Role of creator/source and models in general in actualism


even when we abolish/dismiss the idea of some God/Self running this whole show, there still something IS appearing and there is some order/law to the manifestation. Is it wrong to make useful models (kabbalah, tantra, subtle-body systems, etc.) in order to classify/categorize the experience in order to transmit them to others? In other words, is it a waste of time to study any “maps” of consciousness and apply the knowledge?

Hi, @imagine. Welcome to the forum!

At least for my part I should have a better understanding of this statement to comment the rest:

Can elaborate/explain this further/better?

Can elaborate/explain this further/better?

Sure. I mean that even if I deny any “intelligent” creator, there is still some order in the perceptions I receive. What is responsible (responsible is not the ideal word but can not find a better one) for this order? Is it not something of a bigger magnitude than myself? Can I somehow get in touch with this “something”?

In case we adopt solipsism (I am Self/God), everything is self-explanatory but in case we dismiss the gurus of Advaita, one is left wondering - what the hell is going on and what can I do about it? :slight_smile: Well, the other question would be - why do I need to do something about it? This actualism thing is pretty heavy on my “system” loaded with all those various approaches and methods I have been practicing during years and I am trying to fit it in somewhere.

Oh, I understand.
So somehow it is not enough for you that this order can be provided/generated by the physical elements of the universe and their relationships (laws of physics), is it? That is, you somehow need that that order obeys to the responsibility of something different from the physical elements and their relations.

In my experience, that need is emotional. Because, as you say:

Where this need for such a search for meaning would come from?


Yes, why? :slightly_smiling_face:

Well, I don’t necessarily mean that something should obey something “higher” but it appears that it (universe/organism) has been created and is nourished by something what we cannot identify.

Does it make sense to try to find the answers at all (within, in mental silence) or these questions don’t make any sense at all? :slight_smile:

VERY good question. The answer is related to this one that I just wrote: Physical world vs Spiritual worlds - #4 by Miguel

1 Like

Hi again @imagine. This goes back to my question of why is there something rather than nothing. That is the ultimate mystery to me and possibly can never be answered lol. The need to know and not knowing can drive you insane lol.

Now, I would say it has been created and nourished by something we can identify, the universe…the matter, anti-matter and energy (and yet unknown phenomena) that make up this universe. And the physical laws and conditions these phenomena impose.

Now, we can explore what most people believe on this Earth and that is that it was a WHO that made the universe rather than a WHAT.

A universe evolved from simplicity to complexity. This is the WHAT scenario.

An omnipotent being popped into existence and created a universe which then evolved from simplicity to complexity. This is the WHO scenario.

We know enough about this universe and how it has evolved from stars, planets, life on this planet, that a being (this WHO) didn’t go around creating each individual thing. So, if it did create the universe it merely created the conditions for everything to evolve rather than individually making each type of life form, planet, star etc.

For me the existence of a WHO wouldn’t resolve the ultimate unknowable question, why is there something rather than nothing. For how did that WHO come into manifestation either lol. Now if the idea gave me a good feeling and made me feel satisfied and happy I am sure I would be believing in that WHO too but it doesn’t.

For the WHO to come into existence there would have to be an outside to the universe. It seems more unlikely that some incredibly complex and powerful being just popped into existence and then created a universe which it let evolve the conditions of life over painstakingly large time frames. Why the need for the WHO? How does it resolve anything? Other than a means for humans to have a sense of relief there is some being behind the scenes looking after them and protecting them.

To me, the need for a WHO stems from the human experience of self and thinking that there must be an ego/self/WHO behind how everything came to be. It is a very human-centric view of the universe.

Whereas a WHAT approach, is that the universe is self perpetuating and is the source of simplicity to complexity but without a WHO behind it. It is a complete system within itself.

I always liked what Nietzsche said about knowledge for what purpose, we could all be walking encyclopedias full of facts but none of which have any value to our day to day life. I think some questions and the possible answers might have more use than others. So I say to myself, knowledge…but for what purpose?

1 Like

What if there’s no “nothing”? Genuine question here, I’m not being rhetorical.

1 Like

Yes, because it is a mental construct of humans. More so in relation to quantities, I have no apples left I ate them, I have no money left, I spent it all. So, at some point we thought that the universe could be similarly abstracted, the universe is gone now there is nothing.

But “nothing” is just an abstraction for measuring quantities, zero…

A mathematical abstraction that enabled humans to do more mental tricks.

Sometimes I have thought about the function of the word meaning too.

what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action.

So, the concept of meaning is a function to describe words, concepts, objects and actions in this world. It then applied to the value or implicit/explicit worth of something. Somewhere along the line we applied this word to try and extract the purpose of this universe, what is the meaning of life?

Stuff just is it doesn’t have to have a meaning. We invented the concept of meaning as a by-product of language.

1 Like

This is where it is interesting with actualism though because Richard mentions over and over that he has found the meaning of life, or solved the riddle of existence. It seems there is something to be found there although it definitely cannot be found through abstract thinking or any sort of emotional reasoning.

In the PCE it seems so clear, so obvious that there is meaning, in the PCE am literally living it. So it seems this is a case of the third alternative again, it is not that the universe is meaningless or that there is some being that determines meaning, and yet there is something intrinsic to the nature of this universe that offers actual meaning. I think that is probably why each time one enters a PCE there is that wonderful reminder that all is well after all! It’s always the same ‘surprise’ for me when I re-discover that there is actual meaning.

Even it seems in an EE when I am bathing in pure intent, it is like I can taste that meaning, it is very substantial.

1 Like

Actually come to think of it now is it not that because ‘I’ and ‘humanity’ am forever separated from actual meaning that we have to invent a ‘real meaning’ via a belief in some supreme being. The ‘real meaning’ is like a desperate attempt to make sense of/deal with ‘my’ fundamental nature which is to be forever separated.

1 Like

Yes! Have a PCE :slight_smile:

My advice: Have the PCE first, and fit it in afterwards. It will make a lot more sense that way. If you try to fit it in before having the experience, you will be (mis/un/ill-)informed (from not having the experience) so it won’t ultimately be useful (or accurate).


This sort of implies the other meaning of meaning that then evolved:

implied or explicit significance.

The whole meaningful/meaningless dichotomy.

Whereas I am saying the fact is more a-meaning. In the way the letter a is used to denote the absence of something, like acephalic, meaning no head, or anhedonia, no pleasure. That there is no meaning property of the universe other than a made up value system we create. It is not a property, if that makes sense.

I mean without meaning but not in a meaningless sense.

RESPONDENT: Richard, are you saying that the ultimate meaning of the universe is to experience itself as a sentient creature? … and do that by purposely creating reproductive organisms and then sentient creatures out of hard stone and energy? Else why say that life is not a random, chance event in an otherwise empty and meaningless universe?

RICHARD: The reason why I said that is because it is what materialism, as a generalisation, typically holds – that life is a chance, random event in an otherwise empty (meaningless) universe – in contrast to spiritualism (which, as a generalisation, typically holds that life is a purposeful manifestation by or of a supreme being who created or creates the universe) … and, furthermore, because the extreme version of the materialist position is nihilism where, as a generalisation, it is typically held that life is whatever one makes of it and, as it is all pointless anyway, the only true philosophical question is whether to commit suicide, or not, and if so, then whether now or later.

In this use, the concept was to counter the argument of meaninglessness. Whereas I am saying there is no meaning/meaningless as properties of the universe just as a human abstraction to measure value systems of experiences and things.

RICHARD cont’d I am not saying that the ultimate meaning of the universe is to experience itself as a sentient creature by purposely creating reproductive organisms and then sentient creatures out of hard stone and energy – such a teleological matter is something for teleologists to muse over in lieu of actually doing something about the human condition – as I make it abundantly clear on many an occasion elsewhere that it is the answer to the ubiquitous human quest for the meaning of life which is already always out-in-the-open here in this actual world.
And what I mean by the ‘quest for the meaning of life’ might perhaps be best summarised by the title of a large painting (5’ x 12’) Mr. Paul Gauguin executed in Tahiti – after vowing he would commit suicide following its completion – on sized burlap in 1897-98 … to wit: ‘Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?’ (D’où venons-nous ? Que sommes-nous ? Où allons-nous ?).
For what it is worth … the blue idol in the centre-left background apparently represents what he described as ‘The Beyond’.

So, to me the PCE and actual freedom is a solution to the quest for the meaning of life but the universe has no meaning, it just is and that more than suffices when the self/ego is in abeyance. This universe isn’t enough for little old me. I need a meaning and a purpose or to wallow in nihilistic self-pity and moan that everything is meaningless. But everything is completely cool and fine when I am in abeyance.

The quest for meaning is over because everything is perfect with a self in abeyance. Which in of itself satisfies any need for meaning/purpose/solving the riddle of life etc.

Yes, I will make meaning or meaninglessness to my life as I am perpetually separated from actuality.

1 Like

This is definitely an interesting one and the problem is that this is only really worth discussing as far as ones experiential knowledge allows otherwise it devolves into a philosophical debate once more. I say this because I read your post @son_of_bob and that is exactly where I am at :joy: as in I could only reply further by using abstract thinking, need more of dem PCEs haha.

When I initially wrote my above posts though I found myself in a place where life is seen as already complete, in that place it seems weird to draw such distinctions as ‘life has meaning but the universe does not’ it seems it is all one and the same thing. When actually being here everything seems saturated with that meaning.

In that place I am the universe experiencing itself and from that place it is clear that the universe is already complete - this in itself is the meaning that is being searched for and I don’t know if it can really be separated and then attributed to life only and not the universe as they are one and the same thing.

1 Like

Oh also the other thing which popped into my head was the need to distinguish between meaning and purpose because those 2 can become somewhat muddled up. It seems that when you write that the universe just IS, that is referring to its purpose, as in it does not have one because it was never created by anyone who could give it a purpose. Yet is it possible that the universe has no purpose however that it is intrinsically meaningful?

This has been my approach for a long time.

One can by defining “nothing” see that no such thing ever existed or can exist.

Yes tell me about it. Would have been interesting to have chatted with Richard in the flesh. I used to have a lot of questions for him, that list has shrunk now thanks to input from other free people. I need more PCEs too to have a more concrete, experiential input.

Yes exactly, there is no need for the distinction because it is only a self that makes an emotional need or lacking…so the meaning to compensate the lacking. Life is the very constinuents of the universe it doesn’t have to have a meaning or explanation, it just is. What is the meaning of a human, what is a mesning of a tree. There is no such property. A tree and a human have different components and functions, like a human can breathe and a tree can extract water from roots and we could describe the elements in our DNA or the proteome of possible proteins that can be created but the form and functions don’t make a meaning property.

Yes this is what I was trying to articulate. What I can remember from my PCE was that completeness. Something complete doesn’t need a meaning. So being free satisfies any quests for a meaning of life because one is already where one needs to be in this moment of time and one is complete. There is nothing to find out or do or achieve and nowhere to go or search because you are already here and it is all perfectly complete.

Life is but the components of the universe and they just are what they are lol. What configurations of matter and energy are possible are possible or will become possible, since the universe is in flux changing and evolving.

Both of these terms derived from functionality, meaning from the function of words in a language to give a meaning/explanation/definition and purpose for the function of things. Humans create stuff so we make a chair with the purpose to sit on, a fork to eat with a hoover to clean up dirt and dust with but then we take the abstraction of meaning and purpose and apply it in another way…what is the meaning of a human, what is the purpose of a human.

But these abstractions don’t make sense because we can only say what a human is as in its form, function and can describe our subjective experiences but there is no meaning/purpose property to a human.

We can create our own “meaning” or “purpose” but these are just beliefs we have created not facts to describe properties of what we are.

Yes, there is no purpose because it is a human made concept.

But as meaning evolved that other definition to relay the implied or explicit significance for something then one can say being free from the human condition temporarily in a PCE or permanently is significant because that completeness and perfection of the universe is experienced and is an optimal way of experiencing in comparison to being a self. So what is the significance of life? That sounds a better question because it implies the importance and value of something. I.e. contrasting normal every day experience to a PCE.

1 Like

Yes I like the word significance, it seems a good switch around from the word meaning in this context. As in the fact that the universe actually exists is intrinsically a significant thing and to be the experience of the fact that the universe actually exists is something wonderful in itself, I think this is what we are trying to say when we talk of actual meaning. To experience the significance of the fact that we are all actually here.

1 Like

That we reject the universe, don’t acknowledge that this is all really here and so are we. That we have to explicitly articulate this and become aware of it, it is so absurd. It just really made me laugh. Like yes…I am actually here this is actually happening.

RESPONDENT: Forgetting the ‘meaningless’ evaluation: why is life not a random, chance event aided by the process of natural selection?

RICHARD: As both the word random – ‘that which is haphazard [occurring, put together, etc., casually or without design] or without definite aim or purpose’ (Oxford Dictionary) – and the word chance – ‘the absence of design or discoverable cause; an event that is without apparent cause or unexpected; a casual circumstance; an accident’ (Oxford Dictionary) – more or less revolve around meaninglessness and purposelessness it is well-nigh impossible to forget that evaluation as what you are asking, in effect, is why life is not a meaningless/ purposeless event.

Be that as it may … life is not a haphazard/ casual and causeless/ accidental event because, given the situation and circumstances conducive to same, it is inevitable that otherwise inanimate matter be animate.

It was inevitable matter would become animate. That animate matter would become self aware. That animate matter would experience a PCE. That animate matter would become actually free…

Right I had a similar kind of experience when I wrote the post haha! For me it was like this eery realisation that we are actually here, it makes the hairs on my arms stand up and the spine tingle! How weird and wonderful it is and what a waste that we spend our lives separated from this.