Claudiu: This reminded me also of what I saw recently which is that, I am a very driven person, it is how I tick – and this energy of being driven is precisely the level of energy needed to succeed with self-immolating! In other words it is not that I have to stop being driven, it is rather that I just re-direct that same energy itself in that same driven way, towards the task of enjoying and appreciating and self-immolating. …
Roy: … So with time my motivated and ambitious attitude seemed more and more to be the result of social conditioning (stemming from my life experiences) and less and less of genetic traits. But today, upon reflecting on this, I see that in fact I remain driven — simply in different aspects of life. This pursuit of a more happy and harmless way of being, all day, every day, even in the face of adversity, continues, for example.
Hi Roy,
Whilst it is useful to make a distinction between one’s social identity (one’s vocational, national, racial, religio-spiritual, ideological, political, class or caste identity, familial and sex/gender identity) and one’s genetic identity of the instinctual passions, it is advantageous to keep in mind that both categories of identity can be changed and ultimately abandoned. Neither is set in stone and neither does define you in your “pursuit of a more happy and harmless way of being, all day, every day”.
And that is wonderful.
Roy: But in general I have been questioning many aspects that I believed defined me. Do I believe myself to be driven? I think so, in relation to specific aspects, when I sleep well and am not sick. But is it an innate characteristic of mine? I have no idea. (…)
So the old recurring idea from self-help coaches — “find yourself” and “be true to yourself” — it’s all about the “self”… as if it were easy to know what it means to be “me”. That is… I know exactly what I feel “I” am, but I don’t know to what extent that is different from others. What, intrinsically, differentiates me from others? As I deconstruct beliefs about myself, what remains? The answer to “what makes me tick” seems to exist only in the context of my current circumstances, which keep changing and which I change along with them. (…)
It seems to me that because you believe that actualism is mainly to “deconstruct beliefs” you appear to be under the misconception that what is left after deconstruction is something you can define yourself as. Neither “self-help coaches” nor scientific psychological research can reveal what you are (devoid of identity) – this can only be experienced in a pure consciousness experience where the identity is temporarily in abeyance. There is no scientific research about this for two reasons –
- Actualism is experiential not scientifical (for instance a ‘self’ and an absence of ‘self’ cannot be detected in a brain scan or any other medical scan) and
- Because actualism is entirely new to human history, all researchers and scientists and self-help authorities are not only afflicted with the human condition as you are but also have no clue that a third alternative to either materialism or spiritualism exists. And actualism is not materialism.
Roy: I’m happy with that but using adjectives or anything to define myself, I may quickly end up using these to feed some story about me. Is there any problem with that? It depends on what purpose they are serving, I suppose. I want to perceive the world as it is, without being clouded by imagined stories about who I am and my place in this world.
This is exactly where sincere intent comes in – you are the one observing and investigating your psyche wherever it gets in the way of enjoying and appreciating being alive and this very intent (to be as happy and harmless as humanly possible) will aid you in recognizing when something is an imagined story or deceptive narrative instead of a fact. It’s like playing chess with yourself – on one side the identity programmed to keep the status quo and on the other side your sincere intent to feel good, feel excellent, be more naïve, more considerate, a friend to yourself and benevolent towards your fellow human beings. It’s a fun game once you get the knack of not putting yourself down for the tricks and deceits you discover or the negative traits and feelings you uncover in yourself. It’s all par for the adventure of a life-time.
Roy: I still believe it’s possible to have a direct perception without the existence of a self, that the reports are true — even the more mysterious ones, such as pure intent. It’s a belief, but I still believe there must be a scientific explanation for everything that doesn’t involved anything more than matter and energy. But I also recognize that there are limits to what I can discover through my conscious experience. That’s why I keep reading — because what I discover through my experience is limited to my experience. I shouldn’t draw conclusions about the universe based solely on my own experience. My experience may show me that the universe is benevolent, but is it really? What scientific basis is there to support that? Could that perception not simply come from the fact that I descend from creatures that evolved to benefit from this world? Just as it turns out it’s not the sun that revolves around the earth, but the earth that revolves around the sun — could it be that the universe isn’t benevolent toward me, but rather that I evolved to benefit and prosper in it? (link)
It is essential to understand that actualism is not materialism – it is experiential – and experiential of a world outside of ‘I’/ ‘me’, the actual world. Ultimately you cannot understand the actual world when applying the template of the real world – materialism.
You had some experiences which you wondered if they were PCEs or not. Now after experimenting with the actualism method for a good while you again want to know for a fact if “the reports are true — even the more mysterious ones, such as pure intent”. The only answer for this will be in a clear unequivocal PCE, where you yourself can say with certainty – ‘this is the world I have been reading about on the AFT, this is how I want to live for the rest of my life, this is indeed magical’.
Unfortunately, you have presently all but closed the door to such a confirmation when you say “what I discover through my experience is limited to my experience” – this way you pre-emptively doubt whatever you will experience.
When feeling being ‘Vineeto’ first learnt about an actual freedom – and had barely a clue what this meant, ‘she’ passionately wanted to have a PCE to find out, ‘she’ became obsessed with having one happen, ‘she’ thought about it in ‘her’ free time for several weeks – and then it suddenly happened (A Bit of Vineeto). It was shocking in its ramifications of how incomparably different the actual world was to the real world and it gave ‘her’ the necessary certainty to whole-heartedly move forward.
I can recommend to suspend both belief and disbelief for this investigation. Frequent Question No. 64a, particularly the very last paragraphs on that page is a good place to start and also Richard’s text on ‘Sensuous’ in the AFT Library. It also relates to Richard’s first sentence where he explains the actualism method –
Richard: Before applying the actualism method – the ongoing enjoyment and appreciation of this moment of being alive – it is essential for success to grasp the fact that this very moment which is happening now is your only moment of being alive. The past, although it did happen, is not actual now. The future, though it will happen, is not actual now. Only now is actual. (This Moment of Being Alive).
Actual time is entirely different to the real-world time of past-present-future.
There is more on this topic in case you are interested. I wish you success in your experiential inquiry into actuality.
Cheers Vineeto