Tangentially related, apparently, in space the cosmic radiation of the universe causes flashes of light in astronauts: The Universe is Hostile to Computers - YouTube . These flashes of light would be experienced by an actually free person… hence they are actual!
Yes I had thoughts in a PCE and I actually remember very well what it was like. The confusion seems to be because it was not what I expected/believed it would be like. There seems to be some sort of conflict/cognitive dissonance between my PCEs vs my beliefs about what Actual freedom is meant to be like. I guess what I am trying to do is get you to confirm this for me as opposed to sticking to my experience.
This has been clarifying itself this morning though, I can see that when the being goes into abeyance the mind remains along with its functions such as thought.
In this sense a PCE is a lot more down to earth than what I have been making it out to be, dare I say ordinary 
. It is the experience of a mind freed of the feeler and the thinker and as such being able to function with clarity and smoothness, all the while delighting in the perfection of the actual world.
Hi @rick ,
What I observe from your correspondence is that you appear to be missing the point in that actualism is not a philosophy or a framework of thought or a belief system… actualism is experiential.
This isn’t the first time you appear to be complaining about the presentation of actualism, inconsistencies you perceive, even casting doubts on the integrity of the presentation of actualism as a whole.
Yet the people who are having success with actualism, including not only the actually free people but those feeling-beings that are reporting progress on the path, have no such complaints.
The reason is that, actualism being experiential, what is important is the practical experience of employing the actualism method (of enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive as much as possible) and the end result of that successful application (of becoming actually free). And to that end the presentation of actualism is sufficient and is only improving over time.
That is - the method works, and all you have to do is get off of the philosophical armchair and actually begin putting it into practice in your own life. Then you will start to see the benefits for yourself and questions such as these, while they would likely remain interesting to you, would be seen to be of essentially no consequence with regards to becoming happier and more harmless and becoming free from the human condition.
With the benefit of experiential success with the method you will see that, for example, it is in hindsight not surprising that aspects peculiar to the first and only actually free person - of having no dreams and no mental imagery - were thought to be attributes of actual freedom in and of itself as opposed to particular to just one person. There was simply no way to know before, since the sample size of one. Now that there are more actually free people, we can have a better understanding of what exactly actual freedom entails.
And further with the benefit of your own PCEs you will see that there is no possibility for emotions to be actual, because of the (temporary) abeyance of ‘being’ itself along with all the emotions that make up that ‘being’.
Not only that, even if some actually free person were to declare that emotions are actual, or to change definitions of words, or to present things in a different way – it would not change the nature of PCEs or of actual freedom whatsoever. Just because someone says it is so, does not make it so. What is key is the PCE itself and establishing your own connection to pure intent and freeing yourself from the human condition. Nobody can do it for you, and no amount of poring over words and discussing apparent inconsistencies will change this.
I encourage you to take the plunge and dive into actualism experientially for yourself, and see what happens!
1 Like
Apparently, the (conceptual, so of no relevance to the practice of actualism) issue seems to reside in the equation: “physical=actual”. Allow me to take a swing at it lol, since I’ve already written a quick post 
‘Actual’ is defined experientially. The actual world is the world as it is experienced in a PCE or in Actual Freedom. That’s it. So… thoughts are there, but feelings are not. Therefore thoughts are actual, and feelings aren’t. Here you go. Easy.
As for what ‘physical’ is, personally I’m happy to defer to (and follow) science on that one. Since determining and understanding this is precisely science’s job. This understanding is incomplete, and interpretations galore, so opinions can be freely made unless proven otherwise. Whatever one’s understanding, or opinion, on e.g. what ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ are, does not infringe on what is experienced as ‘actual’. And why should it? For all we know, the ultimate ‘nature’ (physis) of the universe might be a quantum hypergraph, a 8-dimentional object, whatever.
Actual Freedom is about “being the universe’s experience of itself as a human being”. As a human being. And what do human beings experience? Colors, where there’s only wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation; sounds, where there’s only movement of air molecules; etc. Colors and sounds are actual, but not ‘physical’, unless one wants to consider that they appear as such when ‘coded’ by some sort of brain, and that such brain is… wait for it… part of the physical universe.
Thoughts… same. Only neurons firing… well not even that, but only molecules interacting (ions going through cell membranes etc.)… or not even that, but only excitations in quantum fields…
“Being the universe’s experience of itself as a human being”… Human beings experience thought. Thoughts are actual, yet not ‘physical’ as such.
So what about feelings, might you say? Well the “being the universe’s experience of itself” part is what determines that not any human being’s experience will do, but only that of a PCE/Actual Freedom, again for experiential reasons, “being the universe’s experience of itself” being the actual experience of Actual Freedom.
And it’s awesome 
3 Likes
Hi Claudiu - whatever is making actual brain neurons fire cannot be caused by something that does not actually exist; by something that does not have a mass or occupy physical space. This upends basic principles of physics.
Would this have been a personal conversation? Looking through all your correspondence with Richard on the AFT site, doing word searches for “scientists”, “physical”, and “properties” returned nothing related to distinguishing between ‘actual’ and ‘physical’. It’s very possible that I am overlooking it. When you find the time, may you link to that conversation or post the relevant excerpt?
Incidentally, the following definition was located in the ‘Library’ section (emphasis added):
Peter (n.d.): Actual is that which is palpable, tangible, tactile, corporeal, physical and material.
1 Like
About my statement “thoughts are actual” (and I must admit I paused when writing it, thinking whether it might bring more confusion than benefice… you guys are free to disregard it)…thoughts could be said to not be “palpable, tangible, tactile, corporeal, physical and material” as (feeling-being) Peter defines ‘actual’.
But not only can thoughts be experienced in the PCE/Actual Freedom (which is an experiential definition of ‘actual’), but…
RESPONDENT: What are your thoughts?
RICHARD: As I understand it they are an electro-chemical activity in the neurons of the brain.
I’m not sure a clear seeing of this point can be reached as long as there is a thinker in situ… but there’s no need for it. Peter’s definition of ‘actual’ is quite enough to differentiate it from one’s beliefs, fantaisies, and ‘real world’.
As one with a thinker still in situ I can say that a clear seeing of it is possible for me 
. I think though that it is simply quite impossible to understand, imagine, conceive of, conceptualize, etc., just how thoroughly not-actually-existent ‘I’ as a feeling-being (and a ‘thinker’) am, together with ‘my’ emotions, without a crystal clear PCE - or perhaps without experiencing with awareness at least one crystal-clear entrance into or exit from a PCE.
And even after such an event I could say it is still impossible to conceive of it, perhaps… but I can remember that it is an actuality I experienced and that is enough 
But my contention is that such an experience is what is required to see this point - that ‘I’ am not actual - and such an experience is ultimately what the answer to all these questions is, as to what is actual and not actual.
1 Like
Hi Srinath - thank you for articulating the distinction you perceive between ‘actual’, ‘physical’, and ‘non-physical’ things. Until your post, I had never heard of “Cartesian dualism” or “monism”, so it was helpful of you to reference those schools thought that have been contending with these matters for at least the past 400 years. I would fully agree that, yes, a “kind of monism, where thoughts, feelings, images and abstractions are on an equal footing with physical objects in the world which they seem to be a part of” is what is being put forth for examination and scrutiny.
The prospect that internal images, concepts, and feelings were no different, qualitatively, to externally perceived objects occurred after pondering Richard’s repeated reference to thoughts that were “sparkling, coruscating” as if he were dazzling at the glittering mirrors on a twirling disco ball, descriptions you don’t normally use for silent, private thought processes. Had he never deleted his imagination the presumption is that he would describe imaginative events in a like manner.
Presently, experiments on how experience can be reoriented upon discernment that no fundamental distinction exists between inward-appearing and outward-appearing phenomena are ongoing. Preliminary results indicate that as this fundamental distinction between ‘in’ and ‘out’ diminishes, so does the division-line such distinction apparently sustained. A closeness and intimacy felt with the surroundings manifests and intensifies as the separative divide between what was in here and what was out there weakens and withers. This topic wasn’t tagged as an “experiential-report” for nothing.
No, not this. Not at all. It is clear that matter gives rise to consciousness; that the inanimate becomes animate before becoming inanimate again. Afterall, the fundamental essence of both inanimate and animate objects is its physicality, its existence in fact. What can’t be grasped is how that which is meta-physic gives rise to or effects that which must adhere to the rules of physics. It is not unlike the outlandish claims that demons, angels, and ghosts from the “otherside” are able to interact with people and objects in the physical world.
Doesn’t it? There it is: existent in its foggy, effervescent, majestic form manufactured from the coordinated performance of innumerable electro-chemical processes.
If you were presented with an illustration of a unicorn, you would understand that the illustration of the unicorn was not the same as an actual unicorn in that it can’t be ridden, doesn’t eat, etc. Yet there in front of you would be an actual illustration, an actual representation of a unicorn nevertheless.
Agreed.
Unfortunately, I have to object to your characterization of these explorations and discernments as a ‘philosophy’ on account of the stigmatized association that term may have among moderators with itchy trigger fingers. In addition, given that these explorations are being carried out upon firm empirical grounding it may not be an entirely accurate characterization anyway. Frankly, this exploration began one night by musing upon the nature of experience itself as an undeniably factual occurrence. In moments of quiet respite, the line of contemplation would recommence, and continues to do so, each time going a little further. Later, Richard’s words regarding a boundless and limitless physical universe, existing absolutely (alongside no other), took on a profound significance, and was consequently incorporated into the ruminations:
Richard (2000): This boundless and limitless actual universe, being beginningless and endless (unborn and undying) is absolute.
Richard (2001): This physical universe is infinite and eternal (boundless and limitless).
Which means there is no space, no room, no possibility for anything that is not physical to exist anywhere at all. And the physical absoluteness: boundless, limitless, and borderless, is inclusive of all and is exclusive none. And if a fact means anything at all, surely it must mean something that is undeniable. For example, if there is the experience of repulsion, then that repulsion is undeniably, factually occurring; if it is factual then it must be included, by definition, in the boundless absolute. To be sure, instinctual passions are not the preferred experience, and once the button that dissolves them is located there will be no hesitation to press it. In the meanwhile, these recent discernments, being examined under the eye of critical observation, have been a welcome development. It is supremely satisfying to dip into the warm baths of a physical absolute every now and again.
Essentially, yes, on account that all those are physical manifestations. However, mistakes or misapprehensions may arise as to the nature or source of each manifestation. Some may hold the incorrect notion or conviction that gods and unicorns roam the sky or earth, or that apple trees arise after human blood is spilt in sacrificial offerings, where in fact gods and unicorns arise in the calorifically-energized mind as images and hallucinations while apple trees sprout in hydrated nutrient-rich ground-soil with a pH between 6.0 and 7.0.
Again, objecting to the ‘philosophical position’ nomenclature for reasons expressed above. As for changing how the world is experienced, that was an unexpected outcome of contemplating upon that which is undeniable.
Whatever the case, substantial or insubstantial, since there is an aversion for debilitative feelings, and a preference for ebullient ones, there is a conscious orienting towards the joyful and wholesome, and since that is the essence of Actualism then it may just all lead to the same place anyway.
1 Like
Super interesting read, though I can’t help think…instead of (or in addition to) quizzing the actually free on intellectual curiosities relating to an imagined actual world…
What if we asked these former feeling beings questions on how they did what they did, how they approached various challenges etc etc .
Not a put down on this convo, just saying 
That is one solution. May have some legs. But it dissociates the physical from the actual to the point where they seem to be entirely separate things, when surely there is a correspondence there? And what of the actually free scientist studying the physical world? Is his work only actual insofar as it involves the senses? 
But beliefs and fantasies would have an electrochemical basis in the brain too. As would feelings. On that basis alone we couldn’t decide if something was actual or not.
Interesting. Unlike Richard I can still visualise images after AF. But there is definitely a noticeable reduction in their vividness and how compelling I find them. I experience both sparkling, coruscating thoughts and images both. Delicate, striking abstract images in particular are noticeable at night when I go to sleep sometimes. I don’t make too much of them. But I did not think to demarcate these thoughts and images as actual, in opposition to say someone else’s non-actual thoughts and images - or maintain that they are they are the same as an actual apple or table. I think of thoughts and images both as being in the category of the virtual which I probably got from Deleuze and misappropriated. Not something I’d defend to the death. Just my sloppy way of thinking about it for now. (Virtuality (philosophy) - Wikipedia)
Rick are you talking about a non-dual experience here or is the experiment just confirming for you the physical reality of things like thoughts, ideas etc.?
As for the the rest of your post, it sounds once again that you are again making the case for a type of monism based on experience, if not philosophy. Doesn’t sound like you’ve gone completely bananas and started searching for unicorns or are trying to collect thoughts with a butterfly net so all good It’s an interesting idea. Elegant in some ways. As I mentioned I suspect that even if you are a monist of this stripe you could still make actualism and actual freedom work. Hmmm thinking about it now I’m probably a monist after a fashion too as I’m not a Cartesian. And I can’t see Decartes being too thrilled about the ‘I am the universe experiencing it’s infinitude as this body’ line I don’t really have a problem with philosophy and I was not intending it as a disparaging remark to you or some ‘thinky’ thing you are doing that’s removed from reality. Infact I think we are all carrying philosophies around either implicitly or explicitly.
…but the important thing is this below 
That will help you with actualism but is not sufficient for actual freedom. At least for me it was the realising of the unreality of feelings, imaginings, beliefs and ultimately ‘me’ - in sharp contrast to the actual world that was a crucial impetus to self-immolate. That line wasn’t blurry, so saying “Whatever the case, substantial or insubstantial” is not really an option. This is why its important for you to think this through carefully. If everything gloms together and becomes of the same substance, it will be hard to make the kind of demarcation required to choose which side you ultimately wish to fall on.
2 Likes
I think what is key here is that the actual world is completely invisible to a feeling-being. Richard re-iterated this point to me a few times on my first visit. On one occasion he was telling me something about actual flesh and blood bodies. And I pointed to myself, to indicate what he was talking about. And he said no, not that body – I was perceiving a physical body, but not an actual flesh and blood body. The actual flesh and blood body I actually am was completely invisible to ‘me’. And likewise the actual flesh and blood body Richard was, was completely invisible to me.
And not only invisible to the eyes but also impossible to hear, smell, touch, etc…
And this applies not only to bodies but literally to all of experience, for a feeling-being. The actual world is completely invisible, imperceptible, not capable of being sensed.
Also see this correspondence where Richard explains the distinction between actual sensations and physical sensations. To summarize, for an actually free person there is no distinction - they are one and the same - while for a feeling-being, there are no actual sensations, only physical sensations.
Thus it is true that everything that a feeling-being perceives, be it ‘out there’ or ‘in here’, is ultimately of the same substance - whether it is a thought, feeling, sight, sound, taste, etc. It is all processed through and presented to ‘my’ affective consciousness as ‘me’ being conscious of ‘myself’. The experience in its entirety is affective, affectively-tinged. There is no portion or percentage of it that is actual. And there is nothing you can do about it. The actual world is only perceptible in a PCE or when actually free.
Thus with that in mind…
That may be so, but as you are including feelings in this unification, if you succeed in what you are doing and that divide fully disappears, you will not be experiencing the actual world, but rather an affective unity, that will, you guessed it, include ‘you’ the feeling-being in all your rotten-to-the-core glory. This is none other than the spiritual path.
EDIT: And not only that but, as the actual world is entirely invisible to you in the first place – no amount of diminishing distinctions in your (already not-actually-existing) world, will ever lead to anything actual… thus all you are doing (and would be doing if you continue this) is essentially ‘rearranging deck chairs on the titanic’, rather than getting to the root of the matter (to wit, why is there an already-separative ‘me’ in the first place?)
It is indeed not unlike that. ‘I’ ultimately have the same quality of existence as demons, angels, ghosts, and Santa Claus. Yet if you look at the state of the world, with all its wars, suicides, tortures, murders, rapes, etc. – these are all effects of these not-actually-existing (i.e. “meta-physic”) entities wreaking their havoc upon the world.
Again I contend it is impossible to truly grasp this point - just how non-existent ‘I’ am - without a firm PCE as a reference point.
When I brought up similar lines of reasoning to Vineeto - I was saying, for example, if I felt something in the past, isn’t it a fact that I felt something? Therefore what does it really mean a fact is not a feeling? And she said that I am just confusing myself, and it’s better to simply keep it straightforward – that a feeling is a feeling and a fact is a fact. This advice served me well.
@Srinath would you draw a distinction between imagination and mental imagery? I think this distinction is being blurred here. My understanding is that imagination completely disappears upon basic actual freedom, while mental imagery does not. Thus one is affective (not actual) and the other is actual.
Incidentally I love being able to highlight text throughout the posts and click “Quote”, and add them to the reply here. Makes it much easier to answer!
2 Likes
Having read the topic and going back to the original post, @rick, I would like to gain more clarity on this. So, I first quote this:
(1) Is the term ‘actual’ as defined by the AFT truly synonymous with the term ‘physical’?
Richard has repeatedly stated that feelings (and the self) are not facts i.e. they don’t actually exist.
Richard (1997): ‘I’ , as an emotional ‘being’ am not a fact … ‘I’ am a belief. (…) A feeling is not a fact.
Richard says a feeling has no substance, and is thus not actual.
Richard (1997): By actual I mean tangible, substantial. ‘I’ am not tangible: ‘I’ am a belief, not a fact.
To drive the point: there is nothing, absolutely nothing that is not physical and thus actual. If I experience desire, then that desire is physical i.e. actual.
After reading all the following posts and instead of getting hooked on writing about monism, dualism, emergentism, physics, reality, actuality, facts, etc., I prefer to summarize and ask you about the crux of the topic:
It apparently boils down to the fact that Richard’s assertions would lead to a contradiction or “misapprehension or an error of reasoning” on his part (if your reasoning about them is correct, of course). Right?
So, thinking about the scenario in which Richard is wrong or contradicts himself, I thought (and later wanted to ask you) about this:
- What were the motivations for your inquiry?
- What impact it would have that discovery on you?
I thought of three possibilities:
1 - It would provide you with an intellectual gain about AF, with no practical purposes regarding its practice (just as we often like to better understand a philosophical idea or a mathematical concept, with no intention to operate with it in the world).
On the contrary, you could see that your inquiry and the discovery of Richard’s mistake or contradiction may help you pragmatically in advancing towards your actual freedom OR in abandoning its practice, because:
2 - As a consequence of your discovery, you might be inclined to think that there is no such thing as an actual freedom of the human condition, and those who claim to have attained it are in a state induced by that or other errors (even if they actually appreciate and enjoy life in an extra-ordinary way, etc, but in any case they would be in another variant of ASCs).
So you want to continue your searching or research somewhere else.
OR
3 - You do believe that they have achieved actual freedom in despite of that error or contradiction. But nevertheless you believe that you could not do the same without first unraveling that and other potential errors or contradictions.
So, can you clarify for me if in any of these possibilities (1, 2 or 3) or in something else lies the answer to the above questions? (I.e.: What were the motivations for your inquiry? and What impact it would have that discovery on you?).
Hi Claudiu - the point is definitely not being missed. Actualism, in essence, is the direct experience that matter is not merely passive.
May 26 2005
RESPONDENT No. 71: Richard, actualism is experiencing that matter is not merely passive … what does it mean?
RICHARD: Another way of saying it is that actualism is the direct experience that matter is not inert.
[…]
RESPONDENT: How is it not passive?
RICHARD: In actuality matter is vibrant, potent … literally everything material is intrinsically active, vigorous. This fundamental dynamism, this elemental efficacy, is the very actuality of all existence – the actualness of everything – as matter itself, being of infinite perpetuance/ eternal perdurability, is anything but inoperative (passive) or inactive (inert). And wherever/whenever this perennial matter is sentient the potential exists for it to be conscious of its own essential nature.
You have reduced (or dismissed), based on how things “appear” to you, everything that I have put forth in this topic down to two things:
-
I missed the point that actualism is experiential.
-
I complained about actualism.
That is unfortunate. Because it is inaccurate.
Yes, completely agree. Imagination is feeling backed or impassioned. Seeing mental imagery in the minds eye is not.
The quote feature is the truly super!
2 Likes
And just to clarify further, I mentioned the mental imagery I experienced mainly because I had never experienced anything like them prior to AF. These abstract, crystalline like images are not anything like the daydreams, fantasies and even wild dream like imagery I would get off on or be disturbed by as a feeling being. Obviously they are not associated with feelings.
Thanks for sharing. That actually helps me @Srinath. The main experience during my twenties that both encouraged (and later dismayed me - because i couldn’t get it back) was a experience of peace accompanied by a vivid blue crystalline image.
Hi Geoffrey - thank you for taking a swing at this. It’s amazing how human language can contribute to both clarity and confusion.
Do you consider this universe that is experiencing itself as a human being to be a physical universe?
I was thinking the same things you were a while back too, but Claudiu summed it up pretty well. Keep in mind that actualism is experiential and I think the answer will elucidate itself. The physical is the actual only when you are actually free or are experiencing a PCE. For regular feeling beings though, the physical is not the actual because they do not directly experience physicality. As far as the question “are feelings physical?”, it depends on how you want to answer it and the definition you are using.
From a pure objective point of view, feelings are actual in the sense that the subjective feeling being/feelings produce physical hormones and physical bodily reactions. But this does not make the subjective feeling being/feelings actual. If you were to cut someone open or use some sort of scan or whatever you may find the hormones or may measure the increased heart rate and what not, but you will not find fear/aggression/nurture/desire(the rudimentary self) itself. The best example may be the Santa Claus example. To a person that believes in Santa Claus, he is very real and may even be felt to be real, but that doesn’t mean that Santa Claus has actual inherent existence anywhere in the physical universe. Santa Claus has an existence in the form of a subjective feeling, but you will never find him anywhere. An imaginary world has no existence without affective feelings.
Everyone has the program for the instinctual passions encoded within their DNA and this gets passed down. This quote may be apt:
RICHARD: …the genetically-inherited instinctual passions do not have a perception of self … what they do is usurp the sensate perception of self and create the feeling of ‘self’.
Also keep in mind that this feeling self has complete control over the physical body and is felt and experienced to be something other than the physical body. You write:
To drive the point: there is nothing, absolutely nothing that is not physical and thus actual. If I experience desire, then that desire is physical i.e. actual.
This is interesting because all of spirituality (and Richard himself) will tell you that the affective self is not physical. As for thoughts and mental imagery, you may find this interesting: This mind-reading AI can see what you're thinking - and draw a picture of it | World Economic Forum
Also related to this topic: Selected Correspondence: The Animal Instincts in the Primitive Brain
The fact that this physical universe is infinite and eternal means that it is a mistake to draw a line between the physical world and the imaginary world between the sensate tangible realm and the affective emotional realm
Ultimately, this does not matter. But as far as becoming free of the human condition, it may be essential to define this difference.
1 Like
Hi Srinath - this is important. As Richard points out in the quote Geoffrey provided, thoughts are neuronal; physical phenomena in other words.
Surprisingly, Richard acknowledges that the genetically inherited instinctual passions experienced by lower and higher animals, the affective package of fear, aggression, nurture, and desire, may be neuronal; even though the feeling-being formed from those affections is not.
Richard (2005): Now, whilst a case can be made that the instinctual passions have a neuronal existence the instinctual self they automatically form themselves into, by the very movement or motion of those affections, (…) does not. (…) an emotional/ passional identity is [a] phantom ‘being’ in the affective faculty, an affective ‘ghost in the machine’ (in the survival software), as it were. [emphasis added]
Allow that to sink in for a moment. The instinctual passions (the affections) are neuronal.
The instinctual self (comprised of affections) is not neuronal.