>Kuba: Hi Vineeto,
I really enjoyed this post, it hits on something that I have been observing for a long time and I understand even clearer now.
It’s this tendency to want to reduce actualism to a system/recipe precisely so that ‘I’ don’t have to do anything! 
It’s putting it all back to front, it’s like if I read of some things that Richard did and then construct a system out of them, and then sit back and wait for change to happen… But the primary thing that Richard did was that he devoted himself completely and obsessively to evincing that which the PCE demonstrated. So the specific things that he did were secondary in that sense, the primary thing was the commitment and the intent.
Actually this is also a thing I observed back when I was rock climbing. That there were guys like myself that were just busy with doing the rock climbing, and chipping away at building the skills and eventually reaching a competent level.
Then there were the guys that would purchase all the cool climbing gear, they would walk and talk like advanced climbers, they did all the things that good climbers did, and yet they were never competent climbers. They invested all their attention into looking like one but never had the commitment and intent to actually become one.
It’s a tendency I have observed a lot, I don’t have a name for it but this is what I see described in your post.
Actually I find this fascinating because (without boring anyone with too many details) this is the current discussion which is happening in the BJJ world. Which is the question of whether the sport has evolved primarily because of the systems in place (better technique etc) or because of individuals demonstrating what is possible.
It seems that the most important thing is for somebody to demonstrate what is possible, then others will try to make systems out of what they did to get there. But those systems they are created after the fact, they are not what led to the success in the first place.
Sooo … Walking the walk is the most important, the specifics are secondary. (link)
Hi Kuba,
Your post makes me grin from ear to ear – you put your finger on a crucial aspect of the human condition – ‘faking it’ and avoid change, and you described it quite well.
First an anecdote from real life. A few years ago when following current affairs, the US state of California was in a big political and economic crisis – bankrupt, the governor in major political scandals, illegal immigrants streaming into the state and public unrest looming. What happened? They made a law to ban plastic straws.
It’s actually quite humorous though in the black humour way. At the time I thought it was a perfect example of the worst, but quite common, way of ‘solving’ problems – all show and no substance, divert attention and gain popularity without having to fix anything. The British comedy series “Yes Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister” from the Sixties was a true comedic representation of the struggle between power and popularity, and very educational of the human condition in action.
When you think about it, it is also quite natural. ‘Me’, the non-substantial identity, want affirmation from other, equally non-substantial entities, and pretence is the quickest and cheapest way to get this affirmation. Given the instinctual survival passions combined with the theory of mind (“Interestingly enough, it is this last point (deceit) which most of all signals the ‘theory of mind’”), it is rather astounding that words like honesty and sincerity and integrity exist and appeal to quite a few people in the world.
Actualists experience the same struggle between the potent cunning and deceitful ‘me’ engaged in the survival of the contingent ‘being’ on one side and the honesty of sincere intent and a willingness to do whatever it takes to imitate the actual. To be aware of the stakes may make it easier to whole-heartedly dedicate one’s life to peace on earth in this life-time and act on it.
You said it well – “Walking the walk is the most important, the specifics are secondary”.
Cheers Vineeto