Please note that the correspondence below was written by the feeling-being subscriber from Mailing List D who was interested in the practice of Actualism and who met up with Richard and other Actualists for a second time from February 16-20, 2010. (The numbers of the correspondents match Richard’s D Mailing-list numbering).
Respondent No. 4 Report on Mailing List D about his Second Meeting with Richard and other Actualists RESPONDENT No. 4: I spent Tuesday-Friday last week with (in various combinations) Peter, Vineeto, Richard, Tom, Pamela and [ (...) I’m withholding her name because I’m not sure if it’s public knowledge]. (...) Later I’ll write about the whole four days – not just my own experiences – in more detail. There is plenty to tell. But first I’ll let the dust settle and come to terms with its true significance – one way or another. (Message 9175, 23 Feb 2010, 12:10 am) February 21 2010 8:44 am Message 9166 Re: PCE vs AF RESPONDENT No. 19: c) don’t we have to spend more time discussing about PCEs to increase the possibility of one happening, as well as progressing on AF? RESPONDENT No. 4: Fascination is the key. Normally we automatically pull back from intense fascination, and this automatic distancing/ withdrawing is what prevents or sabotages an incipient PCE. Daring to become fascinated is the key to slipping through into the magic of the actual world. Can you relate to a silence that can’t be disturbed by any noise? A stillness that isn’t disturbed by any movement? A purity that isn’t tainted by anything at all? A frictionless ease, a soft fullness, a full softness? This stillness/ silence/ purity is actual, palpable; it is the universe itself, out of which everything is welling up. Matter is endlessly rearranging itself in this peerless, boundless arena ... without disturbing the pristine stillness of actual space/time. Time isn’t moving. The clock on the wall is just a gadget; it ticks, but time doesn’t go anywhere. The purity of the actual world is not something ‘you’ make, nor maintain. It’s not a state that ‘you’ are in. It’s the essential quality of what is already there, not of your doing (thankfully!) RESPONDENT No. 19: peeling the layers of the self maybe one thing, but we may have to advance to PCEs before those layers grow back :). RESPONDENT No. 4: Yes; you can flail around endlessly in the world of feelings and feeling-based thoughts, to no real avail. Best to come right to the ‘edge’ of the PCE so that you’re hovering on the threshold; then watch yourself backing out, withdrawing, automatically resisting... and dare to proceed; dare to look at the insubstantial nature of your resistance ... until you’re not doing it any more. Cheers, No. 4. February 22 2010 1:36 am Message 9169 Re: PCE vs AF JAMES: I had one experience that was unlike any I had ever experienced before. It was vast and boundless which was a different experience to me than a pce. I am wondering if this vast endlessness is what one experiences in an actual freedom. It was fascinating to me in that it was unimaginable. RESPONDENT No. 4: Did it have all the other hallmarks of a PCE? Can you say something about how it came about, what you were doing when it started, what you experienced while it was happening, what impressions were most striking to you, and anything else you think relevant? Also, can you remember anything in particular that brought you out of it? * February 22 2010 5:08 am Message 9171 Re: PCE vs AF JAMES: It was right after I had successfully reprogrammed haietmoba. I posted about that on the google list and had been having a discussion with No. 12 about it. I awoke in the middle of the night and sat down at the computer. Haietmoba came once automatically and it was like something clicked and I was there immediately. There was a boundlessness that I had read about but never experienced. I wrote a reply to No. 12 and said that it was an immense clarity but now I don’t think that was a correct description because immense doesn’t really describe it. It was more than immense. It was so vast that I was stunned by the endlessness of it. I think that writing about it was what brought me out of it. I don’t know if it had all the other hallmarks of a pce because I wasn’t aware of anything else other than the stunning vastness of it. There was a WOW factor. Have you had any similar experiences? What differences have you noticed in a pce vs af or any other relevance that you brought up in the previous post? RESPONDENT No. 4: What I experience (now, too, as we speak) is an actual world in which there is utter tranquility, stillness, silence, softness, a palpable peace that is the ground of every actual thing and every actual process. Words like ‘vast’ and ‘immense’ don’t tend to arise in this brain because vastness and immensity are relative concepts, whereas this is immeasurable, absolute. It’s a palpable stillness, silence, peace, from which everything wells up, and in which everything is occurring.... always has been, always will be. When Richard used to say ‘the ultimate fulfilment lies in extinction’ I could understand what he meant, but it seemed a little stark and scary. Now there’s no trace of fear or unease in this. He’s simply right; there’s no ultimate fulfillment for a ‘me’, but without a ‘me’ there’s nothing to be unfulfilled... nothing lacking, ever. All very ordinary and all utterly wonderful at the same time. When ‘I’ go, there’s a universe in ‘my’ place that has been here all along... living me effortlessly, along with everything else. Tapping into this, establishing direct contact with it as an actuality, is the key to undoing identity. If/when that isn’t possible, the next best thing to do is to build a fun-house or holiday resort along its shoreline ... where life doesn’t have to be serious or hard work. February 23 2010 12:10 am Message 9175 Re: PCE vs AF RESPONDENT No. 4: What I experience (now, too, as we speak) is an actual world in which there is utter tranquility, stillness, silence, softness, a palpable peace that is the ground of every actual thing and every actual process. Words like ‘vast’ and ‘immense’ don’t tend to arise in this brain because vastness and immensity are relative concepts, whereas this is immeasurable, absolute. It’s a palpable stillness, silence, peace, from which everything wells up, and in which everything is occurring.... always has been, always will be. When Richard used to say ‘the ultimate fulfilment lies in extinction’ I could understand what he meant, but it seemed a little stark and scary. Now there’s no trace of fear or unease in this. He’s simply right; there’s no ultimate fulfillment for a ‘me’, but without a ‘me’ there’s nothing to be unfulfilled... nothing lacking, ever. All very ordinary and all utterly wonderful at the same time. When ‘I’ go, there’s a universe in ‘my’ place that has been here all along... living me effortlessly, along with everything else. Tapping into this, establishing direct contact with it as an actuality, is the key to undoing identity. If/when that isn’t possible, the next best thing to do is to build a fun-house or holiday resort along its shoreline ... where life doesn’t have to be serious or hard work. JAMES: Wow, is this your ongoing experience now? RESPONDENT No. 4: Yes. JAMES: It sounds like you are actually free. RESPONDENT No. 4: I’ll stick with what I know for sure until it’s certain one way or the other. I’ve been like this since about 1:00pm last Friday. In light of Pamela’s five month PCE I’m reluctant to declare it actual freedom. Time and circumstances will tell, but for practical purposes it doesn’t matter. JAMES: What brought this about? RESPONDENT No. 4: I spent Tuesday-Friday last week with (in various combinations) Peter, Vineeto, Richard, Tom, Pamela and [Richard’s third wife ... I’m withholding her name because I’m not sure if it’s public knowledge]. On Wednesday morning, sitting alone in the houseboat with Peter, there was a brief (somewhat startling) instant in which I saw him without any filter whatsoever. A short while later, sitting with Peter overlooking the river, I slipped easily into a two-hour PCE ... just as described above. We sat there at our leisure talking about every aspect of it in detail, and it was obvious that we were experiencing the same thing. It is all palpable, actual ... no mistaking it. Two days later, Friday, I was sitting with Peter and Vineeto in the same place, teetering on the edge. Vineeto was enjoying watching me crossing back and forth over the threshold, alternately laughing and pulling back. She could see the difference in my eyes depending on which side of the imaginary fence I was on. P&V were asking me well-targeted questions about what I was experiencing, whether I wanted this forever, why I might be holding back, etc. I teetered on the ‘line’ for some time, then laughingly crossed it ... realising the absurdity of ‘trying to be here’ when I’m already actually here. Later I’ll write about the whole four days – not just my own experiences – in more detail. There is plenty to tell. But first I’ll let the dust settle and come to terms with its true significance – one way or another. Cheers, No. 4. February 23 2010 12:23 am Message 9176 Re: PCE vs AF RESPONDENT No. 4: Fascination is the key. Normally we automatically pull back from intense fascination, and this automatic distancing/ withdrawing is what prevents or sabotages an incipient PCE. Daring to become fascinated is the key to slipping through into the magic of the actual world. RESPONDENT No. 6: does this mean that one does not have to wait to strip oneself of all that – conditioning, applying the method etc... RESPONDENT No. 4: At bottom: you were born into the actual world; you’ve been here all along; and you’re here now. All that *actually* needs to happen has already happened. The rest is a play in ‘your’ imagination. In order to bring that play to an end, it is necessary to understand what sustains it, and be willing to give it up. It’s not possible to put a duration on that. For some people it might be decades, for others, who knows ... maybe weeks or months. The thing is, the PCE/AF isn’t a state that you have to get yourself into. I know it sounds odd, but even the notion that you can ‘act now’ is already too late, because the actual work has already been done. (You were conceived and born as an actuality). RESPONDENT No. 6: I am aware Richard has pointed out that all that work is done in the mean time , during the time one is dithering to be free...does this mean a beginner can bring about this as easily as a veteran has done so? If the above conditions are met, sure... I don’t see this in terms of min/max duration but solely in terms of readiness. All the actual stuff has already happened, and is happening now. (It’s still a fascinating mystery to me how identity can contrive to screen out the actual universe. It’s like identity is a loop of self-reference and self-sustenance, and nothing else. It struggles to protect itself, but the only thing it is protecting is the struggle to protect itself! It’s circular... a loop of self-reference made of nothing). Cheers, No. 4. February 23 2010 1:58 am Message 9180 Re: PCE vs AF JAMES: Outstanding, I will be looking forward to hearing more about it. Any tips you have for those of us who do not have the benefit of being with the other actually free folks will be appreciated. As an ambassador you have the opportunity to bring it to us through the written word. I am all ears at this point. RESPONDENT No. 4: Sure, I could suggest a few things: Have a sensible dialogue with yourself. Ask yourself pertinent questions and then wait for the answer, and be sure to answer with 100% sincerity. When the answer comes, examine it, test it, see if it’s correct, see if you really mean it, see if there’s something else lurking behind it. The things that keep you out of the actual world might be very trivial indeed, but while ever they remain hidden you’ll remain locked out. I’d suggest questions like: ‘Do I really want to be actually free?’ ‘Do I really want this now?’ ‘Is there anything I still need to do as an identity?’ ‘Do I want this forever?’ ... questions like that. Observe your reactions carefully, and probe your answers with further questions. Don’t be too serious about it – you’re already here after all, and being too serious will just impose another layer of feeling over the top of what’s actually happening. Be willing to see the absurdity of your objections. Notice how they feel, and then inquire into the feeling ... find out what it’s really made of. I suspect that quite often you’ll laugh to find out just how flimsy and without basis it really is. With me there was an automatic / reflex pulling back that prevented me from allowing myself to become fully fascinated. I was daunted by the prospect of never being able to step back / pull back ever again, and this got mixed up in my mind with loss of autonomy (which turned out to be groundless). The thought of never being able to be ‘me’ ever again was cause for alarm too; it’s not that I wanted to be ‘me’, but that I was afraid of not having that option ever again. Then, I thought: if I’m not going to regret it afterwards, why fear it in advance? (That simple question – well worth pondering, IMO – got some automatic blockages out of the way, and allowed me to have more fun with the process, come what may). Sooner or later you’ll catch yourself *trying* to be here in the actual world; at which time, notice the absurdity of trying to be where you already are. (This starkly highlights the difference between the actual me and ‘me’-the-identity). Every person will have their own triggers... so mainly I just suggest having that sensible dialogue with yourself. And when you can’t be in the actual world – for whatever reason – help to colonise its coastline for your own sake and other people; have an attitude of helping to build a new holiday resort on the shores of the actual world ... or whatever else makes you feel happy and feel that you’re doing your fellow human beings a worthwhile service (like Peter ‘gentrifying the path’). (BTW: in real life, Peter is hilarious once he gets on a roll). Hope some of this helps somewhat. Cheers, No. 4. February 23 2010 10:45 pm Message 9186 Re: PCE vs AF RESPONDENT No. 7: Hey No. 4, look at what a wonderful shoreline! RESPONDENT No. 4: Very nice, No. 7, but I think I’ll go for a swim now… RESPONDENT No. 7: Careful No. 4, them waters are real deep, bottomless, you may never return… RESPONDENT No. 4: I know. RESPONDENT No. 7: [**Splash**] * February 28 2010 8:06 am Message 9190 Re: PCE vs AF RESPONDENT No. 4: Hey No. 7, James, No. 6, After a six-day dive I can can confirm the water is nice and safe ... but for now I’m back on the shore. Regardless, my life’s never gonna be the same again... with or without scare quotes. Cheers, No. 4. [Addendum on Feb 13 2012 9:30 pm]: On the last day of my last visit in mid-February 2010, I entered into a PCE that didn’t end.... until several days later when something seemed slightly off, and by the time I’d had an argument with a bus driver and been moved by a song, I knew it was over. (Message 11055) March 1 2010 5:05 am Message 9194 Re: PCE vs AF RESPONDENT No. 6: Thanks you, No. 4. (...) to hear it all from you is helpful. I fully understand now your state of mind when you were still hinged upon human condition for the ‘love’ for humanity. The trouble is that it is all to seductive and convincing to stay here with humanity just as it is enticing to cross-over. All said and done, virtual freedom is a good idea for many ( at least for me) as actual freedom seems too much, too soon , presently and an achievable state as well. best No. 6 RESPONDENT No. 4: Hi No. 6. At this moment of writing, it’s once again ‘the universe experiencing itself as a human being’. From here it seems so clear and obvious that the human condition is unnecessary and detrimental to all concerned. Yet, I know only too well how it looks from the ‘other side’. If for just a few moments one can be completely clear of humanity and all its suffering, there is a clean simplicity in everything, and it seems like an ‘of course’ that one can and should be like this. But to contemplate it in advance is fraught with difficulty. One cannot help but imagine the absence of self/ feeling/ humanity, and the imagined quality never matches up with the actuality. (Not even close; not even when one has experienced it a few times. That’s my experience anyway). I think you are going the right way by starting to build a platform of a benign virtual freedom that still has both feet on the ground, and from there you can assess each situation with clarity and intelligence as it arises. This can’t be rushed, and it’d be foolish to try. For me it took *years* to lose my belief in the value of sorrow, beauty, love, pathos... and until I was ready to give up those beliefs/ values, it seemed viscerally repugnant to do so (though always an interesting theoretical possibility). When the alternative (purity, immaculacy, innocence) is not readily available, it’s not easy to even contemplate the possibility without it seeming like a serious loss and/or betrayal. But, what I can say is, from where I am right now, is there is nothing to go back for ... and there’s not the least trace of regret or callous uncaring here, or anything that one might fear/ imagine in advance. (...) Cheers, No. 4. March 5, 2010 1:30 pm Message 9229 Re: An Epitaph RESPONDENT No. 2: To the so-called mutineers: If you are around, I would like to correspond with you, and share notes. RESPONDENT No. 4: The principal ‘mutineers’ were Pamela and Vineeto, both of whom are now actually free. They were experiencing something that seems to be almost mandatory at some point on the road to actual freedom: seeing Richard as a dangerous lunatic. Welcome aboard ;-) March 6, 2010 1:27 am Message 9231 Re: An Epitaph RESPONDENT No. 2: To the so-called mutineers: If you are around, I would like to correspond with you, and share notes. RESPONDENT No. 4: The principal ‘mutineers’ were Pamela and Vineeto, both of whom are now actually free. They were experiencing something that seems to be almost mandatory at some point on the road to actual freedom: seeing Richard as a dangerous lunatic. Welcome aboard ;-) RESPONDENT No. 37 (Sock Puppet ‘I’): Why did they experience that? What happened to cause that? RESPONDENT No. 4: Basically a misunderstanding. It’ll probably all be written about one day – but not by me; it’s not my place. What I can say is, I was present while everyone was talking it over and having a good laugh about it in retrospect. Cheers, No. 4 March 6, 2010 9:32 pm Message 9272 Re: Richard/P/V Seeming Emotional/Malicious in Correspondence RESPONDENT No. 110 (List AF): I’d welcome all contributions but especially from No. 4, as I believe we had the same concerns at one point and I think he may have missed my last post where I asked him this. I would like to see a specific example of R/P/V’s correspondence which you at one point took to be indicative that they are NOT actually free of the human condition. Language that you found to either be malicious, egotistical or representative of a mindset you found undesirable. I would then like to read what changed – how or why you were wrong about that concern initially, how you misinterpreted etc. To No. 4, I am interested especially in your correspondence with Richard where you expressed the idea that actualism could be a kind of reverse-solipsism - an idea I shared. So to restate: Did you ever think R/V/P’s correspondence read as if they still have emotion? Why were you wrong? RESPONDENT No. 4: At the time, the only actually free person was Richard. I found his core reports of actual freedom – the experiential stuff – fascinating. I could recognise the PCE, and I had no reason to doubt that he was living in that condition as he claimed. But I could not reconcile it with the archives full of – what seemed to me – endless petty and needless squabbles. I thought it should be pretty easy for an actually free person to correspond with others in a way that others enjoy too, that doesn’t press their buttons needlessly. That was the key argument I made again and again. Yes, there were times when someone would be necessarily offended, shocked by Richard’s non-adherence to some (for them) sacred value or principle ... but I could see no need for (what seemed to me) a hectoring, mocking, pedantic mode of argumentation that so often left the other correspondent perplexed and humiliated and angry, with nowhere to turn, even when their intent seemed good. I never thought Richard was experiencing emotion, and never thought he was driven by malice. That wasn’t the point. I thought he was just inept, and could not see his ineptitude, and did not care to have it pointed out ... and was therefore not malicious but ... broken somehow. Damaged goods, in a way that he could not detect, and was too ... ummm.... arrogant to care to see. This plagued me for YEARS. (Same with Respondent No. 5, I believe. G’day out there, if you’re reading). I could not reconcile it with the easy benevolence that I knew from PCEs. I just figured I’d take what was valuable (PCE/AF), and fuck the rest ... and if I ever became actually free, I’d try to explain it to people without all the things I saw wrong with Richard’s correspondence. When I talked about this stuff, I thought I was pointing out the bleeding obvious, and the rest of you were a bunch of gutless weasels who wouldn’t admit it because you were blinded by wanting something from Richard, therefore fawning over him, denying what was right in front of your face. So, what happened to change that? A gradual process, not a sudden conversion. The more I overcame – or rather, lost – my objections to being happy and harmless, the more I was inclined to pay attention to what was being said, rather than how it was being said. And, over time, the ‘how’ seemed less offensive, lighter, more playful, more amusing than it had before. My own pride and stubbornness and insincerity had taken so many hits over the years that I had less sympathy for it in others, was less likely to become indignant when I saw it being triggered in others. (And that’s what usually previously motivated me ... getting offended/indignant on someone else’s behalf). Then, I don’t know if you read about this, I met Richard (and a few other people including Peter and Vineeto) in person last December. My impressions of those meetings are in the archives from about December 9 onwards, if you care to have a look. (Messages No. 8091 onwards) If it were me, I’d still do a few things differently from Richard ... but he’s done the hard work of putting it out there in meticulous detail. The rest of us can talk about these things in our own way. Cheers, No. 4. March 6, 2010 10:33 pm Message 9276 Re: An Epitaph RESPONDENT No. 2: the universe is cold and indifferent. utter desolation as far as the human eye can see RESPONDENT No. 4: Cold, in the sense of there being low temperatures in many parts. Indifferent, in the sense of not having feelings of any kind. I like the word that avoids any hint of positive or negative anthropomorphism: ‘pure’. I used to think actualism could probably still be viable for someone who could not clearly remember a PCE, but I suspect that without it the human imagination (perhaps necessarily) turns actualism into a kind of ultra-rational-humanism-sans-emotion, which is not what it’s about ... never has been. (A good one to leave behind, No. 2, IMO ... whether you consider it actualism or not). Cheers, No. 4. March 7, 2010 1:46 am Message 9281 Re: Richard/P/V Seeming Emotional/Malicious in Correspondence RESPONDENT No. 110 (List AF): That’s interesting. You thought that the only actually-free person in the world was inept, broken, damaged goods... RESPONDENT No. 4: Yes. RESPONDENT No. 110 (List AF): Yet not either consciously or subconsciously emotional/egotistical like the rest of humanity – the most obvious explanation? RESPONDENT No. 4: That’s right. It was the most obvious explanation but never seemed a convincing one to me. Neither emotional nor egotistical, but still ... fucked somehow. RESPONDENT No. 110 (List AF): If I understand you correctly, you had no reason to doubt that he was in a PCE-like condition, RESPONDENT No. 4: That’s right. No reason to doubt that his experience was as he described it. RESPONDENT No. 110 (List AF): yet you also at the time thought he was arrogant and ‘did not > care’ to have his ineptitude pointed out. RESPONDENT No. 4: Yes, in the sense that he thought he already knew better. He didn’t seem to want take anyone’s advice on how a ‘feeling being’ responds to his words, and how he might communicate more successfully with them if only he [insert your preferences here]. Funnily enough, when other people spoke about how THEY would like to see Richard conduct himself, I found their suggestions either corny, or wrong-headed, or otherwise in poor taste. Only mine were tasteful and correct, you see. Only I knew how this arrogant prick should conduct himself. RESPONDENT No. 110 (List AF): Is that your experience of the PCE – that arrogance is still possible? RESPONDENT No. 4: No, but remember, I’d only experienced PCEs quite briefly, hours at a time at most ... and I thought I’d behave pretty differently from Richard if that became permanent. So I was *perplexed* by what I took to be his arrogance (for lack of a better word for what I didn’t like about his mode of communication). RESPONDENT No. 110 (List AF): I don’t know if you kept notes but if you have your own specific example of something Richard said, it would be very helpful for me to see what you mean. RESPONDENT No. 4: Can you explain why would it be helpful to you? I’m asking because this stuff is history for me, and not at all interesting any more. Without a good reason, I’d rather spend my time on something more positive and forward-looking... but if it’s something that’s really bugging you, let me know. RESPONDENT No. 110 (List AF): What do you now think of Richard’s response in your conversation here: RESPONDENT No. 4: For you, the world is the way you experience it because you experience it that way. RICHARD: Here is a ‘word for the day’ for you to ponder: • ‘tautology: a proposition that is true by virtue of the meaning of its terms’. (Oxford Dictionary). (Richard to Respondent, Actual Freedom List, 16 January 2006). Do you now think that what you said was indeed a tautology or do you still agree with me that Richard is wrong here? That does not look like a tautology or a truism to me. RESPONDENT No. 4: Better still, let’s get right to the point. At that time I was enmeshed in – and trying to entangle Richard in – an inescapable epistemological uncertainty, to undermine the very notion that any ontological certainties could possibly be derived from ‘direct experience’. (There are many ways to waste a lifetime). Cheers, No. 4. * March 7, 2010 9:30 pm Message 9296 Re: Richard/P/V Seeming Emotional/Malicious in Correspondence RESPONDENT No. 110 (List AF): No problem. I just wanted to see whether I would agree with your reasons for no longer finding a specific passage petty, pedantic, arrogant and so on. RESPONDENT No. 4: It was the tone more than the content. I ‘heard’ / felt / interpreted the words as having certain attributes ... but as I changed, so did that tone. And when I met him in person, the best way I can describe it is that he had a lightness of touch that doesn’t come across in writing. He has ‘no charge’; he’s not as heavy or serious as I had imagined. It’s interesting to note that a few people – No. 7 and Tarin among them – knew how to read him this way all along. I never could. Cheers, No. 4. * [Addendum]: One other thing on that note: I always quite liked the tone of the (transcribed) audio dialogues; the ‘Richard’ in those dialogues seemed much more likeable. And when I saw the video clips, he seemed like someone I could easily get along with. Just in textual dialogue, something went haywire. (Message 9297 Mar 7, 2010 9:35 pm) * March 7, 2010 9:30 pm Message 9301 Re: Richard/P/V Seeming Emotional/Malicious in Correspondence RESPONDENT No. 110 (List AF): Yea I know what you mean. It’s very noticeable. Again, happens to be a common trait of a normal, egotistical, emotional human – super-confrontational when talking online but reserved and polite in person. RESPONDENT No. 4: And yet, when I met him, he often said exactly the same things to me in person as he had written online... so I’m in a good position to know that it’s NOT a matter of two different attitudes, but one ... interpreted differently by the listener/reader. Cheers, No. 4. March 11, 2010 7:04 pm Message 9345 Re: Richard/P/V Seeming Emotional/Malicious in Correspondence RESPONDENT No. 110 (List AF): I assume that the universe does not and can not know what it is doing. What, in your personal opinion, is absurd about my assumption? RESPONDENT No. 4: If I may interject? (hehehehehehehe) There is absurdity in the implicit assumption that the intelligent human body is not part of the universe. Richard means that ‘I’, the psychological/ psychic entity, am not needed to run the show; the intelligent human body operates perfectly well without ‘me’. And this intelligent human body is not something other than the universe... Cheers, No. 4. * March 12, 2010 2:24 am Message 9356 Re: Richard/P/V Seeming Emotional/Malicious in Correspondence RESPONDENT No. 110 (List AF): So, is the benevolence stuff also metaphorical, in your opinion? RESPONDENT No. 4: If I might suggest? (hehe hehe hehe) Keep that playful mood nearby; you might need it again. Richard’s whole thing is experiential, not philosophical. When fear (and everything else that goes along with feeling separate and vulnerable as a psychic/ psychological ‘entity’) evaporates, the universe is a pretty amazing place, full of wonders, and devoid of the least ill-intent. Richard’s writing is not a philosophical treatise; it’s descriptive prose concerning the way the universe is experienced sans the vulnerabilities (and harms) inherent in being an identity. I won’t be defending it as if it were a philosophical position; it was never intended that way. (I’d rather just enjoy it). I also wouldn’t want to philosophically defend the notion that the universe is a ‘playground’ ... would rather just ... play in it. If you object to Richard’s statement on the basis that the universe has no intent at all, neither for good nor for evil, well yeah ... obviously. Richard knows that too. Cheers, No. 4. March 13, 2010 12:13 am Message 9369 Re: Experiencing the Universe Respondent No 110 (AF): No. 4, I would still like your take on my last post. I appreciate that you’re doing the courtesy of discussing something that doesn’t interest you one bit. I hope that the fact that you used to think like this will allow you the extra patience to continue until it really does start going in circles. To explain where I am and why I really want your take on these matters: I think I have had that same experience that actualists call the ‘PCE’. Despite being only seconds in duration, that experience for me was the most... what’s the word... ‘scientifically’ meaningful and interesting moment of my life. I want more of those, so much that I feel I’d seriously consider taking a red pill marked ‘Permanent PCE’. Here I find the only group I have ever encountered that focus on that experience. I have concerns though, which fall into two broad categories: the veracity of the claim to be free of arrogant, egotistical, emotional and passionate ways and the possibility that this state, while excellent, could lead one to false (deluded) beliefs about the universe. If I start philosophising about something which has nothing to do with either of those concerns then point it out. Otherwise I’m saying/asking these things for a real reason. This doesn’t feel like my normal ‘debates’ or ideology. I’m really after something here. RESPONDENT No. 4: OK, that makes sense to me. For starters, re your two broad categories above, what kind of answer(s) *could* satisfy you? (I mean even in principle). Pending that, I can explain how it has been for me, and if it has relevance to you, good. The first one: There came a time when, even though I still thought my objections and observations about Richard et al were valid, I had to admit that I wasn’t getting any nearer to being happy, harmless, free from fear, or being a better person, or whatever. The years were getting away, and for all my talk, I was still basically the same. I could argue until the cows came home, and even be right, but I’d still be the same inside. (Which just wasn’t good enough; after all, the possibility of radical change was my reason for being interested in the first place). So there came a time when I thought, fuck it, even if I’m right about Richard &c, there’s still something valuable here, so I’ll take that and run with it, and leave the rest. I had some PCE memories to rely on, and I thought there was nothing *intrinsic* to that condition that would make me like Richard (i.e. afflicted by all the things that seemed ‘wrong’ about him at the time). Then, as I set to the task (just dealing with the ordinary stuff in daily life, the instances of anger, spite, jealousy, pride, fear, etc), the interpersonal stuff became a non-issue. I became more interested in the content of the words rather than the style/ tone; I wanted to know what it could teach me about being free from malice, sorrow, fear, in etc, in practice. Then, as I mentioned a couple of posts ago, as I started to change, I started reading the tone of R/P/V’s writings in a different way. I wasn’t feeling so aggrieved and resentful, wasn’t feeling so driven to prove myself right and them wrong, so I could understand their stuff with a more generous and benevolent spirit, and I started to appreciate the value of what they had tried to do. By the time I met Richard the whole thing about Richard’s mode of discourse had become a non-issue. (If in 17 years of actual freedom the worst he’s done is to make a few people feel aggrieved/ embittered by his writings about actual freedom, then it’s not that bad an outcome... compared with what else is going on in the world). And meeting Peter and Vineeto was a great opportunity to compare my old impressions with the more recently formed ones. I left that rendezvous with no doubt at all about their sincerity and good will. Of course they were fallible human beings, as we all are, and they were fully aware of that. But meeting them left me in no doubt about their basic intelligence, sincerity and good intent. Re the second one: The less opaque the psyche (the emotional atmosphere of one’s world and social identity) becomes, the more it becomes obvious just how much is a projection thereof. When the illusory psychological / psychic centre (the feeling of ‘being’, the presence of a finite, vulnerable ‘entity within’, with its particular needs and agenda) evaporates, there’s no buffer, no distortion (except those intrinsic to our basic physiology). One’s perceptions/ impressions are as direct and untainted as any human perceptions can be. Me, I’m far more interested in experiential clarity than being able to make philosophically unassailable statements about how the universe is constituted... so that’s about as interested as I am in epistemology these days. How about you? What do you think is the most reliable/ relevant way of knowing what you need to know, such that you can be (as) satisfied (as possible)? Also, do you really need to know the ultimate composition, extent, duration, of the universe in order to change yourself in certain ways? Are there not things you can change that can be handled independently of such considerations? (Those are the things I’m far more interested in these days...). Cheers, No. 4. Apr 2, 2010 9:59 pm Message 9612 Re: This Moment of Being Alive Moralism vs narcissism. RESPONDENT No. 2: (...) I say again: Actual Freedom, whatever else it might be, is a dysfunctional state. Go for it if feeling good yourself and hedonistic enjoyment (called anhedonic appreciation in present scriptural works) is all that is important to you. Go for it if you are a narcissist and do not wish to acknowledge others’ feelings. Go for it if ‘you’ are the only person important in your life. As they say, it’s your life after all. RESPONDENT No. 4: Neither, thanks. Cheers, No. 4. * April 3, 2010 1:58 am Message 9615 Re: This Moment of Being Alive RESPONDENT No. 2: I am sure there are no value judgments (aka ‘moralism’) involved in actualism, and that fellowship regard, harmlessness, benevolence, integrity, sincerity, honesty, consistency, felicity, sensuousness, perfection are facts and features of the the universe, not value propositions. To put it in straight words: the very basis of actualism is morality ... To avoid suffering to oneself and to fellow human beings. It is another matter that just like spirituality, actualism ends up being only about me and myself. RESPONDENT No. 4: No. 2, the ‘actualism’ that you’re arguing against is a combination of hedonism, narcissism and egoism. That’s not what all this is about. If it were truly a choice between hedonism / narcissism / egoism on the one hand and conventional humanistic morality on the other, I’d be choosing conventional humanistic morality too. But it isn’t, no matter how many times you assert it. Incidentally, I know a thing or two about narcissism and narcissists ... possibly more than anyone in this forum ... and not from books. You see, I’ve spent large parts of my life – decades – witnessing first-hand how a narcissistic / (non-violent) psychopathic personality thinks and behaves, and oftentimes being embroiled in their self-created dramas. The difference between a narcissist and an ordinary person – let alone an actualist – is stunning (and shocking at times). A narcissist’s genuine unconcern for other people couldn’t be learned or faked, even if you tried. So... I consider myself pretty well qualified to know the difference between (a) a narcissist and my own self; (b) a narcissist and any of the actualists I’ve met; and (c) the aims and methods of a narcissist and those of an actualist. What would you say of someone who comes along with a little book learning and, despite having known neither actualists nor narcissists, declares them all alike, tarred with the same brush? 0 Would it not strike you as a bit arrogant and presumptuous on their part? Cheers, No. 4. * Sat Apr 3, 2010 2:21 am Message 9616 Re: This Moment of Being Alive RESPONDENT No. 2: I am sure there are no value judgments (aka ‘moralism’) involved in actualism, and that fellowship regard, harmlessness, benevolence, integrity, sincerity, honesty, consistency, felicity, sensuousness, perfection are facts and features of the the universe, not value propositions. To put it in straight words: the very basis of actualism is morality ... To avoid suffering to oneself and to fellow human beings. RESPONDENT No. 4: I used to argue that actualism, prior to self-immolation, is a kind of ‘happy and harmless morality’ ... and I still think there’s some validity in that... in the sense that you’re using the word above. But what I meant by morality (in this context) is: coercion of our instinctual passions to bring out the best and curtail the worst. Obviously, actualism is not (ultimately) about restraint/ coercion but about elimination ... as, of course, you know. You set up ‘actualism’ as a kind of narcissism, then proceeded to wage a moral campaign against it. The claim of narcissism is misguided, and so, therefore, is the moral campaign against it. That’s what I meant by ‘neither (narcissism nor moralism), thanks’. Cheers, No. 4. Actual Freedom Homepage
Report of Respondent No. 4 Part 1 | Personal Reports Index
Richard Index Mailing List D | Actualism Homepage
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997- . All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer and Use Restrictions