| | Mico Mico wrote:
"i.e. Are you equating AF with the loss of the social identity ("that is exactly what you will lose when you get AF"), or just pointing out it's necessary demise before AF (in which case, does anything at a later date change behaviour in any way)? Either way, what do you mean by saying the feelings about the actions change? I thought there were no feelings in AF. Can you give an example of a behaviour not changing but just the feelings about the actions?"
This thing about 'changing feelings' is not properly worded; it would be more proper to say "behavior doesn't change per se, it is just that one doesn't have feelings about one's behavior."
And yes, one will lose the social identity.
"Pure intent endows one with the ability to operate and function safely in society without the incumbent social identity with its ever-vigilant conscience. Thus reliably rendered virtually happy and relatively harmless by the benefaction of the infinitude, one can begin to dismantle the now-redundant social identity. To end the separative social identity, one can whittle away at all the social mores and psittacisms ... those mechanical repetitions of previously received ideas or images, reflecting neither apperception nor autonomous reasoning. One can examine all the beliefs, ideas, values, theories, truths, customs, traditions, ideals, superstitions ... and all the other schemes and dreams. One can become aware of all the socialisation, of all the conditioning, of all the programming, of all the methods and techniques that were used to control what one finds oneself to be ... a wayward ego and compliant soul careering around in confusion and illusion. A ‘mature adult’ is actually a lost, lonely, frightened and cunning psychological entity overlaying a psychic ‘being’.
It is never too late to start in on uncovering and discovering what one actually is."
http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/glossary/glossary-s.htm#socialidentity
It is often referred to throughout the actual freedom website as "unraveling the social identity."
And sure--here is an example of a behavior that might not change: you might do yoga every day before you become actually free, and as a feeling being, you may think that exercising makes you a worthy person, a disciplined person, and this may fill you with a sense of pride and accomplishment. One could even feel self-righteous about the labor involved in perfecting their vinyasas. After you become actually free, you may still do yoga every day, but doing the yoga will have no affective quality to it.
Mico Mico writes:
"As you ask, I'm lead to expect behaviour unencumbered by 'the human condition', for the sake of something called, on Richards site, [url=http://www.google.co.uk/search?q="peace+on+earth"+site%3Aactualfreedom.com.au]Peace on Earth"
What are the specific behaviors you think evidence being unencumbered by the human condition, which lead to Peace on Earth?
Mico Mico writes:
"What else is there to modify? If freedom from the human condition doesn't change behaviour, then what is the point of it? (To no longer be annoyed by anyone? Even that is still a change of behaviour.)"
If one is sitting quietly in a room, being tortured by intense anxiety and suffering in silence is this the same as sitting quietly in a room in complete peace and happiness? The actual behavior of both people is the same, yet the experience of being alive is vastly different for the two people.
A person may be annoyed but not act; an actually free person will not be annoyed but may take action, if doing so is the logical and sensible thing to do. For actually free people, there is no causal link to behavior; behaviors are undertaken for pragmatic reasons, not for affective ones. Therefore, behavior is not a "symbol" that stands in for a feeling state; yet the absence of feelings doesn't equal the absence of behavior. For example, I was recently attacked in a bar by a drunk man. When I was a feeling being, I would have had a very passive response because I would have been afraid to engage in conflict (physical or vocal) with another person. "I" had an intense fear of confrontation of any kind. (And had suffered as a result of my fearful inability to engage aggressive people in the past.) However, as an actually free person it is only logical to defend one's self when attacked and I did, to the best of my ability (though bystanders helped out). One might assume that I had to be angry or annoyed in order to defend myself, but I was not; whereas it is possible to act in way that might appear to be one thing but is actually another. I have no feelings about the incident, or about the man; no resentment, anger, hostility, or fear. It was an event which occurred that required me to respond in a way to protect myself from harm. So there was a behavior there (defending myself) but no feeling about or "behind" that behavior.
Again I ask, what are the behaviors one seeks to modify? Prior to becoming actually free I had never killed anyone, I was not a thief, a sexual abuser, or any range of behaviors which are directly harmful to others. So I didn't become actually free in order to modify some such behavior as that. I wasn't in the habit at yelling at people, or cursing at them, or of doing undermining, manipulative things. I wasn't seeking to cure an addiction or become a more productive worker...or find a way to stop eating chocolate, or stop smoking cigarettes, to be more disciplined, or to be less selfish...or any of the other kinds of behavior modification that come to my mind.
Perhaps I am missing what you mean by behavior modification, so if you could be specific about the behaviors you are thinking of when you suggest that the point of being free from the human condition is to change behavior--what specific behaviors are you thinking of? |