Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions

RICHARD: Yes ... when I was first catapulted into an actual freedom from the human condition I was astonished to discover that beauty had disappeared (I had trained as an art teacher and had made a living as a practising artist). Howsoever I was to discover that beauty is but a pale imitation of the purity of the actual.

Even so, it was initially disconcerting (to say the least).

RESPONDENT: Then, I realized that you apparently have no problem in delighting in things I would have considered ‘beautiful.’ Sunsets, gardens, sexuality, etc. Indeed, the website itself uses delightful pictures of nature and music to enhance the reader’s experience. So it dawned on me that much of what we commonly call beauty can be experienced on two levels – mental/emotional and ‘sensate’. For you, the prior is gone. Now apparently you experience purely on the sensate level. I have never had much interest in painting, sculpture, or what is normally considered ‘art’ – so I have no problem stripping it of ‘beauty’ and replacing it with the sensate – just the delight of colour and pleasingness to the eye. Now music is a whole different story, since I’ve spent quite a bit of my life experiencing and developing my ability to experience ‘beauty’ in music. Is there something similar in the realm of music?

RICHARD: Yes ... to feel pleasure affectively (hedonistically) is a far cry from the direct experiencing of the actual where the retinas revel in the profusion of colour, texture and form; the eardrums carouse with the cavalcade of sound, resonance and timbre; the nostrils rejoice in the abundance of aromas, fragrances and scents; the tastebuds savour the plethora of tastes, flavours and zests; the epidermis delights to touch, caress and fondle ... a veritable cornucopia of luscious, sumptuous sensuosity.

All the while is the apperceptive wonder that this marvellous paradise actually exists in all its vast array.

RESPONDENT: It seems to me there must be a similar distinction – some sounds are more pleasing to the ear than others – and they don’t necessarily have to do with beauty. Is there ‘music’ without ‘beauty?’

RICHARD: Yes ... if by ‘music’ you mean a melody or a tune (some bird-sounds, for example, are melodious whilst others are not).

RESPONDENT: Is there room for music appreciation without the affective?

RICHARD: Yes ... although it must be born in mind that most musical appreciation is determined by a cultural aesthetic (Chinese opera, for example, does not sound like the music the typical Western ear is accustomed to).

RESPONDENT: If so, what’s it like?

RICHARD: In a word: pure.

*

RESPONDENT: I remember Richard remarking that he is not interested in ‘beautiful music’ or even artistic ‘beauty’. Does that then eliminate any interest in ‘music’ or ‘art’ all together?

RICHARD: No ... but the interest is far removed from the pathetic interest one previously had.

RESPONDENT: It would seem to me that just as there is a level on which we can delight in what is ‘pleasing to the eye’ without involving beauty – that we can also delight in what is ‘pleasing to the ear’ – as in various musical forms – without involving the beautiful and the sorrowful.

RICHARD: Yes, you have hit the nail upon the head ... and where there is no beauty there is no ugly as only purity abounds.

RESPONDENT: Richard, is it possible for you to ‘have a tune’ in your head or a melody?

RICHARD: No.

RESPONDENT: What happens if you try to ‘think how a song goes’?

RICHARD: If it has words I can recall the way they go up and down the scale so as to provide a reasonable facsimile ... this is nothing like how there used to be the capacity to ‘have a tune’ in the head all those years ago (whereupon a snippet of a melody would often lodge and rerun itself over and again).

These days consciousness is epitomised as a vast silence and/or stillness.

RESPONDENT: Do you have to hum or sing it to remember?

RICHARD: Yes, though I rarely sing as I have a flat singing voice (music has never been my forté).

RESPONDENT: Is there no ‘rehearsing’ in your head first?

RICHARD: No ... I can ‘hum it under my breath’, as the saying goes, or go dum-de-dah-de-dum (or whatever) in a rather atonal manner.

RESPONDENT: Richard, would you mind commenting on your usage of the word ‘pathetic?’ In some contexts, it’s quite clear that you are using the word ‘pathetic’ as synonymous with ‘puny’, ‘tiny’, or even almost scornful. You remarked to me once how fantasy movies remind you of how ‘pathetic’ life is in the ‘real’ world. You also have described ‘real world’ interest in art and music as ‘pathetic’. I read you as saying they are ‘pathetic’ in the sense of ‘marked by sorrow’, or by ‘pathos’. Also there seems to be a comparison with life in the ‘real’ world compared to life in the actual world. Do you see that it could be difficult for one in the ‘real’ world to see their life as ‘pathetic’ from within? Or their interest in music or art? I take it you aren’t trying to ‘scorn’ life in the ‘real’ world, rather point out that it’s ohhh soo much better in the actual world.

RICHARD: Yes, life in the actual world is much, much better indeed ... and there is no way that I am being ‘almost scornful’ as the ability for derision/ disdain/ contempt is non-existent here in this actual world. As a rough estimate I would say that probably nine times out of ten I use the word ‘pathetic’ in the Oxford Dictionary meaning of ‘pertaining to the emotions’ (and passions) with its etymological ‘liable to suffer’ connotation ... for example: <snip>

As in regards to art and music you must be referring to this exchange:

• [Respondent]: ‘I remember Richard remarking that he is not interested in ‘beautiful music’ or even artistic ‘beauty’. Does that then eliminate any interest in ‘music’ or ‘art’ all together?
• [Richard]: ‘No ... but the interest is far removed from the pathetic interest one previously had.

What I am conveying by this usage looks like this when spelled out in full:

• No ... but the interest is far removed from the emotional or passional (liable to suffer) interest one previously had.

As for seeing that it could be difficult for one in the ‘real’ world to see their life as pathetic from within: from what I recall the entity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago could see – albeit dimly – that ‘his’ existence was indeed pathetic (as in emotional and passional and liable to suffer) and that, therefore, it was indeed pathetic (as in either miserably inadequate, feeble or useless) ... and my conversations with various peoples these days show that mostly they too can see it (even if also somewhat dimly to start off with) although there are those who decline to acknowledge it for whatever reason.

As for it being difficult for one in the ‘real’ world to see that their interest in music or art is pathetic: the people that I converse with in regards to this matter usually acknowledge fairly readily that most music tugs on the heart-strings, or in some way stirs the emotions and passions, so that one is liable to suffer – even if only a ‘sweet sorrow’ or a ‘gentle melancholy’ – or be liable to suffer from being filled with patriotism and pride, if it be martial music, and so on ... and that art in general (which includes not only the fine arts but the performing arts as well) can act upon them in similar ways.

There is such a thing as aesthetic appreciation, of course, yet even there I recall that the entity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago could see that there was an affective component which coloured ‘his’ otherwise pure appreciation (as in unadulterated sensate delight) such that it persuaded ‘him’ to seek the actual and no longer be liable to suffer.

As for your comment regarding comparison: whenever I discuss these matters with my fellow human beings there is indeed always a comparison with life in the ‘real’ world as contrasted to life in the actual world ... it is what I came onto the internet for.

Just as a matter of interest ... here is the etymological root of the word:

RESPONDENT No. 27: Richard, I want to pose a specific question for your response (...) In the forefront of my investigations right now is ‘beauty’ versus what you are calling ‘sensate delight.’ At first, upon reading the material at the AF website, I was stricken with a fear of what my life would be like if I gave up my experience of beauty – thinking that to be inhuman.

RICHARD: Yes ... when I was first catapulted into an actual freedom from the human condition I was astonished to discover that beauty had disappeared (I had trained as an art teacher and had made a living as a practising artist). Howsoever I was to discover that beauty is but a pale imitation of the purity of the actual. Even so, it was initially disconcerting (to say the least).

RESPONDENT: Is this a common thread amongst those new to AF?

RICHARD: No ... the most common thread is likening an actual freedom to spiritual enlightenment.

RESPONDENT: I was planning on putting together a post very much like this today. I too am a musician, which gives me great pleasure and pain, and to a lesser extent, I appreciate most forms of art. I understand that both pleasure and pain come as a package deal, and I have great trepidation about losing Beauty, but I’m close to willing to make the deal. One aspect of this that didn’t come up in the post specifically is that part of the attraction of art/music (or engineering for that matter – my trade), is the creative process. Does that disappear along with Beauty?

RICHARD: Yes ... but an actual creativity is available twenty-four hours of the day.

RESPONDENT: Can you be an AF artist?

RICHARD: Yes.

RESPONDENT: Or engineer?

RICHARD: Yes.

RESPONDENT: I know that we can go about our jobs, day to day, but does that great, inspirational, inner oomph go away?

RICHARD: Yes ... the ‘inner’ oomph is but a pale imitation of the actual (there is no inner and outer in actuality).

*

P.S.: You may find this link relevant to your query

RESPONDENT No. 42: ... I do visual/graphic design work, and have that training in appreciating ‘fine’ forms, along with going to a school with a core-program that studies the West’s concepts of ‘beauty’ and ‘ideal forms’ and all that. I suppose those lose their significance completely?

RICHARD: Here you are talking more of an aesthetic appreciation – and aesthetics vary from culture to culture – an appreciation which has as much to do with proportion (ratio) as it has to do with beauty per se: the ‘golden mean’, for example, purports to embody the ‘ideal form’ and has more to do with the relation (harmony) of one part to another, and the various parts to the total, than what is nominally beautiful/ugly ... although the word ‘elegant’ can quite often be a non de guerre for beauty. Thus stripped of its cultural impositions – and of the feeling of beauty of course – aesthetic appreciation can have its place ... although personal predilections need to be taken into account (given that aesthetics are, fundamentally, based upon the human body and its relationship with everything else).

RESPONDENT: I’ll throw out my interpretation of your words for comment. Let’s say an actualist is looking at the Mona Lisa. Minimally, the actualist could appreciate the colour selection and textural brush work of da Vinci. Mona Lisa is famous for her enigmatic smile, and much has been read into or projected onto that smile. This sort of response would be absent for the actualist. Also generally appealing is the shape of her face, which would have been considered beautiful in her time. The actualist is not responsive to that ‘cultural imposition’ as beauty, but may appreciate it as a near-perfect example of the ‘ideal form’. A similar example might be music ... the actualist would not have a sad response to a minor key dirge, but might appreciate the harmonic structure and melodic development of the piece, perhaps as a mathematical exercise in form and structure. I am curious as to what ‘personal predilections’ means in this context. Would one actualist’s predilections consider the Mona Lisa’s face shape to be ideal, whereas another’s wouldn’t? How is that distinguishable from a personal definition of beauty?

RICHARD: Over the years since the feeling of beauty vanished forever I have, from time-to-time, looked with interest at photographs of what are generally considered beautiful women/handsome men, so as to better ascertain what is no longer extant, only to find that the more beautiful/handsome they are deemed to be the more bland and/or insipid they are ... one reason for this has to do with the symmetry of the face in what is considered ideal (whereas character comes from asymmetry).

The example you provide is an instance of the geometric ideal (apart from the contrived smile) and reflects more the era in which it was painted – the Renaissance Period – than any genius on the part of the artist ... the ancient Greeks favoured idealised form wherein asymmetry/irregularities were ironed-out so as to better represent the ideal universal form (an abstracted form).

One thing I learned very early in the piece when doing portraiture was that one side of the face differed from the other side – and that capturing a likeness (portraying character) depended upon being true to the model – especially in regards to the eyes ... if both eyes were drawn or painted as being identical the result was characterless (bland and/or insipid). Moreover, character likeness is mostly to be found in the area contained by the corners of the eyes to the tip of the nose – and to a lesser extent from the corners of the mouth to the tip of the chin – and the more this is slavishly stylised (as an equilateral triangle for example) the less integrity the representation has.

In regards taking into account, or making allowance for, ‘personal predilections’ (individual predisposition, idiosyncratic proclivity, or in-built propensity, and thus tendency and/or preference) I was making the point that aesthetics are, fundamentally, based upon the human body and its relationship with the environment and are not necessarily ‘a personal definition of beauty’ per se: this body, for instance, is of the male gender; has a heterosexual orientation; is of Caucasian stock; and is 6’ 2” high and weighs 12.5 stone ... change any one of those bodily characteristics and aesthetic appreciation alters accordingly.

Furthermore, there is the perceptive ability itself to consider as the word ‘aesthetics’ comes from the Greek ‘aisthetikos’, from ‘aistheta’ (meaning ‘things perceptible by the senses’), which comes from ‘aisthesthai’ (meaning ‘perceive’): the quality, quantity and disposition of photosensitive receptors called rods (about 130 million cells which detect size, shape, brightness and movement) and cones (about 7 million cells which detect fine detail and colour) in the retinas varies from body to body and affects visual appreciation ... colour blindness being the most obvious instance.

Similarly for auditory appreciation the range of frequency (hertz), or pitch, and intensity of tone (decibels), or loudness, can vary from person-to-person ... the phrase ‘tone-deaf’ bespeaks of the most extreme example. Also gastronomic appreciation (flavour) depends not only upon the quality, quantity and disposition of the taste buds (papillae) on the tongue, palate and throat/larynx but upon the olfactory and tactile receptors as well – flavour is actually a combination of texture, temperature, taste and smell (the coolness of peppermint, the ‘bite’ of mustard or pepper, the warmth of cloves, and the astringency of spinach are all tactile, or touch, sensations of the lips, tongue and mouth in general) – and a surprisingly large number of people have some degree of ‘taste-blindness’.

Consequently I do not seek to impose my tastes (the aesthetic appreciation of this body) on anybody else ... I have oft-times said that I would be delighted to meet, hear about, or read of somebody else in actual freedom so as to compare notes, as it were, and tease out what is idiosyncratic (bodily specific) from what is generic (species specific).

Until then there is only this one example to go by.

RESPONDENT: I am a musician, and have wondered if pursuing this path would eliminate all desire to play music.

RICHARD: Yep ... all desire vanishes without a trace.

RESPONDENT: Creativity is a complex urge, with various fundamental and conditioned characteristics.

RICHARD: Yes, about 23-25 years ago, when the ‘I’ who was made a living as an artist, ‘my’ greatest work came when ‘I’ disappeared and the painting painted itself (in what is sometimes known as an ‘aesthetic experience’) or the pottery threw itself. This is the difference between art and craft – and ‘I’ was very good as a craftsman – but craft became art only when ‘I’ was not present.

All art is initially a representation and, as such, is a reflection funnelled by the artist so that he/she can express what they are experiencing in order to see for themselves – and show to others – what is going on ‘behind the scenes’ as it were. However, when one is fully engrossed in the act of creativity – wherein the painting paints itself for example – the art-form takes on a life of its own and ceases to be a representation during the event.

It is its own actuality: one can only stand in amazement and wonder – which is not to negate the very essential patiently acquired skills and expertise – and this marvelling is what was experienced back when I was a normal person. It was this magical way of creativity that led ‘me’ into this whole investigation of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being. ‘I’ wanted to live life like these utter moments of artistic creation ... ‘I’ wanted life to live itself just like the paintings painted themselves.

And thus here I am today as this flesh and blood body only.

RESPONDENT: However, at its most elemental, if I could appreciate another’s music as one of my personal predilections, it would make sense that I could also appreciate that music I generate myself. Just as I could appreciate the mustard I prepared myself.

RICHARD: You have lost me here ... ‘personal predilections’ (individual predisposition, idiosyncratic proclivity, or inbuilt propensity, and thus tendency and/or preference) vary from person to person and not being able to fully appreciate another’s taste does not mean one cannot generate aesthetically pleasing works oneself.

Speaking personally I studied art for three years, copying various master artist’s works slavishly so as to acquire the necessary skills and expertise, and continued to practice daily thereafter for two more years (barely making a living): one fine day there was an abandonment of everything that had gone before – it was a gay abandon which came of its own accord – and unique work manifested itself for the very first time.

Ain’t life grand!

RESPONDENT: On another note, I was talking over with a friend yesterday at lunch about music and its relation to emotions. We both agreed that music – whatever kind – does not necessarily evoke an affective response in, for example, alexithymic/ anhedonic people, very young children or someone way into the path of Actual Freedom or Actually Free. However, my friend assured me that if a certain type of music (classical, violin, piano) is played then it has to have some type of an effect on the human brain. I know that the very act of listening has an effect on the brain but do you experience anything else besides?

RICHARD: No, not at all ... and I did have a few classical pieces in my record collection all those years ago (mainly rhapsodies, overtures, and suites). The following passage is how I have described the anhedonic actualism experience:

• [Richard]: ‘To feel pleasure affectively (hedonistically) is a far cry from the direct experiencing of the actual where the retinas revel in the profusion of colour, texture and form; the eardrums carouse with the cavalcade of sound, resonance and timbre; the nostrils rejoice in the abundance of aromas, fragrances and scents; the tastebuds savour the plethora of tastes, flavours and zests; the epidermis delights to touch, caress and fondle ... a veritable cornucopia of luscious, sumptuous sensuosity.
All the while is the apperceptive wonder that this marvellous paradise actually exists in all its vast array.

Coupled with the inability to affectively feel pleasure is, of course, the inability to affectively feel pain (as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate) even though most, if not all, definitions of anhedonia only say ‘the inability to feel pleasure’ ... actualism, being most definitely not hedonism, can never be sadistic, masochistic, or sadomasochistic.

RESPONDENT: Non-affective stimulation of some kind?

RICHARD: No stimulation (other than the physical delectation as described above) at all ... just the same as watching voluptuous movies (sexually-explicit x-rated videos), for example, or a succulent feast being prepared in living colour in a cooking programme on lifestyle television, for another.

The affective pleasure/ pain centre in the brain is null and void.

RESPONDENT: Richard I read where you said you did not know if emotions were necessary for playing music as you are not a musician.

RICHARD: What I actually said was that, not having developed the talent for playing musical instruments, I cannot personally report on (affective) feelings being essential for [quote] ‘playing music *with pleasure*’ [emphasis added] as I was responding to an observation that feelings of affection, warmth, are so essential for that. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Feelings of affection, warmth, so essential for humour, playing music with pleasure and delightful human interactions is to me as valuable as sexual pleasure and orgasms.

• [Richard]: ‘As I have not developed the talent for playing musical instruments I cannot personally report on feelings being essential for playing music with pleasure ... but as music is designed to tug on the heart-strings I would easily agree with your observation’. 

The pleasure being referred to is, of course, affective pleasure (as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes such a big thing about but never does eliminate) and not sensate pleasure.

RESPONDENT: What about listening to music?

RICHARD: Emotions and/or passions are essential for listening to music with affective pleasure (hedonic pleasure); emotions and/or passions are not essential for listening to music with sensate pleasure (anhedonic pleasure).

RESPONDENT: Do you still delight in such?

RICHARD: You will find the following informative

*

RICHARD: ... [quote] ‘... but as music is designed to tug on the heart-strings I would easily agree with your observation [that feelings of affection, warmth, are essential for playing music with (affective/ hedonic) pleasure].

RESPONDENT: So you have a sensate enjoyment of something that was designed to ‘tug on the heart-strings’?

RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following (from the quoted text in the e-mail you are responding to):

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... I have never had much interest in painting, sculpture, or what is normally considered ‘art’ – so I have no problem stripping it of ‘beauty’ and replacing it with the sensate – just the delight of colour and pleasingness to the eye. (...) It seems to me there must be a similar distinction – some sounds are more pleasing to the ear than others – and they don’t necessarily have to do with beauty. Is there ‘music’ without ‘beauty?’
• [Richard]: ‘Yes ... if by ‘music’ you mean a melody or a tune (some bird-sounds, for example, are melodious whilst others are not).
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Is there room for music appreciation without the affective?
• [Richard]: ‘Yes ...’.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘If so, what’s it like?
• [Richard]: ‘In a word: pure’. [endquote].

As there are no ‘heart-strings’ in actuality there is nothing to be tugged ... there is only purity.

RESPONDENT: Actually I don’t think you have said that you do listen to and delight in music only that sensate enjoyment of it is possible. My next question may make my point more clear. [Richard]: ‘... to feel pleasure affectively (hedonistically) is a far cry from the direct experiencing of the actual where the retinas revel in the profusion of colour, texture and form; the eardrums carouse with the cavalcade of sound ...’ [snip]. So music would just be another wonderful sound amongst other wonderful sounds but nothing special, correct?

RICHARD: What these ears hear is tone (pitch), timbre, harmonics, resonance, and so on, and musical appreciation is primarily based upon what is pleasing to them ... in a word: taste.

RESPONDENT: In other words, you would not go out of your way to listen to music?

RICHARD: I rarely listen to music for the sake of listening to it ... the last occasion was maybe five-six months ago when, upon having just then purchased a set of 5.1 surround sound speakers, I watched ‘Apocalypse Now Redux’ (arguably one of the better examples of a masterly application of the surround sound effect) in order to more fully experience the beach attack scene and I wound up listening to the opening track (an outstanding rendition of ‘The End’ by ‘The Doors’) several times.

What I found interesting was it no longer conveyed the haunting quality it did all those years ago when first listened to (circa 1984-85) ... although I could comprehend why it did back then.

RESPONDENT: In your experience of the actual world is there ever any enhancing of your experience?

RICHARD: Well, the surround sound already mentioned certainly enhances the experience of movies but, apart from technological advances like that, no (the pristine purity of this actual world is already always perfect).

RESPONDENT: Like icing on the cake?

RICHARD: The cake (this actual world) already has lashings of icing on it ... plus bucket-loads of cream, liberally dotted with cherries, on top of that.

RESPONDENT: Peter, you said you threw out a lot of your music because it wallowed in the human condition. What did you keep?

PETER: The first thing I gave away was my spiritual books, keeping only a few for reference – although I have never had to refer to them given the Net is such a rich source of everything and anything spiritual. Music came next for the reasons you have stated and I only kept two CDs – ‘Lennon Legend’ because it contained three tracks that I found inspirational in motivating me to become free of malice and sorrow – ‘Imagine’, ‘Merry Xmas, (War is Over)’ and ‘Give Peace a Chance’ – and Janis Joplin, ‘Me and Bobby McGee (Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose)’.

Contrary to what some people think, the process of becoming free of the Human Condition is not a dispassionate affair and I found it good to tap into whatever inspiration I could – the source of which would vary from person to person obviously.

RESPONDENT: Nice.

PETER: Nice?

Given that you qualified your question with the comment ‘I ask because I have noticed that just reading about the human condition on The Actual Freedom Trust website has made me loose my appetite for a lot of the music I once enjoyed’ perhaps you would like to share the reason you think you have lost your appetite?

RESPONDENT: I like rock music. Most any genre of music has its negative side but something I have noticed recently is that almost every song that comes on the local rock station here is a song in worship of suffering. It’s like a badge of honour to feel depressed or alone. I have always been turned off by whinny music but in reading about the nuances of suffering I have become more aware of this revelling in sadness and pain in the music I listen to.

PETER: I’ve always found it very odd that people write to this mailing list complaining of the fact that what is on offer has been labelled actualism (purely in order to define it as being an alternative to the other ‘isms’, materialism and spiritualism) and likewise some people object that it has a method (cultivating an objective unconditional awareness as an alternative to remaining unaware or practicing a subjective conditional awareness so as to avoid unwanted feelings) or that they object that what is on offer involves an intent to do something (setting one’s sights on becoming happy and harmless, free of malice and sorrow as opposed to the materialist and spiritualist intent of having power over others).

As such it is somewhat refreshing to hear you report that you have understood something about the human condition simply by the act of becoming aware of the feelings and passions that underpin the human condition as they happen in your own experience.

After all, such a straightforward act of immediate awareness is exactly what asking oneself ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ is designed to promote as constant and ongoing – no more and no less.

*

RESPONDENT: I ask because I have noticed that just reading about the human condition on the AF web site has made me loose my appetite for a lot of the music I once enjoyed.

PETER: I made my decision after conducting a deliberate experiment – one night when I was feeling particularly good I sat down and played a few of my CDs and checked out what feeling the music evoked. What I discovered was that a majority of music is specifically designed to tug at the heartstrings as in evoking melancholy and sadness and if I wasn’t feeling that way at the start the ‘best’ songs would soon twig a memory of either a sad experience or tap into my underlying sadness and away I would go into that seductive bitter-sweet feeling of sorrow. Some music also provokes anger or taps into the underlying aggression of the sexual urge but by and large the music that is the most popular and the most successful is that which tugs the heartstrings.

RESPONDENT: Richard once said that the death of another could not in any way diminish him. How much more so would this apply to music? It could not add or take away anything. In short, do you guys listen to music and if so why?

PETER: Speaking personally, once I realized the affect that a good deal of music had on me I ‘lost my appetite’ for listening to it – it made sense to stop indulging in something which made me sad in exactly the same way that I ‘lost my appetite’ for indulging in things that made me annoyed or angry.

I should also add that listening to music has never been particularly amongst my pleasures and I suspect it is because the several times I have attempted to learn to play music I found that I lacked the natural aptitude or an ‘ear’ for it. I do, however, very much enjoy string instruments played well – guitar, fiddle and banjo – as I find myself appreciating both the skill of the playing and the timbre of notes produced from the combination of plucked or bowed string and a sound box.

In a similar vein, I find the same progression from affective reaction to sensuous appreciation has happened in the work I have done in my life – designing and building. Whilst once I would thoughtlessly judge buildings as being either beautiful or ugly, nowadays I appreciate the skill of the craftsmanship of a well designed and built building that a particular group of human beings have made the effort to fashion out of the matter of the earth.

To summarize, I have found that actualism is about thoughtfully and deliberately moving from being free of the fickleness and divisiveness of seeking affective pleasure as a way of assuaging affective pain and increasingly replacing it with an ever-increasing sensual appreciation of the wonders of the universe – and nowadays, given that I am a human being, I find myself particularly fascinated by the quite astounding ingenuity and productivity of we homo sapiens.

Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless