Andrew: Joined a couple of dots just then…
Last night when trying to sleep I was fantasising about how successful I am going to be with actualism. I recognised it was another intellectualism being fuelled by a feeling. It was obviously ‘hope’.
First time I think I have considered looking at nipping hope in the bud!
Anyway, the dots joined; going to sleep realising ‘hope’ is a waste of sleep time, the morning was full of ‘doubt’. A tag team of ‘me’ now giving up the psychic energy to the cause!
A very generous donation even if ‘I’ say so ‘myself’ (link)
Hi Andrew,
If you genuinely realized that “‘hope’ is a waste of sleep time” and apparently doubt is as well, and therefore you are “giving up the psychic energy”, then why do you consider this “giving up” of fruitless feelings/beliefs a “very generous donation”?
In other words, where is the virtue in throwing out rubbish?
Andrew: Peter’s quote on the front page of the AFT was last night’s contemplation.
Peter: “• ‘Unless one is willing to contemplate being happy and being harmless, virtually free of malice and sorrow, 99% of the time – then forget the whole business. (…) If someone is not willing to make that level of ‘self’-sacrifice then any interest in Actual Freedom would remain a purely cerebral exercise – a useless ‘self’-deception …’. [emphasis added].”
To contribute to your ongoing contemplation, let me first put the two instances of this quote in context –
Peter: Virtual Freedom is a readily obtainable, realistic goal available for anyone – and is an essential step on the path to Actual Freedom. Whilst an actual freedom from malice and sorrow is the goal, the end and the means are the same – one needs to do whatever it takes to be both happy and harmless this very moment. Unless one is willing to contemplate a virtual happiness and harmlessness, to be virtually free of malice and sorrow, 99% of the time – then one might as well forget the whole business. If someone is not willing to make this level of ‘self’-sacrifice then any interest in an Actual Freedom would remain a purely cerebral exercise, wishful thinking and a useless self-deception. [emphasis added]. (Actualism, A précis of the method of Actualism, Section: Virtual Freedom)
Peter: Virtual Freedom is a readily obtainable, realistic goal available for anyone – and is an essential step on the path to Actual Freedom. Unless one is willing to contemplate a virtual freedom of being happy and harmless, free of malice and sorrow, 99% of the time – then forget the whole business. If someone is not willing to make this level of ‘self’-sacrifice, then any interest in an Actual Freedom would remain a purely cerebral exercise – a useless self-deception. Virtual Freedom is available for everyone, and anyone, who has the sincere intent to be happy and harmless. [emphasis added]. (Actualism, An Actualist’s Guide for the Wide and Wondrous Path, Section: Virtual Freedom)
What “this level of ‘self’-sacrifice” refers to in both quotes is the willingness to contemplate “being happy and harmless, free of malice and sorrow, 99% of the time”. The reason why Peter called it a level of ‘self’-sacrifice is because it requires courage and persistence to change one’s habits and remove the affective obstacles and beliefs (including ideas, principles, ideation, faith, trust, intuitions, reliance on factoids, anything one is fervently wishing to be true) including a natural tendency of addiction to suffering to being enjoyment and appreciation each moment again – in other words, non-biological altruism.
This is not to be confused with the biologically altruistic (once-in-a-lifetime) ‘self’-sacrifice of one’s entire ‘self’, one’s ‘being’, one’s ‘presence’ which will result in ‘my’ extinction resulting in an actual freedom –
RICHARD: ‘I am not at all altruistic – nor unselfish – let alone nurturing … ‘twas the identity inhabiting the body who was. And the altruism I spoke of (further above) – altruistic ‘self’-immolation – is a once-in-a-lifetime event and not the real-world day-to-day altruism (unselfishness) … such everyday unselfishness falls under the category of morality or ethicality. Where I use the word altruism in a non-biological sense is where it is synonymic to the magnanimity of benevolence … for example:
[Richard]: ‘In order to mutate from the self-centred licentiousness to a self-less sensualism, one must have confidence in the ultimate beneficence of the universe. This confidence – this surety – can be gained from a pure consciousness experience, wherein ‘I’, the psychological entity [and ‘me’, the psychic entity], temporarily ceases to exist. Life is briefly seen to be already perfect and innocent … it is a life-changing experience. One is physically experiencing first-hand, albeit momentarily, this actual world – a spontaneously benevolent world – that antedates the normal world. The normal world is commonly known as the real world or reality. (…) The experience of purity is a benefaction. Out of this blessing comes pure intent, which will consistently guide one through the travails of daily life, gently ushering in an increasing ease and generosity of character. With this growing magnanimity, one becomes more and more anonymous, more and more self-less. With this expanding altruism one becomes less and less self-centred, less and less egocentric. Eventually the moment comes wherein something definitive happens, physically, inside the brain and ‘I’ am nevermore. ‘Being’ ceases – it was only a psychic apparition anyway – and war is over, forever, in one human being’. (pages 124-125: ‘Richard’s Journal’ ©The Actual Freedom Trust 1997).
The growing magnanimity (an increasing generosity of character) referred to as an expanding altruism is a munificent well-wishing … the etymological root of the word benevolent is the Latin ‘benne velle’ (meaning ‘wish well’). And well-wishing stems from fellowship regard – like species recognise like species throughout the animal world – for we are all fellow human beings and have the capacity for what is called a ‘theory of mind’.
The way to an actual freedom from the human condition is the same as an actual freedom from the human condition – the means to the end are not different from the end – inasmuch that where one is happy and harmless as an on-going modus operandi benevolence operates of its own accord … you partly indicated this (above) where you commented that people are generally helpful toward each other when feeling happy. Where benevolence is flourishing morals and ethics, as a matter of course, fall redundant by the wayside … unused, unneeded and unnecessary. (Richard, AF List, No. 27d, 6 Dec 2002).
Andrew: I made some notes about it, as a way to parse something I would normally have glossed over.
(The following questions are me asking myself, not specifically questions for the forum)
What is ‘self’ sacrifice in terms of Peter’s quote?
Is being happy and harmless for the rest of one’s life ‘self’ sacrifice?
Enjoying and appreciating, and thus being happy and harmless as much as humanly possible, is, in short, non-biological altruism because becoming virtually free it requires giving up those aspects of ‘me’ (‘self’) who indulge in (perhaps even revel in and enjoy) feeling and acting maliciously and sorrowfully. As you may have noticed, not many people like to give up any of their precious feelings, hence rigorous social conditioning backed-up by police and army is required in every society. Even you, in your last post (link) have considered giving up ‘hope’ and ‘doubt’ as a “generous donation”, i.e. an act of (real-world) virtue.
Andrew: It sounds selfish. Yet here, from Peter, truly dedicating ‘myself’ to being happy and harmless is ‘self’ sacrifice!
How can that be?
You are not seriously telling me that you cannot see how you becoming more happy and more harmless (considerate and innocuous) will benefit those you interact with as well as your own well-being? Let me give you a hint –
Richard: I cannot stress enough how, with a virtual freedom being more or less the norm worldwide, global amity and equity would be an on-going state of affairs. (Library, Topics, Virtual Freedom).
The reason why wanting to enjoy and appreciate (and be happy and harmless) “sounds selfish” to you is because you only consider the choice between two alternatives – being ‘selfish’ as opposed to being unselfish. Actualism is the third alternative – eliminate ‘self’ in its entirety and thus make both real-world and spiritual world morals and ethics redundant –
Richard: Where benevolence is flourishing morals and ethics, as a matter of course, fall redundant by the wayside … unused, unneeded and unnecessary. (Richard, AF List, No. 27d, 6 Dec 2002).
Richard: A virtuous ‘self’ – an unselfish ‘self’ – is still a ‘self’ nevertheless. (Richard, AF List, No. 25h, 9 Jan 2005).
Rick: For the most part, though, I seemingly care only about me and the rest of the world come in a distant second place.
Richard: Why do you separate yourself out from all your fellow human beings/ all your fellow human beings out from yourself as if the one should take precedence over the other/ the other should take precedence over the one?
It is altruism in the virtuous sense, as in being an unselfish/ selfless self, to put the other before oneself (as an antidote to being selfish). (Richard, AF List, No. Rick-a, 21 Jan 2006).
When you become more felicitous and innocuous you benefit both yourself and others around you. Additionally, you reduce emanating malicious and sorrowful vibes. (link).
Andrew: I considered what had struck me yesterday about naivete being usurped by puberty. That is, ‘I’ did it to ‘myself’ in the normal progression of becoming ‘me’.
Ha, a clear example of ‘I’ claiming a deed which occurred of its own accord via pubertal hormones.
Andrew: So it starts to click. Why am ‘I’ not already naturally happy and harmless?
It’s not ‘my’ natural state. ‘I’ am in the way of it.
Indeed, being happy and harmless is not your ‘natural state’ – your ‘natural state’ is being equipped with a full set of instinctual passions (fear and aggression) plus the ‘natural’ pacifiers (desire and nurture). Aiming to be the enjoyment and appreciation each moment of your life is a very unnatural aim – hence all of your ‘being’ plus your social conditioning will throw up objections to any change.
Andrew: Ok, so it is ‘I’ who must, at the very least, change radically!
Clear on this point.
Excellent. Actualism is indeed not ‘natural’. Hence changing “radically” is required.
Andrew: Why is it a sacrifice? Considering ‘I’ am the primary beneficiary?
Perhaps this has been answered in the previous section. Let me know if anything remained unclear.
In short, what Peter is talking about is a sacrifice because to become virtually free of malice and sorrow and be able to enjoy and appreciate being alive, the ‘self’ has to become thinner – give up indulgence and relinquish your ‘natural’ tendency to malice and sorrow. The actual beneficiary will be your flesh-and-blood body, that body and every body.
I snipped the following ruminations as you seem to answered most in your follow-up post yourself.
Andrew: In the experiential sense, in the ‘real’ world of my ‘own’ making, ‘I’ am rather having a progressively great time. (link)
This is excellent to hear.
Andrew: Writing that out, using my notes I made, I have made a connection between the two examples of what “sacrifice” has meant to me (religious and parental/societal) and the ‘self’ sacrifice described by the AFT.
‘I’ was doing the former (not killing goats and bulls! but rather repression and negation, “the straight and narrow” path) and the later (working hard for my family, being a good citizen etc) ultimately for ‘myself’.
For ‘my’ salvation. For ‘my’ legacy. For ‘my’ reputation. Also, many sacrifices were directly done to get something ‘I’ wanted. Mostly, “getting the girl”, or trying to keep her happy!
The connection being obvious then, ‘I’ am still being encouraged to sacrifice however there is a singular goal, which is something ‘I’ am not naturally inclined to ‘be’, or ‘I’ would already ‘be’ it; happy and harmless.
This is something I will continue to contemplate.
Your ongoing reflections turn out to be quite fruitful. Now it’s a matter of putting them into practice.
Andrew; As I had always glossed over statements like Peter’s on the AFT with something like “you can’t get rid of me that easily!”.
Which in reflection has an unfortunate double meaning. (link)
When you write out your reflection on Peter’s statement in an existentially meaningful manner, it has no longer “an unfortunate double meaning” –
[example]: you can’t get rid of ‘me’ that easily! [end example].
Have you noticed that often humour relies on a (slightly) malicious undertone in order to be funny?
Cheers Vineeto