”
Please note that Vineeto’s correspondence below was written by the actually free Vineeto
(List D refers to Richard’s List D and his Respondent Numbers) ” Vineeto’s Correspondence with Roy on Discuss Actualism Forum November 28 2024 VINEETO: Hi Roy, Welcome to the forum, I do enjoy your introduction. ROY: Ps: needless to say that these realizations were only possible because at some point I stumbled upon this website actualfreedom.com.au and the writings of a man named Richard but more importantly the writings of a woman named Vineeto which connected with me in a way like nothing I’ve read before. I wish I could be physically near her so I could hug her and thank her. ” VINEETO: Thank you for your appreciation for ‘Vineeto’s’ writings. When I became actually free I was consequently quite suss of the words feeling being ‘Vineeto’ had written, and not sure if they were not misleading, so I am pleased you found them useful. Keep in mind though that they were written by a feeling being and thus could contain inaccurate information as well as helpful hints. ROY: But at first I read the website only to dismiss it completely – it happened multiple times. Somehow – as meaningful these writings were – I felt the need to reject them. But later, experiences would always lead me to realize things that had been written on the website in clear and simple words all along. VINEETO: I do like your honesty and sense of humour … and your persistence to come back to reading again after first dismissals. It bodes well for your further discoveries about of how to even more enjoy and appreciate being alive. (Richard, Articles, This Moment of Being Alive). ROY: Now I’ve spent many hours reading the pages yet it seems it is never ending and that I’ve only scratched the surface – seems like I’ve only read 1%. I think it is taking me longer because I’m not always ready to understand what is being said. I keep reading the same pages but I focus on different aspects of it every time. Now I’m a bit worried that once I read new things on the website I’ll disagree with them but of course that may happen and it’s fine. VINEETO: It does serve you well to read Richard’s words more than once, there is so much to discover that is new to human consciousness. ‘Vineeto’ used to say that after the first few weeks of listening to Richard, reading his words, especially regarding the effects any and all attempts to fit this totally new paradigm into ‘her’ existing mindset were having, ‘she’ explained to Richard the process as being ... (1.) as if ‘her’ brain was being turned upside-down ... and how (2.) ‘she’ was having to relearn how to think all over again. So yes, it often took ‘her’ a few repeated readings of his words before it clicked and often ‘she’ would find new insights and unexpected gems. That is one of the reasons why you will find many repetitions on the website. ROY: I can and must make up my own mind about things and think for myself – thankfully, gone is the time that I wasn’t aware that was the case. VINEETO: Oh yes, that is essential, and the best way to do this is to verify it with you own experiential understanding. I remember well that a lot of things fell into place when ‘Vineeto’ had ‘her’ first major pure consciousness experience (Actualism, Vineeto, Bit of Vineeto, #finally), it was the essential breakthrough to be able to begin to "think for myself" in regards to the radical, life-changing third alternative of actuality that was being presented in contrast to being either spiritual or materialistic. Let me know if you would like some clarification on anything written on the AFT website, I am probably the only person, who has read everything Richard has ever written. Cheers Vineeto PS: I just re-read the first part of your introduction and it occurred to me that you might be interested in this correspondence (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Mark) who had similar intelligent questions as you reported. December 3 2024 ROY: … some days ago I had to climb to a roof with my father and I started shaking and my heart started racing. My father noticed this and asked since when was I afraid of heights because he knows that when I was a child I loved climbing trees and being in high places had never been an issue. Indeed I asked myself the same question! Somehow I became an adult with fear of heights. The next day we once again had to climb to the roof but this time I was prepared – I remembered a report from feeling being Vineeto and I was determined to simply observe what my mind would do this time and for my surprise it simply … didn’t do anything. The trembling and the heart racing didn’t even start and it was as if I was taking a walk in the park. This was yet another experience where it was obvious that my mind was sabotaging me to keep me from moving forward – to force me to be in a place of sameness. VINEETO: Hi Roy, A great story what attentiveness can do. Being aware in advance of any potential feelings prevented them from occurring. Kuba already pointed out that ‘mind’ is not only comprised of thought but the primary reaction comes from the instinctual passions (and the feeling being/identity formed thereof). Thoughts only kick in when the brain is already flooded with feeling-induced hormones for the ‘quick and dirty’ instinctual response (12 milli seconds for feelings, 24 milli seconds for thoughts). ‘Peter’ and ‘Vineeto’ produced several illustrative diagrams (Library, Brainschemes) to explain this effect, which Joseph LeDoux had confirmed with his laboratory experiments. You can also look at it from the evolutionary standpoint that a baby is born with feelings while their thought processes develop much later. The ‘mind’ has not only been much maligned in the spiritual arena, it has also been imbued with divine powers according to the belief that consciousness creates matter – in other words ‘mind’ is a multi-faceted word. While the mind the one hand “can be a fertile breeding-ground for hallucinations, for emotional and passionate thought” (Richard, List B, No. 11, 25 April 1998), it is on the other hand “the most marvellous tool possible ... it can get you out of the mess that is the Human Condition with remarkable alacrity” (Richard, List B, No. 11, 28 April 1998). It depends on your own discerning intelligence. Here is how the one dictionary describes it – ‘mind: 1. The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination. 2. The collective conscious and unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behaviour. 3. The principle of intelligence; the spirit of consciousness regarded as an aspect of reality. 4. The faculty of thinking, reasoning, and applying knowledge’. (The American Heritage® Dictionary). Attentiveness (Richard, Articles, Attentiveness, Sensuousness, Apperceptiveness), especially affective attentiveness, (which you employed on the roof the other day) can help you sort out feelings from facts and emotions from cognitive thoughts and will allow you to slowly find out how your mind ticks. ROY: I sensed some urgency because I truly believe we collectively need to understand that we need to take this leap and become free of the human condition because otherwise this big brain of ours will continue taking us in this path of war against each other and against earth itself until we become extinct. VINEETO: While you are correct in understanding that it is vitally important to “become free of the human condition”, this is an action which can only be done individually, unilaterally, because the only person you can, and need to, change is yourself. Nobody likes to be changed, that would only cause resentment and conflict, hence everyone has to do this for themselves if and when they are ready. Many people have fallen for various doomsday predictions (Sundry, Facts and Groupthink, Doomsday Clock) that the human race will become extinct (and there have been plenty in the past centuries as well) but so far the instincts for the survival of the species have prevented any final catastrophe. There is no point in allowing an understandable but automatic fear-response to prevent you from doing all you can yourself to become free from the human condition at your own pace. It’s a grand adventure, and while all the wars and suicides and murders and domestic violence plus the awareness of your personal malice and sorrow provide the backpressure, the magnificence of the actual infinite universe will pull you from ahead. Cheers Vineeto December 3 2024 ROY: Today I became frustrated because it seems I’m not going anywhere near being free of this constant thinking about myself.[…] I read the website and I learn nothing. It’s all there. It is basic. But I read it and nothing sticks. Am I blocking it because I can’t accept it? I can’t accept the fact that I’m living an illusion? VINEETO; It is very difficult to accept as a concept that you are “living an illusion” until you have experienced that alternative, i.e. an experience of the actual world called pure consciousness experience. Richard: What I usually say is that there is sufficient information available on The Actual Freedom Trust web site to establish a prima-facie case worthy of further investigation – rather than capricious dismissal as having all been said before – and thus (intellectually) find out what actualism is on about ... and then see what happens. In other words: what one can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written. Then it is the PCE that is one’s lodestone or guiding light ... not me or my words. My words then offer confirmation ... and affirmation in that a fellow human being has safely walked this wide and wondrous path. (Richard, Abditorium, Prima Facie Case). Cheers Vineeto January 18 2025 ROY: Hi everyone that reads this. I hope things are going well with you. I just wanted to add a quick update to this journal. I’ve been feeling good for most of the time lately. The problem I was trying to resolve was the fact that I thought too much about myself all the time. These thoughts were mostly about the future, so they were basically just worrying about the future. It’s hard to experience the present moment when you are lost in thoughts… I realized that most people in this forum had past experiences with spirituality and found out it was not the answer, but maybe it was a necessary step for them in the journey. I always dismissed in my life everything that was about spiritual experiences, but this time I ended up doing some very basic meditation for the first time in my life. Just sitting and seeing what happens, and it seems the problem is the lack of attention. After a month I finally internalized what I think people mean by “you are not your thoughts”. I’m not my thoughts in the sense that I don’t seem to consciously create them. They appear out of the blue and there’s nothing I have to do about it. And by internalizing this now I know I don’t need to engage with them. They show up and… here they are… and then I can pay attention to them and let them go. This not only gives me a lot of peace and relief but my bad moods now also start and end a lot quicker. Because these negative feelings seem to always be a consequence of these thoughts, which I now am able to dismiss. I can’t prevent them from showing up, but I don’t have to entertain them. So I still feel anger, fear, etc. but I return to a state of feeling good and in peace more quickly. VINEETO: Hi Roy, Welcome back. Because you decided to try out spirituality and now believe that “because these negative feelings seem to always be a consequence of these thoughts” – let me acquaint you with some fact which perhaps spirituality (which has a history of 3000-5000 years) has not yet taken on board – • [Richard]: 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 … [emphases added] (Richard, the Formation and Persistence of Social Identity). Just to be clear, this is not only something Richard says but it has been verified by scientific experiments by Joseph LeDoux, that sensory input comes first, thoughtless emotional response comes second (12 milliseconds after the sensory input) and thoughtful instinctual-emotional response comes third (24 milliseconds after sensory input). (Library, Topics, Brainschemes). As such negative thoughts are obviously a consequence of negative feelings/instinctual passions. ROY: One thing however is that during the day, I feel a lot better but it doesn’t feel like a PCE, because I’m “aware that I’m aware”, if that makes sense? I’m not absorbed in the moment – I consciously choose to be engaged with the moment. In PCEs everything happens automatically without me intervening. At the end of a PCE, it feels like I didn’t choose anything consciously — things happened without consciously thinking? I wonder if with time, it will become “natural” to be present in the moment without putting any conscious effort into it. As usual I write this and don’t edit or sit on it too much so I can be a bit more honest with myself… VINEETO: So that you don’t confuse a PCE with other choiceless or thoughtless happenings, and thus miss out on the genuine experience of perfection – here is one description of a PCE – Richard: A peak experience (PCE) is when everything is seen to be already perfect – it always has been and always will be – and that ‘I’, the self, have been standing in the way of the perfection being apparent. Normally the mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data received according to its predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ... it is taken to be unknowable. In a PCE there is apperception operating. Apperception happens when the ‘who’ inside abdicates its throne and a pure awareness occurs. The PCE is as if one has eyes in the back of one’s head; there is a three hundred and sixty degree awareness and all is self-evidently clear. This is knowing by direct experience, unmediated by any ‘who’ whatsoever. One is able to see that the ‘who’ of one has been standing in the way of the perfection and purity that is the essential nature of this moment of being here becoming apparent. Here a solid and irrefutable native intelligence can operate freely because the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’ are extirpated. Then what one is (‘what’ not ‘who’) is these sense organs in operation: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. Whereas ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the world as-it-is (the actual world) by ‘my’ very presence. (Richard, List B, No. 20, 15 February 1998). And here is another sent in today by a forum-member – JesusCarlos: I remember a wonderful moment in particular during that PCE. My gaze was fixed on the horizon, far away, and beyond the horizon, towards what was no longer visible. A thought associated with infinity arose: what I really am has the capacity to see very far, further than what is considered normal. This is its true capacity. To be able to see beyond the present, towards the enormous and infinite of this vast universe. And with that gaze, to look again at the immediate: there was perfection. Cheers Vineeto January 21 2025 ROY: I went over this again … because I began to question if what I had were PCEs. I think they were. What I have, I can only describe how it feels like, when I remember it, after it ends. And it’s like if it was a “dream” in the sense that everything was perfect and happened automatically without me intervening at all (no choices, no doubts, no emotions…) and in the sense that I had no notion of time passing. Colors and taste can be described as perfect, I can see that. But I can’t say that when I hear “becoming the sensations” I’m reminded of how it felt like. In a way, in these episodes I don’t realize how different I am: it’s simply that everything works out great and I’m not messing it up and I’m not thinking about it. VINEETO: Hi Roy, Thank you for the feedback. It is vital to know if one’s PCEs were the genuine article because they are your only reliable experiential lodestone, your reference guide for what you are aiming for. Other actualists’ words can give you confirmation but only you yourself can verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written. PCEs can be of a different quality and length and each one gives more information about aspects of the actual world. Personally, ‘Vineeto’ looked for the magical element in ‘her’ PCEs, which for ‘her’ were the best indicators if it was an excellence experience(Richard, List B, No. 20, 15 February 1998). (Richard, Selected Correspondence, Excellence). or a PCE. And when ‘she’ experienced in a PCE that this is how ‘she’ wanted to live ‘her’ life forever, that was the final arbiter. From the above experiences, you already have gleaned useful information, which you can apply to how to best enjoy and appreciate each moment and that is wonderful (such as “it’s simply that everything works out great and I’m not messing it up” and “no choices, no doubts, no emotions”) … and more will follow. Regarding “becoming the sensations”, here is an early description from Richard about a PCE where he experienced being the senses only during his enlightened period – Richard: ”‘I remember the first time I experienced being the senses only during a peak experience. There was no identity as ‘I’ thinking or ‘me’ feeling ... simply this body ambling across a grassy field in the early-morning light. A million dew-drenched spider-webs danced a sparkling delight over the verdant vista and a question that had been running for some weeks became experientially answered: without the senses I would not know that I exist. And further to this: I was the senses and the senses were me. With this comes an awareness of being conscious ... apperception’ [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Alan, pce). This PCE happened when ‘Richard’ was still in the long process of sorting out his altered state of consciousness (1981-1992) when the above-described experience gave ‘him’ some more clues about the actual world – Richard: ”Without any identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) the distance or separation between ‘me’ and ‘my’ senses – and thus the external world – disappears. To be the senses as a bare awareness is apperception, a pure consciousness experience of the world as-it-is. Because there is no ‘I’ as an observer – a little person inside one’s head – to have sensations, I am the sensations. There is nothing except the series of sensations which happen ... not to ‘me’ but just happening ... moment by moment ... one after another. To be these sensations, as distinct from having them, engenders the most astonishing sense of freedom and release. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Alan, pce). I am only mentioning this so you can understand that the realisation that “being the senses only” is not necessarily an early information one receives from a PCE, and especially as in normal perception-mode sensate experience is overlaid by feelings, emotions and passions and often feeling-fed thoughts. Cheers Vineeto January 31 2025 ROY: I think it’s correct to state that actualists would say that consciousness emerges from purely physical systems. KUBA: There would be a mistake in stating that, in that ‘consciousness’ would then be taken as a ‘thing in itself’ the same way as a ‘self’ is. Whereas what consciousness actually is, is those very physical systems in operation. So “consciousness emerging” in this context becomes an invitation for the metaphysical once more - where science seems to be stuck with their understanding also. ROY: My “theory” is that it’s more plausible that consciousness emerges just like life emerges. I would even say that they are one and the same, explained with different concepts. And so becoming conscious is the same as being born, and death is the end of it all (the actual person or feeling-being). VINEETO: Hi Roy and Kuba, I happen to find a good additional formulation today – RESPONDENT: What happens when your body dies? Does the peace-on-earth that you know goes with it? RICHARD: Oh no, not at all ... this peace-on-earth is already always here. It always has been and always will be, for it is the utter peace of the perfect infinitude of this physical universe itself. Here is a vast stillness that is everywhere all at once ... being nowhere in particular, we are anywhere at all in the universe’s infinity of space and eternity of time. We are all coming from nowhere and are not going anywhere for there is nowhere to come from and nowhere to go to ... we are already here and it is always now. When this body dies, its apperceptive awareness – which is what one refers to by the first person pronoun – dies right along with it, of course, for they are one and the same thing. There is no ‘I’ or ‘me’ lurking around inside this body creating its mischief and dreaming dreams of a glorious – or hideous – immortality in some specious After-Life. However, when this body physically dies, edified human access to this actual peace-on-earth dies along with it ... which is why I write so prolifically. I have accumulated 250,000 words so far ... subscribing to a Mailing List is one way of getting more words out. Answering all kinds of questions causes me to consider that which would normally not occur to me to write about. [emphasis added] (Richard, List B, No. 23, 29 Mar 1998). Cheers Vineeto February 12 2025 ROY: Life is already pretty great as it is. But there are times that something happens, and it’s apparent that if I was free from this natural and social conditioning, it would have been different – specially for others: the experience of others you be better if I didn’t behave the way I behaved. That part, being “harmless” is as appealing to me, as being “happy” at this point, I think. VINEETO: Hi Roy, I like what you wrote here – I remember ‘Vineeto’ writing about how ‘she’ discovered that feeling harmless was not enough, ‘she’ recognized that ‘she’ wanted to be harmless, not just feel harmless. Vineeto: The reason I said that there is a remarkable difference between *feeling* harmless and actually being harmless is because it is easy to assess one’s happiness by checking if I am feeling happy whereas many people may feel themselves to be harmless when they are not experiencing feelings of aggression or anger against somebody. Yet they are nevertheless causing harm via their thoughtless ‘self’-oriented instinctual feelings and actions, something that all human beings are prone to do unless they become fully aware of their instinctual passions *before* these translate into vibes and/or actions. It was about a year into my process of actualism when I became aware of how much my outlook on the world and on people had changed in that my cloak of myopic ‘self’-centredness began to lift and I no longer saw the world only ‘my’ way and my judgments and actions no longer revolved around ‘my’ interests, ‘my’ beliefs, ‘my’ ideas, ‘my’ ideals, ‘my’ fears, ‘my’ desires and ‘my’ aversions. Consequently I have learnt to judge harmlessness by the amount of parity and consideration I apply to others whom I come in contact with, both at work and at play, and not by merely feeling myself to be harmless. (…) I remember well the first evening when I looked at Peter and saw him as just another human being – not as a partner, a mate, a member of the other gender, a lover, a sexual object, a valuable addition to my circle of friends, and not as someone who would approve or disapprove of me – simple another fellow human being. Suddenly the separation I felt was gone and there was a delicious intimacy, as ‘I’ was no longer attempting to force him to fit into ‘my’ world. I was astounded and shocked by this experience, being outside of my so familiar ‘self’-centred and ‘self-oriented skin, because I realized that never before, not once in our 3-months acquaintance, had I been able, or even interested, to see him as a person in his own right. I was shocked at how all of my perception and consequently all of my interactions were driven by what *I* wanted, what *I* expected and what *I* believed him to be and how much I was therefore constantly at odds with how he actually was. The reason I am telling this story is because this experience was the beginning of a slow and wide-ranging realization that as long as I live in ‘my’ world – made up of ‘my’ worldview, ‘my’ beliefs, opinions, feelings and survival passions – I cannot help but struggle to fit everyone into ‘my’ world, as actors on the stage of ‘my’ play, so to speak, as family and aliens, as friends and enemies, as ‘good’ people and ‘bad’ people. And not only am ‘I’ busy trying to do this, everyone else – all six billion of us – are equally struggling to fit everyone into ‘their’ world. It then comes as no surprise that being actually harmless is out of the question – until ‘I’ more and more leave centre-stage, stop resenting being here, stop being stressed, take myself less seriously, take notice of other people the way they are and start enjoying life. (Actualism, Vineeto, AF List, Tarin, 13.8.2006) ROY: By being harmless you are already helping everyone without being altruistic in the traditional sense. You are harmless if you manage to deconstruct your biological and social conditioning. Once you understand those you realize when you judge people and why you are judging them, when you are mean and why you are being mean, etc… VINEETO: Yes, being harmless is doubly beneficial, it reduces/ eliminates your harmful actions and simultaneous reduces your harmful vibes which are often more powerfully harmful than the words or actions themselves. As for “when you judge people” – ‘thou shalt not judge’ is both a Christian adage and common in Eastern spiritual teachings but doesn’t hold up in real life. Judging, i.e. to make appraisals, is a necessity in everyday life – the values by which to judge, however, can be harmful or beneficial. Judging both yourself and other by the (conditioned) rules of what is right and wrong, what is good and bad is following the values passed on from long-dead people or God(s) as the ultimate arbiters. Judgement according to sensible and silly, however, is indispensable. Richard: Shall I put it this way (about not being judgmental)? Do you personally: • Condone rape and child abuse? • Approve of rape and child abuse? • Have no opinion about rape and child abuse? • Disapprove of rape and child abuse? • Proscribe rape and child abuse? Is it not simply a fact that one makes appraisals of situations and circumstances each moment again in one’s daily life ... this judging is called making a decision regarding personal and communal salubrity. (Richard, List B, No. 42, 12 Nov 2000). Often such judgements (based on being silly or sensible) can be current appraisals of people or situations, which can change when new facts emerge. However, when you discover that you were “mean” then your ‘assessment’ was based on your feeling anger, defensiveness, feeling insulted, righteous, hurt, etc., and you can then investigate the underlying feeling. ROY: For example today I saw a woman with revealing clothes and immediately I became angry. It’s an automatic feeling (which is interesting because I used to think that it started with thoughts). The difference now from before is that I realize what’s going on with me and the feeling stops quickly. VINEETO: This a good example of a feeling reaction based on a certain conditioned value of ‘thou shalt not wear revealing clothes if you are a female’. Even though the feeling stopped quickly for you it would be interesting to contemplate if the conditioning which set up this ‘rule’ stands in the way of being happy and harmless – just so that it won’t offend you next time it happens. ‘Vineeto’ also discovered in ‘her’ quest of becoming factually/ actually harmless, that it wasn’t enough to investigate and disempower the ‘bad’ emotions and their related conditioning but even more so the ‘good’ emotions. Each ‘good’ feeling has a dark twin underpinning it. Here is how Richard described how during his enlightenment ‘he’ examined the ‘good’ and particularly the ‘Good’ and given that is was so revered in all societies, it was a mammoth task – Richard: For eleven years I lived in an Altered State Of Consciousness, so I had plenty of time to examine all its nooks and crannies ... and I found much that was murky and dirty lurking around in the outer darkness. (…) I soon found enough to make me start suspecting something very serious was wrong with Spiritual Enlightenment. To start off with was the inescapable fact that I had a ‘Sense Of Mission’ to bring ‘Peace and Love’ to a suffering humanity – I was driven to spread ‘The Word’ and to disseminate ‘The Truth’ – and this imposition did not sit well with me. In my fourth year I started to question the efficacy of Divine Compassion as a means of resolving sorrow once and for all. As a palliative for suffering it was beyond compare – it superseded pity, sympathy and empathy by a mile – but it remained forever a panacea only. Consolation for sorrow, no matter how divine that solace may be, is not a cure that lasts. In my sixth year I was ready to examine Love Agapé – which up until then had been far to sacred to put under the microscope – and I soon found enough to warrant further investigation. If Divine Compassion had been found to be murky and dirty, I was to go on to discover that Love Agapé was sordid and squalid to the extreme. Just as compassion has its roots in sorrow, so too has love its origin in malice. Hatred is the essential companion to love; the one cannot exist without the other. When I first saw the other face of love I was horrified ... for I was in the grip of a ‘Demonic Power’ disguised as ‘Divine Authority’. The diabolical is but the essential sub-stratum for the righteous; the sinister for the good; the fiendish for the glorious; the infernal for the heavenly; the wicked for the charitable ... and so on. Love Agapé – which has been touted as the cure-all for the ills of humankind for thousands of years – was hand-in-glove with evil. No wonder that religious wars have beset this planet for aeons, for the central tenet of any religious or spiritual path is love ... and love is the very element that will sabotage any well-meant endeavour with its secret agenda. A loving self is still a self, nevertheless. And a self is made out of the sorrow and malice that are generated by the instinctual aggression and fear that humans are born with in order for the species to survive. (…) In my tenth year I tentatively approached one of the last bastions of spiritual enlightenment: pacifism. Almost all of the other attributes of what I called an ‘Absolute Freedom’ had been stripped away and if I was to undo what is called ‘ahimsa’ ”in the east – non-violence – then there would not be much left of my precious ‘Peace On Earth’ that I was charged to bring. I found a strong resistance within myself to contemplate letting go of the scriptural adage: ‘Turn the other cheek’ ... even though I intellectually considered it to be nonsense. If an entire country held such a belief it would be akin to hanging out a sign saying: ‘Please feel free to invade, we will not fight back’. Also, I personally relied upon the police to protect me and mine from any personal attack or robbery – what if they adopted this principle? By the time I had worked my way through this philosophical dilemma I had to turn my sights upon the last thing that stood between me and an actual freedom. I would have to let go of the deeply ingrained concept of ‘The Good’. For this to happen I would have to eliminate ‘The Bad’ in me, or else I would be likely to go off the rails and run amok. Little did I realise that it was ‘The Good’ that kept ‘The Bad’ in place. I was soon to find this out. (Richard, List B, No. 31, 7 Mar 1998). Cheers Vineeto February 13 2025 ROY: Thanks a lot for the time you spent writing this reply! It is very helpful and this forum has become a very important resource for me thanks to many of you here. VINEETO: Hi Roy, Thank you for your feedback, and I am delighted that you understand so much of what I explained. It’s a lot to take in and even more to digest. I much appreciate your response. Just two more points I’d like to comment on. ROY: Intimacy to me used to mean being exceptionally close to someone in a vulnerable/fragile way, and now it means being fully transparent without worries about what I share / say / how the other person reacts / if they will accept me or not / etc. I guess I didn’t ever had this type of real human connection in the past. VINEETO: An actual intimacy is indeed happening with everyone and everything “being fully transparent” and, of course “without worries” of any kind. This is part and parcel of not being ‘self’-centred and without any ‘self’ whatsoever, and one is therefore benevolent, equitable and considerate. The more one is virtually happy and virtually harmless, the more intimacy with fellow human beings and the world around you is possible. When pure intent is dedicatory in place (“as an overriding/ overarching life-devotional goal which takes absolute precedence over all else”), then you can be “fully transparent without” and be more and more confidently harmless. Until this happens it is still advisable to take into account that you, and everyone else, is a feeling being with whatever this entails. Maybe you had already implied all that when you wrote the above paragraph. I am just being careful remembering ‘Vineeto’s’ own experiences when ‘her’ confidence in having successfully dismantled some of ‘her’ social identity sometimes translated into impulsive actions, which were anything but beneficial … ‘oops’. * VINEETO: ‘Vineeto’ also discovered in ‘her’ quest of becoming factually/ actually harmless, that ”it wasn’t enough to investigate and disempower the ‘bad’ emotions and their related conditioning but even more so the ‘good’ emotions. Each ‘good’ feeling has a dark twin underpinning it. ROY: It’s very interesting that you say that because the other day I had exactly a situation in my life in which I realized that I should investigate good feelings too. I thought I wouldn’t need to care too much about what is positive, but in fact I need to investigate any disturbing feeling (positive and negative). The situation was that I happened to do something very positive both in my community and at work without even trying and without selfish motivations. It just happened that I had to handle these situations and I handled them very well. And so I was praised and with that came a great feeling of belonging and worthiness. Later however I did something stupid and turns out that it was caused by the inflated ego from earlier. Whenever I let my ego become bigger it ends up affecting my behaviors later on in a negative way. So basically I have to investigate both positive and negative feelings. VINEETO: That is great discovery you made. However, there is far more to the “negative” side of ‘good’ feelings than inflation of the ego. By calling ‘good’ feelings (such as love and compassion) “what is positive” you may have missed the issue of what ‘good’ feelings and their dark twin are. The reason for the long quote from Richard at the end of my last post was to give you some material to contemplate when you have the time and inclination. ‘Good’ feelings are just as passionate as ‘bad’ feelings, arising from the same instinctual passions, ‘me’ at the core of my being, and hence equally rotten at the core. Richard: ... Little did I realise that it was ‘The Good’ that kept ‘The Bad’ in place. I was soon to find this out. (Richard, List B, No. 31, 7 Mar 1998). Cheers Vineeto February 14 2025 ROY: I think I get this intellectually but maybe I will only fully grasp how important it is experientially someday. I get the need to comprehend a concept and its opposite. So for example like Richard mentioned, I understand hatred because I also understand love, in contrast, and “one cannot exist without the other”. VINEETO: Hi Roy, This is exactly how it is intended to be. Richard’s reports and explanations are an invitation to induce contemplation and investigation to find out experientially how the human condition works in you and by extension in everyone. And once you find out for yourself, his words are a confirmation that you are not crazy – because almost everyone else follows the legacy/ beliefs of long dead people despite detrimental results. ROY: Maybe related to this… I also get that feelings are interpreted by me as good/positive or bad/negative — for me. So for example, I may feel discomfort in the gut due to feeling anxious and I label that as bad/negative. On the other hand, in a different situation, I may feel discomfort in the gut due to feeling excited and I label that as good/positive. And the physical sensation is exactly the same. Not sure if you would consider anxiety/excitement as twins. VINEETO: Every feeling/passion has a hedonic tone (Richard, Abditorium, Hedonic Tone). Hence it feels good to feel good, it feels bad to feel sad. This hedonic tone underpins every feeling-thought-action and is generally taken as the main arbiter of everything from philosophy to actions (unless conscience/ social identity restricts/controls it). Richard has written about how fear, particularly existential fear, has always a thrilling aspect – Richard: Always included in fear is a thrilling aspect, and by focussing upon this and not fear itself, an energy gathers momentum which does the trick for one (thrilling as in an exciting sensation through the body, stirring, stimulating, electrifying, rousing, moving, gripping, hair-raising, riveting, joyful, pleasing, throbbing, trembling, tremulous, quivering, shivering, fluttering, shuddering and vibrating). (Richard, List B, No. 12a, 18 July 1998). The very activity you are engaged in – to explore the depth of your ‘being’ – is a thrilling/exciting adventure, which excitement can overcome the fearful/daring discoveries you make. Fear and excitement are not twins as in opposites, they are two aspects of the same feeling. * ROY: Richard: And controlling one’s attitude towards them does nothing to stop the other picking up on one’s vibes (to use a 60’s term). If one has the slightest trace of malice or sorrow toward the other, the prevailing wisdom is to be loving or compassionate … yet it does not work in practice. This is because there is a psychic connection between humans who have feelings. [Emphases added] (Richard, List B, No. 2, 31 July 1998). Interestingly I did some research and once more the concept of “vibes” shows up. I looked around on the site and still don’t understand what it refers to in the context of actuality, but I have to read more. For me vibes are in the same bucket of auras and crystals. VINEETO: I understand that presently vibes are merely a concept or belief for you. Most people are not experientially aware of vibes even existing, while some others are quite sensitive to their effect. To start with, you can observe animals responding to you via vibes – if you have a dog for instance, you can observe that it can sense danger for its master not only with their senses but via foreign/ aggressive vibes, it can sense if you are angry or friendly towards them even if you don’t show it via words or body-language. Here is an interesting experiential report from Claudiu – Claudiu: Animals also are particularly sensitive to vibes. On one occasion I was home alone with the dogs, I got extremely upset and worked myself up into a frenzy, ran into the bedroom and hit the pillows a few times. It was full on anger and rage. And one of the dogs ran into the bedroom and started barking at the wall. Though she may have been triggered by the sound of me hitting the pillows, really what she was responding to was the intense angry vibes that I was (involuntarily) putting out, to the extent that she felt there was an intruder in the house that she had to protect me from (she had no idea that it came from me). And in a sense I was an ‘intruder’ in that moment (though the rage quickly passed). (March 2022). When I became actually free I was curious about not emanating psychic vibes and I observed how (higher order) wild animals let me approach closer, i.e. not noticing my presence until a sound alerted them. The pet dogs of a client, who used to give ‘Vineeto’ a friendly welcome, took no notice of me after becoming free. Richard: ‘The colloquialism ‘vibes’ does not refer to body-language but to the affective feelings and gained currency in the ‘sixties (as in ‘I can feel your pain’ or ‘I can feel your anger’ and so on) – even the military are well aware of this as I had it impressed upon me, prior to going to war in my youth, that fear is contagious and can spread like wildfire if unchecked – and another example is being in the presence of an enlightened being (known as ‘Darshan’ in the Indian tradition) so as to be bathed in the overwhelming love and compassion such a being radiates. Yet behind the feelings lie the psychic energies/ currents which emanate from being itself’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 41, 3 Dec 2003, Vibes). (Richard’s selected correspondence on Vibes and Psychic Currents can give you further information/ explanation for your contemplations.) ROY: Edit: Regarding the vibes, I used to believe in vibes. For example: “I don’t trust this person, because he is giving me negative/ weird vibes”. But eventually I realized it was just prejudice. For e.g., there was this one person I felt negativity towards and one day I was reminded of someone else, from my youth, that looked similar. I think now that somehow, unconsciously, this was the cause for my distrust. VINEETO: I guess that you still ‘believe’ in vibes in regards to acting according to your (unconscious) perception of them. But because you believe/think that felt vibes are “just prejudice” (flipping from belief to disbelief) you now notice/remember only what confirms your present concept. You can instead throw out both belief and disbelief and replace it with personal observational evidence you gather. You may start noticing how you check out approaching strangers psychically from a distance if they are ‘friend’ or ‘foe’ before you are even able to distinguish their facial expression or hear their voice. When I became actually free the first thing I noticed with astonishment that this was no longer operating so much so that at first I was disconcerted how I would be able to function safely in the world of people and events. It quickly turned out to be an unnecessary concern after all, as a freely operating intelligence is perfectly capable of looking after this body. ‘Vineeto’ had long been fascinated by psychic vibes /powers in ‘her’ spiritual years and as such learned to be cautious not to jump to conclusions either way. However, some experiences where so outstandingly obvious when ‘she’ experienced strong negative vibes/currents in several people ‘she’ interacted with at certain situations, it made ‘her’ even more determined to end the psychic ‘being’ in once and for all. ‘Vineeto’: I remember one incident with the woman I had lived and worked with for several years. One day in the office she received a phone call and, being the secretary, I took it, recognized her partner’s voice and transferred it to her into the next room, saying nothing but hello to the man. I didn’t hear the conversation as my door was closed, and just kept working on the daily accounts. From the moment of the call I had fierce pain in my stomach and thoughts of intense fear racing through my head that had nothing to do with my personal situation. After two hours it finally clicked – I went over to ask her if she had a fight with her partner on the phone. She said they did. My pain disappeared immediately. After this incident I investigated what made me so receptive to her vibes and feelings and I came to understand that my feelings of love for her were enough for me to be psychically connected to her fears and pain. (Actualism, Vineeto, Selected Correspondence, Psyche). I found another one of ‘Vineeto’s’ observations in 2000 experiencing psychic currents (from a distance of 800+ kms) – ‘Vineeto’: Yesterday I watched the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games [on TV] and found it an excellent example of the psychic web in action. A band of 2000 musicians from all over the world was playing, all nationalities wearing an identical blue-red-beige uniform, everyone marching in exact formations while playing the various national hymns from all over the world. The audience’s spirit was soaring high, cheers and tears, overwhelmed by the feeling of ‘we are all one’, ‘we are the world’, feeling unity, glory, bliss and love. It is amazing how simple methods – heart-stirring music, uniforms and people marching in formations – can cast an effective spell on the collective human psyche. However, the feeling of ‘unity’ immediately dispersed as soon as the athletes of all the countries started marching into the stadium wearing their national costumes, under individual flags. Then the psychic scene changed, the feeling was now of individual national pride. Each nation was now separate from the other and soon each athlete will be competing against the others for the glory of their particular country and for their own personal fame. The feeling of Unity is but a short-lived feeling ... the psychic vibe changes readily when the music changes. (Actualism, Vineeto, List D, James, 17.9.2000) I have to add that at this time ‘Vineeto’ was aware enough of ‘her’ own feelings to know what ‘she’ experienced were not ‘her’ own feelings of ‘unity’, ‘we are all one’, bliss and love. ROY: Similarly, I used to believe in psychic connections. One time I had a panic attack out of the blue and later learned that a person dear to me had died at precisely that time. And so I connected the two. But nowadays I simply think this was a weird coincidence. VINEETO: There are many reports from people having strong psychic intimations/ experiences at the exact time when a loved one died, so that seems to be a common human experience for those sensitive to it. Some time after your own experience your present concept of disbelief in psychic vibes/currents made you think otherwise. Yet you still don’t know what really happens. For investigations into the human condition it is most conducive when you are able to suspend both belief and disbelief as much as possible. After all, endeavouring to free yourself from the human condition you are engaged into an investigation into the depth of your psyche, i.e. your emotions and passions, and it can be both weird and wonderful. Cheers Vineeto February 14 2025 ROY: Thank you Vineeto, I have to give this another read but I just wanted to write something here at this moment: One thing I tried to force me into, months ago, was to have a journal. It was hard to keep this habit and it was a messy process – I started with a public blog, then a notebook, then writing on my phone, then recording audios, while simultaneously still writing some things publicly here in this forum. It helped in two ways: (1) it forced me to closer inspect my current state but (2) the main benefit is that I can now read how about my experiences of months ago. This turns out to be very interesting because apparently (and I already had a sense that this was the case) I tend to transfer my current mood into these past memories. So my current identity would overtake the memories, as if it was fixed and unchanged through time. So just as I thought, I can’t completely trust my memories (in this particular aspect at least). VINEETO: Hi Roy, You are very welcome. I sounds like a very useful idea to keep some kind of a journal or written notes. You already had some very practical results and insights. Feelings always tend to colour not only the present experience but also the past and future outlook. When one is sad, one has always been like this and it will always be like this (unless the feeling changes to hope). It’s the very nature of the feeling itself. So it’s great to have a record. ROY: The most important part is I now can compare the farther away past and the recent past and… it’s amazing how completely different my mood is on a daily basis. It is very very different. I used to be angry, sad and frustrated all the time, in comparison. Even feeling good at the time was not feeling good as it is now. VINEETO: Congratulations. You can pat yourself on the back – this is just as much part of appreciation as appreciating anything else about this moment of being alive. ROY: Yesterday when I was searching a bit more about vibes here in the forum, I found the report from Milito Paz and read his description of his experience. I found it interesting because for me, as up ’til now, the change in my mood and day-to-day experience, is different from what I had imagined it could be. Because it’s not like I’m feeling on the “top of the world” all of the time. It’s simply a fairly consistent state of feeling good – not in the sense of immense excitement, but in the sense of wide satisfaction and peace, punctuated with minor incidents. It’s not like I have replaced the old deranged rollercoaster with a fairytale-like rollercoaster. It’s more like a beautiful path with some occasional potholes. VINEETO: For a warning, when reading Milito Paz’ reports – he suddenly disappeared when his report was questioned. It is most likely that he mistook his experience for an actual freedom when it was in fact an extensive ‘actuality-mimicking altered state of consciousness’. There have been a few short-lived similar experiences amongst actualists – the new alternative to spiritual ASCs, when the ‘self’ needs an outlet from intense pressure. He had also reported that 2 years prior he was depressed for a long time, though that narrative changed remarkably of what he reported last year. Here is a short excerpt summary from Richard’s editorial note in a long correspondence on this very topic – Richard: A possible clue is to be found in a post from twelve days ago (12 Jan 2016; Message № 21544). Viz.: • [Alan]: ‘... given my history, I would definitely qualify as bipolar were I to place myself in the hands of the ‘sane’ psychiatrists (...)’. [endquote]. Now, whilst most certainly not being in the business of making amateurish psychiatric diagnoses – and especially not via email and chat message information – I do have more than a passing familiarity with both the hypomanic and manic phases characteristic of what is nowadays classified under some form of Bipolar Affective Disorder (BAD) through having lived with a woman of a hyperthymic temperament (hyperthymia as distinct from euthymia), for over a decade, plus interacting with more than a few persons officially diagnosed bipolar (a.k.a. ‘manic-depressive’) and, thus, under specialist treatment. Thus I do know it is possible to slip into a hypomanic state whilst illuding oneself that it fits the criterion for ‘out-from-control’ as per actualism lingo – and I especially know this via gradually talking a person so afflicted back out of it over time – and one of the hallmarks is the initial difficulty in ‘reaching’ such a person (they are ‘out of reach’ of normal discourse) due to the certitude such a state imbues. (…) (In my experience a person in the manic phase of bipolar is unreachable, period, and it is only through that most-unfortunate state wearing-off, of its own accord (with or without medication), that normal discourse may recommence). Incidentally, as there are warnings aplenty on The Actual Freedom Trust web site – about the likely danger of veering off into altered states (either of the spiritual or psychiatric variety) when one ventures beyond the norm ill-prepared – I have retired from talking any such person back out of those cul-de-sacs. (Richard, List D, Claudiu4, #hypomania). Hence Milito’s report is the wrong kind to compare your own achievements with his. You have done very well in such a short time. ROY: And I guess this has been a side-effect of the actualism method. Because I’m working on simply examining my day to day, I stopped spending time imagining “what if’s”. I don’t really focus on what “could be”, because I’m spending the time examining what is or seems to be. And it helps that I’m good at examining – it is something I have been doing all my life – but incorrectly. I was focusing on the wrong things. I was trying all the self-improvements and productivity and self-help advice I could find instead of focusing on what was right in front of me: how I’m really experiencing this moment, and why? VINEETO: This is an excellent re-focussing. Kuba can probably tell you something about his findings of his own “self-improvement” efforts. Now that you are contemplating re-orientation I recommend accessing your long-lost naiveté via utter sincerity – which for most people had been hidden away since puberty – being like a child again but with adult sensibilities. It may take a bit of courage if you are hesitant to appear foolish but it is immensely rewarding. This is not only to learn again to have fun but also to recognize how truly wondrous life is when you let yourself freely and naïvely enjoy and appreciate it. While “self-improvement” may improve what you are doing (and inadvertently also improve the ‘self’), naiveté will entice you to improve what you are being. ROY: In conclusion, I’ll continue and try to catch myself whenever I contemplate (which happens occasionally) things like “Oh wouldn’t it be great if I could trigger PCEs?” “Oh wouldn’t it be great if I could get rid of my ‘self’?” etc… and simply focus on investigating how I’m experiencing the moment. In the past, situations have happened where I tried to get something really hard and was unable, just to later stop chasing it and have it drop on my lap. Maybe that’ll happen this time? We’ll see. VINEETO: Rather than catching yourself, why not be less serious in your attitude towards yourself … sincere yes, but not serious. With naiveté operating you can easily and joyfully allow/invite a PCE to happen. Cheers Vineeto February 15 2025 ROY: … Wanting to write for someone else is probably just my ego trying to leave some sort of legacy, trying to prove that it matters to someone. I can print a PDF with parts of the Actual Freedom website instead. Hi Roy, Your thinking about writing for the benefits of others doesn’t hold up as you already received feedback how it has helped some people and how you commented that other people’s writing helped you. It does matter. Apart from possible ego-enhancing reasons there is also fellowship regard, the very reason why, for instance, Richard wrote all he did during the last 25 years. All that has been written before actualism is how to cope with the firmly entrenched ubiquitous belief that you cannot change human nature. Anyone’s writing about the opposite being demonstrably and successfully the case can only benefit the human race now and in the long run. You haven’t been told, by any chance, that the meek shall inherit the earth, have you? ROY: My path is unique (because I’m a unique person in this time and space) but it’s not special in any way. I think it’s normal to feel like I’ve chosen this path, but what happened is that I made some choices that oriented me slightly in a direction and then life happened and I ended up here. It’s basically this in repeat – the path is maze-like in reality and it’s my ego that tries to picture it as a clear path that was solely possible thanks to its choices. But in fact it was also about chance and many factors I had no control over. My children will have to go on their own different maze-like paths and I can’t teach them any shortcuts because I’ve no idea where they are headed. The only thing I can do for them is to be happy and harmless. VINEETO: Yes, your “children will have to go on their own different maze-like paths” and yet you can already pass on some of the things you have discovered. Children often can understand more of what one gives them credit for. For instance – RESPONDENT: What do you say to your grandchildren when they are hurt, desolate, crying? RICHARD: I say the same to my grandchildren when they are hurt, desolate or crying as I say to any body and every body – no body is special – which is: all mental-emotional-psychic suffering is an unnecessary and self-inflicted wound. (Richard, General Correspondence, Page 9a, 21 March 2000). RICHARD: Back when I was a father, when my then children would ask me if Santa Claus was real, I would say yes but not actual like a table is, for instance, as their mother was full-on into the traditions and such diplomatic answers, rather than an outright no, made for relative domestic harmony ... and they had no difficulty whatsoever in grasping that concept (and applying it to witches riding broomsticks as well and fairies at the bottom of the garden and so on). (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 25b, 19 July 2003). Also, you are probably already discovering that being a friend to your children is much more fun than being a parent – TARIN: What was the influence/ effect of your parenting during that era [of enlightement] on the child you mention? RICHARD: As mentioned at the beginning of that e-mail you found the above quote in the relationship had changed, during that era, from one of parentage to one of friendship ... TARIN: Do you think this change benefited your children ... RICHARD: No, I know that it did ... if nothing else it was much more fun. Essentially, all what is required of any progenitor is to ensure that their off-spring are adequately equipped for adulthood (are able to effectively operate and function independently in the environment they are born into). TARIN: ... is it any better to be a friend to one’s child than a parent? RICHARD: It certainly is ... just for starters: being much more fun it readily promotes open learning (children are congenitally curious). TARIN: If so, in what ways? I have already read this part: [quote] ‘(and they all appreciated that immensely ... as exemplified by the youngest often saying how glad she was that the ‘bossy-boots dad’ was gone)’ [endquote]. RICHARD: By not being either authoritarian (as distinct from authoritative) or disciplinarian a child’s innate inquisitiveness is not stifled – and many such educators have bemoaned the lack of motivation in their subject students – inasmuch curiosity’s concomitant keenness for discovery provides more than enough incentive. Apart from being innately curious children are also inherently imitative – as indicated by the term ‘role-model’ – and it should not take genius to suss out the advantages friendship has over parentship (or any other form of kinship for that matter). (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Tarin, 14 June 2006) You’ll find out as you go along. Cheers Vineeto February 15 2025 ROY: I just stumbled upon a beautiful journal entry from Felix. These bits got my attention… Felix: A big part of the appreciation is sensuous enjoyment. […] I was a true hedonist and escapist, and I couldn’t access any sensual enjoyment. I was very numb actually. As I now start to investigate the positive feelings too, I can’t immediately pinpoint why exactly I am feeling good. And like Felix mentioned, I am also quite numb in terms of how much I get from my senses… Maybe this feeling good that I’m experiencing is, to some extent, related to the feeling that I’m making progress. And/or to the fact that I’m doing something that I’m good at: examining/ investigating. But what if I stopped progressing? What if I stopped sharing my progress here, and stopped receiving reassuring messages from people in this forum, that I am making progress? Maybe this forum has become my new source of dopamine hits… Feels uncomfortable to consider this. VINEETO: Hi Roy, Even though you said you are feeling much better than you did a few months ago you still seem to have a modus operandi/ habit(?) of interpreting your progress as something potentially negative. This is your ‘self’-preservation in action, a trick of ‘me’ to prevent change, not to be confused with being sensibly cautious or “examining/ investigating”. Just thought I’ll let you know. ROY: EDIT: I’m feeling anxious right now with the thought that I may be (to some extent at least) fooling myself and that this current “feeling good” may not be sustainable in the long run. VINEETO: Well, “feeling good” can change, as all feelings are in flux (being the swirling vortex of instinctual passions that you are). However, as you described in your previous post you have a new feeling good “default set-point” (Marvelling At How Well-Equipped Humans Are) which you can come back to from each emotional adventure. Perhaps it is also the prospect of testing the waters of naiveté, which makes you wonder if you are not “fooling” yourself. Remember to focus on the thrilling part of fear/anxiousness … it is there where you source the required courage. Cheers Vineeto February 26 2025 ROY: This is a compilation of lessons I learned somewhat recently from reading about the human condition, mostly from the Actual Freedom website, and, most importantly, from my own experience of applying the actualism method for around a month now. This may or may not be useful to someone new to Actual Freedom, but I’m sharing it in case it helps. I chose to focus on a few core concepts and avoided introducing too many terms, which I think can be helpful for non-native English speakers like me. If you notice any errors or misunderstandings, please let me know so I can improve it! To start at the beginning, we need to have a basic understanding of what we are and what the nature of the universe is. Science has given us a deeper understanding of both, yet many people hold beliefs about this that lack scientific evidence or have been conclusively disproven. For the sake of brevity, I’ll simply state my view: The universe is not conscious. Even if it were, it is clear that it has no intentions or desires. It is indifferent to our existence and has no intrinsic meaning. Somehow, life emerges from complex physical systems. And somehow, complex physical systems give rise to something undeniable, which is this subjective experience of being alive in the universe, which we refer to as consciousness. We share this planet with many other conscious beings, including humans. As mentioned, this consciousness is the result of complex physical systems, from which the most important is our brain. We also all have senses that allow us to interpret all that surrounds us. So humans around the world experience reality in a very similar way to each other, which is not surprising due to our shared biology. It’s harder for us to imagine how a bee or a dog experiences reality because their senses are very different from ours. Now, when we are born, it is quite clear that we are not born with a clean slate. We inherit thousands of years of evolution of this human animal. Beyond a clear instinct for survival and reproduction (which some reduce to the survival of our genes), we are clearly social creatures (and the way we relate to others through competition and cooperation could also be explained as an instinct for survival, since we wouldn’t be able to survive alone). For whatever reason, we humans ended up developing an identity that we use to define us. We can say that this identity is an illusion, in the sense that, while it definitely exists, it seems to be something that is not. We define ourselves as being this identity that possesses a body and a mind (we say things like “this is my body” or “this is the way my mind works”) while we can, upon closer inspection, see that this is not true. We are a body that is part of the universe and interacts with it all the way down to the subatomic level. This body that we are is constantly changing. Our brains interpret the data that comes from our senses and are able to store memories. All of this put together is what gives us this experience of being a person and allows us to make sense of it through time. But you can see how questionable it is that this identity, that we call ‘I’, is required for us to function. This identity may have served a purpose in our evolutionary history, however society has evolved much more quickly than the human brain, and that raises the question if this “feature” of our brain still serves a purpose nowadays. But you may ask, why does this matter? In which way is this identity a problem? As said earlier, we are born with specific instincts. We are also impacted in incredible ways by culture throughout our lives. We form all sorts of beliefs and are conditioned by all sorts of biases, and these become a part of the identity (and this is why when other people challenge our beliefs, we feel as if we are being attacked). Now, put this together with the fact that everything we experience is perceived by this identity, and you can see how this becomes the root of the problem that we call the human condition. So at this point, a pragmatic person may ask: So would that mean that to stop human suffering, I simply have to deconstruct and remove all of these ingrained beliefs and instincts? I simply have to deconstruct this ‘I’ construct? And the answer to that question is “Yes”. The Actual Freedom website includes very clear explanations on how to become free from the human condition. What I’ll explain from now on, in my own terms, concerns what is called the “actualism method” and “virtual freedom” on the website. In short, the “actualism method” is the simulation of what life would be if you were actually free. An “actually free” person is both “happy and harmless” and has “no feelings”, and being “virtually free” means being in this simulated state almost all of your time. Now it’s important to understand what being “happy”, “harmless”, and having “no feelings” means, because these words are used in a very specific way, and even if you read their definitions in the dictionary, you will need more context to understand them. For someone that has never examined their living experience, it might take some time to understand what is being discussed. More importantly, most of what is being discussed is not something that you can simply learn intellectually. It is only through experience that you are able to gradually realize these things. This is great because you don’t have to believe any of what is written. The only way is to try it for yourself and see if you can verify it. The way I see it (as someone who is still learning), an actually free person fully comprehends experientially the identity we call ‘I’ and has been able to fully deconstruct it. As we have seen, this identity can be explained as the feeling of being this person. We can see that all beliefs, for example, are a part of it because we identify with them. If we examine these beliefs and are able to determine that they are not true, we can let go of them. An actually free person has done this consecutively with all their beliefs and instincts until all that remained was a shallow identity that is clearly seen as illusory. At that point, you can’t really call it an identity anymore (on the website, this is called “self-immolation”). From my own experiences, what is meant by “happy” here is the sense of experiencing our situation as perfect, in that we don’t want anything else. Even if we could change our present moment somehow, we wouldn’t. One doesn’t have any thoughts or desires about changing this moment. Even if you are feeling physical pain of some sort, it doesn’t translate to emotional suffering. You are aware of the pain but it doesn’t “feel bad” or affect your mood negatively. And that’s what is meant by an actually free person having “no feelings”. You are aware of the same physical sensations that accompany, for example, anxiety, but you don’t “feel anxious”. It doesn’t matter whether these sensations are there or not. Normally, when you have bad or good feelings, they translate to negative or positive thoughts which will completely alter your mood, potentially for long periods of time. But for an actually free person, the sensations and thoughts are completely decoupled in the sense that there is no causation, and that’s why pain won’t translate to suffering. For example, if an actually free person burns themselves on the stove, it is still sensed and can be effortlessly understood as undesirable and stopped. But it still has no effect on their mood. Our identity, with its beliefs and instincts, will unavoidably cause harm to others. Even without a conscious intent to cause harm, it will happen and end up causing suffering to others and ourselves. Deconstructing the beliefs and instincts is the only way toward being harmless. “Harmless” here is not meant in the sense of “being a pacifist” or “turning the other cheek”. By “harmless,” it is meant simply that one is not conditioned (by beliefs, biases, and instincts) to do harm. So for example, if you insist on punching an actually free person, I’m pretty sure you’ll get punched back. But it won’t happen out of malice. It will be done as a means to alter a situation and stop the associated physical sensation of pain. I think at this point it is clearer that there’s nothing “spiritual” (in the sense of mystical or metaphysical) about this process of achieving actual freedom from the human condition. I think it’s also clear that actually free people are still human beings. They are not zombies. It is quite the opposite. They have gained full control over their body and mind, and as a consequence, they have a different experience of senses. It is often stated that they stop “feeling the senses” and “become the senses,” which I guess can only be fully understood experientially. You can also probably see how freeing it must be to be able to stop compulsively having self-centred thoughts, such as ruminating about the past and worrying about the future. And finally, just imagine about how profoundly your life would change if events no longer altered your mood. (…) In actual freedom, there’s no morality. You judge things through the prism of happiness (contributes to overall wellbeing) and harmlessness (doesn’t cause suffering to any conscious beings). With practice, you will soon see that some things that were important to you, and that are seen as desirable, are really “silly”. In my experience, most of these things can be grouped in a bucket labelled “sophistication”. We have this deep need to be special. We feel special and believe we deserve to be treated that way. And we resort to all sorts of ways to validate that we are special. We also desire to be independent and self-sufficient, and that leads to all sorts of behaviours. I’ve found that embracing the present moment with a child-like mindset is incredibly helpful. It encourages open questioning, free from the worry of how others might perceive you. Finally, there will be times when you will question all of this. It is completely normal. All of this – the state of affairs, the identity – all of it is perfectly normal, so you don’t have to feel bad about it. But it is undesirable. Being “happy and harmless” may not have been a top priority for more primitive human beings. But it is clear that we can work on it and improve our lives a great deal in a relatively short period of time. For me, it has helped to not have “becoming actually free” as a goal (yet this doesn’t mean that your intentions are not pure or that you are not committed to becoming “happy and harmless”). I’m simply focused on improving my experience moment by moment. Besides that, the authors of the Actual Freedom website have spent a great deal of time detailing what is called the “pure consciousness experience.” This is, in short, a state of being without the identity; it’s simply the conscious experience, hence the “pure consciousness experience.” This is something that is somewhat similar to what is referred to in popular culture and psychology as flow states or peak experiences, though for some reason, those descriptions are usually given in the context of productivity or athletic or creative pursuits. But you can have experiences such as these at any moment. (…) VINEETO: Hi Roy, Thank you for the long summary of how you understand actualism so far and how you put it into practice. I won’t zoom in on any details in your description, you will fine tune your understanding as you find out yourself in time. There is only one point where I would like to add some additional information to your understanding – what is it to be actually free. Although you said that you “for me, it has helped to not have ”becoming actually free“ as a goal” I understand that this nevertheless is the long-term direction you are aiming for. As such I think a correct understanding what an actual freedom is will be consequential for the way you go about it, i.e. a “simulation of what life would be if you were actually free”. With “simulation” you might mean the same thing as what Richard said “I did everything possible that ‘I’ could do to blatantly imitate the actual” (Richard, List B, No. 12a, 16 July 1998) and ‘he’ had no example of what an actually free person looked like to ‘him’ (and so couldn’t make a mistake of taking his own perception of an actually free person as a guide). ‘He’ only relied on the magical nature of actuality which he had experienced in his 4-hour PCE. I do admit it’s not easy to comprehend an actual freedom – ‘Vineeto’ had erroneous projections even though she interacted with Richard physically on a weekly basis. Hence I will focus on what you presently understand what an actually free person is – ROY: If we examine these beliefs and are able to determine that they are not true, we can let go of them. An actually free person has done this consecutively with all their beliefs and instincts until all that remained was a shallow identity that is clearly seen as illusory. At that point, you can’t really call it an identity anymore (on the website, this is called “self-immolation”). (…) VINEETO: While ‘Vineeto’ has examined all ‘her’ beliefs and ‘let go of them’ (in fact they disappeared as soon as the full facts were seen clearly, so trust played no part, ‘she’ also did not “dis-identified” from her beliefs), ‘she’ could not “let go” of ‘her’ instinctual passions because those instinctual passions are the very cause and substance of ‘me’, the swirling vortex which forms the identity. ‘I’ cannot undo ‘me’ (what you call “deconstruct”). It required an altruistic act for ‘her’ to set the process in motion, because altruism is a more powerful instinct than self-survival. Richard: ‘Often people who do not read what I have to say with both eyes gain the impression that I am suggesting that people are to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire psyche itself is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the affective faculty is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings … [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 19e, 26 Dec 2000) As such it is not a “shallow identity” which self-immolates but all the instinctual passions are funnelled into the affective felicitous and innocuous feelings. Also, it is not that the identity becomes so shallow that “you can’t really call it an identity anymore” and therefore you can ‘call it self-immolation’ – the identity which is very very ‘real’ has to die a ‘real’ death – Richard: To put it bluntly: ‘you’ in ‘your’ totality, who are but a passionate illusion, must die a dramatic illusory death commensurate to ‘your’ pernicious existence. The drama must be played out to the end ... there are no short-cuts here. The doorway to an actual freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is irrevocable, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life. (Richard, List B, No. 13, 26 May 1999) As you can see, because of this difference in your perception about the nature of self-immolation the following descriptions of ‘an actually free person’ is either imprecise or incorrect – ROY: … the sensations and thoughts are completely decoupled in the sense that there is no causation, and that’s why pain won’t translate to suffering. (…) But it still has no effect on their mood. VINEETO: If by “decoupled” you mean decoupled from the non-existing identity and “no effect on their mood” as any mood is an expression of affective feelings – I still think this is only half correct. This is very understandable from lack of experiential knowledge – I only mention it so your choice of words does not inadvertently affect your actualism practice, for instance in trying to “decouple” yourself or “disidentify” from your feelings and moods. ROY: They have gained full control over their body and mind, and as a consequence, they have a different experience of senses. (…) In actual freedom, there’s no morality. You judge things through the prism of happiness (contributes to overall wellbeing) and harmlessness (doesn’t cause suffering to any conscious beings). VINEETO: Once you understood the above explanation about what self-immolation is you will comprehend why “control” plays not part in my life. One cannot and need not control anything which does not exist (like a tiger in a cage), and that’s why morals or ethics are not required either to control any non-existing instinctual passions, feelings or moods. Therefore attempting to gain full control over your body and mind (as in an imitation/a “simulation of what life would be if you were actually free” would be counterproductive. On the contrary, the application of the actualism method – enjoying and appreciating being alive and enabling one’s little-used faculty: naiveté – being sincere, guileless, artless, non-sophisticated, not serious, frank, ingenuous, having fun, and thus liking oneself and others is an excellent way to imitate life in the actual world. The “different experience of senses” happens automatically after the identity has become extinct – it is indeed quite magical what happens when the instinctual passions complete with the identity formed thereof disappear in an instant. Richard: To be living as the senses is to live a clear and clean awareness – apperception – a pure consciousness experience of the world as-it-is. Because there is no ‘I’ as a thinker (a little person inside one’s head) or a ‘me’ as a feeler (a little person in one’s heart) – to have sensations happen to them, I am the sensations. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 38, 24 Sep 1999). Please do not take my comments as criticisms as they are meant as an assistance to navigate your way through the maze of the psyche and the human condition, and there is a lot to discover and untangle. Richard did it all by himself but he took more than a decade and had to free himself of the insanity of spiritual enlightenment as well. ‘Vineeto’ and ‘Peter’ had one mentor and his reports and descriptions and it took them 12 years, whereby a direct route was established (bypassing enlightenment). Now there are many more people practicing the actualism method with growing success who can clarify and assist each other on this unique forum. As a closing comment I would like to emphasize the difference of sincere intent and pure intent because feeling being ‘Vineeto’ got it wrong at first – so much so that after becoming actually free I edited ‘her’ previous writings to replace most of the uses of ‘pure intent’ with ‘sincere intent’. Pure intent is a tangible connection established from one’s PCE, the experience of a magical “another world, another dimension” – RICHARD: Initially a PCE is like moving into another world, another dimension (except that one is here – magically here right now as this flesh and blood body – for the very first time). (Richard, List B, No. 38, 24 Sep 1999). Please note, a PCE is better not be compared what “in popular culture” is considered “as flow states”, “usually given in the context of productivity or athletic or creative pursuits”, which may be PCEs at the start but are afterwards interpreted according to cultural conditioning or deteriorate into altered states of consciousness. Because you say “you can use your memories of previous pure consciousness experiences as a guide” it is vital to understand the nature and flavour of pure intent, established from the PCE, which is the lodestone to guide oneself. It’s worthwhile to ponder on and become familiar and be precise to make certain that pure intent is understood as a force outside of the human condition (and is not inadvertently a facsimile created by the identity, which is very good at such tricks owing to the natural and cunning instinct of wanting to stay in existence). RICHARD: Pure intent is the experiencing of this palpable life-force, this actually occurring stream of benignity and benevolence originating in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself. (Richard, Selected Correspondence, Pure Intent) One can access this palpable life-force by rememorating the flavour of one’s PCE (not so easy because it cannot be found in the emotional memory bank). Richard warns not to undertake dismantling one’s morals and ethics without a dedicatory connection to pure intent as an overriding/ overarching life-devotional goal, which takes absolute precedence over all else – before any such whittling away of the otherwise essential societal/ cultural conditioning. Here is a quote which might give you both confirmation and encouragement on the daring grand adventure you have embarked upon – Richard: Good. It is the most stimulating adventure of a lifetime to embark upon a voyage into one’s own psyche. Discovering the source of the Nile or climbing Mount Everest – or whatever physical venture – pales into insignificance when compared to the thrill of finding out about life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being. I am having so much fun ... those middle-aged or elderly people who bemoan their ‘lost youth’ leave me astonished. Back then I was – basically – lost, lonely, frightened and confused. Accordingly, I set out on what was to become the most marvellous escapade possible. As soon as I understood that there was nobody stopping me but myself, I had the autonomy to inquire, to seek, to investigate and to explore. As soon as I realised nobody was standing in the way but myself, that realisation became an actualisation and I was free to encounter, to uncover, to discover and to find the ‘secret to life’ or the ‘meaning of life’ or the ‘riddle of existence’, or the ‘purpose of the universe’ or whatever one’s quest may be called. To dare to be me – to be what-I-am as an actuality – rather than the who ‘I’ was or the who ‘I’ am or the who ‘I’ will be, calls for an audacity unparalleled in the annals of history ... or one’s personal history, at least. To seek and to find; to explore and uncover; to investigate and discover ... these actions are the very stuff of life! [Emphases added]. (Richard, List B, No. 38, 29 Sep 1999). My best wishes Vineeto March 5 2025 ROY: I made several decisions when writing that text that I’m happy with. I ended up calling the ego/self/ simply “identity” because, while it is an oversimplification, it is, in my opinion, the most useful way to look at it, in the context of Actual Freedom, for a person with no spiritual baggage. For me it helps to think of the ego/self as an identity and think of it in terms of being a construct instead of an illusion. The term illusion is not great because it can mean: Illusion: a false idea or belief a deceptive appearance or impression an instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of a sensory experience VINEETO: The reason Richard used the term “illusion” was from his experience of actuality – ‘I’/‘me’ entirely disappeared upon self-immolation and as such had never been essential for physical survival. On the contrary, when I became actually free I could confirm that I – the physical flesh-and-blood body had been here all along (of course the identity, the software formed of instinctual passions, having arrogated charge of ‘my’ life). As I said to Claudiu in a recent post – Vineeto: ‘I’ am real, very real, as long as ‘I’ am a passionate entity hijacking and controlling the actual flesh body. Thinking that ‘I’ am an illusion while ‘I’ am in existence is to transfer information gained from apperceptive seeing during a PCE into the passionate realm of ‘me’ – what Richard calls from “3D-stunning” to “one-dimensional thought” in his correspondence about “utter fullness”. (Richard, List B, No. 25e, 16 June 2000). (Actualism, ActualVineeto, Claudiu5, 3 March 2025) Hence I do understand your hesitation in regards the term illusion. ROY: By using the term construct instead, I can then say that we can “deconstruct the construct” when we are investigating for e.g. our beliefs. Because it’s not a matter of removing beliefs. In a way, you replace “beliefs with other beliefs”. Belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something) More precisely, you replace one belief with another idea that you trust to be true. Ideally, you’ve checked your biases, examined the data and facts, and arrived at an idea that’s closer to the truth. I don’t fool myself into thinking that I’ve swapped a misguided belief for an irrefutable scientific truth. The key point is that this new idea isn’t tied to my identity – I no longer identify with this belief. If someone comes along and says “You are wrong about that, here’s proof”, I’ll say “great!” without feeling attacked. VINEETO: The problem with thinking that you can “deconstruct the construct” is that the human condition is not a construct. Here is what I found in some dictionaries – 1. to build something, to create a theoretical concept (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) – To make or form something by combining parts (Cambridge Dictionary) 2. To put together different parts to form something whole (Cambridge Dictionary) – A construct is a theoretical concept, theme, or idea based on empirical observations (…) – For example, psychologists develop and research constructs to understand individual and group differences (Scribbr) As such to describe something which evolved and developed of its own accord from a rough and ready survival package and human ways to curb those survival passions for socially co-existing as being built (by someone) or as a theoretical concept is not conducive to comprehending the nature of the human condition. A theoretical concept (construct) does not describe the facticity, it rather keeps the raw reality of what ‘I’ am at a comfortable distance. To “deconstruct a construct” you are then bound to merely “replace one belief with another idea that you trust to be true”. Whereas the way the actualism method (dismantling one’s beliefs) works is to replace a belief with a fact instead of falling for another concept or belief. There is also no need to ‘believe’ what I say or what is written on the Actual Freedom Trust website – Respondent: Where is the proof? Richard: I invite anyone to make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and if they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (which subjective experiencing is the only proof worthy of the name). (Richard, List C, No. 4b, 19 April 2000). By determining the fact of the matter you need to “no longer identify with this belief” or disidentify from this belief. It just drops away the moment you acknowledge/ recognize the fact of the matter. Richard: I am interested in ‘facts but not ideas’ because only thus is there something that can not be erroneous or incorrect. A fact is actual, not a dream, an illusion or a delusion. A fact is patent, obvious, apparent, evident, tangible, palpable, substantial, tactile, verifiable and indisputable. The marvellous thing about a fact is that one can not argue with it. One can argue about a belief, an opinion, a theory, an ideal and so on ... but a fact: never. One can deny a fact – pretend that it is not there – but once seen, a fact brings freedom from choice and decision. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List A, No. 14, #No. 09) And being in accord with the fact is what sincerity is. Hence belief, trust, faith, credulity, intuition and factoids can be readily abandoned. But it is certainly worthwhile to investigate each of one’s beliefs to the point where the pattern/ the core of the belief is seen in order that it can disappear when the fact is discovered. The difficulty in acknowledging/ recognizing one’s beliefs as being beliefs is the emotional investment in wanting them to be true, sometimes fervently so, when they are a significant aspect of one’s identity. Richard: Please, whatever you do with me, throw faith, belief, trust and hope right out of the window ... along with doubt, disbelief, distrust and despair. Besides, I am a certified madman! (Richard, List B, No. 11, 22 Mar 1998). ROY: The other part that had me confused for a long time which I also wrote about was the no feelings. I always had a hard time thinking about this one. “How can someone have no feelings?”, I would think to myself. “Doesn’t that mean no pain?”. It was funny that the answer came from the now famous “Vineeto’s Encounters Cop” tale: Vineeto: There was no thought of what to do next when suddenly I felt an uprising of a sob from the gut area and so I allowed it to continue, resulting in the eventual calming down of the police officer’s mood as I had obviously demonstrated the remorse he was looking for. (Actualism, ActualVineeto, Kuba, 5 April 2024) All the sensations of discomfort and physical pain continue but don’t need to lead to negative feelings/ negative emotional state/ suffering. I did some more research on the website just now, which I could have done before. VINEETO: I take it that you understand that actualism is not about stopping feeling but eventually ceasing to ‘be’ (and then, upon extinction, the instinctual passions, feelings, emotions and imagination disappear completely with the entire psychic faculty. Hence there are not only no events which “need to lead to negative feelings/ negative emotional state/ suffering” but such feelings/ any feelings simply do not happen because the entire affective/psychic faculty has disappeared together with the instinctual passions upon the extinction of ‘me’. You are wondering about what life without emotions, passions and imagination would be like. Others have tried and failed miserably – here is one example – Respondent: A state without emotion, sexuality, passions, ‘animal instincts’ just sounds rather hollow and dead to me. As I said above, I certainly might be wrong. Richard: Your words ‘just sounds rather hollow and dead’ reminded me of a passage I read recently wherein an arguably influential writer speaks of ‘a condition of negativity and deadness’ when trying to imagine what the universe would be like sans emotion (from ‘The Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion’ delivered at the University of Edinburgh in 1901-1902): (snipped quote, to be found at original link). Thus the factual world (the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum) when ‘stripped of all the emotion with which your world now inspires you’, is conceived to be ‘as it exists, purely by itself ... a condition of negativity and deadness ... the whole collection of its things and series of its events [being] without significance, character, expression, or perspective’. Yet a pure consciousness experience (PCE) evidences that the actual world, with its sensuous quality of magical perfection and purity, where everything and everyone has a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, wondrous, scintillating vitality, is abounding in vibrant aliveness and sparkling significance. Irregardless of this pristine actuality, however, the physical world is then deemed to be the passive recipient of ‘our gift to the world, just so are the passions themselves gifts’ ... specifically ‘the passion of love’ and other ‘pure gifts of the spectator’s mind’ such as ‘fear, indignation, jealousy, ambition, worship’ so as to endue ‘our respective worlds’ with ‘value, interest, or meaning’. What price human vanity, eh? (Richard, List B, No. 54, 17 May 2001) You will find some answers in the FAQ section how life is without feelings ( FAQ Index, Section E and F). Actuality is unimaginable – imagination has no capacity to figure it out. It requires the direct experience of a PCE to consider and understand such a possibility. The reason is, to put it mildly, that ‘I’/‘me’ and the actual world are incompatible/ mutually exclusive. GARY: It is indeed incomprehensible. RICHARD: Yes ... an actual freedom from the human condition is inconceivable, unimaginable, unbelievable and undreamed of. Actuality is far, far better than anything ‘I’ could want ... ‘I’ did not know that this pristine perfection could possibly exist. (Richard, List B, Gary, 23 Nov 1999) It became a much longer post than I intended but it might help you in figuring out even more precisely what actualism is about. Cheers Vineeto
This Correspondence Continued | Actual Vineeto’s Correspondence Index
Actualism Homepage
| Actual Freedom Homepage

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-
. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity

”