Roy's Journal

Journals
41

@Kub933 Ahah I guess I’ll now forever be the one that tried to investigate what spiritualism is about after finding out about actualism. I have no regrets on that front though. I can’t simply believe in actual freedom :grinning: Sometimes you learn from mistakes.

Sorry for the quick reply, I need to leave in a minute, but will amend later if needed:

So “The I changes, the body changes, everything keeps changing” and yet there is now a third ‘I’ that is still witnessing all this change (whilst itself remaining a dissociated but nevertheless continuous presence) here you have found the Self.

This is exactly what the spiritualists and the meditators etc strive to cultivate, aggrandise and eventually give over the reigns to.

I think you are reading a lot into my words. “Everything keeps changing”… while I think it’s a sensible thing to say, is not something I can prove as a fact (because everything is an infinite number of things). But “the body changes” is a natural fact and “the I changes” (the identity) is also a fact, if we define it as all the beliefs, morals and other constructs I haven’t got ridden of yet.

Roy the identity (the one who typed out that post) can never be the actual flesh and blood body called Roy, of course neither can ‘he’ accept that this is “what he is”, as ‘he’ is not that (also experiencing the actuality of me as-I-am requires no acceptance, it’s way too wonderful for that). In order to accomplish this impossible task Roy the identity would have to dissociate from ‘his’ roots and become a third ‘I’.

“I”, not-actually-free Roy, can intellectually understand what has been shared with me from actually free people, that “what I am” is a perfect physical body with its senses. So, yes, I can accept/understand that fact, at this moment, right?

Instead Roy the identity can see and accept that ‘he’ is a feeling being, ‘he’ can strive to imitate the perfection and purity glanced in the PCEs by affectively enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive until ‘he’ is ready to disappear for good

We are in total agreement here! :grinning:

1 Like
42

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.

2 Likes
43

Thank you for your reply! So regarding this discussion about “EDIT 2”, my conclusion is that saying “everything changes” is not useful… But to expand:

Actualists explain everything in terms of the physical world. We know for a fact that life emerges from purely physical systems. I think it’s correct to state that actualists would say that consciousness emerges from purely physical systems. Saying “everything is physical” may be an overgeneralization if you argue that physical and metaphysical are not antonyms, which I guess you can. Yet that was my point: “everything is physical” → “everything physical changes” → “therefore everything changes”. Instinctual passions are included too, since they are physical (chemical) processes. But at this point it’s philosophizing at a level that doesn’t really lead anywhere.

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.

I get what you are saying. I was referring to the schematics from Peter. “Who I am” as the identity and “what I am” as the physical body with its senses. I could say too that it is not a fact that “what ‘you’ are as an identity is an illusion arising out of blind nature’s survival package”. As Peter put’s it, “‘What I am’ has always been here”. But I think we may be wasting too much time debating what at this point seems to be linguistics :grinning:

2 Likes
44

There would be a mistake in stating that, in that ‘consciousness’ would then be taken as a ‘thing in itself’ the same way as a ‘self’ is. Whereas what consciousness actually is, is those very physical systems in operation. So “consciousness emerging” in this context becomes an invitation for the metaphysical once more - where science seems to be stuck with their understanding also.

The instinctual passions (as well as the self which automatically forms out of them) are not physical. They trigger releases of hormonal substances in the body and are coded for in the DNA which are all physical things and yet the instinctual passions themselves (fear, aggression, nurture and desire) are not physical.

Richard used a brilliant metaphor of computer software to explain this. In that the hardware is physical, the screen is physical and yet the software programme itself is not. As such it can be simply deleted.

Yes these things are important to delineate but only for experiential purposes not as an end in itself. What you will find though is that actualism is presented exactly with that in mind - maximum experiential effect. Richard did say that his writing was not to be studied in academia but rather used as a catapult to launch one into the actual world - where those facts could be experienced directly rather than philosophised/intellectualised about (as you pointed out).

As an example I will direct to my post yesterday where I was having fun trying to put actual intimacy in normal words :

It is interesting to try using normal words to describe actual intimacy but it is a closeness that cannot be measured by the normal parameters of near or far, of here and there, it is that close! :smiley:

This kind of assessment would seem like madness in the eyes of academic scrutiny - “what do you mean it’s that close that it cannot be measured, the distance must be measured!” :laughing:. And yet if you recall your PCE’s you might remember a closeness of this kind, it has to the lived to be known. And it cannot be smuggled back into reality either haha.

There is a great post that Srinath (one of the basically free guys) wrote but I cannot find it anywhere. Maybe one of the guys good at finding quotes can locate it, I will do my best to reiterate though as it would be useful here.

It was expounding on the differences between actualism and spiritualism and the point was that in spirituality one watches the TV drama that is the human condition and in order to ‘free oneself’ one begins to focus in on the individual pixels until they become unreal - and hey presto! The problem is apparently solved.
I will just add that science (being rooted in spirituality also) essentially plays the same game.

Whereas with actualism there is the understanding (from the PCE) that the TV drama is ultimately not actual and yet one is nevertheless trapped in this very real drama. The way out then is to become fully involved in this TV drama all the way to it’s conclusion.

The way actualism is discussed then is specifically to facilitate this second option. The danger of “jumping the gun” is that ‘I’ will become convinced that ‘I’ am/can be this flesh and blood body rather than ‘me’ altruistically sacrificing ‘myself’ in order to free the actual flesh and blood body which ‘I’ currently posses.

2 Likes
45

Yes, I think there’s a simple reason why scientists are “stuck” here. If we say consciousness doesn’t emerge, it must mean it was already here. So consciousness would be an intrisinc property of the universe. Something that we “pick up” from the world around us. Indeed it is what some spiritualists seem to refer to, but I suppose it doesn’t need to be something mystical. But still, it is something that we haven’t managed to explain scientifically with physics, so I agree it’s “an invitation for the metaphysical”.

My “theory” is that it’s more plausible that consciousness emerges just like life emerges. I would even say that they are one and the same, explained with different concepts. And so becoming conscious is the same as being born, and death is the end of it all (the actual person or feeling-being).

I did some research in the site and it seems there’s no disagreement here:

Actual freedom: This physical universe is the source of human life (matter gives rise to consciousness).
Spiritual freedom: God (by whatever name) is the source of both the universe and human life (consciousness gives rise to matter).
[180 Degrees Opposite]

So I guess an actualist would say “matter gives rise to consciousness” instead of “consciousness emerging from matter” to focus on the causal/one-way aspect, and it’s interesting how it specifically says “matter gives rise to consciousness” instead of “consciousness arises from matter” to put the emphasis on the matter. Another example of the care they put in words to be as clear as possible with language!

4 Likes
46

Yes the problem seems that ‘I’ tend to look at the world in the same way that ‘I’ experience ‘myself’, which is as a separated ‘thing-in-itself’. So those looking for ‘consciousness’ want to locate some kind of essence that exists independently of everything else - no such thing exists.

This kind of bias can be easily exposed by using something different, let’s say walking, what is walking - it is an activity that the body is able to carry out. Now if I was to start looking for some ‘thing-in-itself’, some essence of what ‘walking’ is independently of the activity of the body/rest of the universe then it just gets utterly silly.

So equally consciousness is a process, it is an activity that the body is able to carry out, no metaphysics needed. It doesn’t stop it from being utterly wonderful of course, there is no-one behind the scenes doing it all and yet somehow matter arranges itself in such a way as to allow this activity to happen and not just consciousness but anything/everything.

3 Likes
47

Roy: I think it’s correct to state that actualists would say that consciousness emerges from purely physical systems.

Kuba: There would be a mistake in stating that, in that ‘consciousness’ would then be taken as a ‘thing in itself’ the same way as a ‘self’ is. Whereas what consciousness actually is, is those very physical systems in operation. So “consciousness emerging” in this context becomes an invitation for the metaphysical once more - where science seems to be stuck with their understanding also.

Roy: My “theory” is that it’s more plausible that consciousness emerges just like life emerges. I would even say that they are one and the same, explained with different concepts. And so becoming conscious is the same as being born, and death is the end of it all (the actual person or feeling-being).

Hi Roy and Kuba,

I happen to find a good additional formulation today –

RESPONDENT: What happens when your body dies? Does the peace-on-earth that you know goes with it?
RICHARD: Oh no, not at all … this peace-on-earth is already always here. It always has been and always will be, for it is the utter peace of the perfect infinitude of this physical universe itself. Here is a vast stillness that is everywhere all at once … being nowhere in particular, we are anywhere at all in the universe’s infinity of space and eternity of time. We are all coming from nowhere and are not going anywhere for there is nowhere to come from and nowhere to go to … we are already here and it is always now.
When this body dies, its apperceptive awareness – which is what one refers to by the first person pronoun – dies right along with it, of course, for they are one and the same thing. There is no ‘I’ or ‘me’ lurking around inside this body creating its mischief and dreaming dreams of a glorious – or hideous – immortality in some specious After-Life.
However, when this body physically dies, edified human access to this actual peace-on-earth dies along with it … which is why I write so prolifically. I have accumulated 250,000 words so far … subscribing to a Mailing List is one way of getting more words out. Answering all kinds of questions causes me to consider that which would normally not occur to me to write about. [emphasis added] (Richard, List B, No. 23, 29 Mar 1998).

Cheers Vineeto

3 Likes
48

Thank you @Vineeto, although it seems you incorrectly quoted Roy’s text to be Kuba’s.

3 Likes
49

Thank you Kuba,

I just had discovered this myself and was about to edit. You were quick!
Thank you.
Vineeto

2 Likes
50

So just to continue with this one what I find utterly wonderful is that although the “mystery of life” has now been solved via a full actual freedom from the human condition. In that no metaphysical explanations need be entertained anymore.

However to include @claudiu’s recent post - There is still the specifics of the immaculate complexity exemplified in something as simple as a fly embryo developing etc.

There is no longer a mystery to be solved but now to understand this immaculate complexity, just how it all happens, all of it’s own accord, that would be for an actually free humankind to explore and would surely beat any sci-fi ever written haha.

I just stepped outside into the garden for a cigarette and looked at some bushes growing in the corner and there was this wonder at how it all happens, how the universe manages to do it - wow!

3 Likes
51

Actually this makes me think of something like discovering that the magic trick did not involve any supernatural forces. So there is no mystery anymore, nothing mystical to be invoked, no belief needed and yet now there is the wonder of “just how did you do it then”?. And this “how did you do it then” applied to the universe will be way more wonderful than any metaphysical ‘explanations’.

3 Likes
52

Yes, indeed I fully agree with you. You don’t need to be religious or believe in the metaphysical to have a sense of awe and wonder at the universe.

EDIT: I just remembered this specific video, it had an impact on me at the time: https://youtu.be/9D05ej8u-gU?si=QQIT5eqco1KMgi-r

1 Like
53

Yes and as amazing as this video is there is something missing in Neil deGrasse’s understanding and actually this is a perfect example of what we were discussing yesterday :

When he says that ‘my’ atoms are the atoms of the universe and so ‘I’ am connected. This is the ‘me’ that is forever separated from the actual world of wonder and delight, using scientific knowledge in order to attempt bridging an unbridgeable gap.

Watching this video I did have tingles all over the body because it is not that those are ‘my’ atoms. Rather it is that once ‘I’ disappear this very body is that very stuff of the universe which he described. The stuff of those exploding stars is what this body is as an actuality, with no separation at all.

To live this as an actuality is the very meaning of life.

4 Likes
54

When I listened to the video right after posting it and heard that part I immediately thought “Oh I’m sure Kuba as something to say about that” :grinning: but your observation was not what I was expecting. I thought you would mention how some people from spiritual traditions mention being one with the universe and that sort of connection.

Thanks for your contribution!

55

I’ve been feeling good. I guess previously I thought more about the question of “this moment of being alive” than the answer to it. Now when I’m feeling bad, for whatever reason, the simple fact of noticing it and thinking — “I’m not feeling good, I wonder why is that” — is already helpful. These moments are now usually shorter than what they used to be and, having identified whatever silly thing was causing me to not feel well, I start feeling good again. It used to be that if I was for eg angry I couldn’t stop being angry, but now — if I was recently angry and I identify why I was angry — it’s impossible to go back to being angry about this same thing — because it is always something silly. Even if it’s because of someone else that did something stupid, knowing that I am the one that allows this to affect me, and knowing that I too behave stupidly in occasions, is sufficient. Basically, there’s always a reason for not feeling good and it has been always both silly and simple.

But regarding generally feeling good during the day, it’s interesting that I thought of this improvement in my general well-being to be a consequence of having less self-centered thoughts, but now I think it may be the other way around. That is, the fact that I’m feeling good leads to less thoughts about myself. This is interesting to me because for whatever reason I thought of self-immolation as something that must require some degree of suffering to achieve. Maybe it’s the words — self-sacrifice — because I link sacrifice to something painful, maybe because of my religious background. But I guess literally, “self-sacrifice” simply means “giving up on the self”. It is obvious now that to become free you need to already feel good to some extent. And consistently thinking “I, myself, am the problem” does not help, if it’s judgemental.

This brings the question: “If I’m feeling good most of the time, why do I still care about actual freedom? Isn’t my current state good enough?”. It’s a question that comes up, and it’s not a stupid question. Why bother reading and thinking about actual freedom if things are already good? And the reason is: (1) I don’t know if my current state of feeling good will continue to be as consistent in the future, since it’s fairly new. (2) Actual freedom is about being “happy” but also about being “harmless” and I haven’t accomplished being “harmless” and I want to. I may not hurt other people intentionally but it happens. I have stopped trying to change or control people around me, or at least have gotten better at not trying. But trivial situations such as: judging people and commenting something stupid as a result; sharing my views on something, and upon closer inspection seeing a clear bias, etc… I don’t feel bad when this happens, but it reminds me that there’s another way, and it’s reachable, and that keeps me motivated to continue to try to become freer.

“I can not stress enough how important it is for you to be your own best friend. For then you get to know yourself – you are no longer against yourself.” — Richard [source]

EDIT: Regarding paragraph 2 I’m not sure how to properly put it, but what I mean is that some self-love self-acceptance/self-awareness may be required to feel good and, consequently and eventually, self-immolate? You can’t start from a place of strong negative feelings about the ‘your self’ I think.

4 Likes
56

Hi Roy,

This is truly remarkable and shows that you’re applying the ‘method’ as intended – experientially! I am full of appreciation are your ability to do this. It took me many years to start lol. It does look like it gets easier and easier for each new entrant.

It’s a good question. I would answer it experientially as well – what you can first do is appreciate just how much better and more wondrous consistently feeling good is, than even your recent past experience where you weren’t. It is surprisingly easy to overlook how much better it is while in the middle of it, and it’s easy to only notice once back to feeling bad. But if you actively appreciate (as in the way you would appreciate a painting or fine work of art or some other fine object) the feeling good, then it will “lock it in” and it also serves to increase the enjoyment of it.

And from there it is a relatively simple matter to see that feeling great feels better than feeling good, for much the same reason feeling good feels better than feeling bad – because it does! Lol

But really it’s up to you. Probably the most sound advice would be to continue to stabilize in the consistently feeling good, it’s already far better than normal and a continuity of it will be helpful. One mistake I’ve made is, when feeling good, to immediately ‘try’ to feel great, and if feeling great, immediately ‘try’ to feel excellent, and this is counterproductive, because then I’m never actually enjoying and appreciating feeling good, I’m always ‘trying’ to go up a level, and the actual goal (which is enjoying and appreciating) kind of gets lost

Cheers,
Claudiu

5 Likes
57

The desire to go all the way into actual freedom comes from the PCE. Because in the PCE you find the “meaning of life” which ‘you’ are forever precluded from. You find something that is ultimately precious, and precious beyond compare.
Furthermore in the PCE it is clear that this “something precious” is already always here, it is this body’s (and everybody’s) birthright and adventurous destiny.

This happened to me at around 18 when I was walking home from school. All of a sudden ‘I’ disappeared and an actual perfection and purity became apparent, it was everywhere all at once. Furthermore there was an active beneficence all around, it seemed to be “infused” into everything/anything.

It was clear in that moment that nothing was more important than this, not even close actually. Here was the very “meaning of life”… How could ‘I’ ever be satisfied unless this “‘meaning of life” was lived as an irrevocable actuality, each moment again. What a waste of a life it would be!

Do you have a similar experience that you can remember?

3 Likes
58

It’s so wonderful to have other people read and share their experience :sweat_smile:

Yes, I’m more and more confident that what I had in the past were what is called a PCE, comparing it to some descriptions of it. I described it like this previously:

What I have, I can only describe how it feels like, when I remember it, after it ends. And it’s like if it was a “dream” in the sense that everything was perfect and happened automatically without me intervening at all (no choices, no doubts, no emotions…) and in the sense that I had no notion of time passing. Colors and taste can be described as perfect, I can see that. But I can’t say that when I hear “becoming the sensations” I’m reminded of how it felt like. In a way, in these episodes I don’t realize how different I am: it’s simply that everything works out great and I’m not messing it up and I’m not thinking about it.

Regarding not understanding the “becoming the sensations”, I got some clarity from this reply from Vineeto:

I am only mentioning this so you can understand that the realisation that “being the senses only” is not necessarily an early information one receives from a PCE, and especially as in normal perception-mode sensate experience is overlaid by feelings, emotions and passions and often feeling-fed thoughts.

When you say this:

It’s hard for me to even contemplate how wonderful it would be, a life always like this, in this perfect state… Yet, at this point, I wouldn’t say my life would be a waste even if I never manage to have a PCE in the future. Life is already pretty great as it is. But there are times that something happens, and it’s apparent that if I was free from this natural and social conditioning, it would have been different — specially for others: the experience of others you be better if I didn’t behave the way I behaved. That part, being “harmless” is as appealing to me, as being “happy” at this point, I think.

1 Like
59

Tonight I had a great experience. Sometimes I sort of ask myself, in short, “is that it?” and feel a kind of temporary sadness with how everything is. Nowadays however, I examine more regularly how I’m experiencing the moment and so the answer to that question is usually, basically, “isn’t this enough?” “why is this not enough?”. And then I think how lucky I am and how great it is that I have my kids and my parents etc… this happens from time to time. But tonight it was different because simply there was no question at all about if “this is enough”. I experienced the moment and how it’s unique and unrepeatable. There never was this unique body and mind in this unique here and now. I wasn’t worried about the moment passing. It was simply a peaceful and perfect experience. Perfect in that sense that it couldn’t be any other way. And I didn’t want it to be any other way. This is not the first time this occurs but tonight it was more experienced and less intellectualized (if that makes sense).

Some other thoughts that are clear and used to not be clear at all in the past:

  • Reconciling being harmless and acting in self-defense. It is pretty obvious. I may have read this on the website but now it’s clear for me. If they attack you, you fight back not as a natural reflex, or because you want to hurt them back, but simply out of the necessity of addressing the situation. You are doing what needs to be done in the way possible.

  • How can you not nurture your own children? It’s not that you suddenly disconnect or abandon them. You simply want them to be able to live their lives and that requires you to stay out of the way. You don’t intervene. You still provide and help when they need and ask for help, but you want them to be on their own. You don’t want them or anyone to depend on you. You needed that because you needed to feel needed.

  • You act lovingly towards your wife not out of love but because you are afraid of losing her. As if you could possibly own her or anyone else. It’s the same thing as nurturing. You want them to be happy and that means independence from you.

  • By being harmless you are already helping everyone without being altruistic in the traditional sense. You are harmless if you manage to deconstruct your biological and social conditioning. Once you understand those you realize when you judge people and why you are judging them, when you are mean and why you are being mean, etc…

It’s all connected and it all starts with “how am I experiencing this moment of being alive”. A seemingly superficial and unoriginal question.

2 Likes
60

I understand why it’s so important to be clear when explaining these concepts: instinctual passions, self-immolation, apperceptiveness, feeling-being, etc… without this care and clarity you would end up with texts that leave everything up to interpretation, which seems to be the norm with religions (the bibles) and spiritual traditions (the taos, mantras, etc).

But as I make progress it seems sufficient to me for now to simply examine the moment to moment using the actualism method. Mostly continually realizing how silly I am when I’m worried about my social identity, how I look, my status and all those adjacent topics - the ego stuff - and the daily situations related to conditioning. For example today I saw a woman with revealing clothes and immediately I became angry. It’s an automatic feeling (which is interesting because I used to think that it started with thoughts). The difference now from before is that I realize what’s going on with me and the feeling stops quickly.

That’s it and it’s pretty great. But on the other hand I don’t think I’ve eliminated any conditioning nor do I anticipate that will happen soon. I used to think I would be able to address them by layers, first social and then instinctual but it’s all bundled together and what I examine depends on whatever happens during the day. But understanding the conditioning (at least the part I’m able to identify so far) is already very beneficial.

3 Likes