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) From Basic Freedom to Full Actual Freedom Part Two: The Social Identity (Peasant Mentality) Vineeto The peasant mentality is the largest component of the social identity, laying down the rules how one is to think and act in society at large, which side to take in the permanent battle of ‘good and evil’, which beliefs of what is ‘right and wrong’, which political views and opinions to defend and which class structure to uphold. Richard further emphasized that there is no rôle whatsoever for the peasant mentality in Terra Actualis – [Richard]: There is, however, no rôle whatsoever for the peasant mentality – enumerated much further above as both a vocational persona (the peasant-or-squire aka villein-or-lord persona) and a class or caste persona (the commoner-or-aristocrat aka peasantry-or-gentry persona) which the social identity encompasses – nor for any lingering remnants thereof. Indeed, any tugging-the-forelock servility – any ‘yes m’lud’ docility – or, obversely, any lordliness, any high-handed superbia, is contraindicated here in Terra Actualis where *equity and parity* prevails amongst fellow human beings sans instinctual passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof. * RESPONDENT: You are involved with your own feelings of power. RICHARD: As I have neither power nor feelings (which are one and the same thing) I cannot possibly be involved in what you hypothesise at all. RESPONDENT: It is apparent to anyone who wants to look at it. RICHARD: I am looking at it ... I am not seeing what you see. I am seeing there is *equity and parity* (not to be confused with equality) in all of my interactions with my fellow human beings. Again, if you re-read the exchange (further above) this will become obvious ... provided you are not looking for equality. I am as honest about explaining my interactions as I am in the actuality of my participation. (Richard, List B, No. 21b, 18 March 2000a). (...elided...). RESPONDENT: You think the problem is a matter of equality. RICHARD: Not at all ... and I made this clear right from the beginning when I initially wrote: [quote]: “...it is the need for power itself that is the problem – not who currently overtly or covertly holds it – which is why I suggested coming out of the ’sixties and here into the ’naughties, where *equity and parity* is the key to success”. [endquote]. So as to explicate why *equity and parity* is the sensible approach, perhaps you may be inclined to consider two very common platitudes ... but juxtaposed for clarity. Viz.: ‘we are all unique’ | ‘we are all equal’. (Richard, List B, No. 21b, 22 March 2000). * [Richard]: Fortunately, for yours truly and any body whose resident identity is taking notice of these words, ‘he’ had absorbed the hard-won revelations of one of the peasants who, having sought fame and fortune to escape a working-class childhood, had achieved a considerable degree of success in that enterprise (becoming a member of the world’s pecuniary super-elite, those 200,000-odd persons known to be of $30 million net-worth and above, who constitute something like 0.003% of the population by some accounts). Viz.: • [Richard]: ‘As for your query about the identity who used to inhabit this flesh and blood body all those years ago: the ego-self (aka ‘the thinker’) had a brief flirtation with ‘illusions of grandeur’ whilst a practising artist in the late 70’s until ‘he’ read an interview with Mr. John Lennon who, to put it as briefly as possible, reported that there was nothing ‘at the top’ and that fame [and fortune] *had no intrinsic worth* (...)’. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 53c, 30 March 2004). The peculiar aspect of this ‘disguised slavery’ system is, then, the vacuity of the peasant-mentality which dumbly perpetuates it. In a nutshell: what the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body circa 1978-79 began calling a ‘peasant mentality’ was exemplified by that vast majority of peoples not only just dumbly accepting and perpetuating this undeniably-rigged socio-economic system (known to hipsters as ‘The Establishment’) as being ‘just the way it is’ but being fiercely loyal to it, into the bargain, and defensive of it amongst themselves (to the point of defending it unto death, even, in shooting wars against other peasants similarly defending their elite few). I kid you not; on many an occasion back then, when that identity would share ‘his’ insights with ‘his’ fellow-peasants, they would object most strenuously – especially the salaried peasants (those ‘white-collar workers’ who fondly imagined themselves to be a cut above peasant-hood) – and would vigorously defend the status-quo in a manner not all that dissimilar to what is known in psychological/ psychiatric terms as ‘capture-bonding’ (popularly known as ‘The Stockholm Syndrome’, when localised, and ‘The Oslo Syndrome’, when communalised). Interestingly enough, some symptoms of ‘capture-bonding’ have been identified, in regards to criminal hostage situations, prisoners of war/ concentration camp internees, controlling/ intimidating relationships (battered wives/ hen-pecked husbands/ abused children), cult members, incest victims, and the like, [...] The hallmark of ‘peasant-mentality’ is, in a word, loyalty. (Richard, List D, Claudiu3, 28 May 2015). * Here is a report that Richard, ‘Peter’ and ‘Vineeto’ had indeed talked about peasant mentality, though it wasn’t named as such at the time – RESPONDENT: Meanwhile, I also wondered if you had discussed about peasant mentality with Peter and Vineeto, during their feeling being days, because there is no mention of this peasant mentality even in their journals... RICHARD: Yes, it was discussed – mostly touched upon from time-to-time, as appropriate to a particular situation and/or set of circumstances, rather than emphasised as a core issue in regards to actualism/ actual freedom – and the main aspect which feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ (for example) came to grips with in the early days was loyalty. A clue as to how soon that topic came up is contained in a snippet of a discussion about loyalty itself which happened to be tape-recorded, in 1997, and transcribed in ‘The Compassion Gained Through Forgiveness Binds’. A short way down the page the following exchange takes place. Viz.: (...elided...). In that text I am reminding ‘her’ how there had been a conversation about loyalty on the second or third occasion ‘she’ had visited – and I can recall, even now, how on that initial occasion it had touched a responsive chord in ‘her’ as something vital to examine – as ‘she’ had shifted ‘her’ familially-inculcated and societally-instilled allegiance to ‘the system’ at large over onto the spiritual commune which ‘she’ had been a live-in member for the better part of nigh-on seventeen years. It was still the ‘peasant-mentality’, of course, just in a different guise (and which the spiritually enlightened beings/ the mystically awakened ones, being feeling-beings themselves, affectively/ psychically tap into with full effect). Speaking of which: as no such effect operates here in ‘Terra Actualis’ – no loyalty to be bound with; no allegiance to be held by – there is no way any application whatsoever of ‘Das Führerprinzip’ (either of the secular, as in ‘Auctoritas Principis’ in Ancient Rome, or the sacred variety; as in “Not what I will, O Lord, but what Thou wilt”) could ever succeed. Here *equity and parity* prevails. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, No. 32a, 19 June 2015). I remember this course of events very well, I remember that feeling being ‘Vineeto’ sat on the floor next to Richard, leaning against the wall in his living room when ‘she’ had this fascinating discussion with him about loyalty. ‘She’ was telling him about ‘her’ concerns that ‘she’ was being traitor to ‘her’ community of Rajneeshees, including the people ‘she’ worked for as an employee, when ‘she’ was doubting and questioning the validity and efficacy of ‘her’ belief in, and dedication to, ‘her’ Master and spiritual enlightenment, after ‘she’ had had a glimpse from the conversations with Richard that there might be something superior on offer. Richard listened intently and at the end of the conversation said to ‘her’ “Ah, you are talking about loyalty”. This really had hit a chord. Was ‘her’ apparently multifaceted concern really only about loyalty? Loyalty was something ‘she’ could understand, and ‘she’ recalled many times in ‘her’ life where ‘she’ had changed loyalty to something which suited ‘her’ search for meaning better than ‘her’ previous pursuit, for instance as Richard described it in the above correspondence. And ‘she’ had landed here, in Richard's living room, in a small seaside town in Australia. It was quite amazing. It still took several more months, in which ‘she’ discovered that there was something presented to ‘her’ which was utterly fresh, sensible, sincere and, contrary to spiritual belief, appealed to ‘her’ intelligence. Besides, ‘she’ realized eventually that ‘she’ had nothing to lose but ‘her’ weakening spiritual dreams and ‘her’ devotion for a dead master. ‘Vineeto’ wrote about one decisive incident – VINEETO: (...) I had investigated Actual Freedom for several months to the point that I was getting some tangible results. At the time I was working in a company owned and run by Rajneesh disciples and was relatively happy in my job as secretary and bookkeeper. However, as I started to investigate my former spiritual beliefs and began to understand that it was absolutely impossible to marry my previous search for enlightenment with the discovery of Actual Freedom, I also became fearful that my colleagues at work and my spiritual friends would expose me as being a traitor and a heretic. One morning while driving the 25 km or so to work my fear became so overpowering that I began to not only understand what the source of this fear was, but I also understood what practical steps I had to take in order to get back to being happy and harmless again. What became apparent when I thought my situation through was that I was indeed a traitor to a cause, in this case the belief in the teachings of Mohan Rajneesh and the sooner I admitted to the fact the quicker I could stop being afraid of being exposed. By the time I reached the office I knew what to do – I decided that I had to do something about this particular fear once and for all. (‘Vineeto’, Actual Freedom List, No. 49, 7 April 2003). VINEETO: (...) – and, to my own surprise, arriving at work I gave notice. At the time I did not know any other solution to get rid of my fear than to precipitate what I feared most – losing my job. Since then I have worked occasionally in this company for holiday replacement and whenever they were short of staff, but never again full time. My sudden notice had created a certain shock for the others, but after this had worn off I had no problem relating to them as I had made my non-spiritual position quite clear and they had agreed to employ me again anyway. For me it had been important to openly take a stand in order to be able to disentangle myself from the grip that the spiritual world had on me. (‘Vineeto’, Actual Freedom List, Gary 18 August 2000). On the last day of the visit from Jonathan, Claudiu, Srinath, Alan and Adam (July 2013), Richard introduced the topic of Peasant Mentality. * RESPONDENT No. 32: Hey Jon...really enjoyed your post. Can you elaborate a bit more on that ‘peasant mentality’ which Richard discussed with you ? CLAUDIU: Oh I found the concept of the peasant mentality really awesome actuality. I hadn’t heard anybody else put it that way before. Let me try to formulate it properly. The idea is that sometime before today, it wasn’t the case that everything was owned. Like when America was uncolonized, you could just get in a wagon, ride west for however long, then stake out a territory and start farming it. But nowadays, everything is already owned. Everything is walled-off and fenced-off. When you are born you own nothing, and everything else is already owned. Those owners want to make you work for it, like you have to earn your keep, earn your right to live. If you do, then they give you some of the stuff they already own. If you work really hard, you get more stuff. If you are really corrupt then you can become an owner too, but still only by playing their game. This is the ‘peasant mentality’ – that you have to work to earn the right to live. That because you work, you deserve something. But really in a state of nature nothing is owned, you can just go wherever and do whatever you want. So the fact that everything is owned is artificial. Maybe uncolonized America was a bad example, maybe a better example is before civilization. I think that’s what Richard meant by peasant mentality, and he said how a while back he recognized this and decided not to play into it anymore, not to play the game that the owners have set up before you were even born. [...] RICHARD: G’day Claudiu, Yes, the better example is indeed ‘before civilisation’ as to ‘stake out a territory and start farming it’ marks the shift from a ‘free-range’ life-style to the ‘property-rights’ way of life (and, thereby, to the arising of a ‘peasant-mentality’). To explain: for a hunter-gatherer, the free-range life-style was epitomised by, basically, just helping oneself to whatever was available. With the advent of the property-rights way of life, however, any such ‘helping oneself’ transmogrified into being theft, larceny, stealing, despoliation, direption, and etcetera. Millennia later, all of this results in feeling-beings atavistically harbouring a deep, primordial *feeling* of being somehow disfranchised – the instinctual passions, being primeval, are still ‘wired’ for hunter-gathering – from some ancient ‘golden age’, wherein life was in some ill-defined way ‘free’ (e.g., ‘The Garden of Eden’), such as to affectively underpin all the class-wars (between the ‘haves and have-nots’) down through the ages. Unless this rudimentary *feeling* of disfranchisement – of *feeling* somehow deprived of a fundamental franchise (franchise = the territory or limits within which immunity, privileges, rights, powers, etcetera may be exercised) – is primarily understood (to the point of being viscerally felt, even) any explanation of ‘peasant-mentality’ will be of superficial use only. A footnote appended to a 2005 online response of mine is as good a place to start as any. Viz.: February 07 2005 • [Co-Respondent]: Another issue, related to this one [the issue of filial/ tribal duty], is my choice of career. I was considering teaching physics at the HS level, because I understand there is a shortage of science teachers in California. Is this also a part of the instinctual duty to fulfil the needs of society? • [Richard]: Not necessarily, no ... one does need to put food/ water into the belly, and a roof over the head/ clothes on the back (if the weather be inclement), and in this day and age the main way of obtaining the necessary wherewithal is through the covert slavery euphemistically known as ‘earning a living’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 83, 07 Feb 2005). The following day another respondent queried me on my above response; in my clarification I referred to the term ‘wage-slave’ as being, perhaps more correctly, ‘modern-day serfdom’. [...] Which neatly brings me to the point of detailing these above examples: understanding the ‘whys and wherefores’ of peasant-mentality is not about effecting social change but being free of it in oneself. In the seventh paragraph of ‘Article 20’ (appended further below) I have highlighted the relevant sentence. Viz.: • [Richard]: Astonishingly, I find that *social change is unnecessary*; I can live freely in the community as-it-is. [endquote]. (Richard’s Journal, Article 20; The Survival Of The Community Depends Upon Its Absolute Selfishness). In other words, one is then free to conform with the legal laws and observe the social protocols – to ‘go along with’, to ‘pay lip-service to’ – whilst no longer believing in them. ‘Tis a remarkable freedom in itself – with no need to rebel at all – as all rebellion stems, primarily, from that deeply-held primordial *feeling* of disfranchisement (and its associated feelings of resentment, envy, cynicism, and so on and so forth). (Richard, List D, Claudiu3, 18 May 2015) . * RICHARD: Going by those ways of expressing it then that feeling you have had, in the past, may very well be in the direction of that deep and primordial feeling referred to, further above, of being somehow disfranchised from just helping yourself to whatever was available (per favour the ‘free-range’ life-style of a hunter-gatherer) and, thereby, being subject to the arising of a ‘peasant-mentality’ (via enforced-employment under the ‘property-rights’ way of life). The question which engaged the attention of the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago went something like this: ‘Where is it carved in stone that the very earth beneath our feet – the source and nourishment of life itself – is to be alienated, from the vast majority of the peoples it engenders and sustains, by a minority of those persons for the maximum enrichment of that commandeering minority’? (For that is the essence of the famed ‘rule of law’ which lies at the heart of many National Constitutions world-wide). It is nowhere ‘carved in stone’ (of course) as the famed ‘rule of law’ is nothing other than an invention of the various warlords desirous of establishing an ideological system with which to continuously enrich themselves, and their idle off-spring, at the expense of the disfranchised majority. Furthermore: ‘How come that vast majority of peoples supplicate themselves at the feet of this commandeering minority, for the sake of ‘a few crumbs from their table’ (laden with the suppliants’ produce), and defend those alienators unto death, even, when attacked in force by another alienator’s suppliants bent upon enlarging their commandeering minority’s alienated territory for the sake of those very-same crumbs’? (Please bear in mind that the identity within had directed this flesh-and-blood body to go to war as a gilded youth – thereby risking ‘life and limb’ for the perpetuation of privately-owned capitalistic economic enterprise, as exemplified in the near-defunct USA system, over publicly-owned capitalistic economic enterprise, as exemplified in the now-defunct USSR system – in order to comprehend the context in which such questions arose). Moreover: ‘Who suffers the most – as in, who faces the greater loss – when the commandeering minority’s dominion, over a land they alienated from the common weal, is threatened via an invasion from without ... the suppliants or the dominators’? It is the strangest of incongruities that peasant will fight peasant en masse – for the further enrichment of their respective dominators – when the end result no matter the outcome either way is but ‘a few crumbs’ from their dominator’s table (laden with the peasants’ produce) just as before. Hence the term ‘peasant-mentality’. To add insult to injury, as it were, the peasants are told that, by partaking of those ‘few crumbs’, they have thereby ‘signed’ an invisible ‘social contract’ wherein – to paraphrase the words of Mr. Jean-Jacques Rousseau – each person and all their power has been put in common under the supreme direction of the general will where, at once and in place of the individual personality of each contractor, this very act of association has created a moral and collective body. The end result of all this is the current situation where the vast majority – upwards of at least 98% or more – of the peoples alive today have to give of their physical or mental labour and time (to that commandeering minority) so as to be grudgingly granted in return (by that commandeering minority) a portion of the total ascribed value of what they produced (for that commandeering minority) so as to be able to purchase (from that commandeering minority) sufficient liquids, comestibles, shelter, raiment, medicaments, and any other such essential matériel, for everyday survival purposes. ‘Tis truly a rigged system ... rigged to ever-enrich an already obscenely rich elite. In effect it is a system of disguised slavery – a lugubrious legacy which everyone alive today has unwittingly inherited from long-dead peoples of long-ago eras – wherein the only way to escape subservient compliance (inasmuch all the ‘free-range’ was long-ago commandeered by ‘privateers’, so to speak, or otherwise alienated from the common weal) is to try to become one of the elite few and similarly exploit one’s fellow human beings. (Richard, List D, Claudiu3, 28 May 2015). * This recent correspondence might also be relevant – KUBA: I remember when I was 18 and on a trip in Paris with my friends doing parkour. The best parkour spots were in the “roughest” parts of Paris and so we were hanging out at night time in ghettos. One night a man approached me and pointed a gun at me, and said “phone and wallet”. I always remember this because there was no fear and neither was there any theorising about any social/power dynamics happening. Rather there was a recognition that whatever ‘power’ he had was simply in the gun pointed at me, it made complete sense to calmly give over my belongings. VINEETO: I had to look up “doing parkour” and when I saw the picture I remember seeing several videos where a group of young people perform this amazing art/ sport. I am still in wonder about the skill and strength required to do it without getting badly hurt! KUBA: I write this because as I see it now this system that has been in place is fundamentally of the same kind. The fundamental fact of it all is that the peasant simply had no means to fight against that which was being forced onto them. In the same way seeing the big picture I realise that just as then I handed over my belongings (as that was the sensible course of action) now I simply operate within / pay lip service to this exploitative system without any feelings of disenfranchisement or rebellion. It seems what happens in the world at large is that once this system solidifies people then forget the roots of it all, they can then kid themselves and come up with many fancy ideologies, to demand “my rights” etc, essentially to imagine that the situation is anything other than robbery at gunpoint haha. I did not suffer back then when I was robbed and neither do I suffer now seeing the whole picture, rather I am freed to act sensibly. On the other hand I am not inspired by any ideology to act as if the situation is different to what it is. As always there is such a freedom in seeing the fact. VINEETO: Thank you for this perspective, it explains why ‘Vineeto’ did not recognize the peasant mentality and even after becoming actually free I took some time after Richard talked about it to wrap my mind around it. One just accepts the situation one is born into because ‘it has always been like this’. But once seen and understood, as you say, “there is such an amazing freedom in seeing the fact”. It also makes it even more amazing that Richard worked it all out while ‘he’ was still a feeling being. (Actualism, Actualvineeto, Kuba4, 5 February 2025). * RICHARD to Claudiu: (...). Also, something I wrote in 1998 will help set the scene for what else the term ‘peasant-mentality’ meant to the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body circa 1978-1988 (a ‘turning-point’ decade in which ‘he’ sussed-out much of what has been going down for millennia). Viz.: [...snip discussion about Ms. Ayn Rand’s use of the word ‘parasites’ (as in her ‘parasites incapable of survival’ phrasing) to depict any people who ‘attempt to survive’ by defrauding/ looting/ robbing/ cheating/ enslaving the ‘men who produce’ – specifically, those who ‘choose to think and to produce the goods’, that is – whom she otherwise characterises as those ‘who are capable’ and who pursue ‘a course of action proper to man’ in an essay on Objectivist Ethics...]. The main point to get about the mechanisation/ robotisation/ computerisation of productive work is the work which the now-made-redundant workers once carried out still gets done – indeed productivity increases many-fold due solely to such ingenious ‘labour-saving’ devices – yet the dispossessed workers are castigated just as the peasants of yore were (way back when peasants not working meant the work did not get done). The made-redundant person (or a person unable to gain paid employment in the first place) who buys into such epithets a ‘dole-bludger’ and the ilk – and dutifully self-castigates – is thus another example of a person with a ‘peasant-mentality’. (...). In the seventh paragraph of ‘Article 20’ (appended further below) I have highlighted the relevant sentence. Viz.: • [Richard]: Astonishingly, I find that *social change is unnecessary*; I can live freely in the community as-it-is. [endquote]. In other words, one is then free to conform with the legal laws and observe the social protocols – to ‘go along with’, to ‘pay lip-service to’ – whilst no longer believing in them. ‘Tis a remarkable freedom in itself – with no need to rebel at all – as all rebellion stems, primarily, from that deeply-held primordial *feeling* of disfranchisement (and its associated feelings of resentment, envy, cynicism, and so on and so forth). (Richard, List D, Claudiu3, 18 May 2015). KUBA: I remember a correspondence on the AFT where Richard kept mentioning something like “this will make more sense once you see what money actually is”. I could never quite get this, because I always believed that money was a currency that was more efficient at trade vs. trading physical goods. But yesterday I started wondering, is “what money actually is” one of the tools that can be used to enforce (in disguise) what is essentially modern day serfdom? That for those warlords money would be an extremely effective tool to keep the peasantry working away for merely crumbs without realising just what is going on. After all if I was to hand over a weeks worth of grain for a few crumbs of bread I could not help but see the blatant exploitation, perhaps eventually leading to a revolt by the peasant masses. VINEETO: Hi Kuba, The serfdom and exploitation of the peasants existed long before the “Monetary Crimes”. I just now remembered a story ‘Vineeto’s’ then-mother read out to the young siblings and ‘her’ on a winter’s evening about peasants bringing their grain to the Landlord in exchange for other goods in return, when one bright lad figured out that the Landlord’s scales were corrupt – so that on top of the meagre exchange rate they were additionally diddled of their ‘just’ reward for their hard work. There was no happy ending to the story, the one who had the power ‘won’ the dispute. ‘Vineeto’ was about 10-yrs at the time and I remember that this injustice affected ‘her’ deeply. ‘She’ had just found out, via this realistic story, that life in the world was not just and fair. You are still correct in your thinking that “money was a currency that was more efficient at trade vs. trading physical goods”, while your thinking about going back to exchanging grain for other goods is highly unpractical and certainly not a viable solution for the massive monetary corruption, just like a “revolt by the peasant masses” is not a solution either. You can work this out for yourself when you acquaint yourself with some of the history of peasant revolts. The minor revolts were squashed by those who owned the guns, and mass revolutions, many of them in the name of ‘communist’ revolutions all turned into dictatorships with atrocious bloodshed by the new rulers. Here is the number of people having been killed by their own government. It far exceeds war-deaths. The link Richard gave for the book of Alexander de Mar, A History Of Monetary Crimes 1899-1983 had expired; here is a current link. It is certainly a fascinating read and I remember when Richard first told me about the book 10 years ago. Here is a short quote – “In 1662 Charles II. confirmed this renewal (of the money-coining and monopoly privileges of the East-India company) and, for a corrupt consideration, permanently established this Company of money-changers, privateers, fillibusters and bullies. From that year dates a new order of men in England. The Estates formerly consisted of the Crown, the Church, the Lords and the Commons. To these were now added the financiers, or Billoneurs, who have since almost entirely swallowed the others. Originally the financiers consisted of 215 monopolists under the title of the East India Company: they now comprise the entire world of money‑changers and bankers. This cosmopolitan band threatens the peace of mankind.” (Page 9). Richard’s comments on the book regarding money-matters and the peasant mentality in general are as relevant today as they were then (Richard, List D, Rick, 3 June 2015) as well as this one. (Richard, List D, Claudiu3, 18 May 2015). (Actualism, ActualVineeto, Kuba4, 4 February 2025). * ANDREW: Hi Richard, that’s a great read indeed! Thanks for taking the time to put it together. It helps to hear also of the work you did during the late 70s through to mid 80s looking into these issues. RICHARD: G’day Andrew, Yes, the resolution of the above issue (the implications and ramifications of the mechanisation/ robotisation/ computerisation of productive work) came to a head in the late 1970’s whilst listening to a Parliamentary Broadcast, on the National Radio, of the then-Prime Minister’s speech about the necessity of importing the latest electronics technology – despite it putting tens of thousands of current and future employees out of work – in order for the nation to remain competitive on the world market. In other words, it was a deliberate Government Policy to add even more hapless citizens to the rising double-digit pool of unemployed – the days of full employment, in developed countries, had ended during the early 1970’s world-wide economic crises – and yet, despite this remarkably frank public admission, disparaging epithets such as ‘dole-bludgers’ and similar continued unabated. Obviously, for him and his ilk such ingenious labour-saving devices were not designed to release peoples from having to ‘earn their (daily) bread by the sweat of the brow’ – even though productive work not only still got done but productivity increased many-fold as well – but were avariciously arrogated to serve as saving-labour costs instead and, thus, increase their profits many-fold. Howsoever, those words from that wealthy pastoralist – a man infamous for forcing the nation into a constitutional crisis, so he could gain such political power he was then liberally exercising, and notorious for saying that ‘life wasn’t meant to be easy’ (despite a privileged Grammar School education and an Oxford degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics) – were the final straw in regards the hallowed ‘Protestant Work-Ethic’ which had been thoroughly inculcated, from early childhood onward, into the identity then-inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body, such as to occasion ‘him’ to work 12-14 hours a day 6-7 days a week. Now, whilst ‘he’ did not have an Economics Degree (let alone from a prestigious university) ‘his’ egalitarian far-sightedness enabled ‘him’ to see that unless productive workers – including those displaced by the ingenious mechanisation, robotisation, and computerisation of productive work – receive monies sufficient enough to purchase those goods produced then any such increased productivity decreases accordingly, with the economy correspondingly going into slow-down, whereupon workers are laid-off, and the economy goes into melt-down. Evidentially, however, avaritia leads to short-sightedness. [...] Ha ... that which you read about is a classic example of the ‘peasant-mentality’ in action (you obviously missed my final words – ‘no need to rebel at all’ – written just above my signature/sign-off). (Richard, List D, Andrew, 22 May 2015). * Kuba recently gave a insightful report how he was able to fade out and step out of his life-long belief in authority, power, hierarchy and ‘humanity’s wisdom’, all of them clearly features of peasant mentality – Oct 3 2024 KUBA: I am finding lately that an aspect of ‘myself’ which ‘I’ have carried so deeply for so many years is disappearing. It is to do with authority and the resultant lack of confidence, this deep feeling that no matter what ‘I’ do ‘I’ will never be good enough. It is funny to look at it now, because all ‘my’ life ‘I’ crippled ‘myself’ because of ‘my’ own belief in the absolute power of authority, no wonder ‘I’ never felt good enough as ‘I’ was only comparing ‘my’ performance to ‘their’ beliefs/values/morals etc. So ‘my’ life was a life of always second guessing ‘myself’, always feeling like there is a ‘big daddy’ who knows better, of always trying to work out just what the ‘right’ thing to do is. Always trying to act out the best performance but painfully falling short each time, then castigating ‘myself’ for failing to live up to ‘their’ borrowed values! What I am getting a taste of these days is as Richard described – “Here is a total lack of conformity and compromise” (Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Nine). There is such a freedom to no longer being crippled by one’s belief in authority. Interestingly enough with the belief in authority fading, the feeling of ‘me’ never being good enough also fades, as after all it was ‘their’ beliefs which were the benchmark ‘I’ was comparing ‘myself’ against, constantly. The question is why were ‘they’ given such credibility in the first place? When it was clearly not warranted. But it was the belief in authority itself which made ‘me’ cling to ‘their’ values even though ‘I’ knew deep down that they were faulty.
| Stepping out of this was probably the most daring thing ‘I’ could have contemplated, it was for sure what always brought the most trepidation, that intrinsic power which authority held seemed inviolable, it was a weight that ‘I’ couldn’t imagine ever being lifted, that gravitational pull of ‘humanity’. What a freedom for this weight, this rock that was crushing ‘me’ since ‘I’ became a member of ‘humanity’ to be lifted. There is such a joy in the quiet confidence that comes when ‘I’ am no longer a slave to ‘humanity’s wisdom’, it is definitely much recommended :). I remember how this came about, a few days ago I saw briefly that entire construct of authority, power, hierarchy etc for the belief that it is. It was seen to never have been genuine in the first place. This seems to have been the precursor for what is being actualised now. I couldn’t find a better image but this was what it felt like for ‘me’ to face up to ‘humanity’s wisdom’ :laughing: A wisdom which after a thorough review turned out to be a joke…
It is funny, me and Sonya went out for a fancy Japanese meal the other day, it was a very intimate ambience with only the chef and 4 people in the room. The other 2 was a couple with the boyfriend being a ‘new money’ kinda guy. Of course he spent the whole time trying to impress upon us his achievements. I ended up talking with him to some depth and it very quickly became clear to him that I simply didn’t agree with his borrowed wisdom, felicitously. He attempted to advise me by pointing out that trees grow to their max potential but only humans limit themselves, funnily enough in the next sentence he equated that ‘maximum potential’ with how many G wagons one is driving :laughing: The bizarre thing happened next when he offered to pay our bill (which was pretty substantial due to the kind of restaurant we were at), I am not sure if this was him throwing the last punch or perhaps he appreciated that I was able to talk with him in a way that was genuine and amicable, despite his attempts at impressing his superiority. But this gives an example as to the quality of this highly venerated ‘human wisdom’. * To emphasize again – all one’s beliefs, truths, values, principles, prejudices, habits, ideas, etcetera, which remain after becoming basically free from the instinctual passions and the identity formed thereof, will have to be examined and dissolved, *one by one*. The guardian cannot be thrown out all at once. In fact the guardian a.k.a. the social identity cannot be seen in its totality until it is emptied out of its content.⁽*⁾ ⁽*⁾Richard: It is impossible for ‘me’ to detect ‘me’ as the part of ‘me’ who would be doing the detecting is unable to be detected ... the various aspects of an identity can likened to a wedge-shaped slice cut into a pie, or a cake, wherein one could slice that piece ever thinner and thinner and yet still not detect that last remaining, and oh-so-thin, wedge who is engaged in doing the detecting. For what it is worth: • The social identity (aka conscience as in a principled moral and/or ethical guardian) being a cultural emotional/mental construct is located in beliefs cunningly disguised as truths). (Richard, List D, No. 11, 30 November 2009, Tool-tip after “no ‘I’ can detect ‘itself’”). The time this will take depends on how much one has seen through one’s beliefs, habits, values and behaviour patterns before becoming basically free, and how quickly one can recognize and discard the patterns of the various aspects of this conglomerated guardian who has taken control and maintained control of how ‘an actualist’ should think and act. Any thought of ‘should’ and ‘shouldn’t’ and ‘need to’ is an indicator for the guardian in action. Only when this social identity is hollowed out of its content, so to speak, can it be seen as a whole, seen for what it is – a *centre-creating identity*, an unpassionate but nevertheless controlling and limiting centre, separating you from what you are in actuality – a sensate and reflective human being living the magical perfection of the purity and experiencing the vast stillness of infinitude. Abandoning Humanity The very presence of social identity/ peasant mentality clearly indicates that one hasn’t abandoned humanity as yet, and one notable issue of needing to belong to a smaller or larger group of humanity is lack of self-esteem despite the absence of one’s instinctual passions. The process is very similar to before becoming free when investigating any aspect of the social identity – seeing each particular aspect in its totality, upon exposure dissolution occurs. Many social identity aspects can be described as having to do with ‘self-worth’ (and self-worth as derived from other people’s opinion – social status, respect, acceptance, authority, control, pride – in other words, inequity and imparity, the very components which stand in the way to peace-on-earth amongst fellow human beings. Whereas when pure intent is allowed to operate freely intimacy, fellow-ship regard, magnanimity and tenderness can flourish. Autonomy can only be achieved when one’s ‘self-worth’ is no longer of any concern. I am reminded of this “Wonder-land Tale” from Richard, which informs in detail how self-worth is not worth anything when one understands and experiences the very nature of pure intent – RICHARD: G’day Rick, As the operative-word in all the above is ‘self-worth’ (and self-worth as derived from others’ opinion at that) perhaps a personal anecdote may be of assistance. (If nothing else it will provide some light relief/ entertainment). Many years ago, back when I was a normal bloke and making my living as a practising artist, a minor art gallery in a major city approached me with a proposition to stage a one-man exhibition of my idiosyncratic ceramic work – with the selection to be entirely of my own choice – complete with metropolis-wide advertising, an opening night with the usual razzamatazz (wine and cheese, etc.), invitations to various art-critics, quite liberal terms of commission, and a guaranteed-to-be-exclusive three-week run. I was a big frog in a small provincial pond, at the time, and this was an opportunity to be a small frog in a large urban pond – to put one foot on the bottom rung of a potential ladder of national success – so the rather generous offer with its opportune entrée into the inner-city art establishment was readily accepted and a firm date was set for three months hence. Without any thought at all it was obvious to me the exhibition would comprise entirely of fresh pieces – even though there was already more than enough high quality items at hand (which the art gallery had in mind) – as that way a cohesive body of work, with a yet to be discovered theme, would bring about the integrity necessary to carry the day. Now, with ceramics there is normally a five-to-six week lead-in time (due to the process of making, carving, drying, first-firing, glazing, decorating, and second-firing) yet the days became weeks until, despite the frequent reminders and promptings of my then-wife, only three weeks remained before the big night. And three weeks was the absolute minimum time-span; if the eighty-odd pieces were not formed today then the afore-mentioned hodgepodge stock-at-hand would have to be pressed into service. Not that the art-gallery would mind, of course, but I would. For most of the morning I wedged, kneaded and balled the highest quality (the most-aged and ripened) clay from my extensive stocks of hand-dug and hand-mixed local clays; it was one of those quite marvellous days of lightly overcast skies and a gentle, misty rain; there was no wind at all, not even the slightest zephyr of a breeze; the quietly gleaming hand-made copper kettle was sitting, steaming gently atop the cheery pot-bellied stove in my studio; music from a nowadays-superseded four-track cartridge player was piping through all its strategically placed speakers; the dank, swampy aroma of the well-matured clay was filling the nostrils as it began to bounce elastically beneath my well-practiced kneading hands; and soon all was well, within my world, as any and all stress from time-pressure softly ebbed away. Settling myself onto my home-made pottery wheel, and kicking it into action, I swiftly and easily formed a few small throwaway pieces so as to get my hand in. Then, without any further ado, I reached for the first of the eighty-odd different-sized balls of finely-prepared clay; dropping it onto the still slowing-turning wheel-head I kicked up the momentum of the heavy wheel beneath my feet; moistening my hands in the bowls of warm, muddy water to either side I then centred the clay ball and began throwing the first of the many individual pieces which would eventually comprise the whole. Being well-dug, well-prepared, well-aged, well-wedged and well-kneaded the clay, whilst supremely elastic, was taut and springy beneath the hands; there would be no slumping, no sagging, no bulging, just this easy pulling up to maximum height; just this graceful setting of bellied form; just this elegant rolling of lip just this effortless forming of the base; just this ready pass of the cutting thread detaching it from the wheel-head; just this gentle placing of it on the ready-to-hand shelf-tray nearby; just this regular reaching for the next ball; just this easy kicking keeping the momentum rolling. Upon placing the third or fourth newly-formed piece alongside its predecessors, and whilst reaching for the next ball, it is evident the clouds are clearing a trifle; the sun is shining fitfully through a gap onto the translucent full-height screens immediately to the front; some chickens are clucking and scratching around in the ground just beyond them; ducks are quacking and nosing into the mud of the small pond nearby; off in the near-distance the pigs are snorting and snuffling for roots; one of the goats is bleating; a couple of the geese are honking; and ... and a by-now-familiar and oh-so-subtle shift is occurring in the brain-stem. All-of-a-sudden there is a vast stillness – there is absolutely no movement of time – and in that perfect peace the piece of pottery is making itself. The foot is kicking the massive wheel of its own accord; the hands are dipping themselves into the warm, muddy water; the eyes are eying the bellied form all on their own; the hands, one on the inside and the other on the outside just below the former, are gently coaxing the perfect shape without command (or is the perfect form gently coaxing the hands to its bidding); and the whole world – nay, the entire universe, itself – is a magical fairytale-like wonderland where nothing, but nothing, ever ultimately goes wrong. * And then, with the sun sinking spectacularly in the west behind banked clouds, the one-hundredth pot has made itself (so much for the planned eighty-odd) and the one-man exhibition is in the bag ... guaranteed to be a fantastic success. * It is now three weeks later: all the pieces have been carved, dried, first-fired, glazed, decorated, second-fired, packed, transported, unpacked and selectively placed upon their pedestals in the major city art gallery. It is opening night and the place is packed with peoples from many walks of life; all milling around, glasses in hand, seeing and being seen. Being the star of the show I am, accordingly, a trifle late in arriving (as is the fashion). With orange juice in hand I mix and mingle; a word or two here; a tilt of the head there; a small chat here; a wink and a grin there; a murmured response here; and all the while noticing those little red stickers appearing, first on this piece, then on that piece, more on those pieces, until almost every single piece is snapped-up. It is shaping up to be a sell-out ... and all on opening night! The curator is tapping on his glass, calling for attention, and the speechifying begins; soon it is my turn to speak and every eye is turned toward me, every ear is listening to me, everybody’s rapt attention is directed towards the ... well, towards the star of the show, of course. But I am not the star of the show – the pieces made themselves, remember, back in that magical wonderland – and yet all of the accolades, all of the applause, all of the (yes) adulation, is centred solely upon me. It was at that moment I understood something so profound it is permanently etched into the memory banks ... to wit: I did not and could not value their collective/ individual opinions one iota, one jot, for they knew not of what they spoke. And even if they were to be told, that the pieces magically made themselves, they would lavish praise for being so gifted/ so blessed/ so whatever. Moreover, they did not, and would not ever, comprehend that the esteem they bestowed so lavishly slid straight off me like that proverbial water off a duck’s back ... as, at that very moment, self-esteem and all its associated vanity and humility vanished out of my life forever, never to return, even unto this very day. * And so, Rick, as we come to the end of this quaint little wonder-land tale, just what value is self-esteem, eh? (Richard, List D, Rick, 17 May 2009). With fully recognizing the uselessness of self-esteem/ self-worth, “(and self-worth as derived from others’ opinion at that)” there is no need to uphold this link to humanity any longer. However, each individual will have a different sequence of tackling their issues of the social identity. * As loyalty plays a major part in maintaining one’s peasant mentality, here is an example that might be of use – RESPONDENT: I am interested in a more in-depth explanation of this topic by yourself. RICHARD: Okay ... nationalism, and thus patriotism with all its heroic evils, is an amplified form of tribalism: tribalism is an augmentation of clanism; clanism, being familistical, is but a much larger extension of the extended-family; and the extended-family stems, of course, from where blood is the thickest it can ever possibly be than water ... to wit: the core family group itself. Now, although the root cause of war itself is the instinctual passions in action, the primary impulse for warfare at large is, more often than not, none other than kinship bonds (or any extension thereof no matter how attenuated in modern-day nations) and yet the ties of consanguinity are widely held in high esteem, almost to the point of being subject to taboo, and thus generally exempt from an investigation into the human condition (as is evidenced from time-to-time both on this mailing list and others, for example, by derogatory comments about the way I interact with the fellow human beings who happen to be my progeny). Here in this actual world, where everybody is special simply by being alive as a flesh and blood body, kinship ties/ family bonds are nowhere to be found ... which means that, not only is the root cause of war eliminated, the fundamental impulse for warfare at large, generally speaking, has been similarly eradicated. It is all so simple, here. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, No. 68b, 6 May 2005a). * Richard had always referred to abandoning humanity as the penultimate step. RICHARD: […] Then one takes the penultimate step ... one abandons ‘humanity’. An actual freedom from the human condition then unfolds its inevitable destiny’. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Rick, # Penultimate Step). Here he wrote to feeling being ‘Vineeto’ in 1999 when ‘she’ had asked him about what belonging to humanity means – ‘VINEETO’: [Richard]: ‘When it is understood that the one is the epitome of the many and that ‘I’ am the ‘many’ and the ‘many’ is ‘me’ ... ‘I’ self-immolate at the core of ‘being’. Then I am this material universe’s infinitude experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being. A desirable side-effect is peace-on-earth’. What does it mean, when you say ‘I’ am the ‘many’ and the ‘many’ is ‘me’? RICHARD: In the context that the quote was written, I was adapting my oft-repeated phrase ‘I’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’ to fit in with the subject matter [...] As I understand it, in the on-going study of genetics the germ cells (the spermatozoa and the ova) have been classified as being of a somewhat different nature to body cells. This has led to speculation that each and every body is nothing but a carrier for the genetic lineage ... that the species, therefore, is more important than you and me or any other body. Now, whilst that theory is just a typically ‘humble’ way of interpreting the data, it did strike me, some years ago, that this genetic memory could very well be the origin of the immortal ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’ (as contrasted to ‘I’ as ego who will undergo physical death). Hence it occurred to me that the source of ‘who ‘I’ really am’ could very well be nothing more mysterious than blind nature’s survival software. I have always had a bent for the practical explanation ... and solution. [...] Yet it is the instinct for survival that got you and me and every other body here in the first place. We peoples living today are the end-point of myriads of survivors passing on their genes ... we are the product of the ‘success story’ of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. Is one really going to abandon that which produced one ... that which (apparently) keeps one alive? Do you recall those conversations we had about loyalty (familial and group loyalty) back when you and I first met ... and what was required to crack that code? That was chicken-feed compared with this one. (Richard, Actual Freedom List, Vineeto, 30.9.1999). Upon reflection, it appears that after the opening of the Direct Route on 30th of December 2009 abandoning humanity is happening both before and after becoming newly free. It is still the penultimate step to a full actual freedom. So one can appreciate that it’s not a little thing to be engaged in. As I said before, it is made so much easier because after becoming newly free there are no instinctual survival passions to get in the way, no psychic web to confuse and distort, *and* because pure intent is so much easier to access for guidance, perseverance and the wonder-ful appreciation of the magicality of it all. In his Journal Richard talks about the community (when the fiction of ‘humanity’ has been abandoned) – RICHARD: I know that there is no ‘whole’ outside of passionate ‘human’ imagination. The community actually exists for the good of me – and for the good of all other individuals – without ever realising it. A good example of this is the social welfare system. Because of the Agrarian Revolution, the Industrial Revolution and the more recent Technological Revolution, people can no longer pursue a subsistence life style as hunter-gatherers. The land is no longer free-range; it is all either publicly or privately owned. As this situation prevailed when one was born, it is incumbent upon the community at large to provide one with the means to obtain the necessities of life. The predominating system has been the provision of money – acquired by working – with which to buy food, clothing, shelter, etcetera. If the community cannot sustain full employment, it must provide an alternate means for one to purchase one’s goods. A social welfare system is not a luxury supplied by an affluent society; it is an essential requisite that the community must readily furnish. This is not a moral issue – as the ‘whole’ smugly feels it to be – for welfare is not charity. Because, regardless of the ‘whole’s self-endowed compassionate nature, the disenfranchised must be fed and housed. If the community did not do this, there would be a rebellion from the hungry and homeless millions. The preservation of the orderly fabric of society is the guiding principle at play here, not moral duty, obligation and responsibility on the part of the community. Accordingly, in the actual world the community is never selfish. It acts for the good of the individual – which is why it exists – and in doing so it preserves itself in order to serve the individual. Only in the real world is it self-centred, acting “for the good of the whole” and preserving itself – at the expense of the individual – for the sake of preserving itself. A person who sees all this clearly and completely, who understands all this deeply and comprehensively, who knows all this actually and absolutely, will never make the mistake of thinking and feeling that one must “die for one’s country” as a moral duty, obligation and responsibility. The choice to risk one’s life – or not – to repel an invasion is a freely made decision; it is not the result of coercion, cajolery or shame. The same applies for conscription – that abominable forced induction into military service – for one will not succumb to a situation where one is compelled to kill or be killed. One realises that conscription is a “crime against humanity” and that a country will decide whether to allow itself to be invaded or not by “voting with its feet”. If voluntary enlistment is not sufficient to counter the attack, then the country has democratically voted for surrender. The same pure rationale applies to having babies; one is not coerced, cajoled or shamed into “doing one’s bit for society” by risking one’s life in child-birth in order to populate and perpetuate the country. One makes a freely considered decision whether to conceive or not; the country thus “votes with its feet” on the issue of continuing the species or letting it die out. One will never commit the error of thinking and feeling that society owns one’s body; it is not one’s duty, obligation and responsibility to procreate. Contraception and abortion are not moral issues; they are the means to sustain one’s salubrity. One does not “owe a debt to society”, for society exists only for the good of the individual. And this has been the case all along. ‘I’ blamed society for ‘my’ woes ... with ‘me’ extirpated there are no woes. There is nothing and no-one to need any blame, for nothing is going wrong. It was all a play in emotive imaginative thought … an errant and vainglorious brain-pattern. Nothing more needs to be done now, except to freely assist another person to actualise this vital break-through for themselves. When that person is also free they can similarly facilitate the freedom of another person ... and another ... and another ... and so on. (Richard’s Journal, Article 20) * RICHARD: Speaking personally, in my investigations I first started by examining thought, thoughts and thinking ... then very soon moved on to examining feelings (first the emotions and then the deeper feelings). When I dug down into these passions (into the core of ‘my’ being then into ‘being’ itself) I stumbled across the instincts ... and found the origin of not only the affective faculty but the psyche itself. I found ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’ ... which is the instinctual rudimentary animal self common to all sentient beings (which ‘original face’ is what gives rise to the feeling of ‘oneness’ with all other sentient beings). This is a very ancient genetic memory; being born of the biologically inherited instincts genetically encoded in the germ cells of the spermatozoa and the ova, ‘I’ am – genetically – umpteen tens of thousands of years old ... ‘my’ origins are lost in the mists of pre-history. ‘I’ am so anciently old that ‘I’ may well have always existed ... carried along on the reproductive cell-line, over countless millennia, from generation to generation. And ‘I’ am thus passed on into an inconceivably open-ended and hereditably transmissible future. Hence: ‘I’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’. (Richard, List B, No. 33a, 15 October 1999) And now we come to the description of Geoffrey’s process towards the end of his investigations into the social identity after all individual topics had been dealt with and he had ‘emptied out’ the shell of his social identity – 26.6.2024 Geoffrey: The presence of social identity, with regards to infinitude, acts like a centre. Whatever whittling away at it has taken place, this essential feature remains. The centre creates bounded-ness. The world then appears to be a snow globe, the sky as its dome, and the limit of one’s perception at the horizon its limit. This pocket world moves along with one at its centre. In my present experience the glass that separates this snow-globe-world from infinitude has been thinned so much, its fragility is so obvious, that its persistence under the continuous assault of the all-powerful wave of pure intent that stems from infinitude’s stillness is puzzling, and unsustainable. I feel like a kid trying to maintain some sandcastle’s seawall against the rising tide. The entire universe is an infinite wave, and my little castle suspended in space is like a bubble about to pop. I can’t imagine what it must be like to face that immense energy without such a wall to hide behind, to have it within one’s body, to be somehow transparent to its workings. Your descriptions of such overwhelming energy making you almost immobile should somehow scare me, and yet they seem to make it all the more obvious to me that there is nothing to do but proceed. (...) Vineeto: As such your, the guardian’s, projection is, if you allowed yourself to abdicate, poor Geoffrey would sizzle in outer space or that you would be immobile from then on and this is not quite what is likely to happen, lol. Geoffrey: That ‘lol’ was so appropriate. Its rarity in your writing (afaik) made it all the more noticeable to me. It made very clear the ridiculousness of this projection of mine. I would have liked to comment further on your very astute remarks about my remaining objection, the ‘last mystery’, the expectation of ’total annihilation’... because they sent me into a few days of intense contemplation (… why I didn’t answer sooner), that have resulted in a perhaps decisive event this past night just before 2am. Geoffrey's comment that “I can’t imagine what it must be like” turned out to be his last objection which held the “snow-globe” in place, because shortly after he wrote – 1.7.2024 Geoffrey: Now let me tell you about the event. It was a warm and starry night. At about 1am on the 25th of June, I sat on the balcony. My situation as basically free, with a social identity extant, was clearer than ever. The snow globe that the world appeared to be, with me at its centre, was undeniable. The stars, and the rising moon, appeared painted on the sky dome. There was a limit there, a wall, and all knowledge that the universe extended beyond that was seen as intellectual only, for experientially there was nothing but this bubble of a universe, even if perfect and pure, floating in the unknown. Some god might as well have created it; some god might as well be holding it in his hand, like a pearl, smiling at its exquisite detail. Infinitude was out of reach, blocked by the centre that I was. Denied. Kept at bay. This pocket world... always centred around me... like I was the one making it, like it was mine. And the satisfaction at its perfection... my satisfaction at my own creation. Some kind of a god then. God of a tiny kingdom. King of a sandcastle. And yet pure intent was pouring forth, a stream of pure benevolence in every leaf, in every whiff of air, in every stone. A complete and undeniable existence and aliveness of everything. Indifferent to any bubble, to any castle. Here, there and everywhere all at once. Every there pointing to everywhere. Every then to everywhen. Every thing to infinitude. At the same time there was a totality finally making sense: the social identity with its society-related components (ideas, habits, behaviours…) on one hand, and that centre-creating process on the other. It was one and the same thing. A clearly backwards-oriented thing, in a very concrete way. Social identity, in its social components, its personas, its beliefs, had to be dealt with prior, one after the other. It took years. It had to be rendered bare. The bare centre. For it to be seen as it is: as identity. For the ultimate choice to appear: Playing at still being someone; grasping at straws to make them into a shaft... and calling it a realm. Or being what always was: the universe experiencing itself; with no centre and no bounds. As clear as the choice was, there was no equivalence about these options. One was pretence, one was actual. There was simply no need to keep up with that play and pretence of an I. It may just go away, it may just cease: that whole totality of the social identity, finally seen as one, that whole I. Not pushing it away, not dealing with it, not getting it to abdicate as I had envisioned in a somewhat forceful way. Only that keeping the pretence was unnecessary. In order to finally be what had been there all along. This sentence kept coming into my mind: Vineeto: As such I am no different to a tree, a rock, a spring, a mountain or a distant star and can truly say that I am the universe experiencing itself as this flesh and blood body. (Actualism, ActualVineeto, Srinath, 1 January 2019) I was indeed looking at a rock, right there, down in the garden. How was I any different than this rock regarding infinitude? This body and this rock were both completely transfixed by the intensity of pure intent at that instant, both shining in the overarching stillness, both the infinite and eternal and perdurable universe. Only, what choice for the rock? A sudden hilarity overtook me. The choice appeared to be there for me: the actual or the pretence. But... the rock? For all I know, It may as well be playing at being a person, the rock. Living in a fantasised society of rocks, measuring themselves without end. The rock might as well declare himself centre of the universe, and draw bounds on it. It may as well declare himself King, Lord and Maker of its own rock-centric snow-globe universe! Uncontrollable bursts of laughter were running through me. The ridiculousness of my pretence! The ridiculousness of this whole social identity pretence in the face of the actual universe! The ridiculousness of this bubble, of this snow globe castle, in the face of infinitude! Silent laughter was running through me like waves. Something was at work that there was no controlling. Ten minutes of this left me suddenly exhausted, I went to bed and fell asleep immediately, at about 2am. The next morning was simply amazing. As soon as I opened my eyes, a palpable stillness was everywhere. A quality of stillness so full and so simple that I was walking around smiling to my ears. I sat in the garden with a cup of coffee and there was literally nothing in my mind but appreciation for the fullness of this stillness. I hadn’t sensed such stillness in a long time, at least since being newly free, prior to the establishment of the guardian. It was like a parenthesis of several years had just closed, the memory of it already out of reach somehow, like this whole bubble pretence had never existed, and the continuity with the first few weeks of actual freedom was restored. Being newly free years ago felt closer to this moment than last week - spent in something like the half-sleep of the guardian’s reign. Thoughts came naturally, emerging from the stillness and resolving into it, in a quality of apperception that was like that of the PCE or of the newly free condition. And yet there was something different, something that reminded me more of the excellence experience, and particularly of out-from-control. It took me some time to identify it: it was the dynamic quality, the operative quality of pure intent that stems from this stillness. It’s been a few days now, and this stillness has not abated one inch. It’s the background of everything in all waking hours. And it’s not silence: it's not empty, negation, or absence. It’s so full and alive that simply being that stillness is constant delight and contentment. Regarding social interactions, this week that has been busy with those has given me ample opportunity to witness the absence of social identity, be it in interactions with people, or in (the absence of) imagined interactions with people. It had indeed been noticed long ago that it did not make quite a difference, whether the interaction happened or was imagined, with regard to the social identity’s implication and control of such. It is now exactly as advertised, expected, (and remembered: from the PCE and the first weeks of newly free): there is no weight in interactions, no should and shouldn’t, no ‘oomph’ to social considerations bringing them to the front and centre of attention. All is very simple, natural and light. Benevolence acts. Regarding infinitude the situation appears transitory, going forward with the dynamic quality of pure intent. Things are evolving. What is striking when looking at the sky or the horizon is that there is no more bubble, no more dome over me. The bounds that social identity imposed on the universe are gone. Line of sight is open. That faraway wall is no more, which was there even if intellectually known not to exist, like one's intuition can't help but believe that a rainbow must end somewhere. And yet apprehension of infinitude is not complete yet. It’s a bit like those archeological sites where you see foundations of houses protruding from the ground, mere squares of stones which show there used to be something like a house there. But there is no house any more. You stand there and look around; there are no walls anywhere. Only stones, here and there, quickly disappearing in the soil. And yet, still something like the trace of past walls. This transitory nature of my present condition is quite well exemplified in the sentence of yours I quoted above: I might indeed say that I’m no different from a rock or a tree; and yet I’m still somewhat different from a ‘distant star’. It’s still a bit too far away. There is still space. The dynamic quality of pure intent tells me that this should move forward in a short time though… wait, that means there is also still time ;-) With all my appreciation! And there you have it – it is indeed possible to become entirely free from the social identity and its associated peasant mentality and thus begin the process to gradually allow experiencing the full extent of infinitude of the universe as infinite space, eternal time and perpetual matter.
Basic Freedom to Full Actual Freedom 3
| Becoming Actually Free Reports
Actual Vineeto’s Correspondence Index | Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

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

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity