# The Formation and Persistence of Social Identity

(please make sure “java-scripting” is enabled in order for the tool-tips to function properly; mouse-hover on the yellow rectangular image to open; left-click on the image to hold).

22 May 2023.

01. The Formation of Social Identity.

To begin at the beginning: every new generation – the latest recruits to the human race – have a veritable mish-mash of cultural folkways and social mores (=French moeurs) insistently impressed upon them from the earliest age. And the primary reason for the unremitting instillation of all those beliefs, ideas, theories, concepts, maxims, saws, proverbs, aphorisms, dictums, truths, truisms, factoids, philosophies, axioms, posits, postulates, values, principles, ideals, standards, credos, doctrines, tenets, canons, morals, ethics, customs, traditions, psittacisms, superstitions, myths, legends, folklores, imaginations, divinations, visions, fantasies, chimeras, illusions, delusions, hallucinations – and whatever other schemes and dreams there may be which constitutes human wisdom – is essentially because of each sentient being having been born with connaturally puissant survival instincts, which, when operating and functioning as a group, are potentially a danger to all concerned.

And this is because what is known colloquially as “blind nature” endows each and every human being with the selfish instinct for individual survival and the clannish instinct for group survival – be it the familial group, the tribal group, or the national group – and, as it takes a powerful instinctive impulse (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinctive impulse (selfism), the newest recruits to humankind needs must be socialised and culturalised. Viz.:

> • culturalise (tr.v.; culturalised, culturalising): to expose or subject to the influence of culture {viz.: culture = the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another}; (n.): culturalisation. [1955-60]. [curly-bracketed insert added] ~ (Webster’s College Dictionary).

> • socialise (tr.v.; socialised, socialising): to make social {viz.: social = friendly or sociable; agreeable in company; companionable}; make fit for life in companionship with others; (n.): socialisation. [1820-30]. [curly-bracketed insert added] ~ (Webster’s College Dictionary).

This ad hoc socialisation and culturalisation, this extempore implantation of socially and culturally approved mores and folkways, increates an incorporeal socio-cultural inwit or conscience – (an in situ affective-psychic guardian inculcated as a preventative measure to restrain and/or contain the wayward self which lurks deep within the human breast per favour blind nature’s inherent survival passions and preclude gaols from being filled to over-flowing by inhibiting offences from occurring in the first place) – which invariably forms itself into a socio-cultural identity.

This increated socio-cultural inwit a.k.a. conscience a.k.a. guardian – colligated under the rubric “social identity” for convenience – encompasses various bodiless personae as well. Viz.:

> 01. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a vocational identity (identifying as an ‘employee’/ ‘employer’, ‘worker’/ ‘pensioner’, ‘junior’/ ‘senior’, ‘peasant’/ ‘squire’ a.k.a. ‘villein’/ ‘lord’, and so on).

> 02. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a national identity (identifying as ‘English’, ‘American’, ‘Australian’, ‘Nigerian’, ‘Korean’, and so forth).

> 03. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a racial identity (identifying as ‘white’, ‘black’, ‘brown’, etcetera, or whatever ethnicity nomenclature is the latest fashion).

> 04. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a religio-spiritual identity (identifying as a ‘Hindu’, a ‘Muslim’, a ‘Christian’, a ‘Buddhist’ ad infinitum).

> 05. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of an ideological identity (identifying as a ‘Capitalist’, a ‘Communist’, a ‘Monarchist’, a ‘Fascist’ and the like).

> 06. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a political identity (identifying as a ‘Democrat’, a ‘Tory’, a ‘Republican’, a ‘Liberal’ and all the rest).

> 07. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a class or caste identity (identifying as an ‘aristocrat’/ ‘commoner’ (as in, ‘the gentry’/ ‘the peasantry’), ‘patrician’/ ‘plebeian’ (Latin), ‘noblesse’/ ‘roturier’ (French), ‘ariyan’/ ‘puthujjana’ (Pāli), ad nauseam throughout the ages.

> 08. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a familial identity (identifying as ‘son’/ ‘daughter’, ‘brother’/ ‘sister’, ‘father’/ ‘mother’, ‘uncle’/ ‘aunt’, and the whole raft of relatives).

> 09. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a sex identity (identifying as ‘boy’/ ‘girl’, ‘man’/ ‘woman’).

> 10. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive, nowadays, of a gender identity a.k.a. sexual orientation identity (identifying as ‘asexual’/ ‘bisexual’/ ‘homosexual’/ ‘transvestite’ a.k.a. ‘cross-dresser’/ ‘transsexual’ a.k.a. ‘transgender’/ ‘gender-queer’ a.k.a. ‘queer’ / and, colloquially, an ‘alphabet-soup’ of initials.

02. The Sexualisation of Social Identity.

These socio-cultural personae are related to roles, rank, positions, station, status, class/ caste, age, sex, gender, and so on, and, regarding that last-named persona, although the word ‘gender’ has been interchangeable with the word ‘sex’ for more than half a millennia – vide: “the use of gender in the sense ‘sex’ is over 600 years old” (Webster’s College Dictionary) – such usage had essentially remained the preserve of grammarians. In 1955, however, this grammatical term was press-ganged by a monstrous self-styled [quote] “fuckologist” [unquote] for an entirely different rôle which gender feminists (as distinct from equity feminists) seized upon in the 1970s. Viz.

> • “Sexologist John Money (1921-2006) introduced the terminological *distinction between biological sex and gender as a role* in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories. However, Money’s meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when *feminist theory* embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and *the social construct of gender*...”. [emphases added]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender].

Hence the word gender, indicative of grammatical sex for over half-a-millennia, has in the past few decades transmogrified into a sexualised “social construct” of a persona. This is reflected in its relabelling as an incorporeal “sexual orientation identity” (in sociologese) well as an expansive ‘alphabet-soup’ of initials (colloquially) whose selectively-diffusional fluidity has oft-times more to do with the lability of being the trend du jour than anything else.

By virtue of being raised in the late 1940s and early 1950s the writer typing these words has firsthand experience of how the citizenry-at-large (i.e., society-in-general) is quite capable of operating and functioning sans these sexualised identities. Furthermore, it is still within the living memory of a significant proportion of the culture generally – in peoples raised in the late 1920s and thereafter – as to how society operated and functioned just as well (if not, and arguably so, even better) in those decades before these purposely self-sexualised identities first began to deliberately court public attention, dubbed “coming out of the closet”, amongst peoples who were not of the majoritarian other-sex sexual predisposition in the mid-1970s and early 1980s for group-solidarity socio-politico reasons (such as public awareness and public acceptance human-rights campaigning).

Whether or not these aeriform latter-day entities – these identities who can and sometimes do “shift and evolve” in daily life – will persist as an enduring if not endearing feature of the culture-at-large, now those objectives have been largely if not wholly achieved, remains to be seen of course. The citizenry-at-large a.k.a. society-in-general (i.e., the vast majority of the population), who tend to be reserved and reticent about matters sexual – sometimes to the point of prudery (such as the “Victorian Era” for instance) – and automatically take exception to such in-your-face sexualisation of self-identity, are typically indifferent to or resistant of any equivalent sexualised self-identification for themselves.

This sexualised gender-identity became socio-politicised when ‘gender feminism’ and ‘identity politics’ in particular gained traction due to clamorous ‘anti-discrimination’ vocalists and vociferous ‘equalitarian’ activists stridently cashing in on their minoritarian victimology socio-politico influence and its resultant lobbying pressure (thereby shrewdly exploiting the fatal flaw inherent to the chronically manipulable representational democracies as universal suffrage inexorably maps raw demographics to that abstract entity known colloquially as “Law & Order” (a.k.a. ‘The State’).

Because of its legalised investiture with the monopoly on lethal force – such as to render its officially-delegated and thus electorally-unaccountable factotums and functionaries (i.e., bureaucrats, etcetera), the ultimate enforcers in the land – most if not all forms of governance inevitably devolve into a coercively politicised hive-minded bureaucratic collectivist.

As a matter of related interest, a pertinent observation regarding the bureaucratisation of governance (as per the “bureaucratic collectivist”

article in the above mouse-hover tool-tip), in the “Western Countries outside the Eastern Bloc” during the latter half of the twentieth century, and consolidated in the early twenty-first century – along with its resultant expansion due to its embodiment in the corporative “welfare state” where its basis-of-power lies – was published on The Actual Freedom Trust website in 2016 without eliciting any comment vis-à-vis this truly remarkable takeover of the mainstream politico-economic Weltanschauung by those of a sinistral nationaliser progressive persuasion, politically (i.e., twenty-first century orthodoxy), from those of a dextral privatiser conservative conviction. Viz.:

> February 28 2016

> RESPONDENT: I remember reading on the AFT, Richard mentions the general mood of the 1960’s and has good things to say about it. The focus on peace, adventure, challenging social order, an optimistic view that change was possible.

> RICHARD: Yet what you remember reading on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is actually what feeling-being ‘Peter’ wrote – feeling-being ‘Richard’s focus in the 1960’s was, instead, on warfare, misadventure, upholding social order, and an unenterprising view that change was impossible – which is neatly encapsulated in ‘Peter’s Journal’ via descriptions of then being a typically radicalised university student (per favour the subversive ‘Nouvelle Gauche’ socialistic-communistic propaganda, of Mr. Herbert Marcuse (a.k.a. ‘Father of the New Left’) and the ilk, which gripped the largely proto-revolutionary imagination of those socio-politically impressionable youths of the time). Viz.:

> > • [Peter]: “University days were filled with a wonderful optimism and naivety as the sixties’ youth revolution gathered momentum. We were going to change the world! Socialism, peace, love, sexual freedom, environmentalism – anything was possible to have or to change. I marched to stop the Vietnam war, I poster-pasted to save the forests, I grooved to the Rolling Stones in Hyde Park in London, I hung around in Amsterdam, I travelled to the East, I became politically and socially concerned and involved.

> > I’ve thought about these times during the last twelve months – what happened to the dreams, the enthusiasm of those times? Remember John Lennon singing ‘Imagine’ or ‘Give Peace a Chance’, or watching Woodstock? We were going to change the world! And then it all started to fade a bit – I got rather lost in the daily business of wife, two kids and two cars. And then, when that crashed, I was off to the East with thousands of others, seduced and fired up by the promise of a New Man, Peace, Love, Utopia and an end to my personal suffering. In fact, the whole of the revolution of the sixties was simply sucked into the mystery, confusion and ‘mindlessness’ of the Eastern religions.

> > Of course spiritualism failed – there was nothing new in it at all, now that I look back (...)”. ~ (from Chapter Nine, ‘Peace’, ‘Peter’s Journal’; ©The Actual Freedom Trust 1997).

> Incidentally, regarding your comment on the 17th of Feb, 2016, about not sharing the opinion that there was anything special about that era. Viz.:

> > • [Respondent]: “For the record, I don’t share the opinion that there was anything special about that era. The hippies went on to run the corporations and fuck over the world in exactly the same way as the generations before and after them. Lennon and the Beatles not least of them” ~ (Message № 22134; Feb 17, 2016).

> It could perhaps be said to typify a wholesale ignorement of just how successful that ‘Nouvelle Gauche’ propaganda against the then still-prevailing dextral privatism has been, as evidenced by the stranglehold sinistral statism has increasingly had on the ‘International Community’ in the decades since, insofar as the way in which politico-economic governance nowadays operates in developed nations is more or less in accord with what the sixties ‘student revolution’ was practicably on about.

> Put the other way around: as what those gullible university students protested about so vociferously, and marched en-masse in the streets for, *has largely come to pass* in the technologically advanced nation-states, then your usage of ‘exactly’ – in the above “in exactly the same way” characterisation – may very well stem more from a blanket ignoration of how deprived the bulk of the populace comprising those laissez faire states were, before *the resultant expansion of the corporative ‘Welfare State’* (which ever-expanding *bureaucratisation of governance*, were it not largely funded by its correspondingly ever-expanding indebtedness, *would ultimately become all-encompassing*), than from an even-handed appraisal of the outcome those ‘New Left’ propagandists were agitating for.

> Ha ... it could even be a classic case of the hoary adage “Be careful what is wished for (whilst the peasant-mentality prevails) lest it come true”, eh? [emphases added]. (Richard, List D, Andrew#2).

Lastly, to round off this matter of related interest – vis-à-vis sinistral statist ideology versus dextral privatist ideology – the following exchange is quite apposite. Viz.:

> February 28 2016

> RESPONDENT: The reason why I decided to study a humanities career is because the ‘rebel’ in me wanted to understand reality and break free from all their implicit chains. Therefore, once I got more conscious about the whole historical process and caught by the Marxist and Anarchist fashions in college, the ideas of work, authority and the like become frowned upon. Indeed, me and my colleagues look resentfully at the millionaire and business crowd, only to acquire the belief that social change was the way to work against inequality.(...elided...). These and other ideas mean the bout of perpetuation and resentment of the idea of work, with the secondary layers as support/ result: the deeply felt necessity of being creative, of giving something to the world, of being of use, of being a good citizen, etc., but also of feeling special for the contrary: of being a rebel, of fighting for the rights of the vulnerable classes, of rearranging the world to return to the supposedly virginal and peaceful state of the world, etc. (...elided...). Speaking again from a solutions perspective, I think that the most insidious influence of marxism/ postmodernism/ feminism is that everything is relative and comes only from social constructs. This influence just gives the illusion of change by activism and armchair philosophising, when, in reality, it’s the same ol’ fight of the opposites (male vs. female, proletariat vs. bourgeois, and so on) (...elided...).

> RICHARD: Speaking of “social constructs” and their “illusion of change by activism”: what I have noticed, whilst pottering around the world-wide-web, is that those of a sinistral statist ideology (such as your “marxism/ postmodernism/ feminism” wording is suggestive of) are apparently extracting meaning and/or purpose from busying themselves in the redressment of systemic cultural ‘wrongs’, via the heavy hand of state compulsion, through retaining tight control of ‘the public narrative’ – having long-ago seized the high moral ground of minority-group injustice (as per your “fighting for the rights of the vulnerable classes” words) – on a yet-to-be-demonstrated premiss that an equitable society can be legislated into existence (i.e., imposed on all citizens at the point of state-owned/ state-controlled guns), in a ‘majority-rules’ society, on a ‘minorities-rule’ basis.(Richard, List D, No. 38, 31 May 2015)

What is implicit, in this twenty-first century “social constructs” psychosexuality, is how the days of merely relating as a ‘boy’ and a ‘girl’ or as a ‘man’ and a ‘woman’ (depending on sex and age) are increasingly becoming as if a bygone era due to nothing other than the sexualisation of those otherwise straightforward boy-girl and man-woman classifications such as to increate those phantasmal ‘gender identities’, or ‘sexual orientation identities’, in accordance with sexual persuasion and amative predilection (as distinct from existing-in-fact-and-actuality anatomical and chromosomal identifiers).

In other words, all the fuss and pother dominating current-affairs about 101-plus personal pronouns – made regulatory law, even, in some fiefdoms (e.g., the Canadian regulatory kerfuffle over Prof. Jordan Peterson et alia) – as well as males asseverating gender-dysphoria competing in women’s sports, and nondiscriminatory access to public toilets and change-rooms, and the suchlike, along with the antisemitic-style taking offence laws and/or regulations (as in ‘hate-speech’ laws), promulgated and promoted by the unelected and unaccountable United Nations bureaucrats and rapporteurs, stems from and revolves cyclonically around none other than this phantasmal “social construct” of a gender-identity (a.k.a. “sexual orientation identity” as explained in detail on pages 4-5 of the August 2009 “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation” paper from the ‘American Psychological Association’, August 2009, in the mouse-hover tool-tip further above).

Bedazzled by the abracadabra power of word-magic to increate and proliferate and present to the mind a mentalistically alluring array of wraithlike identities and/or sexualities, of every alphabetical dial-a-definition description imaginable, and being beguilingly driven to similarly razzle-dazzle the world at large, it has become (conceivably) possible for a female-gendered persona of a same-sex sexual persuasion, having habitancy in a male body, to somehow convince that body to undergo an oestrogenic hormone regimen, with the view to having sex reassignment surgery, so as to thereafter use a strap-on dildo over their surgically-fabricated vulvovaginal region when engaging in penetrative sexual activity with their female-gendered cohort, who, being similarly of a same-sex sexual persuasion and likewise having habitancy in a male body, has also partaken of oestrogenic hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery.

Of particular note is how all the above transpires solely because human beings, presently as previously, are not only flesh-and-blood bodies but are also feeling-beings as well – insubstantive affective-psychic ontological entities having both habitancy as the seat-of-the-emotions and psychosomatic dominion over their host-bodies – who are intuitionally identifiable, viscerally, as ‘me’-at-the-core-of-‘my’-being (which ontological entity is ‘being’ itself when present-to-itself).

The word ‘soul’ (as in “the seat of the emotions” Oxford English Dictionary definition in the above mouse-hover tool-tip) denotes the innermost affective-psychic entity regardless of same being of either a secular or spiritual persuasion (the essential difference being materialists maintain this emotional/ passional/ calentural and intuitive self – a.k.a. ‘spirit’ contextually – dies with the body whereas spiritualists maintain it does not) inasmuch both materialism and spiritualism speaks to the self-same ‘being’, at root, with differentiation only a connotative matter dependent upon each particular ontological entity’s (occasionally changeable) partiality, or leaning, in this regard.

This seat-of-the-emotions ‘soul-self’ or ‘spirit-self’ – an instinctual ‘self’ born of an amorphous affective ‘presence’ in utero, an inchoate intuitive ‘being’ in vivo, which the genetically endowed instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) instinctively form themselves into just as, analogously, a vortex or eddy forming itself vortically as whirling air or swirling water does – is not to be confused with the ego-self (an affective-cum-cognitive entity).

The ego-self arises out of the ‘soul-self’ or ‘spirit-self’, somewhere around age two, as the doer of all affective-psychic eventful experience (a.k.a. the ‘thinker’), as opposed to the beer of all affective-psychic experiencing (a.k.a. the ‘feeler’), and is, typically, experienceable as situate in the head, rather than in the heart region from whence it arose, immediately behind the forehead at a midpoint just above the eyes.

Furthermore, the ego-self is not the social identity-cum-cultural conscience and/or inwit as, by and large, not until approximately seven years of age does a child know the basic difference between what each particular society and culture regards as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, or ‘good’ and ‘bad’, or ‘appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’, and the parents’ attitude reflects this (as is evidenced in a parent taking the child to task with an oft-repeated “you ought to know better by now”).

Thus the socio-cultural identity is overlaid, via socialisation and culturalisation, over both the ego-self and the soul-self – as an incorporeal cultural conscience or social guardian – and is currently in the process of being sexualised (by those gullible enough to fall for it).

And these apparitional feeling-beings will continue to wreak their havoc (increating and proliferating phantasmal socio-cultural identities galore and thereby ensuring their base-identity remains as elusive as ever) with their dictatorial insistence that their host-bodies act-out their affective-psychic urges, impulses, and drives in the physical world – the world of sensorial experience; the sensational world; the world of sensitive perception (a.k.a. the corporeal world; the empirical world; the material world) – the world as-it-is, in actuality, where flesh-and-blood bodies only reside.

In summary: the sexualisation of the inculcated socio-cultural identity is what the term “sexual orientation identity” (in sociologese) and the ‘alphabet-soup’ of initials (colloquially) are referring to inasmuch the instinctual identity – both ego-self and soul-self a.k.a. spirit-self – is universally affective in essence.

03. The Persistence of Social Identity.

Notwithstanding its phantasmicality, and whether sexualised or not, this aeriform socio-cultural persona can be remarkably persistent – as the shadowy remnants of a lingering conscience-cum-guardian (as portrayed by Peter, who first drew attention to its indistinct wraithlike presence, in January 2010, and as confirmed by Vineeto shortly after) – when newly free from the human condition (and even with a basic actual freedom as the weeks, months, and years roll by) due to being an inculcated entity and therefore relatively unaffected (other than abruptly rendered a ‘toothless-tiger’ as it were) by the extinction of the instinctual passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof at the pivotal moment/ definitive event whereby becoming newly free from the human condition transpires.

As this incorporeal social identity, being a socio-culturally-instilled and parentally-inculcated entity, and not instinctually-based, is not rendered completely null and void consequential to the extinction of the instinctual passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof, a period of accommodation and adjustment and acclimatisation, all throughout the normal day-to-day life, with diligent attention paid to any and all attempts on the part of those shadowy remnants to coalesce and reassert control – and dictate how an actually free person *should* think, operate and behave – ensures the habituated patterns of a life-time eventually cease.

For a hands-on report, in 2018 Vineeto recounted to Alan how she rid herself of these shadowy remnants some seven months after becoming newly-free. Viz.:

> April 29 2018.

> ALAN: Does seriousness end upon self-immolation? I was certainly under the impression that it does. Similarly, is apperception an ongoing experience after becoming actually free? I do not see how it can be otherwise – as I posted on ‘Slack’. In both questions I mean before becoming fully free.

> VINEETO: (...); I can fully relate to No. 15’s statement that –

> > • [Respondent No. 15]: “I had the impression when I first became newly free that apperception was occurring all the time”.

> This was exactly my experience just after becoming actually free (and not merely an impression), and it was so startling and so exactly as Richard had described it that I was just amazed, and revelled in this 360 degree awareness. The experience of apperception also included that everything (regarding knowledge and memory of experience) is at your fingertips but only activated when needed. There was an incredible clarity of mind, wonder and amazement, just as I described it in the first reports of the direct-route-mail-out.

> However, as Richard reported on ‘List D’ quoted below, as I interacted more and more with people and everyday affairs, I started to become aware of certain behaviour patterns continuing and a diminution of the startling clarity of the first few days after becoming free. In other words, the guardian, “the shadowy remnants of the social identity” established itself and influenced how I was behaving and experiencing myself.

> This is not only understandable, given the radical change that an actual freedom from the instinctual passions is, but possibly also necessary to ensure a non-disruptive transition from feeling being to being fully actually free.

> However, by the time Richard returned from India, I was ready and eager to put the ‘guardian’ to rest, and move towards a full actual freedom, and Richard and I had many intensive conversations to bring this about sooner rather than later.

> About six weeks nine days after Richard’s return a day came when, sitting at the dining table of his houseboat, I briefly experienced myself as two – the (shadow) identity of the guardian and the actual Vineeto. I experienced the relief of the guardian to be finally able to confidently lay down the burden of guarding over the newly-free Vineeto and then it faded with a sense of having a job well-done to the end and gladly being finally redundant. Suddenly there was only one me, the actual me, fresh and innocent, a bit like a kid alone in this wonderful playground of the actual world.

> I was still not fully free then, and many more things had to happen, but a decisive event had occurred to bring me closer to a full actual freedom.

> Here is Richard’s report about the guardian (shadow) identity on ‘Mailing List D’ in which he also explains why he never talked about a distinction between newly free and fully free before more than one person became actually free –

> > • [Richard]: He [Justine] does seem to be unaware that, by choosing to not communicate further, he cuts himself off from access to the wealth of information personally gleaned from the other daring pioneers referred to in my emailed response to his request.

> > Viz.:

> > > • [Richard to Justine]: ‘(...). Please note that, as I am speaking not only from my own direct experience – from 11 years of genuine, full-blown enlightenment/ awakenment plus 20+ years of an actual freedom – but also from an on-going personal interaction, on a daily/ weekly/ monthly/ yearly basis, with those peoples here in Australia who are unmistakably either newly free (actually free from the instinctual passions/the feeling-being formed thereof) or nowadays fully free (actually free of identity in toto/the entire affective faculty) via having completed the transitional process, this is not merely a matter of opinion. (...)’. (Re: Richard’s Place!; Sent: Sat 30/03/2013 1:34 PM).

> > For example, due to this wealth of hands-on experiencing, there is now sufficient data to have established a trait common to the first wave of pioneers ... to wit: the persistence of a (pseudo) identity – the shadowy remnants of the social identity (which, being a societal construct and not instinctual in nature, lingers on as a ‘guardian’ until the transitional process is complete) – which can arrogate bodily control and dictate how an actual freedom *should* be acted out.

> > (As this has only applied to that first handful of daring pioneers – those becoming (newly) free prior to the personification of pure intent in both its masculine and feminine aspects – there was not only no reason for me to write publicly about it but, because of its irrelevance being unnecessarily confusional, there was also good reason for me not to).

> > For another example: a person living the full actual freedom from the human condition, such as Vineeto unmistakably is, not only experientially knows they are living in the ‘magic wonderland’ (what Justine calls ‘Richard’s Place’) but thereby also knows, experientially, that Richard cannot possibly confirm it unless he is physically present.

> > In other words, the fact Justine wrote and requested confirmation from a Nine-Thousand-Kilometres-Away-Richard informed me he was not living in that magic wonderland.

> > (And all he has written, especially recently, merely verifies it).

> > ‘Tis marvellous how cleanly everything operates here in this actual world (where nothing ‘dirty’, so to speak, can gain a foothold)! ~ (Richard, List D, No. 40, 20 May 2013)

> ~ (Vineeto, ActualVineeto, to Alan, April 29, 2018).

Further to Vineeto’s observation about the possible necessity of those shadowy remnants coalescing and reasserting control – so as to ensure a non-disruptive transition from feeling being to being fully actually free – it certainly does function as if it were an inbuilt fail-safe aspect of the process. Viz.:

> December 7, 2018

> RESPONDENT: (...)I really would love to hear your thoughts on the following:

> The clarity and safety I have now is truly remarkable. There seem to be something like expansions and contractions in my field of consciousness. There are times – say when I am tired and interacting a lot with difficult patients under deadlines at work where the experience of perfection is clearly diminished. But this doesn’t last long, it rolls off me very quickly into states of really ‘deep’ magical apperception. On occasions I seem to be on verge of having a definitive experience of infinitude, but it is too much and I withdraw. I was wondering whether this is a social identity thing and whether you have any thoughts about this as per your own past experience? I have read your writings about ‘the guardian’. (...)

VINEETO: (...) As for how I would suggest that a newly free person becomes fully free – you have already pointed to the key when you wrote –

> [Respondent]: “On occasions I seem to be on verge of having a definitive experience of infinitude, but it is too much and I withdraw”. [unquote].

It is the experience of infinitude and the utter purity of its perfection, with not a smidgen of ‘dirt’, that are the characteristics of a full actual freedom. You allow it to happen as much as you can bear, gently, again and again, and if you find any hang-ups, look at them and let them dissolve. Infinitude is big, really big, it also takes time to get accustomed to more and more of it.

*

December 18, 2018

RESPONDENT: (...) When I first became free it seemed like I was always on the threshold of that ‘big, really big’ universe about to break through all the time, with exquisite apperception being the default state. It was quite intense actually, my entire body was tingling and I was quite stimulated. Over time things have become more ordinary in a sense, but with surges into that heightened apperceptive state with the ‘flavour’ of infinitude. My guess is that I have retreated to the social identity ‘sand pit’ to play - where it is safe and familiar.

VINEETO: I can relate to that, from my early days of being newly free. Then, when interacting with people and the world at large I found that I used at first some familiar (habituated) feeling-being patterns but becoming aware of it made me think anew. Quite an adventure.

RESPONDENT: (...) It seems that out of sheer habit I can go back into identity but this time things are more illusory. It’s like the prison door is open, but I still find myself wandering back into the cell and sitting there! I can see through these states using the same techniques of actualism method and investigation. They quickly melt away into thin air. Prior to becoming free, this sort of ‘seeing through’ would only be wishful thinking as I kept running into the visceral ‘me’ that refused to go away.

VINEETO: (...) What happened at your pivotal moment is that the instinctual passions and the feeling-being formed thereof ceased to exist. The social identity however, being a product of socialization and acculturation, and therefore not instinctual, is still extant. Various aspects of it will become apparent as you go about your normal life – hence your “social identity ‘sand pit’” observation. (...). Everyone proceeds according to their (individual) mettle and thus at their own pace.

*

January 1, 2019

RESPONDENT: Things are continuing for me in the much the same way. I am just seeing how this mental construction as ‘me’ i.e. the social identity, continues to operate. It seems like a ‘Lite’ version of ‘me’ – minus the visceral backing of emotions and feelings. From time to time it clears right away and the vastness of the universe becomes apparent. (...) Right now the process seems to be a dance between allowing infinitude and exploring the ‘brake’ that is ‘the guardian’ or something similar to that. (...) Periodically going into these states of heightened purity, where I am this body and the universes experience of itself – I realise that ‘I’ as social identity want to still run the show. The universe, the body – these are things that are quite alien to me, so I want to take the reins and be the micro-manager. The infinite, formless, genderless, shapeless universe that I am part of is too weird! It is safer this way. The socius is my buffer – a nice little cushion which I can use to shield myself from raw actuality. I am quite keen on still playing the pretend game of being ‘me’ in whatever form remains. It is the last hiding place. But of course it is not completely voluntary. It is a habitual thing also. It seems like socialising and thinking about people seems to have pronounced effect on weaving myself into being. (...).

VINEETO: It is well observed – the social identity (even sans instinctual passions) not only wants to still run the show, it does. The longer you observe yourself in action the more you will see how it not only creates a ‘buffer’ for the direct experience of the actual world but endeavours to fit you back into humanity at large and your social group(s) in particular despite the ‘handicap’ of having no instinctual passions. As you can see it is back-ward oriented as it was formed while you were a feeling being to keep any excess of one’s instinctual passions in check.

Personally, when I negotiated my way towards freedom from the (overall well-meaning but now inadequate) ‘guardian’ (i.e. the social identity), the main question was – will I be able to be safe and harmless without the guardian watching over me? So I checked myself out in interactions, in various social situations with the intent to determine if I would be safe, and harmless, without the rules and regulations (morals and ethics), preconceived notions and automated behaviour patterns – and eventually determined that I will be. Now that there are no instinctual passions, and no wayward feeling-being, the role of the guardian is indeed obsolete. Once the guardian was fully satisfied as to this fact, it happily abdicated (as I have described in the paragraph you quoted).

RESPONDENT: From what I understood of your own process, full freedom required the abdication of ‘the guardian’ before you could fully allow infinitude and become fully free

VINEETO: Yes. ~ (Vineeto, ActualVineeto,

Srinath, December 7, 2018 to January 1, 2019).

Further to this functioning as if it were an inbuilt fail-safe aspect of the process an incident occurred in November, 2011 – two days after a woman of Australasian birth and upbringing had flown into Ballina Airport on a prearranged agreement to meet in person so as to talk about the distinction between altered states of consciousness (ASC’s) and pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) plus many and various matters associated with her life and/or her lifestyle after motherhood – which threw considerable light upon the matter.

A little over twenty-fours hours after landing she was free of ever being serious again – she reported immediately afterward it was a permanent shift (as well as confirming same in the days following) – inasmuch around the time of puberty onwards, just like all adolescents, she had become increasingly serious as childhood fun had given way to those societally-inculcated responsibilities and obligations which are embedded, via affective vibes and psychic currents, into the instinctually affective maturation programme all sentient beings are genetically endowed with (as may be observed when frisky lambs turn into sedate sheep, for example, or when frolicsome calves transition to sombre cattle, for instance, or when playful kittens become staid cats, for yet another, as maturity takes its toll).

In other words, the persona who landed at the airport (that so-called ‘mature adult’ who wanted to gain clarity in regards ASC’s/PCE’s and life after parentage) had vanished without a trace in a matter of seconds the following evening, during intensive interaction with two fully-free fellow human beings, and thereafter she was living – as a feeling-being still – in a way which is akin to being as a child again but with the undeniable advantage of adult sensibilities.

Accordingly, the morning after she set-out in the company of Richard and Vineeto, as they repaired to a river-view caff for breakfast, with the express intention of finding out how to get away with being a big kid having a ball, in the otherwise grim and glum land of the grown-ups, in preparation for her return flight the following week.

As Richard was placing the orders and proffering the requisite emoluments Vineeto happily passed the time of the day with the owner-operator – herein known as ‘Kath’ for convenience – introducing the woman of Australasian birth and upbringing as she did so. After Kath’s immediately successful recognition of her distinguishable accent the two of them hit-it-off forthwith, along with much merriment and good-natured chiacking, whereafter Vineeto exclaimed to Kath how she was in particularly good spirits this sunny morn.

“Oh, I’m *always* in a good mood”, quoth Kath (a senior citizen known far and wide as a somewhat jaundiced and dour woman rapidly approaching a dreaded retirement age).

Her good spirits/ good mood persisted when she brought the breakfasts to the outside table under the spreading ficus tree – as well as later when she came out to serve coffee and clear away the plates – with her again reiterating how she was always feeling good and further explaining, what with her café being in the process of being sold, how much she was looking forward to her retirement and her plans for those fulfilling years wherein she could do whatever pleased her, at each time again, after a lifetime of service to others.

(As throughout the preceding weeks and months she had oft-times expressed, gloomily, how she had become too old to run her business – and was forced by circumstances beyond her control to sell-up her life’s work – as well as viewing her looming retirement with dread foreboding, this “always in a good mood” turnaround was quite remarkable, to say the least).

And the point of this quaint little riverside tale?

It is an event oft referred to since as the ‘Kath-Template’ as the episode in and of itself – an initial pure consciousness experience (PCE) levelling out into an ongoing excellence experience (EE) due to the milieu-effect (per favour a child-like feeling-being enjoying and appreciating an ongoing intimacy experience (IE), in the company of two fully-free fellow human beings, jovially chiacking at the order-and-pay counter) – demonstrated what would be likely to take place when a global peace occurs, upon humanity having reached a critical-mass of individual outbreaks of the already always existent peace-on-earth, in a domino-effect manner via the psychic network which all feeling-beings are involuntarily part-and-parcel of due to their very ‘being’ (which is ‘being’ itself).

All of Kath’s beliefs, truths, values, principles, prejudices, and etcetera, remained fully intact – whilst ‘she’ and ‘her’ feelings were abeyant for the duration – as in effect all what had happened was the garrulous social-identity ‘Kath’ had been temporarily rendered a ‘toothless tiger’ so to speak.

As will be the case for that elderly couple Mr. & Ms. Smith, of High Street, Any-Town, who will wake-up in a good mood on that extraordinarily auspicious and historically momentous day – which good spirits will of course persist throughout the day and all their days thereafter – and only gradually come to realise they were “always in a good mood” (as Kath had so nonchalantly observed in her river-view caff that fateful morn), and, further, as they compare notes with kith and kin, how humankind’s long-desired global peace had finally eventuated.

And thus does the ‘Kath-Template’ serve as being indicative of how the shadowy remnants of a lingering conscience-cum-guardian function as a fail-safe aspect of a non-destructive and/or non-disruptive transition.

And, just in case anybody is wondering whence such foretelling-type info is accessible, it is the consummate nature (i.e., the impeccable quality), of the overarching benevolence and benignity inherent to the utter purity of the pristine perfection welling ever-fresh as the vast and utter stillness of this universe’s spatial, temporal and material infinitude, which informs, existentially, how a global spread of this completely original consciousness (a totally new way of being conscious) would, ipso facto, be both a non-destructive and non-disruptive transition.

Furthermore, there is also the capacity to similarly apprehend, existentially, how it can now be said – as Richard had mentioned en passant on a couple of occasions during the pre-arranged foregathering in Ballina, in 2015, of half-a-dozen subscribers to the ‘Yahoo Groups’ forum – that due to the overarching benevolence and benignity being demonstrably available immanently in human consciousness, nowadays both masculinely and femininely, and thus potentially accessible per favour naïveté regardless of spatial extension, there is no longer any reason why there cannot be a global spread of the already always existing peace-on-earth in our lifetimes.

Please note: the words “why there cannot be” are *not* indicative of ‘will be’, nor even ‘likely to be’, but, rather, what they literally convey is how it is nowadays possible (“possible” not ‘probable’) for the global spread of actual freedom/ actualism to eventually take place.

Put succinctly, whilst there is nothing as yet indicative of any likelihood, even, in the foreseeable future it is well worth recalling how the epoch-changing events of late 2009/ early 2010 took Richard entirely by surprise – there had been no indication, not even an inkling, of such magicality being possible – and, furthermore, how he simply marvelled in amazement at just how magical this actual world could be, and, demonstrably, already was as four out of five of his select associates – one-after-another on a three-to-one female-to-male ratio – cheerfully and willingly manumitted their host bodies in a matter of weeks.

A truly wonderful state of affairs.

04. The Peasant Mentality.

There is, however, no rôle whatsoever for the peasant mentality – enumerated much further above as both a vocational persona (the peasant-or-squire aka villein-or-lord persona) and a class or caste persona (the commoner-or-aristocrat aka peasantry-or-gentry persona) which the social identity encompasses – nor for any lingering remnants thereof.

Indeed, any tugging-the-forelock servility – any ‘yes m’lud’ docility – or, obversely, any lordliness, any high-handed superbia, is contraindicated here in Terra Actualis where equity and parity prevails amongst fellow human beings sans instinctual passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof. Viz.:

> March 20 2000.

> RESPONDENT:

You say ‘equity and parity is the key to success’.

RICHARD: Yes, the ‘theory of mind’ signifies both *equity and parity* to be involuntarily automatic in any social situation. The question is: what is preventing this spontaneous recognition of being fellow human beings from flowing-on into all areas in common?

(...elided...).

RESPONDENT: I don’t know why you say that equity and parity are involuntarily automatic in any social situation.

RICHARD: Concurrent with the recognition of the other creature being a fellow human being comes a tacit ‘of course’ that one treats the other with the same consideration as one treats oneself; it is the implicit acknowledgment of ‘similarity’ (like species knows like species). However, this spontaneous attribution of *equity and parity* (which is consideration for the needs of both oneself and the other simultaneously) is, as I go on to say further below, hijacked, subverted, sabotaged.

(...elided...).

RESPONDENT: Equity. Parity. Are these just high-minded ideals, political theories divorced from the reality of everyday life in human societies?

RICHARD: Yes and no (and I am not being tricky here) in that yes, they are “just high-minded ideals” when applied as a discipline, a practice, a duty, and no, they are not “divorced from the reality of everyday life” when they come spontaneously, involuntarily, of their own accord. In a word: artlessly.

(...elided...).

RESPONDENT: Naturally, there is a dark side of democratic institutions that is well known...

RICHARD: And here you have put your finger on the nub of the issue: the spontaneity of *equity and parity* which comes with the recognition of being fellow human beings is hijacked, subverted, sabotaged. And by what?

RESPONDENT: (...). Greed is a factor: I think I am lacking and you have something I want; therefore, I am going to take it from you to acquire it for myself.

RICHARD: Is this greed triggered by a primal (human condition) cause or a proximate (human conditioning) cause?

RESPONDENT: Conditioned fear is another factor. Our lives have sometimes been derailed by violence, you know, children are abused, mistreated, and it perpetuates this wheel of sorrow.

RICHARD: Yes (although sorrow itself has a much deeper cause; but that is another topic). These are contributing factors; what I am looking for is what ‘I’ am doing to hijack, subvert, sabotage this spontaneous *equity and parity*. What other human beings do is their own business; only unilateral action will do the trick.

(...elided...).

RESPONDENT: Yes, you are quite right. I had not seen that before but it makes sense. To say ‘this is the way it is ... human beings are basically greedy ...’, to start with an assumption like this rather than leaving the question open and starting with inquiry, as we (sometimes) do here, however imperfectly, is bound to produce a whole system based on false premises. It is an approach designed to produce a particular end. Now, I hear you saying that equity and parity are involuntarily automatic when we recognise others as our fellow human beings.

RICHARD: Yes, if one says that human beings are only ‘basically greedy’ or only ‘basically selfish’ – and there is nothing else – then an investigation is stymied before it gets off the ground (for then it is all over: ‘this is a sorry world’; ‘the universe is a sick joke’; ‘life is a bitch and then you die’, and so on and so on). Then one has no alternative but to construct evermore elaborate coping mechanisms (...).

(...elided...).

RESPONDENT: So, where do equity and parity come into the picture?

RICHARD: Only unilateral action will do the trick.

RESPONDENT: Action as in not of thought? Care to expound?

RICHARD: By ‘unilateral’ I mean that living with *equity and parity* is something one does entirely on one’s own; it does not depend upon the cooperation of others. What they do is their business (as long as they comply with the legal laws and observe the social protocols, they are left alone to live their lives as wisely or as foolishly as they choose). One does not have to concern oneself about any other person’s modus operandi at all; they can carry on being grotty if that is what turns them on. Therefore, one’s basic starting point is this: how can one live with *equity and parity* in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are?

(...elided...).

It is the pure intent to live in peace and harmony (*equity and parity*) irregardless of other’s intentions that fuels the process. [emphases added]. (Richard, List B, No. 37, 20 March 2000).

*

March 18 2000.

RICHARD:

Whilst it is true that men overtly ‘rule the roost’ and/or ‘hold the reins of power’ yet all the while women covertly ‘define the parameters’ and/or ‘dictate the rules’. Or, in the words of Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos: (...elided...). So as to assist in coming out of the ’sixties, where the battle of the sexes climbed sharply towards its zenith, and here into the ’naughties, where *equity and parity* is the key to success, you may or may not find the following URL helpful: (...elided...).

RESPONDENT: You’ve got it right. Covert leads to overt, and overt get into trouble while covert looks like an angel. Empower women over men and chaos is the result.

RICHARD: Hmm ... the last time I looked chaos already reigned supreme. As for “empowering women over men” (or empowering men over women): as neither women nor men can ever have the upper hand (it is only the overt/ covert balance of power interaction that can ever change) you need not be concerned about your scenario coming to fruition (for men would covertly ‘define the parameters’ as women now do to keep excesses in check through holding the high moral ground if or when women ever overtly ‘hold the reins of power’). If you fondly imagine that you are currently “empowered” over women then it is time to go back to your drawing board and redraft your thesis in accord with the facts (I take it that you either did not access the URL provided or did not find it informative if you did). Besides all this: is the need for power itself that is the problem – not who currently overtly or covertly holds it – which is why I suggested coming out of the ’sixties and here into the ’naughties, where *equity and parity* is the key to success. The cathartic ‘airing one’s dirty linen in public’ of the ’sixties is over for those who actually looked at the dirt displayed.

RESPONDENT: There is always a legitimate need for power in any family.

RICHARD: Why? And where has outwardly dominating one’s partner (overt power) ever lead to peace and harmony? And where has outward subservience (covert power) towards one’s partner ever lead to peace and harmony?

RESPONDENT: There is no such thing as parity.

RICHARD: Why not? Do you have a problem with being on a par, in having equivalence, with your partner? If so, why do you need to outwardly dominate her (overt power)? Similarly, does your partner have a problem with being on a par, in having equivalence, with you? If so, why does she need to be outwardly subservient (covert power)?

RESPONDENT: In every family one parent has more power than the other and it will always be that way.

RICHARD: Hmm ... as you have already stated (further above) that to “empower women over men and chaos is the result” then this politically correct sentence of yours now reads: ‘in every family [the man] has more power than [the woman] and it will always be that way’. Other than because it says so in the Christian scriptures why do you consider this to be the way it will always be? Where is the evidence of history to demonstrate that the man outwardly dominating the woman, and the woman outwardly submitting to the man, has evinced any peace and harmony ... let alone an enduring peace and harmony? Why do you want to insist on preserving the ‘tried and failed’ overt/ covert power battle between the sexes? Is this not all sick?

RESPONDENT: The idea that there is a 50-50 situation exists only in someone’s imagination.

RICHARD: Yet the idea that ‘the man has more power than the woman’ only exists in someone’s imagination ... and presumably some patriarch’s imagination at that. Similarly, the idea that ‘the woman has more power than the man’ only exists in someone’s imagination ... and presumably some matriarch’s imagination. Why persist in a blind sickness?

RESPONDENT: Of course there is also an illegitimate need for power. That is obvious.

RICHARD: Why is it obvious? I do not see any basis for a legitimate need for power ... let alone a basis for “an illegitimate need for power”: any and all power is a sickness, whether one be dominant (overt power) or subservient (covert power).

RESPONDENT: In that case why are you trying to overpower people on the list through extensive verbiage? That is your prime endeavour here.

RICHARD: Not so ... am I to take it that you have you nothing further to contribute to the previous dialogue (above)? If so, are you in agreement or not?

RESPONDENT: It is so.

RICHARD: It is not so. You will need to elaborate so as to avoid a continuation of this ’tis/’tisn’t school-child nonsense (or next you may very well be going ‘nah-nah yah-boo-sucks’).

RESPONDENT: That is your prime directive.

RICHARD:

It is not my “directive” at all ... let alone the “prime directive”. If you re-read the exchange (further above) this will become obvious.

RESPONDENT:

You are involved with your own feelings of power.

RICHARD:

As I have neither power nor feelings (which are one and the same thing) I cannot possibly be involved in what you hypothesise at all.

RESPONDENT:

It is apparent to anyone who wants to look at it.

RICHARD:

I am looking at it ... I am not seeing what you see. I am seeing there is *equity and parity* (not to be confused with equality) in all of my interactions with my fellow human beings. Again, if you re-read the exchange (further above) this will become obvious ... provided you are not looking for equality. I am as honest about explaining my interactions as I am in the actuality of my participation. (Richard, List B, No. 21b, 18 March 2000a).

(...elided...).

RESPONDENT: You think the problem is a matter of equality.

RICHARD:

Not at all ... and I made this clear right from the beginning when I initially wrote: [quote]: “...it is the need for power itself that is the problem – not who currently overtly or covertly holds it – which is why I suggested coming out of the ’sixties and here into the ’naughties, where *equity and parity* is the key to success”. [endquote].

So as to explicate why *equity and parity* is the sensible approach, perhaps you may be inclined to consider two very common platitudes ... but juxtaposed for clarity. Viz.: ‘we are all unique’ | ‘we are all equal’. (Richard, List B, No. 21b, 22 March 2000).

(...elided...).

RESPONDENT: Love has good will and is benevolent.

RICHARD:

Hmm ... love also has ill-will and malevolence. Have you not heard of the ‘crimes of passion’? Even the gods are not immune.

RESPONDENT:

Untrue ... love has no ill will at all, and cannot or it is not love.

RICHARD:

If that be the case then no person – and no god – has ever had or has ever been love.

RESPONDENT:

Love can be forceful if necessary if the situation calls for it but there is no malevolence at all. Love can kill if it is required without ill will. The nature of the energy is the qualification.

RICHARD:

The “nature of the energy” called love has two faces irregardless of the “qualification”.

RESPONDENT:

Only in regard to good or evil.

RICHARD:

Of course ... what else could it be in regard to?

RESPONDENT:

As was written somewhere, truth is a double edged sword; it cuts some down and raises some up.

RICHARD:

So much for *equity and parity* , eh? [emphases added]. (Richard, List B, No. 21f, 10 September 2001).

*

June 19 2015.

RESPONDENT:

Meanwhile, I also wondered if you had discussed about peasant mentality with Peter and Vineeto, during their feeling being days, because there is no mention of this peasant mentality even in their journals...

RICHARD:

Yes, it was discussed – mostly touched upon from time-to-time, as appropriate to a particular situation and/or set of circumstances, rather than emphasised as a core issue in regards to actualism/ actual freedom – and the main aspect which feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ (for example) came to grips with in the early days was loyalty.

A clue as to how soon that topic came up is contained in a snippet of a discussion about loyalty itself which happened to be tape-recorded, in 1997, and transcribed in ‘The Compassion Gained Through Forgiveness Binds’. A short way down the page the following exchange takes place. Viz.: (...elided...). In that text I am reminding ‘her’ how there had been a conversation about loyalty on the second or third occasion ‘she’ had visited – and I can recall, even now, how on that initial occasion it had touched a responsive chord in ‘her’ as something vital to examine – as ‘she’ had shifted ‘her’ familially-inculcated and societally-instilled allegiance to ‘the system’ at large over onto the spiritual commune which ‘she’ had been a live-in member for the better part of nigh-on seventeen years.

It was still the ‘peasant-mentality’, of course, just in a different guise (and which the spiritually enlightened beings/ the mystically awakened ones, being feeling-beings themselves, affectively/ psychically tap into with full effect).

Speaking of which: as no such effect operates here in ‘Terra Actualis’ – no loyalty to be bound with; no allegiance to be held by – there is no way any application whatsoever of ‘Das Führerprinzip’ (either of the secular, as in ‘Auctoritas Principis’ in Ancient Rome, or the sacred variety; as in “Not what I will, O Lord, but what Thou wilt”) could ever succeed.

Here *equity and parity* prevails.

[emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, No. 32a, 19 June 2015).

*

June 01 2015.

JONATHAN: Thanks Richard, it was illuminating to have another read of article 20 again. I was able to relate to more of it this time around. I think the last time I read it, I was mainly just able to grasp that the community exists for the individual, which is an amazing insight because it’s 180 degrees from the accepted wisdom. As an example, one of our most famous presidents, JFK, said: ‘Don’t ask what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country’.

RICHARD:

Hmm ... it does appear that yet another read of Article 20 in ‘Richard’s Journal’ would be in order because chiastic rhetoric (the inversion of the order of words in the second of two parallel phrases) about unselfish USA citizens, as Mr. John Kennedy made popular with his version in his 1961 hortatory address, is not ‘180 degrees’ from what is conveyed in Article 20 but, rather, the obverse of similar rhetoric about selfish USA citizens. Viz.: (...elided...). By way of demonstration, here is the precise wording (of that example of the ‘accepted wisdom’ you provided):

> • ‘Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country’.

And here is what ‘180 degrees’ from that example of the ‘accepted wisdom’ looks like:

> • ‘Ask not what you can do for your country – ask what your country can do for you’.

Article 20 is not about either selfish or unselfish citizens of any nation (a.k.a. ‘country’). It is about what ensues where a flesh-and-blood body is actually selfless – where ‘selfless’ means sans any identity whatsoever (just as ‘penniless’ means sans any money whatsoever) – which is where the community no longer acts for ‘the good of the whole’ (inasmuch ‘the whole’ has vanished along with ‘the self’) and thus acts as it has been acting all along, in actuality, for the good of each and every flesh-and-blood body.

(Please note well that last part: the reason why the community acts for the good of each and every flesh-and-blood body, here in this actual world, is because that very community *is* each and every flesh-and-blood body/ each and every flesh-and-blood body *is* that very community).

Furthermore, by being actually selfless – which means a total absence of both selfishness and its antidotal unselfishness – an actual intimacy prevails (due to an utter absence of any separative identity whatsoever); with no separation whatsoever fellowship regard is automatically the default condition (whereby it is impossible to not like one’s fellow human being); with that involuntary fellowship regard of an actual intimacy operating, come-what-may, acting in a mutually beneficial way is the status-in-quo (the complete absence of any self-centricity whichsoever ensures *equity and parity* be paramount).

[emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, Jonathan, 1 June 2015).

That last paragraph in the above June 2015 response – about being actually selfless (the total absence of both selfishness and its antidotal unselfishness whereat an actual intimacy prevails and fellowship regard is automatically the default condition come-what-may) whereby it be impossible to not like one’s fellow human being and acting in a mutually beneficial way is the status-in-quo – provides a valuable clue as to why equity and parity do not prevail for an actualist sans instinctual passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof yet still hosting those shadowy remnants of a lingering (and hijacking, subverting, sabotaging) conscience-cum-guardian ... to wit: it is only the complete absence of any self-centricity *whichsoever* whereby equity and parity be paramount.

Further to this salient point, when Richard returned from his six-month sojourn in India, in September 2010, his primary focus was on a quite understandable yet inexcusable tendency he had observed amongst the handful of newly-free actualists to inadvertently import real-world values into Terra Actualis – similar to the first colonisers in Terra Australis over two centuries ago bringing their British values with them as a matter-of-course – and, as Terra Actualis was going to increasingly become populated, he then utilised any spare periods over the next decade engaged in an extensive study into how various societies operate and function (with an especial focus on the built-in failure of the prevailing economic systems to deliver equity and parity for all participants and further exploration of the convivium alternative to the ménage à deux nuclear family arrangement).

05. An illustrative Example.

To finish with the case du jour as an illustrative example: to have allowed those shadowy remnants to coalesce and reassert control (thereby dictating how an actually free person *should* think, operate and behave) is to have reduced oneself to sniping away at Richard and Vineeto from the sidelines – and on a flawed-from-the-get-go thread started by a persona who plays poker for a living to boot (i.e., who has bluffed glibly, as a business-model modus operandi, for so long as to nowadays be ‘second-nature’ for him) – with such pearlers as [quote] “Then there’s the thornier question of whether this sort of contrarianism (assuming it’s not entirely correct) has anything to do with actual freedom or not, *its progenitors*, or actually free people in general” [emphasis added] which bespeaks a vibrant peasant mentality afflicted by the ‘tall-poppy syndrome’.

To have further reduced oneself to opining on how [quote] “its cool that an interested solitary amateur wants to do their ‘own research’ on a highly technical subject which has thousands of post-docs and profs. puzzling it over” [endquote] – along with its vacuous qualifier [quote] “but there are some real drawbacks with going it alone and untrained (...) at the expense of getting rid of the whole picture which might be somewhat ambiguous” [endquote] – bespeaks a vibrant peasant mentality afflicted by the fabled ‘sour grapes’ disparagement.

The following example, however, is particularly piquant (already part-quoted in the third footnote in paragraph three of ‘Addendum Four’). Viz.:

> • [Holy Lord] “The list of contentious views that Richard and Vineeto have on a number of subjects are fairly long – climate change, smoking, NWO (didn’t know about that one) and a fair few others. (...elided...). Does actual freedom give one a privileged and neutral POV in terms of weighing evidence? But if so why do these ideas sound like recycled conspiracy memes, *rather than something refreshingly novel – like actual freedom itself?”* Given I haven’t heard these views from anyone other than Richard and Vineeto, I don’t think it’s something related to actual freedom. My guess is it’s something to do with their individual personalities and histories.” [emphasis added]. (Cause of Bias; 9 February 2023; Message № 131). [https://discuss.actualism.online/t/cause-of-bias/783/131].

And its particular piquancy comes from pondering upon what could possibly be more refreshingly novel – like actual freedom itself – than exposing the lie of the “basic physics” (i.e., the basic premiss the entirety of the vast edifice constituting the neo-ludditean Anthropogenic Global Warming scam is predicated on) which climate sceptics [quote] “like Bjorn Lomborg, Judith Curry and Steve Koonin – far as I can tell” [endquote] do not dispute? Viz.:

> • [Holy Lord]: “I’m dubious about some aspects of AGW. But *the basic physics* that governs the premise *isn’t one of them*. (...elided...). One thing to consider for those who are tempted to pick a side is that spectrum of opinions about AGW is vast and can take a variety of forms. (...elided...). One could for example *not dispute the physics* of CO2 driven AGW, but question the ability to empirically be certain of the effects of this against the background of natural climate variability. Or one could also question the data about the feedback and feed-forward effects of climate on AGW, the inherent unreliability of climate models, the manufactured consensus among climate scientists and the social pressures they face. Then one can also question the solutions. All of this can be done *without necessarily questioning the basic physics* of AGW. Climate sceptics like Bjorn Lomborg, Judith Curry and Steve Koonin – far as I can tell *don’t dispute the basic physics* of CO2 driven AGW.” [fourfold emphases added]. (Global Warming-Climate Change; 28 April 2023; Message № 229).
> [https://discuss.actualism.online/t/global-warming-climate-change/806/229].

> • [Holy Lord]: “I’m going to go with the earth scientists who do this for this for a living for now. They’re a diverse bunch with unity in their POV’s being more apparent than real. But even the vast majority of climate sceptic physicists *have no beef with GHE*. Their questions are about other aspects of AGW – tipping points, background natural variability, feedbacks, climate models... etc. Anyway those strike me as *more fruitful targets for scepticism than GHE* – although not nearly as sexy and dramatic...”. [emphases added]. (Global Warming-Climate Change; 06 May 2023; 806/249.
> [https://discuss.actualism.online/t/global-warming-climate-change/806/249].

Hmm ... all the above groupthink conformity, and much more elsewhere, bespeaks a servile and/or docile peasant mentality who “vill own nothing and vill be happy!” in the mayhap-not-too-far-distant future if all continues to proceed according to a newly-crowned monarch’s “sustainable markets initiative” to kick-start a propertyless and cashless global economic system (a.k.a. a top-down covid-inspired New World Order).

06. A Seismic Shift in World Affairs.

Then again, in a video-recording published on February 15, 2023, Mr. Andy Schectman (a prominent figure in the financial services industry for more than twenty-five years, during which he has served as president and owner of Miles Franklin, Precious Metals, Ltd), lays out a well-considered case detailing how the global economic system – along with upwards of eighty percent of the world’s population – is in the process of undergoing a fundamental shift away from the fifty-year-old petrodollar reserve currency which this “sustainable markets initiative” is ineluctably reliant on for the requisite multitrillions in ᴇsɢ investment funding (e.g., sovereign wealth funds, pension funds/ super funds, insurance and asset portfolios).

Who would have ever considered even for a moment – other than Mr. Charles Mackay, of “Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” fame – just how instrumental flat-earth mathematics could be in initiating a melodramatic train of events played-out over half a century and ultimately triggering such a seismic shift in world affairs, eh?

Ain’t life grand!

__________

• Back to Contents Page.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Richard’s and Vineeto’s Text ©1997-
. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions