Roy: Hello Vineeto!
Vineeto: 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 […]
Roy: Curiously, I would intuitively agree with that, but something intellectually pointed me toward the knowledge that “you can’t change your genetics”. While that may be scientifically true, it’s also true that I’ve ignored an entire field — epigenetics — which studies precisely how certain factors can influence genetic expression. Reconciling that intuition with a scientific understanding helped me, given that I have this tendency to cling to a scientifically grounded basis.
Hello Roy,
Thank you for your feedback and reply.
I clearly specified “one’s genetic identity of the instinctual passions”. I did not say that you can or “you can’t change your genetics” or that “epigenetics” are part of the instinctual survival passions. Why make things unnecessarily more complicated?
Vineeto: 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) […]
Roy: Yes, I understand that. I’ve been reading about the problem of conducting scientific research necessarily from a third-person perspective on something that is experiential, in the first person.
Good.
Roy: As impressive as some studies are – I found the research around the Default Mode Network (DMN) particularly interesting – it’s an endeavour that, given its inherent limitations, we can’t accept its results without some caution.
Here is what Wikipedia has to say about DMN –
“In neuroscience, the default mode network (DMN), also known as the default network, default state network, or anatomically the medial frontoparietal network (M-FPN), is a large-scale brain network primarily composed of the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, precuneus and angular gyrus. It is best known for being active when a person is not focused on the outside world and the brain is at wakeful rest, such as during daydreaming and mind-wandering. It can also be active during detailed thoughts related to external task performance.’ (…)
“Evidence has pointed to disruptions in the DMN of people with Alzheimer’s disease and autism spectrum disorder. Psilocybin produces the largest changes in areas of the DMN associated with neuropsychiatric disorders.” (Wikipedia)
I don’t see any relevance at all to what actualism is about – bringing about peace on earth via the minimisation of both the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and thus maximising the felicitous and innocuous feelings. The fact that you found the studies impressive indicates that you are still looking for evidence and proof of the descriptions and reports of an actual freedom from the human condition – something which is entirely new to human consciousness – in real-world research.
Vineeto: […] all researchers and scientists and self-help authorities are not only afflicted with the human condition as you are […]
Roy: I’ve also been reading about this very topic, and I was quite amazed to discover that some people in the past dedicated much of their time to exploring the problem of the scientist starting from a point that is not neutral or objective. I was especially fascinated by Edmund Husserl and Eugen Fink and their method of Phenomenological Reduction. But apparently, their method – which involves suspending all beliefs and preconceptions and associating concepts to what is experienced – was criticized by many, ignored by others, and misunderstood by the rest. It’s truly a problem in science that cannot be overlooked. Psychology seems to suffer from this especially, but certainly so do philosophers of mind and neuroscientists.
I am pleased you can see that. The other aspect for you to ponder is that both psychology and psychiatry are concerned with changing the psyche, not with eliminating the psychic faculty altogether via ‘self’-immolation.
Vineeto: […] 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.
Roy: I understand what you’re saying, but let me just clarify a bit. I have no doubt that what I experience during my PCEs is exactly what I want, each day, every day, forever. I’m also not closing any doors, as I’m not doubting anything I’m experiencing – I simply need to remain aware that I can’t draw conclusions about the nature of the universe, space, or time based solely on this experience. My conscious experience is entirely true within the context of my subjectivity.
Given that you go on to say that “my conscious experience is entirely true within the context of my subjectivity” I strongly doubt that what you experienced were clear unequivocal PCEs because then you would know, without a smidgen of a doubt, that there is no subjectivity in a PCE because the ‘self’ is temporarily in abeyance in a pure consciousness experience and thus allows you, the flesh-and-blood body devoid of ‘self’, to experience that the actual world is a totally different paradigm to the real world. Unless you do, it is not a PCE.
In a PCE, when the ‘self’ (‘I’ and ‘me’) is in abeyance, apperception – the mind’s perception of itself – operates unimpeded, which is unmediated perception by any subjectivity, by any emotions or feeling or passion, therefore unmediated by any belief, concept, principle, moral or ethics. It is a different paradigm from one’s normal perception distinct from the normal ‘self’-conscious way of perception (‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious).
Roy: A concrete example is pure intent, because the apparent benevolence of the universe might be true only within my subjectivity, maybe due to the fact that I’m a creature evolved to thrive in this physical world.
As long as you consider pure intent – “a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself” – as “true only within my subjectivity” you have not experienced apperception in a PCE. In other words, as long as you search for a PCE “within my subjectivity” you will never be able to experience it. Perhaps reading (again) about the meaning of the word ‘apperception’ including examples and quotes will make it more clear to you what an experience outside of subjectivity is.
Or to put it differently, as I said in my last post to you, as long as you consider actualism as an off-shoot or addition to materialism, you cannot understand the actual world whilst applying the template of the real world – materialism. To flesh it out, here Richard introduced a quote from his correspondent espousing the virtues of materialism –
Respondent (to No. 49): ‘Someday you may open up your mind, see the wonder of science and empiricism, learn the best of what psychology has to offer (cognitive and behavioural are two good ones), learn to have neither a pushing away nor clinging to of your emotions (rather a felt sense of them, that integrates them naturally) and venture off to live life to the fullest w/o concern of a eternity anywhere.
After the initial shock you may well become calmer, more relaxed, happier, kinder, less dogmatic, more empathetic, have a better sense of humour, etc. And all of this has nothing to do with Actualism (though I do like a lot of Actualism, but I’m sceptical of some of it)’. (tool-tip in Richard, AF List, No. 68, 14 July 2004)
Reading the first two pages of correspondent No. 68 (and link) on the Actual Freedom List may give you some more understanding of the difference between actualism and materialism. This correspondent was a convinced proponent of various real-world (materialistically based) concepts, morals and ethics as well as psychological researches to aid and compliment what he then understood the actualism method to be.
Roy: This matters in practice, so that I don’t drift away from the actual truth – that is, so I don’t end up like someone who, to take a religious example, believes in an anthropomorphic god and subjectively experiences the presence of that god: it may be true, for them, but that doesn’t mean it’s a truth outside of their subjective experience. Someone who has never heard of actualism might have a PCE and interpret it through a religious lens, for example. Does that make sense?
For starters, there is no such thing as “the actual truth”. Truth, the way it is used, often means what one fervently believes to be true, hence there is my truth and your truth and his truth and her truth.
Richard: In short: what makes a belief a truth is its affective component (as in one’s investment in holding it to be so). (Richard, AF List, No. 68d, 10 Oct 2005).
Actuality only deals in facts [fact: a thing done; the quality of being actual; something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality. ~ (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary)].
As to your question “Does that make sense?” – There are examples of people describing a PCE, which then degenerated into an ASC, and in hindsight they interpreted the whole experience in terms of their religion/ creed. As such their initial PCE cannot be used as a loadstone for describing the actual world. This is the very reason why the Actual Freedom Trust website exists.
Roy: The fact that I’m receiving your comments on my posts has been an immense help (thanks Claudiu and Kuba!), because it makes me feel insecure – in a positive way – about my position, and on the other hand, it makes me question even more what is being said – a natural response when “I” am confronted. (link)
I am pleased that you are open to suggestions and feedback, Roy.
I will answer the next part in a separate message.
Cheers Vineeto