Acceptance

Actualism
7

We’re only 100% sensible (sensate) in PCE/freedom, but during the rest of the time it’s on something of a spectrum. Sometimes I’ve seen myself be extremely silly, when I’m wound up on some emotional trip. And likewise, even if I’m not in a PCE there are times I’m doing well, I’m connected to this actual world (sensately), and I can make better decisions. That’s where we can ask ourselves, what is a fact and what isn’t a fact?

Sometimes things are just judgment calls. There isn’t some ‘right answer’ out there (who decides what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong,’ anyway?). We just decide things. The question is, how do you put yourself in a position to make the best decisions you can? Maybe at some future point you’ll learn more about ‘x’ situation, and can make an even better decision. But it’s ok that right now you & I have limited knowledge to make decisions off of. We have to start somewhere. But we are lucky to have these guiding principles: happy & harmless, comparing silly & sensible, and the knowledge that this universe is physical, not spiritual. These help a great deal when it comes to figuring out what to do.

1 Like
8

That’s quite a hypothetical! The answer to this is the same essentially as “what would you do if someone was coming at your son with a knife?” ie it depends on the situation itself. Is this a choice you were faced with recently?

In any case it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion, which is about emotionally accepting a fact or a situation without paralyzing one’s intelligence by intellectually acquiescing , accepting or resigning oneself to not changing a fact or situation that is palpably and obviously so far from the optimum that one can call it horrible.

We are talking about emotionally accepting facts that are intellectually unacceptable - such as the fact that for example 86 rape cases are reported on an average day in India, or that in 2016, forty-six children in the eastern Congo were abducted and raped, many of whom died, for just two examples.

And you’re worried about not wanting to feel the slightest discomfort and cognitive dissonance about your “true wish” to spend 10 years of savings on a vacation??? C’mon, you’re not the only one on the planet.

In any case, the point is to emotionally be accepting something that is intellectually unacceptable. What are you specifically referring to as being the “something” that is intellectually unacceptable, that you are finding difficult to emotionally accept?

1 Like
9

Kiman, when all of you is on board, the choice will be sensible.

Henry:

But we are lucky to have these guiding principles: happy & harmless, comparing silly & sensible, and the knowledge that this universe is physical, not spiritual. These help a great deal when it comes to figuring out what to do.

Yes. But the only real guiding principle is to allow yourself to get fully on board. Once on board, all the tidbits we’ve already accrued over the years will be make themselves known when appropriate. There won’t be any overriding immovable emotion clouding their appearance.

10

The rephrase, which Richard puts forth, is really just another way of saying “feeling good (at least) each moment again, for the rest of one’s life, come what may”.

I’ve come to see the phrase as not useful to me. The reason is it seems to imply that there is an emotional choice, which is equivalent to an intellectual choice.

This doesn’t line up with the rest of the AFT or my own experience.

Emotion is generated out of inherited “instinctual” feelings. These inherited feelings are blind, unconscious, can’t think, reason, or otherwise be sentient.

The choice is only in the intelligence of a sentient human. It’s a function of consciousness.

Regarding @Kiman and the hypothetical;

What is it that you object to about someone spending the money they saved for a decade on themselves?

By the logic of your hypothetical, no one could ever enjoy the fruits of their labour because inevitably there will always be someone in need.

It’s perverse. It has been proven to fail time and again. Communism was the last great catastrophic example of this thinking. Taking wealth and distributing it according to need, whether through a moral, religion or political system has been tried and failed every single time.

2 Likes
11

You can choose how you feel about things though. If you couldn’t, no one could ever become free - or change at all!

12

Yes, I have already faced it atleast half a dozen times. Although, the luxurious overseas vacation(I never had one) is put for dramatic effect and to underline the contrast between a life saving surgery and a sensual pleasure.

When I pursue something which is almost always motivated by some desire, I am giving an expression to that desire. I find myself in doldrums, because intellectually not accepting yet giving expression to desire doesn’t lead to any progress.
I don’t need to do the work I do, it’s boring but there is money in it. I can drop out of the work force and live comfortably for the rest of my life. I do it to not stand out like a sore thumb in the society, to have running cash(instead of liquidating assets) and it’s required for the future spouse for me to have “a job”. Since there is money in it, the only interesting thing is to maximize profit in what I do. That’s desire and I know it. I am constantly giving the desire expression, thereby feeding “me”. I can emotionally accept it and intellectually not accept it, but it’s not showing any positive outcome on the ground with regard to becoming free.

13

A lot to unpack here:
Does ‘enjoy’ mean engaging in sensual pleasures?
Why is there a need for sensual pleasure?
You may say, “well, that’s not a need but a fondness”. But you know there’s some dishonesty there.
“Enjoying the fruits of pleasure” is giving expression to desires, which is not actualism.
Why do that extra “labour” when the motive for it is to merely pleasure ourselves? (I’ll abuse myself in order to get that dangling candy of pleasure later)

Richard doesn’t have this need. He maxed out on his credit card, in his own words, to put up actualism site. He was ready to give money in thousands of dollars to people who wanted to publish their journey of actualism, etc.

Going to the other opposite, I may as well say ultra rich who hold billions of dollars as personal wealth are merely enjoying their fruits of labour. The obscenely rich monarchies like arab royalty are merely enjoying their ancestors wealth and nobody whosoever can object to that, and they are right from their perspective.

There is no limit to luxury and human body never denies any addition of luxury to its existence ever. But it always comes at a cost for other fellow humans. The overarching objective of Actualism is to emancipate not only the individual but also the entire humanity. When that is the case, minimal “fellowship regard” is to be considerate(not emotionally) towards our fellow humans. Does not being so inline with actualism?
Not as a rule or a self-imposition, but something to aspire for(like aspiring to be actually free) because that accords both with naivete and assists actual freedom, no?

14

My view, which I think is a more academic view based the various premises of the AFT is the choice isn’t being made emotionally.

Having said that, Richard does mention the altruism instinct being more powerful than all the rest.

He describes his appeal to people’s “better selves”.

I think that generally though, choices are a function of intelligence and not of blind nature.

So we choose how we feel, by directions from our intelligence, rather than with an ability of blind nature.

Colloquially, yes we can choose how we feel, I am pointing to the process of how that happens.

Which is why I don’t find the equivalence in the statement “emotionally accept and intellectually not accept” accurate.

It describes the outcome but not the process of getting there.

1 Like
15

Hi @Kiman

You don’t “unpack” anything in this statement, but rather build a straw man and proceed to argue with that.

Your conclusion is totally incorrect regardless. Enjoying the fruits of pleasure is precisely actualism.

Giving expression to desires? This is also a complete misreading of actualism. One channels all of one’s desire in enjoying and appreciating, including the fruits of pleasure.

And yet, you haven’t read it.

It really does pay to read the Actual Freedom Trust website.

It would seem, as far as your understanding of Actualism goes, he wasted his money.

The rest of your post is you trying to make actualism into a religion.

The goal of actualism is to completely enjoy being alive, right here, and right now. The ultimate enjoyment is to be free of the 'human condition '.

Emancipation is not the goal at all.

That implies that there is something enslaving ‘humanity’. Whereas, actualism clearly states that it is ‘humanity’ which is the very bonds of slavery.

As ‘I’ am ‘humanity’, it is eminently silly to imagine any emancipation going on outside of ‘me’ finally, and deliberately, allowing the already existing peace on earth be apparent in this body.

16

It’s not “always” at all. Even in normal terms, this isn’t true, but in actualism it is definitely not true.

http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/hedonism.htm

Richard is living a life of luxury without it costing anyone else anything. All it cost was ‘him’ was ‘himself’.

So this isn’t such a combative sounding couple of replies, I was also extremely interested in essentially turning actualism into a religion at some point. Indeed, I would say that I have turned a corner this year and seen a lot of the religious conditioning in me come to the surface so I can actually start properly.

17

You are saying taking an exotic vacation is “enjoying the fruits of labour”. I’m asking how come taking an exotic vacation is merely “enjoying” so much so that you disregard a fellow human’s life. Is that really “enjoying” or need for pleasure if you choose your luxurious recreational activity over somebody else’s life?

Which is more inline with “fellowship regard” and “naivete”?

18

You are turning “fellowship regard” into a religious doctrine.

Basically, the old “love thy neighbour as thyself.”

Just to point out the silliness a bit more in your hypothetical scenario;

So, one neighbour is blind. Ok, you could help.

But the neighbour on the other side has a child which needs special therapy overseas.

Both are going to cost $10000.

Now what?

19

It is, always. It’s a zero sum game.
I’m not talking about luxury in actual world at all. That’s not how “luxury” is understood to be usually.

20

Nope. It’s not always at all.

My various bosses have been very rich. Yet, I have been paid well working for them.

How has their wealth cost me?

If I was a serf, a slave, or didn’t get paid, then yes, it did cost me.

21

The need to experience luxurious pleasures comes from “me”. It’s almost always a need or desire. Atleast when we choose pleasures over fellow humans lives. Do you say otherwise?
Richard doesn’t have this need.

I’m not, as I said previously here:

I’m not saying one should turn themselves into a pauper by living on bare necessities. A preference for things way beyond comfortable life, which means good food, good ambience, comfortable temperature etc., most likely comes from desire, no?

22

It’s not just “you” who contributed to his wealth. This is a big topic that goes
deep into what money is, its relation to time, labour and distribution, demand and market distortions etc., which strays away from actualism, and which I would be happy to discuss on a call.

23

Again, not really. That is turning actualism into a bunch of rules.

As a general principle, sure, why strive for a whole heap of stuff? That generally is a whole heap of work.

And yes, as an actualist it would seem sensible to me if I had 10k floating around with nothing to do, I would probably arrange a trip to meet some other actualists, which I think we’re I am at now, would be very beneficial.

Giving it to my neighbour on some moral rule is silly.

However, going into your scenario, is this neighbour a good friend? Is there mutual benefit in the relationship? Then yes, maybe that would be a good idea. But blindly giving people money because they have a need greater than yours is clearly a failed idea. Religion tried it, atheist communists tried it, and it doesn’t work.

It’s not that it’s against Actualism, or for it. It’s the motivation for it.

For some context, the various world religions all venerate giving to the poor. Each one of them promises some sort of heavenly rewards for this action.

So in effect, people give because they want the rewards.

Buying a stairway to heaven.

24

The desire to buy a staircase to heaven or the desire to buy a trip for an exotic vacation or the desire to pay for a prostitute are essentially same, no?

If one engages in any of them, they are giving expression to their desire, no?

That is different from enjoying oneself, which is actualism, no?

25

Sure, there is plenty of corruption from the top to the bottom, and suffering all the way through it. However, to your point of emulating “fellowship regard”, you are indeed pasting your pre-existing religious ideas over Actualism.

I was a master at this, and you are certainly doing it now.

Let’s get to the point; the way we can bring down the entire corrupt, rotten to the core ‘system’ is via psychic self-immolation.

It’s not that you wouldn’t have a very grateful and happy neighbour. Go for it Kiman! You would have a friend for life.

What you will not get out of that transaction is any actualism “brownie points”.

There is no actualist god who will see your good deeds and reward you. No rebirth into a more actually free realm.

In the scenario, you will have saved a neighbours sight, and gained potentially a very loyal friend.

That’s all. Nothing to sneeze at, but not actualism related at all.

26

@Kiman

Apologies for being blunt. I would like to be more helpful than that.

It seems, like me, you had a very moral upbringing, probably a religious one. Correct me if I am assuming wrongly.

It’s very easy from that past, infact, probably inevitable, to really struggle with what Actualism is about.

Indeed, the AFT is specifically written for the “spiritual seeker” rather than “religious survivors” or “scientific atheists”.

Because of that particular framing, with that audience mind, it doesn’t address the transition from traditional religion to actualism. It addresses the transition from aspiring for “enlightenment” to actualism.

That is of course because it’s main 3 authors, were either enlightened, or aspiring towards enlightenment.

For the Hindus carefully observing their beliefs, or the Christians (who mostly think enlightenment is an ancient myth) there is nothing to designed on the site to really get through to religious people.

As many in the world will say these days “I am not religious, but I am spiritual”.

This is the culture in Australia. Most will say the above, in some manner or another.

So, what to do about this?

The religious person is mostly concerned with the state of the world at large. Religion, all types, generally believe that if everyone converted to that particular religion, the world would be at peace.

My Hindu friend says “it’s not a religion, but a way of life” then goes on to essentially say that if everyone was Hindu we would all be harmless.

India has had 5000 years to prove that.

Buddhism 2500 years

Christianity, 2000 years

Islam 1300 years.

No peace.

So the universal belief in morality, and specifically the morality of one’s own religion, had seen to be ineffective in all cases.

1 Like