I guess the problem with this whole process was that along with useful information for survival etc what was passed down each generation was a mound of ignorance and superstition, the end product of which is the real world.
I was kind of wondering what would it have looked like if humans didn’t go into the delusion of spirituality/religion for example, could reality even sustain itself in the absence of those beliefs? It seems to me the answer is no.
Without those ‘beings’ who discovered the ‘metaphysical realms’ and then propagated delusions down through the ages, the ‘self’ would surely be kaput by now.
Where spiritualism offers a freedom in an otherworldly dimension, materialism offers a freedom in a real world dimension. The summum bonum of materialism would be to achieve enough wealth and power to relish in and enjoy. Or to become professionally accomplished and recognized. The beliefs and values of such people would emphasis these qualities. To them, all life has to offer is material wealth or accolade from peers. Existence is meaningless apart from what you make it.
So how does the materialism you describe differ from actualism? For if it is truly outside of any dichotomy why not call it that?
The belief that material things offer meaning is but the opposite to the belief that spiritual things offer meaning, both beliefs require each other for their existence.
This also exposes a certain bias, for in order to judge existence as meaningless we must have some other value (some true meaning) situated outside of ‘existence’ in order to make the judgement/comparison, no?
No, you could choose a purpose amongst many options in the real world. It might be to raise your family the best you can, it might be to promote sociatal equity, it might be to become a great lover. I know I describe materialism with a slant towards immense wealth, but it’d also be finding purpose in whatever one role chooses.
To conclude that there’s no inherent meaning could be birthed out of contemplating if there is any real meaning to life.
Ok but just like in order to make the statement ‘one is homeless’, it is necessary to understand what it means to have a home.
If materialism has it that all of existence is inherently meaningless, how can it make that statement without implying the existence of something that is meaningful?
But if all of existence is apparently meaningless, where is this ‘real meaning’ coming from in the scenario? It would have to come from outside of such meaningless existence by it’s very definition.
So here that argument starts to fold in on itself. Because if the materialism you propose truly has no opposite then it means that love, success or whatever you use to find ‘real meaning’ (being part of this universal materialism) also has no meaning, for it is part of the single meaningless material existence.
The argument by its very definition requires the existence of something outside of existence - spiritualism.
These are two actual experiences that one can have. Whereas a spiritual dimension outside of existence is imaginary. And a person can grasp the idea of opposites as the world is full of such examples. But they wouldn’t need to, they would just have to feel the opposite of being purposeful/meaningful.
People enjoy having a sense of purpose as they are instinctualy driven to find one. This purpose they choose becomes their meaning to life. Upon closer examination, however, one can see that there’s no inherent, all-encomposing purpose in life. So for a materialist, life is what you make it. The opposite of feeling purposeful would be to feel purposeless. The opposites exist on an emotional plane.
In your view, which would come first for humans - Materialism or Spiritualism? Do you mean to suggest that as soon as one enters the picture so does the other? Our “real world” is a blend of the two, but the hypothetical situation you’re proposing features the absence of the spiritual conditioning. What would be left in that case? What other values might an instinctual animal latch onto?
Yes this is what I am suggesting that both materialism and spiritualism exist as a dichotomy within the real world. This is the worldview of opposites that Richard is referring to in his journal. To go beyond this worldview is to find actuality, where neither materialism nor spiritualism exist.
But materialism is no closer to actuality than spiritualism is, they are both the opposing parts of a belief system that I suppose humans invented a long long time ago. Or perhaps a belief system that emerges naturally from the instinctual programming but I can’t really give any good answer here as this is precisely what I was contemplating without having solid answers yet.
I suspect what happens is that the belief in the ‘metaphysical’ is the institutionalised delusion which is intrinsic to the nature of ‘being’.
Because the instinctual self by design is the intuitive sense of ‘self vs other’ which means it is the building block for the delusion of ‘another world’ or the ‘metaphysical’.
These delusions are the projections of our intuitive instinctual nature. The tragedy of spirituality/religion is that due to ongoing human ignorance this delusion eventually became so deeply entrenched into ‘human wisdom’, so deeply that it is the founding principle of ‘reality’
Essentially what I am saying is that the seed for the intuitive sense of the ‘metaphysical’ is built into the nature of ‘being’.
Then you have the enlightened beings who took this delusion and put it on steroids and then solidified it in religion as ‘the truth’.
Which leads me to what I suggested in the other post, that without the belief in the ‘metaphysical’ I cannot see how ‘reality’ could stand.
But then at this point it all gets reduced so far that it seems to become some impossible chicken/egg paradox.
Although after all this writing what I wrote in the other post (about the padding pool) comes to mind. As in maybe it doesn’t matter whether I find out if it was the chicken or the egg, it seems like this is just a nice way to distract myself and continue doing ‘actualist things’.
Perhaps best to just go ahead and self immolate anyways and then this body can pursue this further if there is any point
Oh actually though back to the chicken and egg! As far as my understanding of history goes it was actually spirituality that came before materialism.
Or to be more precise materialism arose out of spiritualism, it might have been intended as a stand against spiritualism yet it was still tainted by it, it stands on its fundamental beliefs even whilst trying to oppose them. Hence the writing that Richard was the first true Atheist.
This is actually not so hard to observe either, look into any philosophical or scientific theories and you will eventually find the ‘metaphysical’ or ‘some other world’.
Which leads me to what I suggested in the other post, that without the belief in the ‘metaphysical’ I cannot see how ‘reality’ could stand.
The real world persists for atheists. Reality would stand until someone acts on the PCE. Vineeto abandoned her belief in god well before immolation.
I was kind of wondering what would it have looked like if humans didn’t go into the delusion of spirituality/religion for example
You’ve laid out an argument that seems to suggest it be impossible for humans not to go into the delusion of spirituality. Since you wondered, what might your thoughts be on what it’d look like if humans didn’t go into the delusion of spirituality?
Spirituality seems to be the fundamental building block of reality, if the belief in the metaphysical was dispelled for good all those thousands of years ago as opposed to being spread around the world in the form of religions, I think humans would be living in peace right now.
I mean there is reason why Richard writes that the blame for the continuation of human suffering lies in the lap of the enlightened beings.
They proceeded into the metaphysical world to seek an escape and ended up locking ‘human nature’ into some condemnation with no way out to ever be found other than in some ‘other world’.
They turned superstition and ignorance into truth and inspired generations of conditioning based on this, culminating in the ‘real world’ that all ‘entities’ currently exist in. I think there is reason why Richards stance is clear about actualism, that it is a non-spiritual freedom. There can be no space for the metaphysical in any form in actual freedom.
The more I explore this the more I see just how deeply the spiritual is entrenched into the very foundations of ‘reality’. It seems ‘my’ very existence as a ‘being’ relies upon the continued belief in it, in some form or another. For how could ‘I’ exist separated inside this body if ‘I’ am not metaphysical?
Today for a large chunk of the day I’ve found myself in and out in varying degrees in a really cool place, goal is to remain here more and more. It has that anhedonic quality that I’ve described before but I wonder if really I am just describing sensuosity.
The experience is of a place where affect seems entirely gone and the prime qualities being experienced are sensate only. There is such a delightful and charming ambience to it, it is so tasty in so many ways, the sounds, the smells, the experience of being positioned here in space as this body.
And on top of this physical intimacy there is an equal experience of freedom, because none of ‘reality’ exists in this sensate world. There is such a freshness to it also, every sensation is fresh, unpolluted by any affective influence. Even a split-second of this experience seems to immediately bring up childhood memories, like I know with certainty I have experienced this before, and yet it’s so new every time.
It’s actually a pleasure that is unparalleled, to take a breath with nostrils being filled to the brim with sweet actual air - what a blast!
I can see now why in actual freedom even doing absolutely nothing is having the time of one’s life. There can’t be boredom when each and every sensation is so fresh and clean, and one is completely saturated by this sensate pleasure.
Earlier on when I woke up from a nap and realised with delight that I was still having this experience, I had this thought occur.
Because what happens usually is I phase into the experience, delight in it and then find some ‘good reason’ to go back into ‘reality’, some thing that needs attending to apparently or whatever the excuse is.
But I realised that actually I can go the other way Instead of abandoning this delightful place in exchange for ‘reality’, I can make the decision to simply remain here and instead abandon ‘reality’. It seemed like a very sensible thing to do actually, but it just never occurred to me that it could be so simple.
I guess it’s a case of deciding once and for all that there is no good reason to go back anymore, no return ticket from paradise.
Obviously I can’t answer that, but I did have an experience this week that confirms the power on conditioning received during childhood.
I have had monumental changes in my life, over the last 2 months. Moving home, new relationship, becoming an employee again.
Leaving aside a full biography of all of that, a few nights ago I had an experience of a very familiar anger/frustration/reaction to my partner. One remember very clearly happening in most relationships since 17.
Again, I will leave out the details, but through the help and patience of my partner, and my own determination to get an answer to it, I had a “mind blowing” realisation about how profoundly my “way of being” mimics that of the dynamic between my mother and father.
Life changing actually.
Perhaps I will detail it in my journal, probably not though. Not at the minute.
The power of that conditioning was so powerful that it had evaded a decade of my efforts to have a breakthrough with actualism and life in general.
So, conditioning is extremely powerful in my experience.
I remember Richard talking about how it seems that our generation of “actualists” tend to skip over the details of what is getting in the way of feeling good, to focus on instinct and self-immolation. Something along these lines.
I guess it’s just so natural to want the prize and it seems that the way to get it is to skip over the seemingly mundane aspects of conditioning and upbringing/ personality.
Instead of abandoning this delightful place in exchange for ‘reality’, I can make the decision to simply remain here and instead abandon ‘reality’. It seemed like a very sensible thing to do actually, but it just never occurred to me that it could be so simple.