No not at all, in fact this is such a common thread that Peter included it as one of the first steps in the “Guide for practicing actualists” :
Questioning spiritual values
What is clear is that at some stage, fairly early on the path, if one has travelled the traditional spiritual path that an about-turn has to occur for what we are talking of is 180 degrees opposite to the spiritual viewpoint of life. For those who have travelled the spiritual path, this business of turning around and backtracking is often too daunting a prospect or too much of a blow to their spiritual pride to even consider – spiritual seekers are usually too humble to admit they could be wrong! Whenever the ‘penny drops’ about spirit-uality and one begins to be able to look at the spiritual world with clear eyes, it then becomes increasingly clear how deeply the spiritual viewpoint pervades all human thinking and how it is, apart from malice and sorrow, the predominant aspect of the Human Condition. This tackling of the spiritual viewpoint is closely analogous to dismantling the most substantial component of one’s social identity, for the morals, ethics and values that we have been instilled with are essentially spiritual values based on the concept of a battle betwixt good and evil in the world. Unless this overarching spiritual belief is tackled in oneself the real business of taking a clear-eyed look at the instinctual passions in operation in one’s own psyche is not possible.
All spiritual ideals, beliefs and notions must be investigated and eradicated in order to become actually free of the Human Condition.
So, an essential part of this first stage to a Virtual Freedom is to take on board the fact that Actualism has nothing at all to do with Spiritualism and much of the initial work of an Actualist involves reading, contemplating and understanding this fact. Unless there is a crack in the door, a doubting of one’s spiritual belief, then it is impossible to even begin the real life-changing process that Actualism is.
Yes but to define the identity as “all the beliefs, morals and other constructs” would be a mistake as those only comprise the outer layer. Underneath those constructs you can find the original cause of malice and sorrow which is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself. If you experientially locate ‘yourself’ in this way you will find that this ‘presence’ does not change, it exists across the past, present and the future. It’s worth adding though that this ‘presence’ has no actual existence, it is an illusion arising out of blind nature’s survival package, yet this passionate illusion is what ‘you’ are as a ‘self’.
Yes and no…It is a fact that only flesh and blood bodies actually exist however there is a difference that has to be mentioned for experiential purposes. If I was to summarise your paragraph in effect it would be saying that ‘you’ the identity can intellectually understand that “what you are” is a perfect physical body with it’s senses - that is not a fact, what ‘you’ are as an identity is an illusion arising out of blind nature’s survival package.
The PCE will show that the ‘persona’ that was just a second prior (now in abeyance) has no actual existence at all and what you actually are (and have been all along) will become apparent, yet once ‘you’ are back in the picture (and bearing in mind that actualism is an experiential method) it is beneficial to bear in mind that ‘I’ the persona can never be what was glanced in the PCE, ‘I’ am forever separated from the actual world.