John Wilde:
I don't know, but I think so. For example, if somebody who sincerely believes they are actually free is observed to shout at people, or break down in tears, or hit or shake someone, or huff and puff and throw objects in apparent exasperation, or lash out at people verbally, or act as if extremely horny, or frequently engage in what seems like jealous or competitive behavior, without seeming to be aware of this or rationalizing it in unconvincing ways when challenged about it, it would be at least grounds for suspicion that their EF isn't BF and therefore not AF. To them it would seem like AF, and they would claim it with the utmost sincerity, but a first person perspective is just not enough, because the experiencer may have blind spots.
Hi John,
I think I understand what you are getting at here. If I understand you correctly, you are essentially asking if there are observable behavioral changes in a person who is actually free, which would support the claim that one has no affective faculty? I will answer your question based on this understanding, and if my understanding is incorrect, please let me know.
In one sense, the answer to your question is, of course, yes: there are observable behavioral changes which occur in one who is actually free. Shouting at someone, out of malice or anger, would not occur. Breaking down in tears, from sorrow, would not occur. Hitting or shaking someone, out of malice, would not occur. Huffing and puffing and throwing objects in exasperation, out of malice or frustration, would no occur; lashing out at someone verbally, from malicious anger would not occur; acting out of horniness, out of libidinal desire, would not occur; engaging in jealous or competitive behavior, out of malicious possessiveness, would not occur. None of these actions, with the emotional component which usually produces them, would occur.
However, if my daughter (or anyone, for that matter) were about to step into the street into oncoming traffic, I would shout at her to get out of the street. I would not be shouting out of malice; I'd be shouting for one reason only: to get her out of the street so she was not hit by a car and perhaps lethally injured.
I cannot imagine a scenario where I would break down in tears, as doing so can serve no useful purpose.
If someone broke into my home and attempted to assault me, I would hit them or shake them or do whatever physical action was necessary to protect my flesh and blood body, without one iota of malice or sorrow. My actions as it relates to them at that moment would have one purpose only: to protect myself from harm. Richard elaborates on just such a scenario here. [1]
I cannot imagine a scenario where I would huff and puff and throw objects, nor would I "lash out" at someone verbally because I can simply talk to the other person and it would never occur to me to do so rudely.
While I an unable to "act out of horniness," I am able enjoy sexual activity with my companion.
Again, competitive or jealous behavior serves no use value, and as feelings, such does not exist for me.
Judging an actual freedom on the basis of observation of one's "behavior" means that an actually free person will also be beholden to the perception of other people's notions and beliefs about what constitutes being free from the human condition. So to a vegetarian (to use a salient example), an actually free person who eats meat is not actually free of a self. To a jain, an actually free person who eats vegetables with seeds, or who doesn't filter their water just so, or walk with a broom with which to sweep insects out of the way, cannot possibly be actually free. To a celibate, an actually free person cannot possibly be actually free if they have sex. To a monk who has taken a vow of a silence, an actually free person cannot be actually free if they speak. To a politically committed activist, an actually free person cannot be actually free if they do not care about certain issues. A person who abstains from drinking alcohol will think one is not actually free if they have a beer; a person who objects to smoking will think a person cannot be actually free and smoke, and so on and so on one could go.
The standard which feeling beings often apply in their attempt to understand an actual freedom does not work because they constitute a set of beliefs which ignore the situational context of the actual world, which is always new each moment again, and which cannot be predictive. A better standard to apply to understanding what an actual freedom is in the context of behavior would be to ask: would there ever be a useful or a legitimate reason to do X? (X being whatever behavior you are attempting to analyze.)
What often happens when one attempts to verify if a person has attained to a state they've claimed, is that the behavior is evaluated for evidence of such claim. But the examination of a person's behavior is already clouded by a pre-existing notion in the mind of the examiner about what constitutes the appropriate behavior, based on various belief systems which then get applied to the behavior of another and
each and every person has a unique and different pre-existing notion of what constitutes appropriate, or "free," behavior.
By way of analogy: In the middle of the night, my daughter awakens and needs to go to the bathroom. She communicates this to me and I tell her to go ahead, down the hall, to the bathroom. She says she cannot, because it is somewhat dark, and there are monsters in the darkness. I explain to her there are absolutely no monsters in the darkness and that she is perfectly safe. She disputes this vehemently and in the meantime becomes more agitated, so that she calls me both stupid and mean, for suggesting that she go to the bathroom by herself. So, I accompany her to the bathroom, turning on the light to reveal the monster-less-ness of the hallway. This doesn't really work as she is convinced the monsters are hiding behind a doorway or somewhere because as monsters, she explains, they are quite cunning. She is still afraid, looking around for the monsters she is certain are there. She trips as a result of this frantic looking around and concludes that she was correct, there are monsters after all, because they made her fall, and that I was cruel to ever suggest she go to the bathroom alone. She decides that I am a mean and uncaring mother who wishes her harm.
Her assessment of this situation is clearly flawed as she is evaluating it from a myopic perspective which is myopic due to her lack of experience. Her ability to assess my behavior, or the sense of harm in general, is unreliable. In time, and with experience, (in fact, with the very experience of going down the hallway alone), she will learn there are no monsters and that there was no cruelty at all in my suggestion that she go to the bathroom alone. My concern, as her steward, is that she learn the uselessness of her fear so she can live her life with less suffering; she, however, understands my actions differently and will not understand them until she's had enough experiences herself to verify what I say is true.
Furthermore, simple behavioral changes address the problem of human suffering at the most superficial level. If one wants to behave a certain way, one certainly can, and one can address these behavior "problems" through a range of therapies and medications designed to alter habitual patterns. But altering one's behavior, which is often a worthy enterprise, does not get to the root cause of human suffering or mean that one will be harmless. The Buddha faced similar criticisms related to what was seen as possibly unbecoming behavior from the holy men of his day; he did not physically present himself as the others did, he paid no attention to caste, and he taught and admitted women to the sangha (at Ananda's urging). Furthermore, sometimes others assessed the Buddha as a lazy parasite, not as someone who was enlightened and laboring for the benefit of all sentient beings.[2]
In short, while there are certain ways of behaving that are highly unlikely to be performed by an actually free person, the observation of mere behavioral changes will get one nowhere fast for two reasons: the first being that the assessment of behavior depends on the capacity of the assessor, and the second being that patterns of behavior alone say little about an individual's suffering, and hence, their harmlessness.
s.
[1] RESPONDENT: 5) Related to this (the link between ‘the inner’ and ‘the outer’), is it possible for someone who is actually free, happy and harmless, to freely, happily and harmlessly punch someone in the face?
RICHARD: First and foremost, as there is no ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ in actuality there is nothing here in this actual world to have any such linkage.
Second, to be actually free from the human condition is to be sans the affective faculty/ identity in toto.
Third, the happiness and harmlessness referred to on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is the total absence of malice and sorrow.
Fourth, to freely punch a fellow human being in the face is to utilise physical force non-prejudiciously.
Fifth, to happily punch a fellow human being in the face is to utilise physical force without sorrow.
Sixth, to harmlessly punch a fellow human being in the face is to utilise physical force without malice.
Thus your query can look something like this when spelled-out in full:
• [example only]: ‘With no ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ to have any linkage, is it possible for somebody sans the affective faculty/identity in toto, with no malice and sorrow extant whatsoever, to non-prejudiciously, non-maliciously and non-sorrowfully, use physical force on a fellow human being? [end example].
In a word ... yes.
RESPONDENT: I mean I’m talking ‘in context’ here – not just through malice, but to protect someone, or something like that.
RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it this way? One does not become actually free from the human condition in order to be beaten to a pulp by someone – anyone – who chooses to let themselves continue being run by blind nature’s instinctual survival passions.
http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-harmless.htm
[2] http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_8lbud.htm