Hi Andrew,
Andrew Jones:
It is refreshing to see someone who claims AF to actually admit that it hasn't made them harmless or somehow more helpful to others, unless of course one counts admitting the above things (dictatorial, overconfident, and paternalistic) as a positive outcome of AF.
To be clear, these traits were previously present in my personality, not new additions as a result of my practice.
I would say that being able to see them and being able to ask "are these good behavior patterns?" and to be willing and (to some extent) able to discard them dispassionately if the answer is "no", is most certainly a positive outcome, in a very extreme sense of "positive".
Andrew Jones:
Breaking ranks and admitting that AF hasn't truly made you any wiser, but perhaps a little more aware of your failings, is a credit to you, though credit from a total stranger is always a questionable thing to receive.
I'm not sure if you realize it, but (from your metaphor of "breaking ranks") there is no AF cabal, no shadowy organization that meets behind-the-scenes to discuss policy and generate consensus positions. Would you be surprised to learn that I have never had a substantive conversation with anyone who has claimed this attainment (= no feelings, but perhaps "shadow-being" residue of feelings) other than Nick?
I will say that I think this attainment has made me much wiser, both in a conventional sense (being able and willing to confront and adjust aspects of my personality that have worn out their welcome) and in a fundamental sense (being freed from some of the delusion that causes the existential misery of human life). However, it has not made me perfect in either sense. And, while I hope that perfection of the latter kind of wisdom is possible, I doubt that any attainment whatsoever can ever make anyone perfectly skillful in terms of their own behavior. I fully expect to make mistakes and errors in judgment from now until eternity. (This is part of the "human condition" which cannot in my opinion be abandoned, and so I find Richard's terminology with respect to this issue to be highly misleading.)
Andrew Jones:
Why does it seem a good thing to you to otherwise support the AFT without actually (presumably) knowing the people involved? Your support for 'Actual Freedom' as a term and philosophy is playing into the hands of a complete stranger, one who has consistently relished the very thing you started this thread to apologise for; dictatorial overconfident paternalistic 'help'.
This is a good question, and I spent some time thinking about it.
It occurs to me that the reason is simply that I'm interesting in communicating about this subject, because I hope it benefits others to hear about it, just as it benefited me to hear about it in the past. I do not get to choose the terminology that others use. Many people on the DhO are interested in actualism and AF, and to the extent that they want to talk about things in those terms (and to the extent that they recognize claims couched in actualist terms rather than claims couched in e.g. Buddhist terms), those are the terms I will use. If that changes, my terminology will change.
To the extent that I control the terms of the discourse, I would be quite happy to shy away from AFT terminology, but I hold no delusion that I actually have this power. (I merely have a little bit of influence, as do all the members of the DhO.)
In the end, I am a contemplative, I am interested in contemplative goals, I am interested in others' contemplative goals, and anything that makes communication about these things go smoothly is fine by me. The end of suffering is what I find important, not political issues concerning the AFT, nor Richard's personality and behavior.
Andrew Jones:
While you are in a reflective mood, consider how many will be hurt when it comes out that the Actual Freedom Trust and it's founders are not as squeaky clean as the support they receive here would suggest.
As I approach this (and approached this) using the practices of Buddhism, I see no real importance to anything that goes on concerning the AFT, except that Richard's writings were a great inspiration to me with respect to making me willing to consider what kinds of transformations of experience were truly possible (which got me to take the traditional Buddhist claims seriously), and except that Richard's practice suggestions may be helpful to myself or to others.
I'm not really sure what the concern here is. Perhaps you could say explicitly what you are worried about. From my perspective...one does the practices, one judges whether their life has improved by virtue of them, and one makes a decision about whether to continue. Experience speaks for itself. The significance of the back-story of the AFT creators pales in light of that.
May I ask what your interest in this subject stems from? (I don't know you or anything about your background, so I wonder what motivates you with respect to this issue.) Do you / did you practice actualism or practice in some other tradition? What are your personal goals with respect to spirituality?