Attempt at an introduction from a novice (who doesn’t come from a spiritual background)

[Vineeto]

@roy

Hi! How are you experiencing this moment of being alive?

This is a compilation of lessons I learned somewhat recently from reading about the human condition, mostly from the Actual Freedom website, and, most importantly, from my own experience of applying the actualism method for around a month now. This may or may not be useful to someone new to Actual Freedom, but I’m sharing it in case it helps. I chose to focus on a few core concepts and avoided introducing too many terms, which I think can be helpful for non-native english speakers like me. If you notice any errors or misunderstandings, please let me know so I can improve it!

(…) So at this point, a pragmatic person may ask: So would that mean that to stop human suffering, I simply have to deconstruct and remove all of these ingrained beliefs and instincts? I simply have to deconstruct this ‘I’ construct? And the answer to that question is “Yes”. The Actual Freedom website includes very clear explanations on how to become free from the human condition. What I’ll explain from now on, in my own terms, concerns what is called the “actualism method” and “virtual freedom” on the website.

In short, the “actualism method” is the simulation of what life would be if you were actually free. An “actually free” person is both “happy and harmless” and has "no feelings”, and being “virtually free” means being in this simulated state almost all of your time. Now it’s important to understand what being “happy”, “harmless”, and having “no feelings” means, because these words are used in a very specific way, and even if you read their definitions in the dictionary, you will need more context to understand them. For someone that has never examined their living experience, it might take some time to understand what is being discussed. More importantly, most of what is being discussed is not something that you can simply learn intellectually. It is only through experience that you are able to gradually realize these things. This is great because you don’t have to believe any of what is written. The only way is to try it for yourself and see if you can verify it.

The way I see it (as someone who is still learning), an actually free person fully comprehends experientially the identity we call ‘I’ and has been able to fully deconstruct it. As we have seen, this identity can be explained as the feeling of being this person. We can see that all beliefs, for example, are a part of it because we identify with them. If we examine these beliefs and are able to determine that they are not true, we can let go of them. An actually free person has done this consecutively with all their beliefs and instincts until all that remained was a shallow identity that is clearly seen as illusory. At that point, you can’t really call it an identity anymore (on the website, this is called “self-immolation”).

From my own experiences, what is meant by “happy” here is the sense of experiencing our situation as perfect, in that we don’t want anything else. Even if we could change our present moment somehow, we wouldn’t. One doesn’t have any thoughts or desires about changing this moment. Even if you are feeling physical pain of some sort, it doesn’t translate to emotional suffering. You are aware of the pain but it doesn’t “feel bad” or affect your mood negatively. And that’s what is meant by an actually free person having “no feelings”. You are aware of the same physical sensations that accompany, for example, anxiety, but you don’t “feel anxious”. It doesn’t matter whether these sensations are there or not. Normally, when you have bad or good feelings, they translate to negative or positive thoughts which will completely alter your mood, potentially for long periods of time. But for an actually free person, the sensations and thoughts are completely decoupled in the sense that there is no causation, and that’s why pain won’t translate to suffering. For example, if an actually free person burns themselves on the stove, it is still sensed and can be effortlessly understood as undesirable and stopped. But it still has no effect on their mood. (…)

I think at this point it is clearer that there’s nothing “spiritual” (in the sense of mystical or metaphysical) about this process of achieving actual freedom from the human condition. I think it’s also clear that actually free people are still human beings. They are not zombies. It is quite the opposite. They have gained full control over their body and mind, and as a consequence, they have a different experience of senses. It is often stated that they stop “feeling the senses” and “become the senses,” which I guess can only be fully understood experientially. You can also probably see how freeing it must be to be able to stop compulsively having self-centered thoughts, such as ruminating about the past and worrying about the future. And finally, just imagine about how profoundly your life would change if events no longer altered your mood. (…)

In actual freedom, there’s no morality. You judge things through the prism of happiness (contributes to overall wellbeing) and harmlessness (doesn’t cause suffering to any conscious beings). (…)

Besides that, the authors of the Actual Freedom website have spent a great deal of time detailing what is called the “pure consciousness experience.” This is, in short, a state of being without the identity; it’s simply the conscious experience, hence the “pure consciousness experience.” This is something that is somewhat similar to what is referred to in popular culture and psychology as flow states or peak experiences, though for some reason, those descriptions are usually given in the context of productivity or athletic or creative pursuits.

Hi Roy,

Thank you for the long summary of how you understand actualism so far and how you put it into practice. I won’t zoom in on any details in your description, you will fine tune your understanding as you find out yourself in time. There is only one point where I would like to add some additional information to your understanding – what is it to be actually free.

Although you said that you “for me, it has helped to not have “becoming actually free” as a goal” I understand that this is nevertheless the long-term direction you are aiming for. As such I think a correct understanding what an actual freedom is will be consequential for the way you go about it, i.e. a “simulation of what life would be if you were actually free”.

With “simulation” you might mean the same thing as what Richard said “I did everything possible that ‘I’ could do to blatantly imitate the actual”(1) and ‘he’ had no example of what an actually free person looked like to ‘him’ (and so couldn’t make a mistake of taking his own perception of an actually free person as a guide). ‘He’ only relied on the magical nature of actuality which he had experienced in his 4-hour PCE.
(1) (Richard, List B, No. 12a, 16 July 1998).

I do admit it’s not easy to comprehend an actual freedom – ‘Vineeto’ had erroneous projections even though she interacted with Richard physically on a weekly basis. Hence I will focus on what you presently understand what an actually free person is –

Roy: If we examine these beliefs and are able to determine that they are not true, we can let go of them. An actually free person has done this consecutively with all their beliefs and instincts until all that remained was a shallow identity that is clearly seen as illusory. At that point, you can’t really call it an identity anymore (on the website, this is called “self-immolation”). (…)

While ‘Vineeto’ has examined all ‘her’ beliefs and ‘let go of them’ (in fact they disappeared as soon as the full facts were seen clearly, so trust played no part, ‘she’ also did not “disidentified” from her beliefs), ‘she’ could not “let go” of ‘her’ instinctual passions because those instinctual passions are the very cause and substance of ‘me’, the swirling vortex which forms the identity. ‘I’ cannot undo ‘me’ (what you call “deconstruct”). It required an altruistic act for ‘her’ to set the process in motion, because altruism is a more powerful instinct than self-survival.

Richard: ‘Often people who do not read what I have to say with both eyes gain the impression that I am suggesting that people are to stop feeling … which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire psyche itself is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the affective faculty is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings … [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 19e, 26 Dec 2000)

As such it is not a “shallow identity” which self-immolates but all the instinctual passions are funnelled into the affective felicitous and innocuous feelings. Also, it is not that the identity becomes so shallow that “you can’t really call it an identity anymore” and therefore you can “call it self-immolation” – the identity which is very very ‘real’ has to die a ‘real’ death –

Richard: To put it bluntly: ‘you’ in ‘your’ totality, who are but a passionate illusion, must die a dramatic illusory death commensurate to ‘your’ pernicious existence. The drama must be played out to the end … there are no short-cuts here. The doorway to an actual freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is irrevocable, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind … for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement … it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed … to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life. (Richard, List B, No. 13, 26 May 1999)

As you can see, because of this difference in your perception about the nature of self-immolation the following descriptions of ‘an actually free person’ is either imprecise or incorrect –

Roy: … the sensations and thoughts are completely decoupled in the sense that there is no causation, and that’s why pain won’t translate to suffering. (…) But it still has no effect on their mood.

If by “decoupled” you mean decoupled from the non-existing identity and “no effect on their mood” as any mood is an expression of affective feelings – I still think this is only half correct. This is very understandable from lack of experiential knowledge – I only mention it so your choice of words does not inadvertently affect your actualism practice, for instance in trying to “decouple” yourself or “disidentify” from your feelings and moods.

Roy: They have gained full control over their body and mind, and as a consequence, they have a different experience of senses. (…) In actual freedom, there’s no morality. You judge things through the prism of happiness (contributes to overall wellbeing) and harmlessness (doesn’t cause suffering to any conscious beings).

Once you understood the above explanation about what self-immolation is you will comprehend why “control” plays not part in my life. One cannot and need not control anything which does not exist (like a tiger in a cage), and that’s why morals or ethics are not required either to control any non-existing instinctual passions, feelings or moods.

Therefore attempting to gain full control over your body and mind (as in an imitation/a “simulation of what life would be if you were actually free” would be counterproductive. On the contrary, the application of the actualism method – enjoying and appreciating being alive and enabling one’s little-used faculty: naiveté – being sincere, guileless, artless, non-sophisticated, not serious, frank, ingenuous, having fun, and thus liking oneself and others is an excellent way to imitate life in the actual world.

The “different experience of senses” happens automatically after the identity has become extinct – it is indeed quite magical what happens when the instinctual passions complete with the identity formed thereof disappear in an instant.

Richard: To be living as the senses is to live a clear and clean awareness – apperception – a pure consciousness experience of the world as-it-is. Because there is no ‘I’ as a thinker (a little person inside one’s head) or a ‘me’ as a feeler (a little person in one’s heart) – to have sensations happen to them, I am the sensations. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 38, 24 Sep 1999).

Please do not take my comments as criticisms as they are meant as an assistance to navigate your way through the maze of the psyche and the human condition, and there is a lot to discover and untangle.

Richard did it all by himself but he took more than a decade and had to free himself of the insanity of spiritual enlightenment as well. ‘Vineeto’ and ‘Peter’ had one mentor and his reports and descriptions and it took them 12 years, whereby a direct route was established (bypassing enlightenment). Now there are many more people practicing the actualism method with growing success who can clarify and assist each other on this unique forum.

As a closing comment I would like to emphasize the difference of sincere intent and pure intent because feeling being ‘Vineeto’ got it wrong at first – so much so that after becoming actually free I edited ‘her’ previous writings to replace most of the uses of ‘pure intent’ with ‘sincere intent’. Pure intent is a tangible connection established from one’s PCE, the experience of a magical “another world, another dimension” –

RICHARD: Initially a PCE is like moving into another world, another dimension (except that one is here – magically here right now as this flesh and blood body – for the very first time). (Richard, List B, No. 38, 24 Sep 1999).

Please note, a PCE is better not be compared what “in popular culture” is considered “as flow states”, “usually given in the context of productivity or athletic or creative pursuits”, which may be PCEs at the start but are afterwards interpreted according to cultural conditioning or deteriorate into altered states of consciousness.

Because you say “you can use your memories of previous pure consciousness experiences as a guide” it is vital to understand the nature and flavour of pure intent, established from the PCE, which is the lodestone to guide oneself. It’s worthwhile to ponder on and become familiar and be precise to make certain that pure intent is understood as a force outside of the human condition (and is not inadvertently a facsimile created by the identity, which is very good at such tricks owing to the natural and cunning instinct of wanting to stay in existence).

RICHARD: Pure intent is the experiencing of this palpable life-force, this actually occurring stream of benignity and benevolence originating in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself. (Richard, Selected Correspondence, Pure Intent)

One can access this palpable life-force by rememorating the flavour of one’s PCE (not so easy because it cannot be found in the emotional memory bank). Richard warns not to undertake dismantling one’s morals and ethics without a dedicatory connection to pure intent as an overriding/ overarching life-devotional goal, which takes absolute precedence over all else – before any such whittling away of the otherwise essential societal/ cultural conditioning.

Here is a quote which might give you both confirmation and encouragement on the daring grand adventure you have embarked upon –

Richard: Good. It is the most stimulating adventure of a lifetime to embark upon a voyage into one’s own psyche. Discovering the source of the Nile or climbing Mount Everest – or whatever physical venture – pales into insignificance when compared to the thrill of finding out about life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being. I am having so much fun … those middle-aged or elderly people who bemoan their ‘lost youth’ leave me astonished. Back then I was – basically – lost, lonely, frightened and confused. Accordingly, I set out on what was to become the most marvellous escapade possible. As soon as I understood that there was nobody stopping me but myself, I had the autonomy to inquire, to seek, to investigate and to explore. As soon as I realised nobody was standing in the way but myself, that realisation became an actualisation and I was free to encounter, to uncover, to discover and to find the ‘secret to life’ or the ‘meaning of life’ or the ‘riddle of existence’, or the ‘purpose of the universe’ or whatever one’s quest may be called. To dare to be me – to be what-I-am as an actuality – rather than the who ‘I’ was or the who ‘I’ am or the who ‘I’ will be, calls for an audacity unparalleled in the annals of history … or one’s personal history, at least.
To seek and to find; to explore and uncover; to investigate and discover … these actions are the very stuff of life! [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 38, 29 Sep 1999).

My best wishes
Vineeto