Bubs b2wf journal

Journals
142

Classic case of proving my point about statistical gymnastics.

First, shrinking the denominator to “less than 25 sincere practitioners” to make the success rate look better. Then expanding what counts as “success” to include basic/newly free states. Then adding hypothetical successes who “never wrote about it publicly.”

If we need this much creative accounting and speculation about unknown practitioners to defend the method’s efficacy, it rather proves my point about the 0% rate being uncomfortable to face.

The simple math remains: In 30 years, zero practitioners outside the original creators have achieved the promised state of actual freedom. Everything else - redefining terms, speculating about unknown successes, counting partial benefits - is just spin.

The more elaborate the justifications become, the more they highlight the core issue: if the method worked as claimed, we wouldn’t need this level of statistical gymnastics to defend it.

It’s fascinating to watch how we humans can sit comfortably at a table, engaged in elaborate discussions and rationalisations, while completely ignoring the elephant that fills half the room. Sometimes that elephant is a simple, unchangeable truth: 0% is 0%.

Math doesn’t lie. Spin won’t change it. 0% success rate in 30 years tells its own story.

The elephant isn’t going anywhere, no matter how hard we try to pretend it’s not there.

elephant room
elephant room1024×1024 252 KB

143

You are still making the same mistake here. There was not “original creators” to the actualism method.

Richard was the one to devise the method, so if you wish to remain in line with facts the sentence should be re-written to - “In 30 years 1 practitioner (Vinneto) outside the original creator (Richard) has achieved the condition of full actual freedom.”

It also appears that this elephant in the room only exists for you. It is no surprise that something as iconoclastic and earth shattering as an actual freedom from the human condition will take time to fully take root in human consciousness.

At the end of the day it is a challenge of a lifetime to undo not only thousands of years of societal conditioning but also millions of years of instinctual conditioning and hence it requires genuine pioneers.
It seems that your problem with the method is simply that it is too great of a challenge for you to consider. It is easy after all to fall back to the apparent safety of the ‘wisdom of the past’.

4 Likes
144

I see your point about the elephant in the room. You even have a picture of it. LOL

145

I see your point about the elephant in the room. You even have a picture of it. LOL

What is the point that you are seeing?

In my list of initial doubts about actualism (I had a few, mostly related to Richard’s character) this really never appeared, as I don’t get it at all, lol.

I just need to take a look at my own internal stats to personally discard such concern. And not just quantitatively (how many times did actualism improve a certain condition I was in, how many hours of enjoyment when I dedicate myself to it, or how many times I came back to actualism when I deviated because the pull of pure intent is irresistible, etc.), but also qualitatively (how it has progressively lighten my overall life, how it constantly provides perspective, clears my perception and lets me see my biases, how it makes me be generally more considerate and less serious, and so on and so forth).

How do we measure how much suffering it has prevented, or how much richness it has provided? Just for one instance, my neighbor G here can tell how actualism saved his life when he was in a suicidal state. And like the majority of us here, he explored in all kinds of spiritual schools to no avail, until actualism provided the better answer.

That’s why I don’t personally worry about opportunity cost either: I tried different kinds of meditation for years myself, and couldn’t find this level of clarity, effectiveness, stickiness, etc.

I bet there are many such cases that aren’t measurable by this metric of binary success. Even if I don’t come anywhere close to Actual Freedom, this took me way beyond than the spiritual expectations I had before actualism.

Just my anecdotal two cents for whatever it’s worth. :man_shrugging:

146

The point I see is that I have been at this a long time and I am not actually free. My life has greatly improved but the elephant in the room that I see is I am not actually free.

147

Well, in that case, we can certainly ask in whose room is this elephant in: the method or the user? Personally, I’ve been sloppy and inconsistent when applying it, and that explains the absence of even better results, because I’ve seen how it works when I have a good season of it. :slight_smile:

I know, difficult to extrapolate, but what if I hadn’t wasted the majority of my time in petty desires, and had actually diligently practiced actualism instead… who knows?

148

Yes, I have wasted most of my time. However, very few others have become actually free also. That’s the elephant in the room that bub speaks of.
I admit, the problem is ‘me’ and not the method.

1 Like
149

Ah, of course, the problem isn’t the method—it’s that every single practitioner (apart from the original creators) has been getting it wrong.

But isn’t it curious that in 30 years, the only people to achieve the promised state of actual freedom are the threesome who founded the method? Not one person outside of that circle has managed to ‘get it right.’ Does that not raise the question: is the method itself unrealistic? Or is it somehow only accessible to those who devised it?

It seems like this line of reasoning—blaming the practitioners, not the method—creates a perfect deflection loop. If it doesn’t work, it’s always on the practitioner, never the method. And while that’s convenient, it doesn’t reflect well on the method’s supposed simplicity or efficacy.

At the end of the day, if hundreds, even thousands, of ‘sincere’ people trying the method over decades haven’t cracked it, perhaps the question isn’t about individual failings but the viability of the method itself.

150

Ah, of course, the problem isn’t the method—it’s that every single practitioner (apart from the original creators) has been getting it wrong.

But isn’t it curious that in 30 years, the only people to achieve the promised state of actual freedom are the threesome who founded the method? Not one person outside of that circle has managed to ‘get it right.’ Does that not raise the question: is the method itself unrealistic? Or is it somehow only accessible to those who devised it?

It seems like this line of reasoning—blaming the practitioners, not the method—creates a perfect deflection loop. If it doesn’t work, it’s always on the practitioner, never the method. And while that’s convenient, it doesn’t reflect well on the method’s supposed simplicity or efficacy.

At the end of the day, if hundreds, even thousands, of ‘sincere’ people trying the method over decades haven’t cracked it, perhaps the question isn’t about individual failings but the viability of the method itself.

151

I saw the responses from a couple of hours ago and felt a deep sadness—beautiful and deep. It reminded me of a best friend speaking to me about her physically abusive partner. We have a heartfelt conversation, and I think she’s ready to walk away, only for her to decide she’s going back, convinced it will be different this time. We both know he’s selling her a fantasy that will never come true, and the cycle will continue.

When I reflected on why the Morphogenetic intelligence put this in front of me, I saw a familiar theme—people unwilling to see an obvious lesson, reflect, grow, or change. It’s like what I see with some of my patients: no matter how productive an appointment seems, they often return to old, unhelpful patterns. And I realized I do this too, chasing a Shangrila of perfect control—getting my inbox to zero, mastering life completely. There’s no happy ending there because it’s simply not possible.

Life is full of suffering and ugliness. And maybe that’s the tension I’ve hit here repeatedly. I’ve kept saying, “Life is fantastic as it is, warts and all.” But that idea feels untenable with AF, where the pursuit of a constant PCE, a self-immolated state of Shangrila, seems paramount.

The reason those aspects of the method don’t work, in my view, is the constant PCE fantasy doesn’t account for one definitively hardwired aspect of existence: impermanence. This too shall pass. Everything changes—panta rei. We can’t step in the same river twice.

And that’s the lesson the Morphogentic Intelligence has been asking me to see repeatedly: the absolute perfection of the now isn’t in chasing a pristine future but in seeing the pristine right here, in the beauty of what is. Even in its messiness. Even in its flaws.

Life is full of ugliness. One can have the best intentions and still meet personal attacks. But within that messiness, one can also learn the most beautiful lessons. Because maybe the ugliness isn’t separate from the beauty—it’s part of it.

The Japanese have a concept: wabi-sabi, finding comfort in imperfection, and kintsugi, the idea that flaws and damage can be the most beautiful, golden parts.

This is where our worldviews fundamentally diverge. It’s impossible for anyone here to validate my position because you believe a pristine, constant PCE life is possible—impermanence, change, or panta rei be damned. And I can’t validate your position because I see magic right in the ugliness, messiness, and impermanence—even the ugliest experiences contain the most magical beautiful lessons.

Maybe one day you’ll see it: Bub was right—life is shit, but it’s fucken gooood shit. Or maybe I’ll see your point of view: Life is shit, but I can reach a place where it’s Pristine and absolutely absent of shit.

But for now, I’ll leave by sharing my deep realisation from today’s interaction of how life’s beauty and messiness are inseparable. It reminded me that happiness isn’t about fixing what’s broken or escaping imperfection. It’s about seeing the pristine right here, in the warts and all of life.

I’ve learned so much from this exchange, and for that, I thank you. I hope you find whatever it is you’re looking for.

Take care, everyone.

152

Eh, I know this was coming, lol. I had no interest in debating really, although, for the sake of it, I’d request that you open your mind regarding what constitutes success.

For instance, even highly enlightened or accomplished beings like the Dalai Lama commonly expose the limitations of spirituality. You’ll constantly get that they still get angry, that is normal, human and even healthy to experience those negative emotions, even if transcended.

Point being: how do you compare the benchmarks of enlightenment/spiritual success with those of actualism?

Cause here you have not only a couple of fully free people, but also several cases of newly free, several cases of virtually free for extended periods. Are those comparable to traditional spiritual states and achievements? Which ones would be superior in terms of alleviating suffering?

153

Your critique is based on factually incorrect information - as @Kub933 already pointed out.

Richard the feeling-being is the only one who devised the actualism method. He used it to successfully self-immolate.

Richard the actually-free person taught it to feeling-beings Peter and Vineeto, who in turn used it to successfully self-immolate. It makes no rational sense to exclude the first two successful replications of Richard’s discovery.

Even if we do for some unknown reason - that leaves out Tom, Grace, and Pamela.

Now you might complain it is only people who knew Richard personally and spent time extensively with him that have succeeded – well, then you have Srinath, who succeeded without having known him well and had only met him briefly.

Ah! But then you complain it’s only people that have met Richard? Well, then you have Geoffrey, who successfully became actually free without ever having met Richard.

And on it goes… and the more pioneers that succeed, the even less of these complaints will possibly remain. Even as it stands, your complaint here is woefully out-of-date – this tactic might have worked when Richard was the only one, but those times are long past now.

As such your criticisms simply have no substance, they are all based entirely on false premises such as this one, and no amount of repeating them will change this.

3 Likes
154

I had a lot of success early on and did have some pce’s. I saw and experienced the actual world that Richard speaks of. That cannot be forgotten. I know that the actual world exists and that it’s right here right now and not in some spiritual after life. I also know that I am my body and not a spirit or a soul. This is what spiritualists don’t get. It’s up to me to stop the interference of the rational mind that cuts me off from it. That’s what the method is good for if I use it properly.

3 Likes
155

increasingly-difficult-to-ignore-the-elephant-in-the-room-v0-28gy7edae2jc1
increasingly-difficult-to-ignore-the-elephant-in-the-room-v0-28gy7edae2jc11024×1024 123 KB

156

Seems like we may have a troll in the room actually :yum:

5 Likes
157

Not trolling, just pointing out what’s plain to see. Sometimes humour helps highlight the truth, but I’ll step back now and leave the room for reflection. Wishing you all the best.

158

Bub your intentions seem good but man you seem bad at Math or have some kinda reading or learning disability because so many are repeatedly pointing out things to you but you seem beyond reach now with imaginary elephants…well that’s what spirituality is good at eh…imagination…0% other than original founders is a false premise because:

  • there were no “founders”…there was only one proper “founder” - Richard
  • beyond Richard there are people who either attained full freedom or basic freedom…so thats replication and effectiveness of the method…so that certainly does not add up to 0% success
3 Likes
159

Funny Character Aesthetic

2 Likes
160

Hi Bub,

Bub: And again, why is the success rate still 0% after so so so much time, and effort? There’s the reflection – not ad hominem bullying or name calling when this is pointed out – this is real sincerity. Method’s not working guys – little wins here and there for sure – but 0% is still 0%. That’s the bottomline that everyone is dancing around - that’s the elephant in the room that has to be addressed for real practical progress. (link)

Ha, you have now come out in the open, no more straddling the fence. Just think: if the fence you were straddling was made of barbed wire … what would the top strand be doing right now? So much better to get off that fence.

But it does not seem to be easy to do. You have to generate a lot of words with faulty calculations and outrageous assumptions to arrive at your declaration of “success rate still 0%”. You even have to throw your “best friends with Srinath” (who has been basically free since 2018) under the bus (i.e. negate his success) to maintain this fantastical proclamation! (See link).

Make no mistake – [Richard]: “Being actual is here to stay. The words and writings of both an actual and a virtual freedom from the human condition – be they spoken, printed or in pixels are now stored away in brain cells, on bookshelves and hard drives/ tapes/ CD’s/ DVD’s all around the globe.” (link, tooltip after “here to stay”).

You can stop making a fool of yourself, you cannot change what is happening all around the globe. And what is more significant, you cannot make unseen what you have, albeit dimly, seen for yourself as being a fact – actualism had some beneficial impact on your life – else you would not say –

Bub: AF was wonderful for me, because it kickstarted me on a new journey and clarified certain basic ideals I should strive for mainly appreciating and enjoying this moment of being alive AND being happy and harmless (and then use 200 or so words to try to negate it) (link)

And:

Bub: Let me having my little bit of actualism that is fantastic for me. (link)

So, it is not easy once you have seen a fact to make it unseen. You may be putting it aside but it will stay in your memory as a fact and spoil the full-hearted belief in new-age spiritual pursuits which are made of imagination, illusion and delusion. Something is missing in the original certitude of your beliefs, you know now as a fact that there is an alternative which is actual. Here you come close to recognizing what is happening to you …

Bub: I saw the responses from a couple of hours ago and felt a deep sadness—beautiful and deep. It reminded me of a best friend speaking to me about her physically abusive partner. We have a heartfelt conversation, and I think she’s ready to walk away, only for her to decide she’s going back, convinced it will be different this time. We both know he’s selling her a fantasy that will never come true, and the cycle will continue.
When I reflected on why the Morphogenetic intelligence put this in front of me, I saw a familiar theme—people unwilling to see an obvious lesson, reflect, grow, or change. (link)

… but then you quickly turn away from the mirror and blame it on “Morphogenetic intelligence” instead of looking at what you yourself are doing for the sake of staying within the ‘safety’ of the herd. Ah, the human condition is so predictable sometimes.

You may have chickened out for now, but that does not mean you will run away forever. Actuality doesn’t need numbers to prove that it is actual, and the same is the case with facts. Deep down there is now a doubt in your beliefs of new-age claptrap that “communicating with them [my feelings] has been one the most beautiful and enriching experiences of my life”. … “And I could never ever dream of getting rid of this wisdom.” (link)

Let us know when this self-centred listening to the wisdom of your feelings stops working for you and you are ready to genuinely try out something which is actual, and you are ready to sincerely(*) want to learn how the actualism method works when one reads it with both eyes open.

(*)sincere – The word ‘sincere’ can be traced back to the Latin sincerus, meaning ‘whole’ or ‘pure’ or ‘sound’, and which is arguably derived from the roots ‘sin-’ (one) and ‘crescere’ (to grow) in that the Latin ‘sincerus’ originally referred to a plant which was of pure stock – not a mixture or hybrid – and thus came to mean anything which was genuine (as in ‘true’ or ‘correct’) and not falsified, adulterated, contaminated.
Sincerity is to be in accord with the fact/ being aligned with factuality/ staying true to facticity (as in being authentic/ guileless, genuine/ artless, straightforward/ ingenuous).

In the meantime … congé.

Cheers Vineeto

2 Likes
161

I want to begin by saying how much AF has meant to me. It’s helped me tremendously in clarifying ideals like appreciating and enjoying the moment of being alive and striving to be happy and harmless. These are principles I carry with me daily, and for that, I’m deeply grateful.

That said, I’ve always found that certain aspects—like the constant pursuit of PCEs or self-immolation—don’t resonate with me. For me, the beauty of Actualism lies in what works: enjoying this moment, appreciating life’s perfection even with its imperfections, and striving for harmony within myself and with others. Those aspects have been transformative. But I’ve also realized that the methods meant to reach the final goal of AF—constant PCE or self-immolation—seem unattainable, as evidenced by the lack of tangible results outside the original founders.

I’m raising these points not to attack but to encourage reflection. Yesterday’s exchanges, unfortunately, didn’t reflect the ideals of “happy and harmless.” Hostility, name-calling stood in stark contrast to the principles Actualism espouses. Was this truly happy and harmless behavior? Was it caring, sincere, or constructive?

You can often tell a happy and harmless person by their presence, by their words, by their calmness. Were those actions yesterday aligned with the ideals of felicity and harmlessness? If not, it’s okay—awareness is the first step. The feeling being’s conscience always knows the answer if we’re willing to listen. Truth is resilient; it grows like a worm, unable to be suppressed, and it always surfaces.

On the point of success rates: while Actualism has been life-changing for me in many ways, it’s undeniable that the method, as designed to reach Actual Freedom, hasn’t worked for anyone outside the original founders. Yesterday’s responses only reinforced this, with creative accounting (expanding “success” to include basic/newly free states, hypothesising about unseen practitioners), goalpost shifting, and comparisons to spirituality that deflect from the core issue. The simple truth remains: 0% success outside the founders is still 0%. Math doesn’t lie. Spin won’t change it. That number deserves sincere introspection, not defensiveness.

Calling these behaviors out is not an attack. It’s an invitation to reflect on whether the method, as it currently stands, is achieving its intended goal. True growth comes from asking the hard questions, sitting with discomfort, and being willing to see things as they are—not as we wish them to be. And if Actualism is truly about living free of illusion, then this introspection should be welcomed.

Finally, I’ll end with gratitude. The principles of Actualism have brought immense value to my life. The emphasis on being happy and harmless, on appreciating life as it is, and on finding moments of felicity and care—these are gifts I treasure. My critique is not about dismissing Actualism but about helping it grow into something even more robust. I hope this message plants a seed, one that will grow and encourage deeper reflection. Truth, no matter how uncomfortable, has a way of surfacing when we allow it.

Take care, and I sincerely wish you all well on your journeys.