Andrew: Ok, so I said I would not check, but then I thought “damn, did I completely make up that “seek professional help” memory?
Turns out no, that is the case. The “outdated” is indeed recommended:Richard: No, actualism is not a replacement for professional therapy – I advise all those in need of therapy to seek professional advice before embarking on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition – and as you have demonstrated no understanding as to what is involved in the actualism method you can only be stabbing wildly in the dark once again. (Richard, AF List, No. 51, 7 Oct 2003).
First lines of the website:
It is possible to live in this modern era, freed from out-dated Philosophy and Psychiatry, challenging every Spiritual and Metaphysical tenet and surpassing any of the Altered States of Consciousness. Discarding all of the beliefs which have held humankind in thralldom for eons, the way has now been discovered which cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anybody to be, for the very first time, a fully free and autonomous individual, living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
So, while it may seem like an attack Vineeto, just as it was normal for trolls back in the day: This is indeed where we are at.
Hi Andrew,
I am pleased you have come to your senses enough to check up on your own allegations. As for what you call “normal for trolls back in the day” – those days of answering any and all allegations are long over, most answers are already collected in the Commonly Raised Objections, and I am not inclined to spend my retirement dealing with them. They often arise when a person is in the grip of one or more strong feelings or “unsettled”.
Andrew: You: diagnosing me, without a single credential (that I know of) and certainly without any time spent in actual consultation.
If you consider my last post to you as me “diagnosing” you, then you are mistaken. I did no such thing – I simply said that these are the labels you seem to be applying to yourself – first “ADHD” and now “clinical narcissist”. I used the latter label because that is what Prof Vaknin, you referred to, writes about. You said –
Andrew: But, instead of taking my word for it, perhaps the word of a self described sociopath and grandiose narcissist (he says he ranks off the scale on both tests):
Prof. Sam Vaknin. https://youtube.com/@samvaknin?si=yeHzk6XOHiUbK7nz
Well respected (?) , I am not sure, he says so. But the point this: when my last girlfriend displayed unmistakeable symptoms, I deep dived this guys videos and it was so spot on, that it removed any anger of mystery. (link)
Andrew: the clinical reality of the “disorder” is far more instructive than the way it is is lumped in with philosophy and metaphysics et al, on the website.
There is over 100 years of research into how the “normal” aspect of the psyche can manifest in the worst of human behaviour and create the worst of it. Objectification (whether sexual, or otherwise) at the early stages of life creates what Vaknin describes as an “imaginary friend” which ends up being the only self the victim ever develops.
To take it back to applicable usefulness: in what way have we created and maintained a false self from childhood because of objectification? [Emphasis added]. (link)
To my understanding you seem to have included yourself in the last question (“we”) regarding the research of Prof. Vaknin. It appeared to be a more personal matter, especially when in your next post you expounded the virtues of being selfish (“Narcissism is not the opposite of actual freedom”) and not caring “in some normal way” –
Andrew: Narcissism is not the opposite of actual freedom. Eliminating vanity? Good luck.
How about you really, absolutely look after you as an entire entity?
Rick and I used to talk on the phone a bit, and we both agreed that if we could have a big red button that ended “us” we would hit it without hesitation.
The endless chatter which goes around and around, with quotes and whatnot.
So what if you don’t care in some normal way? If you truly look after yourself, in that sense that you “feel through” to being absolutely knowing that ‘you” are in the way of your own ultimate release, who give a shit if it was “selfish”?
I don’t. (link)
Now you saying that you only mentioned the Professor’s name and URL and described his work out of non-personal interest in scientific research regarding narcissism?
Nevertheless, I am very pleased to hear that you are neither a narcissistically or a non-caring ‘sociopathically’ inclined person because you gave a convincing indication of that, hence my taking the link to be related to your own issues.
Btw, what you are praising is the instinct of self-preservation, expressing itself in fear, aggression, nurture and desire. Here is one of the “endless” quotes from Richard, explaining why it is detrimental to our well-being and why narcissism (=self-love) is anathema to diminishing the ‘self’ to eventually segue into willing ‘self’-sacrifice. Perhaps you didn’t know.
Richard: Our instinct for self-preservation, ‘by gobbling up the planet’, can hardly be succeeding in its designated task of being ‘life-preserving’ if it is – as you point out – in fact destroying the environment and the eco-system. This instinct – which is put in place by blind nature – is what is leading humans to their eventual extinction as a species. Blind nature is not at all concerned about our survival, either as an individual or as a species, it is only concerned with the survival of the fittest. These blind instincts, which served us well in the primitive stage of life, are now detrimental to our well being and can – and should – be dispensed with.
It is also our instinct for self preservation which has led to so many wars. Hardly a salubrious state of affairs I would say. However, the elimination of self in its entirety is the automatic elimination of instincts – which are not set in concrete – thus global peace on earth is highly possible … unless, of course, people continue to believe that some fictitious god is going to step in and save us all from ourselves.
We are on our own … our future prosperity is entirely in our own hands. (Richard, List A, No. 16, #No. 3)
Andrew: Me: pointing out that “freed” from, and “outdated” would certainly have been great, but here we are…
This expectation seems to tie in with the “red button” you talked about with Rick right after declaring that “Narcissism is not the opposite of actual freedom” –
Andrew: Rick and I used to talk on the phone a bit, and we both agreed that if we could have a big red button that ended “us” we would hit it without hesitation. (link)
Are you assuming that because one person succeeded in freeing themselves from the human condition, surpassing the outdated wisdom of spirituality, philosophy and psychiatry, and published reports, descriptions and explanations about it, that you can automatically also be freed from the human condition, whilst remaining as ‘self’-centric as you are? You must be kidding.
That an actual freedom doesn’t happen overnight because one thinks it’s a good idea, doesn’t change the fact that an actual freedom is way superior to the present state of “common human unhappiness” (link) which psychology and psychiatry aim to achieve – and it is replicable.
Andrew: Fortunately, I know enough about myself that while probably somewhere on the sub-clinical spectrum of a Dependant Personality (who does indeed share traits with all the personality disorders in that we do have delusional beliefs about ourselves – that is all self diagnosed), I am not so far gone that your completely unwise attempt at diagnosis is of any danger to anyone.
You may want to rein that in though. It’s one thing to be communicating about actualism, it’s another to be proclaiming that people you have briefly met 9 years ago, and has otherwise been (and continue to be) respectful, have potentially extremely dangerous personality disorders.
I find it strange that you would “try that on”. I am not offended by it, but I wonder why you so easily “went there”?
I am of course unsettled, but I was already feeling that from the other day.
The goal, and I have never been very good at it, is indeed to be useful.
Again, I am pleased to hear that you are not “of any danger to anyone”. As I explained above, I took the research from Prof Vaknin you presented, including your follow-up posts, as a representation of your own self-diagnosis. It has nothing at all to do with having met you in person years ago.
If you “indeed” (i.e. in deed) want “to be useful” (i.e. beneficial to yourself and your fellow human beings) why don’t you want to be harmless and happy?
Andrew: P.S: my statement that you would change the website to prove your point proved to be false, so that is great! Turns out there may be some mutual mis diagnosis going on after all.
I am pleased you found that out yourself.
Cheers Vineeto