matter and the conscious phenomenon is a by-product of it)? VINEETO: No. Actualism is an alternative to both materialism and spiritualism and in this sense 180-degrees opposite to the usual either/or alternatives within the human condition – either spiritualism or materialism. In essence materialism is the experience of a grim reality, as in ‘life is a bitch and then you die’ as distinct form spiritualism, which is an imaginary experience of a supposed ‘other-reality’. A materialist’s experience of matter is distorted and corrupted by the instinctual passions and life is experienced as a continuous struggle and a perennial competition with one’s fellow human beings. In actualism I know that matter – the physical material universe – is pure and perfect and it is only ‘I’ who stands in the way of experiencing this purity. * RESPONDENT: Is that what you mean by ‘matter is not merely passive’? VINEETO: No. Consciousness, the condition of being conscious – as in being alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose) – is, as the definition suggests, a condition found in sentient beings, i.e. not all matter is conscious. As for a detailed description in what way matter is not merely passive I suggest ‘Frequently Asked Question No 54/3’. RESPONDENT: I see what Peter is saying about the matter being circulated from inanimate to animate world continuously. Is that what he and you mean by matter is not merely passive? VINEETO: In part, yes. Have a good look at your hand – do you notice how matter, your hand, is changing right in this moment? Blood circulates through the veins, calorific energy is absorbed and changed into moving-energy, tendons help moving the fingers, bits of your skin fall off, fingernails and hair grow and need to be cut regularly, the skin can heal over a cut and so on. Whilst it is obvious that animate matter is not passive, what is rarely appreciated, let alone experienced, is that inanimate matter is not merely passive. The minerals and gases that are the very substance of the universe are not inert as in static, immutable, unchanging, rather they exist in perpetuus mobile and this is the quality of matter that one can experience as a sensuous vibrancy and an immediate intimacy in a pure consciousness experience. Another point worth making is that it is fashionable in some quarters to make a distinction between things that are natural as in unmodified by human beings and things that are unnatural as in modified by human beings – hence wood is deemed to be natural, aluminium unnatural, Aloe Vera is deemed natural and antibiotics unnatural. A little thinking reveals that this distinction is disingenuous as all of the things that human beings make are made of the matter that is this planet, and hence none of it is unnatural, foreign or alien. In order to experientially understand this you only need to reach out and touch the computer with your hand whilst reading these words and you can experience that the plastic/ silicon/ metal/ glass object is as ‘not merely passive’ as is your hand. Contemplation reveals that this object is fashioned from minerals of this earth; it is the same stuff as the hand that is touching it. And if you are wont to take it a step further you may well experience the fact that the separation between your hand and the monitor can magically disappear such that a sensuous intimacy can occur … particularly so if you bring your awareness to the finger tips where the touch is actually occurring as opposed to where the intellectual and affective interpretation of touch usually happens. RESPONDENT: The post below from Richard talks about an ‘aliveness’. Is that a complimentary interpretation of ‘matter is not merely passive’? VINEETO: It is not an interpretation, but the description of his ongoing everyday, every moment experience that matter is not merely passive. RESPONDENT: I keep wondering about this because ‘actualism is defined (by Richard) to be the direct experience that matter is not merely passive’. So an actualist, by extension, is who has this experience... probably the PCE... and understands it. VINEETO: An actualist is also someone who, based on a memorable experience that matter is not merely passive, dedicates their life to do whatever it takes to being able to live this magical experience 24hrs a day. RESPONDENT: Can you elaborate on this aspect? Can you describe it further? What is the aliveness, magic you are talking about? VINEETO: Given that there are no spirits outside the fervent imagination of passionate beings, can you understand that you *are* the matter that is not merely passive – and not only that, you are also matter that can marvel at its own existence? Rather than trying to affectively feel or cerebrally (via thoughts) understand the magic and aliveness, you will be more successful when you begin to experience it sensately and sensuously for yourself. RESPONDENT: Do you experience it whilst not in a PCE? VINEETO: No. Whilst I nowadays feel excellent almost all the time, the magic only happens in a PCE. Sometimes it is so close that I can almost touch it, or smell it or sense it on the summer wind – but I never kid myself as I know that it only happens when ‘I’ let go of the controls completely (as in disappear) and allow it to happen. RESPONDENT: Why choose this as the defining characteristic of actualism? VINEETO: Ah, but it’s the other way around. When Richard became actually free and searched for a word that could best describe his ongoing experience of life he came across the word ‘actualism’ defined as ‘the theory that nothing is merely passive (now rare)’ (Oxford Dictionary). VINEETO: Matter/ energy is not only primary but it is all there is. That’s what makes it so magical. The universe is a physical material universe and there are no disembodied spirits anywhere to be found except in the hearts and minds of human beings who yearn for immortality. Nor was the universe created according to humanly conceived mathematical formulas or models – such beliefs arise from the stifling anthropocentric thinking and self-centred feelings that continue to inhibit the possibility of clear thinking from operating. RESPONDENT: Statements like ‘Matter/energy is not only primary but it is all there is’ make me questioning the Actualist’s ‘Weltanschauung’. How do you know that this is not just another belief as bad [maybe worse] as believing in ‘disembodied spirits’ or a creation of the universe ‘according to humanly conceived mathematical formulas and models’? VINEETO: I know because I am reporting the direct experience that is possible each time when the ‘self’ goes temporarily in abeyance. As for ‘the Actualist’s ‘Weltanschauung’’ (as in world-view) – before you mount any further critique on your concept of ‘the Actualist’s ‘Weltanschauung’’ it may be pertinent to take the following into account – RICHARD: ‘Not only is actualism not theory it is also not idea, belief, concept, conjecture, speculation, assumption, presumption, supposition, surmise, inference, judgement, opinion, intellectualisation, imagination, a posit, a mind-set, a stance, an image, an analysis, a philosophy, a psychology, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, a perspective, a standpoint, a position, a view, a viewpoint, a point of view, a world-view, a religion, a spirituality, a mysticism, a metaphysics, or a cult ... it is an intimate and thus direct experiencing that matter is not merely passive.’ Richard, Selected Correspondence, Actualism RESPONDENT: I am asking because these terms ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ themselves have no meaning whatsoever outside of the physical theories that are used to describe them – as one can easily find out for oneself. I will just requote the physicist Metanomski who joined ‘the branch of Einstein’s team opened in Warsaw Mathematical Institute by Infeld, where [he] worked on Relativity’. ‘Mass and Energy are pure constructs of mind having no autonomous phenomenal meaning.’ <snipped rest of the quote> VINEETO: Given that ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ existed long before human beings existed and that human beings have coined the words matter and energy to describe the physical phenomena that they have observed, do you not think it preposterous (‘having last what should be first’Oxford Dictionary) to propose that the words matter and energy have ‘no meaning whatsoever outside of the physical theories that are used to describe them’? As for ‘as one can easily find out for oneself’ – for an actualist the finding out for oneself consists of sensate empirical observations combined with sensible down-to-earth autonomous thinking – it does not consist of quoting what one physicist of Einstein’s team believes to be the truth. To propose that ‘Mass and Energy’, which are palpable, tangible, tactile, corporeal, physical and material and can be experienced by the physical senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch (it is a fact that the sun exists in that we can both see it, see the energy in the form of light that it gives off and feel the energy in the form of heat that it gives off on our skin), should be ‘pure constructs of mind’ is clear indication that Eastern spiritualism has muddled the mind of many a scientist who in turn have muddled the minds of many a layman. If you regard the sun (being matter and energy) as a ‘pure construct of mind having no autonomous phenomenal meaning’ then you are clearly strutting your stuff on the wrong mailing list. RESPONDENT: An actualist should/could never come up with words like ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ to describe ‘his/her’ reality VINEETO: If you were to set aside your personal fantasies as to what an actualist ‘should/could never’ do according to your ‘Actualist’s Weltanschauung’ and instead informed yourself about what an actualist is in fact, then you could find out for yourself that the word matter – ‘the substance or the substances collectively of which a physical object consists; constituent material, esp. of a particular kind; as passing into senses’ Oxford Dictionary – is exactly the right word to describe one’s sensate experience of the very stuff of the physical universe. Energy, being the dynamic quality of matter, or matter in motion – ‘that possessed by a body by virtue of its motion’ Oxford Dictionary, is equally the exact right word to describe sensate experience of this physical universe. Contrary to what those who believe in what could be termed dissociative philosophy would have the rest of us believe, words do have meanings and many words refer to physical things that do actually exist. By the way, the actualist writings make a difference between actuality and reality, reality being the emotion-based and belief-filled ‘self’-centred perception of the world whereas actuality only becomes apparent when beliefs and feelings don’t interfere with the pure sensate perception. (see The Actual Freedom Trust Glossary for ‘actual’ and ‘real’). RESPONDENT: [An actualist should/could never come up with words like ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ to describe ‘his/her’ reality] simply because these words don’t correspond with ‘factual’ reality; they correspond with beliefs, mathematical models, and constructs of mind derived from the physicist’s imaginative and affective faculty. We simply don’t know what the universe and our sense perceptions are made of. VINEETO: You can count me out from your statement that ‘we simply don’t know’ – by throwing out all beliefs I had taken on board I have arrived at solid fact and experiential certainty. I now know without a smidgen of doubt that I am made of the same stuff as the universe and the reason I am without a doubt is because when no ‘self’ interferes as ‘my’ belief and disbelief, and ‘my’ interpretation of the world, I am this body’s senses, as opposed to the normal experience wherein ‘I’ feel I ‘have’ senses. You yourself stated in a recent post to No 66 that you understood that actualism is experiential – [Respondent]: ‘AF is a paradigm shift. In a paradigm shift new information (Actual Freedom) cannot be integrated into the existing paradigm (‘spiritual realisation’). It is too much of an anomaly. You can either deny the new information (Actual Freedom) or change radically (paradigm shift) but there is no way to cheat your way out of this ‘existential dilemma’.’ Enlightenment as a millstone, 4.4.2005 ‘Something suddenly makes ‘klick’ – actualism is not grounded in thinking/feeling but in experiencing. Sometimes I talk with my friend or with my wife and all I want to do is to make a point. ‘I’ am grounded in thinking/feeling. But if I do the AF method than the point I want to make becomes itself pointless. Suddenly it is not important anymore that I say something philosophically ‘smart’ but how I experience this moment. This is so fundamentally different. It is just incredibly different. As they say: 180 degree opposite! Here is the paradigm shift! (…) Actualism is 100% experiential (if I understand it right ,-).’ [emphasis added] to No 66, 4.4.2005 The following description from Peter is an experiential report as to how the human brain and sensory perception works when the ‘self’ is absent – [Peter]: Late one night in my first year as an actualist, as I was working on the drawing board, I had a pure conscious experience whereby my mind became aware of itself working. There was apperception happening in that there was no ‘me’ being aware – there was simply the brain being aware of the brain in operation, in this case doing the task of designing a house. The process that was happening was fascinating to observe – there was a continual consideration of the parameters that governed the design: the client’s requirements, past experience, site considerations, planning and building regulations, structural considerations, climate considerations, budget, ease of building, appearance, durability, workability and so on. There was a repeated shuffling of ideas and information operating – a trial and error process of working out the best solution – and it was magical to observe, even more so because there was awareness of only part of the process that was going on, there was a good deal happening ‘on the back burner’ as it were. Sometimes a particular issue was set aside for a while whilst another issue was addressed and when I returned to it later the best solution came instantaneously which made it apparent that there was an awareness only of the surface activity of the brain in action. The operation of the human brain is such an exquisite intricacy as to be truly wondrous. With no ‘I’ in the road to agonize over the process, nor a ‘me’ present to either exalt or despair at the outcome, there was simply the brain doing what the brain does – think, plan, reflect, evaluate, compare, compute, assess and mull over, as well as simultaneously being aware that this is what it is doing. And not only that, whilst the brain is being apperceptively aware, it is also serving as the central processing unit for the sensory perceptive system of the body – continually processing the myriad of sensate information that is this flesh and blood body’s sensual sensitivity to whatever is happening in this moment. In a PCE, it is wondrously apparent that the brain itself is not doing the sensing, it is only interpreting or making sense of the sensory input – and only doing so when and if it is needed to do so. There is an awareness that it is the eyes that are doing the seeing – there is no image of what the eyes are seeing that is transferred to the cerebral brain, there is an awareness that it is the ears that are doing the hearing – there is no sound that is transferred to the cerebral brain, there is an awareness that it is the skin that is doing the feeling and touching – there is no tactile response felt in the cerebral brain … and so on. In a PCE, the brain, bereft of any illusionary identity together with its associated affective faculty, is incapable of forming mental images or indulging in imaginary scenarios – it is either apperceptively aware that it is involved in doing what it does, thinking and interpreting sensory inputs or it is not, in which case there is no thinking or interpreting going on, simply a sensual awareness of being conscious of being alive. (Peter, Actual Freedom List, No 60, 12.11.2003). Actual Freedom Homepage
Commonly Raised Objections – Index | Frequently Flogged Misconceptions – Index | Frequently Asked Questions – Index
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless Design, Richard's & Peter’s & Vineeto’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity