Hi Kiman - it might be helpful to understand that Richard sought to achieve a personal and interpersonal harmony. You know that blighter at a party who kills the festive mood for everyone because he’s feeling depressed or indignant? Richard set out to never be that guy. He saw that malice and sorrow was what was killing the convivial atmosphere for himself and others so he dismantled the root cause of that (which turned out to be the cause of war as even small grievances can snowball into violence). Now the festivities can carry on, still minding that everyone gets their share of drink and hors-d’oeuvre (naturally it’s more jolly when everyone’s fed and lubricated), with the exception of there being one less blighter who is liable to put a damper on the fun. Hence, for “this body and that body and everybody.”
Grace–Became Actually free, did nothing to others. But of course, when people interacted with her, fewer* felt any emotional vibes than when they interacted with anybody else. (*Fewer, not zero, because of people’s tendency to project their own emotions on to the person they are talking with)
Nelson Mandela–Adopted strong values and ethics. Lifted a nation out of suffering. Has had massive positive impact on many people’s lives.
Now, tell me who is better for “that body and every body”? Is it Grace who had near-zero effect on others or is it Mr. Mandela?
Question is, when one becomes Actually Free, will they actively help out people(not just “fellowship regard”, but more than that)?
If that is not guaranteed, can one say self-immolation is the best thing that one can do “for that body and every body”?
Not to be too inflammatory, but Mandela is the perfect example a blighter. He was founder and leader of ‘uMkhonto we Sizwe’, the guerilla faction of the ANC party that carried out multiple bombings that killed both officials and civilians. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa (post apartheid) found “that the use of torture by uMkhonto we Sizwe was ‘routine’, as were executions ‘without due process’ at ANC detention camps.” A prime example of the liability inherent in being a malicious and sorrowful (as well as loving and compassionate) self.
Did you not consider Srinath’s response, which addressed your concerns regarding those sans a self “actively” helping people, as satisfactory?
@Kiman it seems like you’re not convinced Actual Freedom is right for you. Perhaps its time to throw in the towel?
Why do you think so, @edzd?
I’m not yet convinced that it can be generalised that Self-immolation is best for “that body and every body”. (That’s a long shot from “not convinced that AF is right for you”). Richard becoming AF was best for “that body and every body”. Grace becoming AF was not, for example.
Actualism is not a philosophy to speak in terms of “It is right for me or not”, is it? I’m not trying to adopt a world-view(Weltanshaaung).
EDIT: sorry for the inexcusable typos that made the above comment unreadable. Corrected.
Are you saying that Grace did more “to that body and every body” than Mandela(or Gandhi or such people)?
{If you think it wasn’t a huge net positive for South Africa due to Mandela, the ensuing discussion on why he was will sidetrack the main discussion. Let’s just replace him with Gandhi. Let’s not nitpick their faults but see whether they had a massive net positive impact on masses or not}.
Most people will have little to zero effect on the overall trajectory of human affairs. People such as Mandela, Nikola Tesla, Gandhi, Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, Queen Elizabeth, to name but a few, effect the trajectory to considerable degrees. For others, the full effect of their contributions are not realized until well after their death (Karl Marx, for example). Richard may be another one day. Or maybe not. A primary reason one sets out to dissolve the self is to effect a personal and interpersonal harmony. One does not wish for one’s malice and sorrow to continue hurting themselves and other people. If you discover a way to be rid of that which is hurting yourself and others, you could just as well say that you got rid of it for the benefit of “this body and that body and everybody”. Dissolving all trace of malice and sorrow is a highly communal act, a benefit for one’s self and others in the community, wouldn’t you say? A benefit for “this body and that body and everybody” one might say.
Richard (1999): I have no identity whatsoever. … Consequently, one is benign in character and I cannot maliciously harm anyone or anything. … As one is unable to be affronted, one is incapable of holding a grudge … leaving me free from the horror of revenge. … And suffering is simply impossible in actual freedom … I never know sorrow or malice at all.
Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 7
@Kiman this is an insight that you will need to uncover for yourself. It isn’t something that is disclosed except though the direct experience of actuality. The sort of arm-chair critique you are mounting whilst ensconced in your feeling world will simply take you circularly back to real world values and what in that world order is considered to be ‘good’ and ‘truthful’. And I say this from ‘my’ own experience as a feeling being of having had similar misgivings, doubts and outright disagreements with the material on the AFT.
There is absolutely no need to ‘believe’ that actual freedom will bring peace on earth and that it is done for this body and everybody. I was not resolutely convinced of this 100% until I was on the very threshold of self-immolation. It is something you can put in the doubtful box and then carry on with the actualism method, exploring the actual world and investigating beliefs/emotions.
Re: that last category, that is something you could perhaps explore and even challenge if you are up for it. I used to deliberately try and play devils advocate with my own belief systems as a feeling being to see what insights this would lead to and what would be left standing. BTW you sound a lot like N** from Slack. I’m guessing you are him?
For instance …
What are the relative merits of for e.g. a real world ‘hero’ helping to lift millions out of poverty whilst still mired in their own feelings and personal dramas vs. that of an actually free person simply doing his gardening quietly and not doing that kind of service? It’s a good question. Can you possibly be missing something re: what that useless actually free person has to offer humanity? Would it be possible for you to find out?
There seems to be a prominent theme here of service, duty to others, charity and so on. Would you say this is something you value. If so, have you thought about why?
Can you relate the idea of exemplary service, sacrifice and duty to your own life and your own needs? Does this reveal a bit about how you relate to others? Does it lead you to other beliefs you have?
You don’t need to respond. In-fact I’m not interested in a back and forth disputation. Just take your time and mull it over.
No dispute that Actual Freedom grants interpersonal harmony. But the chief reason, as stated in the AFT, for one to become Actually Free is “for this body, that body and every body.” I’m trying to convince myself “that body and every body” part is true.
Peter while living as a feeling being produced a lot of material in an attempt to help people, but after becoming Actually Free, he vanished.
Did Peter, a feeling-being contribute the best for “that body and every body”, or was it Peter, an Actually Free person? Full marks for interpersonal harmony. I’m just asking how his becoming fully free was better for “that body and every body” ?
In the battle of “me” vs “other”, most people would choose “me”. Choosing “other” is exemplified in the case of a mother choosing her child over herself. That is, in the event of a threat, a mother will for certain put herself on the line.
This tendency to choose others, as exemplified in the mother-baby case, is also exhibited by some other people, a sample of which we see in the likes of some revolutionaries and social workers who sacrificed their lives. They breathed to improve the lives of others.
Are Actually Free Peter and other people who vanished from the scene after becoming AF nearly comparable with people who live for the sake of others?
I’m not denying the potential that an Actually Free person can change the lives of a large number of people by starting a chain reaction, at all. But an AF person being interested in such an activity and prioritising it is not guaranteed as Peter and other AF people showed.
Peter would be better at interpersonal harmony, sure. But that trait alone cannot make “AF is best for that body and every body” when the ground reality is that people who lived their lives for others are better than AF people at improving the lives of others.
If Peter was actively making a difference in others’ lives to help them make Actual Freedom a reality in their lives, then there’s no question that it’s best for “that body and every body” is true.
Just because Peter, grace, etc aren’t in our public eye doesn’t mean we can assume that they’re not doing what’s best for everybody. If anything the argument of actualism is that it’s for the best if we all ‘disappear,’ so they’re just examples of same.
Do you not consider interpersonal harmony (the outcome of self-immolation) to be immeasurably “better” for “that body and every body” than interpersonal disharmony (the outcome of remaining a self)?
P.S. there is no indication that Peter is ‘fully free’ (aka ‘meaning-of-life’ free).
I most certainly do.
But the comparison I’m drawing is between interpersonal harmony and directly improving others’ lives.
The best an AF person can do “for that body and every body” is by helping others become AF. The best way it can be done is through the power of internet, a fact which they are aware of. Yet they have zero internet presence. And they are not on this forum as well, where future AF people in near future most likely come from, like me 
Perhaps. When I asked Richard why he wasn’t on the slack group, he told me that most of the time when people asked things he found himself directing people to things he had already written on the AFT. He was of the opinion that anyone that is sincerely interested can and will do their own search for the already-available information.
One of the interesting things about actual freedom is that each free individual has their own experiences & decisions of what the best thing to do, rather than the played-out repetitive social ideas of ‘the good’ that have led us in circles for 10k+ years as a species. Who knows what they’re up to? Certainly not me. But it’s not inspired by ‘me,’ ‘humanity.’
Is that better? I think so.
You do not appear to regard effecting an interpersonal harmony as “directly improving” the lives of those you care about and directly impact.
The driving incentive for all this maybe isn’t as grandiose as one may imagine. This is not at all to say grand changes on a global scale couldn’t happen as a byproduct, or couldn’t be viewed as a potent additional motivator, but the primary driver is a comparably humble imperative. It’s about improving the lives of those that you directly impact. Richard set out to rid the self specifically “in order to live as peacefully and as harmoniously as ‘he’ could with ‘his’ then wife and children, in particular, and with anyone and everyone who came into ‘his’ presence.”
Is there anyone in your life, Kiman, whose life could be “directly improv[ed]” by you ceasing to be a malicious or sorrowful person?
Secondarily, consider the amount of people you interact and thus impact (in varying degrees) by just existing:
On average we live for 78.3 years. Most of us remember people we meet after age 5. Assume we interact with 3 new people daily in cities, 365 days in a year plus leap yeas days is 365.24. In total it will be (78.3 – 5) x 3 x 365.24 = 80,000 people.
Counting The People Your Life Impacts - Infographic
This strikes a chord with me, I remember when I initially found actualism after dalliances with ‘being political’ and ‘being spiritual,’ I was delighted by the accessibility & simplicity. I could see the results directly every step of the way, it wasn’t something where I had to get some political movement going or talk a bunch of other people into doing something. It’s observable as I begin to get less demanding of others around me, less tumultuous to be around.
And, as you point out, that is no small thing. The world is made up of individuals interacting, after all. I’ve often liked to point out that even when we walk past someone on the street they make an energetic impression on us, and we on them.
In a similar note I remember reading a psychology study some while back which claimed that emotional disturbances are measurable in some way between acquaintances at a factor of 4
In other words if you are depressed (for example) they were able to pick up a change in mood in your friend’s friend’s friend’s friend. That tracks with my own experience and how I feel effected by those around me.
True, but if the question is about actually free people in general with regards to how they are with “helping out people” - then it is intellectually dishonest to leave Richard out of the equation, being that he is actually free.
The best possible thing for “that body and every body” is a world of actually free people. This will literally end all the wars, tortures, rapes, famines, etc., everything that the Bill Gates of the world are tirelessly striving to resolve, will be completely resolved and in a far more beneficial manner than can be imagined, with an actually freed world.
And the first step towards an actually free world that anyone can make, the primary contribution that someone can make, is to become actually free themselves. As nobody can become free for you, you have to do it yourself.
All but a handful of the almost 8 billion people alive in the world have not made this contribution to peace on earth.
Everyone who has become actually free has already made this priceless and peerless contribution, demonstrated that it is possible, and made it easier for the ones following them by doing so.
No amount of help that a feeling-being can do, no matter at what personal cost, will have the same impact.
Now, of course, given the terrible havoc that feeling-beings wreak upon each other and the world, it is no small thing that some feeling-beings take it upon themselves to ameliorate the situation. Everyone is doing the best they can. But it will not lead to peace on earth. And their efforts wouldn’t be necessary in the first place were it not for the human condition.
Also each individual is different. Bill Gates, for example, wouldn’t be able to do what he has done without the billions he made from his technology enterprises, something that not everybody can do. So it doesn’t make sense to compare the world contributions of someone with a regular salary, to the world contributions of Bill Gates. And who is to say what an actually free Bill Gates would do with his vast wealth? We must compare apples to apples.
You keep bringing this notion up of having to suffer or sacrifice one’s own well being for the benefit of others. As @Srinath said, this appears to be a moral quality that you value - putting the other before oneself.
Firstly, here is the logical conclusion of a world where everyone is a ‘good’ person and puts the other before oneself (from Putting the Other Before Oneself):
Secondly, as it does require a tremendous sacrifice to become free - namely sacrificing ‘me’ in ‘my’ entirety, that which ‘I’ hold most precious - it is indeed not only unselfish but also not self-centered to become free. As such it is an actually caring act that a moral (i.e. still self-centered) unselfishness can only aspire to but never achieve.
So becoming free should satisfy your “requiring a massive personal cost” criteria. After all, at this moment, are ‘you’ willing to give ‘Kiman’ up entirely?
Cheers,
Claudiu
I didn’t leave Richard out. Since his past work can be shown to defend his retirement now, I didn’t want that discussion to sideline the main discussion.
OTOH, it’s intellectually dishonest to disregard that he had always been an agreeable person and was immensely concerned about others that puts him in the category of “uncommon.” That personal quirk may have continued even after his becoming free(In other words, his “fellowship regard” that continued even after becoming free was high even before he became free, although that was compounded and corrupted by instinctual passions).
And he evidently loved writing, immensely. That fact can’t be left out. Would an AF person who abhorred writing do the same as Richard did? And, would a normal person not do what he loved even without any other potential benefit when he was free of any other common encumbrances like family?
Point taken.
My qualm is that the Impact Factor of AF people is in question given that most of them aren’t actively contributing for the peace on earth.
Richard’s illustration is simplistic and reductionist and his conclusion is not grounded in reality–
In the sample he took, people are equally or similarly capable and can reciprocate the help they get, whereas in reality one wealthy person can leverage(not just donate away) his wealth to improve millions of lives. But those millions of people can’t do a thing together for that wealthy person, leave each of them doing something individually to him.
If that looks like an extreme example(especially given you pointed that wealthy are outliers), let me assure that every first-world citizen whose income is more than the median income of their country can take care of all needs of 5-10 children in Africa with a mere 10% of their income, whereas those 10 children can do nothing for their benefactor in return.
Given that people are differently capable in helping others, the personal costs will also be vastly different. As an extreme example, I cannot make the kind of sacrifices that Gandhi made for the masses and expect what he got gor them; His sacrifice is vastly more valuable than mine.
James, Charles, and Banting sold the patent of insulin for a symbolic amount of $1 because they felt it unethical to make money amount of a medicine which so far has saved billions of lives. Diabetes was a death sentence before insulin was invented. They could have minted money with that patent. You or I don’t have to lose what they had to lose in terms of wealth. So people are differently capable and one’s largesse can not be reciprocable in many cases.
Wasn’t it feeling-being actual freedom evangelist Vineeto who contributed vastly more than actually free Vineeto?
The “putting others before you” exists because what Q can offer Q1 from sacrificing his interests or needs is different from what Q1 can offer Q. And Q may not be in a position to reciprocate whatsoever because of his sacrifice doesn’t hold any value. Richard made it look like as if it was mere a ethical principle without any substantial value on ground and therefore can be dispensed with.
So Richard’s illustration can be wholly eschewed.
Life cannot be win-win all the time. It is a zero-sum game in many situations. An instinctual passions-laden mother will make it a loss(for her)-win(for her baby), whereas an AF person need not do that(I think this can be falsified only if the premise underying that the instinctual passions are more powerful than “fellowship regard” is proven to be false).
But for me to become actually free, I need to self-immolate which requires my brain to establish that my becoming AF is “best for that body and every body.” My PCEs/EEs didn’t provide any useful information in this regard, except that they hooked me on to actual freedom that it’s possible to be in that state all that time.
I asked Srinath if altruism was a key component in his becoming AF. He answered yes. Only Vineeto, at some point when she was still a feeling-being stated a different reason that’s required for self-immolation.
I’ll keep that in mind.
If an AF person can impact people’s lives by just short interactions, all of Srinath’s family and Geoffrey’s family should be actually free by now given the sheer amount of time each day they spend with their respective families.You do the math.