How this Clarity of Being site stands out from the crowd

Résumé of this site's important features

• Apparently UNIQUE among 'alternative health / healing' and 'self-realization' sites in presenting a whole approach that is free from belief, and RATIONALLY based upon Philip Goddard's first-hand observations and working deductions made from those observations, and testing procedures based on those deductions — in the course of getting himself out of one hell of a pickle!

• A collection of highly insightful and educational personal narratives that explain and clarify the basis of his working model and methodology.

• All working assumptions are compliant with Occam's razor, as befits Philip Goddard's scientific background. — Surely pretty well unique among 'alternative health' / 'self-realization' sites! No pseudo-science, alluring but obfuscational 'story' or unverifiable metaphysical scenarios here.

• Original writings that are challenging and clarifying. Read about enlightenment and the nature of reality, and the nature of our primary obstacles, and how you can do something about the latter.

• Empower yourself for rationally-based self-actualization / self-realization and self-healing, and to clear yourself of 'negative' and harmful unseen influences and resolve emotional and 'mental health' issues and troubles with addictions, habits, compulsions, fixations, attachments, 'voices' and troublesome 'entity' manifestations…

• Proper, proactive mindfulness — the ultimate mental health and wellbeing.

• NOT meditation based, because ongoing regular meditation (as normally meant) is insidiously, seriously, harmful. Great popularity is no indicator at all of whether a method or practice really is beneficial rather than harmful!

• All the writings are free of religion-speak (or indeed religion), New-Age-speak or esotericism!

Discarding belief, our great cocoon of self-deception

This site stands right apart from the plethora of 'alternative health / medicine / therapy' sites and, with some notable exceptions, from other sites presenting life improvement methods (including all religion / spirituality related ones) — for one unshakable fundamental reason. It presents powerful insights and solutions, free of charge, that are radically different from all the others, and which, to the best of my knowledge aren't available elsewhere.

Virtually all the other such sites, however popular, highly rated or indeed revered, are based at least to a fair extent in belief or/and 'received wisdoms' or/and unverifiable 'story' (which two latter are inevitably just more belief, albeit second- or indeed multiple-hand).

Belief always, without exception, stands completely in the way of one's seeing what is really there and what is really going on. It matters not whether a particular belief is sanctified or 'justified' by calling it 'faith', 'deep conviction' or 'inner knowing' instead; it's just that bit more harmful for being so regarded (just an additional layer of self-deception)!

Also, it matters not whether a belief appears to be 'positive' or 'negative'. Many sites out there claim to assist / enable you to get rid of 'limiting' beliefs, but all of them appear to have missed the real point, that ALL belief is limiting, even if it's believing in your having no limits! That is still an obfuscation, preventing you from seeing what the real situation is, and thus it's ultimately inherently limiting — like an impassable roadblock that triumphantly proclaims 'we have no limits'!

— Belief is thus a sure formula for failure of any attempt to resolve an issue of any kind that is impinged upon by that belief. — No see what's really there — no understanding gained!, and then No understanding gained — no proper resolution of problems and issues.

By contrast, the insights, understandings, practical working model and methodology presented here on this site have been built up on a strictly rational basis, free from belief, over many years by this one funny little man who used his own penetrating mental clarity to observe what was really going on during a long catalogue of severely challenging (some would say 'horrendous') life experiences that beset him.

For my own survival I had to work out what was really happening, and even creatively work out postulated internal mechanisms of the 'difficult' experiences, so I could try out simple procedures based on those postulations drawn from my direct observations, for actually stalling and dissolving those mechanisms.

By this means I progressively achieved a success and dramatic life turnaround that 'mental health' workers at all levels mostly fail even to dream of because of the limiting, belief-based orthodoxies they're tied to.

This site, then, is where, with my playful and healthily wayward humour, I share my powerfully effective understandings and methods. Most people who have sufficient motivation and reasonable mental focus can benefit significantly. Please note, however, that anything like full effectiveness for advanced self-actualization requires a rare degree of mental clarity and focus in using the methods.

I've always been something of a lone traveller — a trail-blazer, a pioneer — loving people but having quickly learnt not to get entangled with them as the vast majority do. That's not through my actually wanting it that way originally, but it's simply how it worked out — for everywhere I turned I was confronted with people's beliefs and personal control agendas, all of which, being brick walls to genuine understanding and really worthwhile social interaction, were of no genuine help whatsoever, so I had no workable alternative but the DIY one.

This site's reputation

One unfortunate effect of my being a lone rational voice among a 'sea' of believers (of one kind and another) is that this site has a more or less low reputation in many quarters. It appears that a considerable majority, whose lives are based in beliefs, dismiss this site as rubbish produced by a mentally disordered 'saddo'. Its WOT rating, while currently not downright 'poor', is in the middling or 'unsatisfactory' range, and it still remains unrated for safety — despite a succession of genuine experience-based five-star reviews of it there, and the actual complete safety of this site. Yet huge numbers of belief-based and thus intrinsically misinformational and insidiously harmful religion / spirituality / 'healing' / 'self-realization' sites have clear positive ratings there.

And, Google has well-nigh eliminated the most important pages on this site from its listings, thanks to its failing to recognise that this isn't just another harmful 'alternative health' or otherwise misinformational / untrustworthy site but instead something unique that's actually saving lives and presenting a fundamentally different and indeed rational alternative to all the popular and highly-ranked but unsoundly based and misinformational 'alternatives', which are all given priority over this one.

Where's the evidence that this site is trustworthy?

(That's weird — I hear a distinctly Putin-like accusing / aggressive tone in the above question, complete with a curious whiff of something — a delicacy I believe — that all the stupid scaremongers call something sounding like novichok, which I fervently believe is a new type of chocolate. — Belief is truly a wondrous thing!)

Okay, back to sanity now. For a start, consider carefully what you mean by 'trustworthy'! Are you looking for something to believe as some sort of 'truth', as most people are? — If so, you're looking for the wrong thing, or at least for something seriously, insidiously, harmful. Genuine, worthwhile trust takes time or an unusually penetrating and discerning intellect to manifest it — it has to be well earned. Quick, unaware trust is a menace, for sooner or later that would lead you straight into serious problems. Just think of the hordes of supposedly compos mentis and 'intelligent' people who nowadays get taken in by scams to get their money. Instead of trusting, trusting, trusting, it's high time one became discerning, discerning, discerning instead!

Be always sensibly on-guard (without anxiety / paranoia) — even with people you notionally trust! They all have their particular issues and inner 'booby traps', and you need always to be sensibly looking out for those and tiptoeing around or backing off from such hazards.

— Yes, you need to be using your brain more. Otherwise you can be taken for a very troublesome ride by anyone who can convince you to trust them! On this site I encourage and exhort people always to hold all ideas, both new and old, up to proper rational scrutiny and not just to believe or trust what they're told — even by this arrogant / higgorant 'Uncle Philip' guy!

It's best to throw belief out of the window, because the truth (as far as anything at all is true!) is that you cannot absolutely know anything! This site doesn't offer or base itself on yet another (intrinsically harmful) belief system, as spirituality or 'alternative health' sites pretty well always do. Indeed, it points right away from belief, to a fully down-to-earth practical and rational approach, based on a mass of first-hand observations and rigorous experimental deductions from them.

If you read carefully through this site, and especially through my Personal Experiences pages, you would get some idea of the level of honesty and integrity that marks this site out as something special — and it's also worth noting that this site isn't selling products or services, so I don't have any financial incentive to promote a particular belief system or 'story' or methodology. I'm simply sharing what worked so dramatically for me in getting me out of a potentially lethal situation and indeed in taking me far beyond any regular notion of 'recovery', into a very significant degree of self-actualization.

Also, Philip Goddard's self-actualization methodology — Introduction is a very important page to help give you the correct picture. Truly, anyone who reads that page right through and still reckons that this site is harmful, untrustworthy or misinformational must be a particularly harmful, untrustworthy and misinformational person him/herself, on account of his/her oppressively belief-driven mindset!

In contrast, all sites presenting belief-based systems or methods are intrinsically misinformational, notwithstanding any good intentions of the particular site owners, because a belief itself is an intrinsic misinformation / self-dishonesty. You look at something and your belief tells you it's something else (or you believe in the existence of something where you have no genuine evidence for such a thing being there) — and you seek to infect other people with that belief-dishonesty. What's the use of that??!

Effectively, belief could reasonably be described as a cancer of the mind, both on an individual and a global / universal basis.

The Original Writings section of this site contains a sub-section of exceptionally candid personal accounts of mine, of particular aspects of my own lifelong and very bumpy but immensely educational process of self-discovery and self-actualization. I share with the reader there, as an educational resource, my own learning from my delectable catalogue of gaffes, troublesome temporary side-tracks, inspirational lightbulb moments and life-changing practical breakthroughs. Out of all that, much important deep understanding, as distinct from belief, can be gained.

That way, many people can be forewarned (i.e., of course forearmed) and spare themselves a multitude of horrendous tribulations that they're at least potentially heading for. — Not through this insufferable 'Uncle Philip' telling them they should do this or not do that, but through my pointing out actual cause and effect in the course of relating my own hard experience of 'sleepwalking' into a delectable series of booby-traps that whatever unseen influence was interfering in my life had set up for me.

I would thus have NO authority in proclaiming this or that to be 'truth', BUT in 'truth', neither does anyone else! Having a strongly-held belief or indeed widespread and enthusiastic popular approval is no indication at all of genuine authority or trustworthiness.

If I myself have any 'authority' at all in presenting my work on this site, it's the 'authority' of a whole mass of hard experience, well learnt from, and presented on this site as an educational resource and foundation for understanding the working model and methodology that I drew from it all, plus the dramatic results of applying all that. Not only did I turn my life right around, getting me right out of a potentially life-threatening situation, but since then many more such turnarounds and savings of lives have resulted from my experience and methods being presented here on this site.

This site's objectivity

Nowhere does this site claim that any of its contents are a statement of objective fact, apart from historical details of my observations, experiences and actions, and my pointing to the harmful absurdity of belief (which is intrinsically subjective) — which absurdity takes only a modicum of common sense to recognise.

Indeed, as I emphasize in many places on this site, all my statements about the nature of reality and human experience and human dysfunction are simply working assumptions, made for a very specific and unprecedentedly beneficial purpose. They are NOT statements of belief, faith, or supposed 'fact' — and indeed NOT even what might be 'fact'. Because of the fundamental unknowability of the true nature of all that's outside the 'physical reality', all statements and theories about that, which are claimed or implied to be even potentially objective fact, are intrinsically misinformation.

And yes, that does mean that ALL sites promoting religion or other versions of spirituality are thus misinformational ones, never mind how popular and highly rated they are.

It's still possible to take sections of my writings out of context, as many, many people do, and accuse me of claiming that all sorts of actually unknowable things are 'fact', simply because it's not workable for me to hedge every sentence or paragraph with an individual disclaimer. Somewhere along the line the reader needs to be intelligent enough to understand that what they are reading, if it isn't actual personal narrative, is parts of the practical working model (set of working assumptions) that I've built up on the basis of their genuine helpfulness in improving my and other people's life.

Please note especially that all working assumptions are compliant with Occam's razor, as befits my scientific background. — Surely pretty well unique among any sort of supposed life improvement site! No alluring but obfuscational 'story' here.

The working model's validity, i.e., for the purpose for which it was built up, has been demonstrated over and over, in that the methods based on those assumptions have worked spectacularly, not only for me (got me out of one hell of a hole!), but also for other people who have properly applied those insightful assumptions and methods in their own lives.

Here's an example of my, and this site's, objectivity and indeed freedom from 'conspiracy theory' or other paranoid mindset, in a particular case where a lot of people really lose their marbles: Isn't it best to avoid fluoride toothpaste?.

And another, quite extraordinary, example is my account of a little but potentially world-changing experiment of mine, which would appear to a casual reader with limited awareness to be extravagantly delusional, but if read carefully with due awareness, would be seen to show a remarkable level-headed objectivity of the highest order — underlined by my amused periodic nagging reminders, Remember, 'nothing ventured, nothing gained!'. See Project Fix the Human Condition.

In that experiment in fact all I've been doing is what mountaineers do two-a-penny during their mountaineering days when faced with a new pitch or precipice to climb. Instead of looking at the latter with horror and retreating to TV / videos / computer games to live 'sensibly' at home, failing to make anything worthwhile of their lives, as the vast majority do, the mountaineer looks with intent and clarity at the towering challenge, and starts working out how the latter might be surmounted. Simple! (Nothing ventured, nothing gained - remember that; the monkey's spoken!)

That's all I've done in my little experiment — with the difference that if it doesn't work out, there would be no equivalent to all the mountain dangers and indeed falling to my death; either something tremendously wonderful beyond most people's imaginings is now in the process of 'working through', or it isn't — that's all. Either way, I simply had a go on the basis of my well validated observation-based working model of the underlying nature of ourselves and of 'reality', and the methodology that I derived from that working model.

Initially I continued to maintain a cautious default assumption that what I'd done hadn't achieved anything, until such time as widespread evidence of relevant changes turned up and no doubt greatly mystified people worldwide. However, over time, with accumulated small pieces of very telling and indicative evidence in my personal experience and that of a handful of other very 'open' and aware (no-soul) people, my default negative hypothesis became increasingly untenable even though I didn't have the sort of evidence that could be publicly verified and enable me to announce publicly that the underlying causes of human dysfunction really had been fixed.

Because the massive problems resulting from those harmful underlying causes had established ingrained patterns of brain function, for the vast majority little or no obvious positive change could become evident, at least in the short term, so that the really noticeable positive changes have so far been restricted to a scattering of particularly 'open' no-soul people, and even there the changes are much more strung-out and thus less dramatic than originally expected.

My pragmatic approach (as from February 2023) has been to amend relevant text on this site to place focus on a tacit working assumption (not a belief, claim, or statement of 'fact') that the project has indeed borne full fruit, and that the garbage, the astral, and the faulty data cache issue are all no more. That's all the more appropriate because, alongside the occasional 'positive' indicative observations, I've consistently been free from any clear indications of garbage or other astral-sourced interference for the best part of a year now.

And on another point, let's remember that the important thing is the changes themselves, and not who might have done something to cause that to happen — well, er, except that of course my succeeding in anything like that would be seriously educational towards people getting learning something of their own potentialities for objective thought and rational living. A magician or super-human/hero I myself am emphatically not (— just a straightforward human with a little bit of extra joined-up aware thinking, partly thanks to my methodology)!

There's nothing delusional about trying out a rationally based hunch to see if it works or at least points to something else that might work instead! Let's remember that Occam's razor doesn't at all require that a hypothesis has to conform to widely held beliefs / orthodoxies! Indeed, every belief / orthodoxy itself is intrinsically non-compliant with the 'spirit' of Occam's razor, being inherently an invalid hypothesis because it lacks a rational, observationally-sourced basis to start with.

This site's safety

Safety of the site itself

This site uses no cookies or other tracking devices, and it doesn't use scripts, apart from the very secure NMS Formmail Perl script on the contact page form, and the simple bot trap PHP script. Apart from those, this site doesn't at all use server-side software, such as WordPress or FCKEditor, which are such targets for hackers.

Also, I maintain and work upon the site on my own multilayer-protected computer, with rotating daily data and system backups, so if the site did get hacked, (a) I'd know about it at least the next day because of unusual activity showing up in my site statistics, and (b), I could easily wipe out the problem by replacing the whole online version of the site, including configuration files, from my local working copy.

Safety of the site's content — can people be harmed by it?

It contains no misinformation*, regardless of huge numbers of people disagreeing with it because it counters their particular beliefs. Thus that source of potential harm is absent. All the supposedly weird (simply orthodoxy-busting) notions on this site are simply working assumptions for one's own healing / self-actualization process, and are not statements of how things are or even might be — i.e., in any objective sense. All that therefore is intrinsically benign, despite what all the belief-driven detractors have been saying.

The other main question is, of course, whether the methods I give could harm anyone.

Here we need to apply common sense and understanding, because the reality is that no aspect of our life experience is completely safe, and 100% safety is thus not in our reality at all. When a person says this or that is completely safe, that tells us that the person, perhaps still with the best of intentions, isn't thinking properly, if indeed (s)he's meaning to be honest in the first place.

The methods given on this site are fundamentally fully benign, because they involve just using simple procedures to align the intent of your conscious 'ordinary mind' with your deeply-sourced remediational or 'healing' intent, and then enabling your deepest aspects to push through your various inner blockages to carry out such tasks as dissolving feedback loops, emotional button-pushing and illusory realities, and healing the vulnerabilities (distortions in your non-physical aspects) that the underlying troublesome influence — which I call the garbage — was exploiting to carry out the particular interferences or indeed attacks.

However, as with ANY method, from ANY source, aimed at some sort of non-medical healing, use of the methods given on this site in ungrounding / spacing-out ways would tend to make one more vulnerable rather than less so to the garbage (i.e., nowadays the ingrained patterns that are mimicking it), and thus potentially to suffer increased interference / attacks. At least that, although very unpleasant, isn't lasting harm, provided that one takes requisite grounding measures reasonably promptly. In many places on my site I explain the need always to carry out ALL life activities in grounding rather than ungrounding ways — very much including use of my methods.

When a user of my methods does find they're getting (more) attacks after using particular methods of mine, apart from the occasional compulsive self-sabotager (who would have that or a lot worse result from their use of pretty-well any other methods), they know to change tack a bit and attend to their grounding, carrying out the particular method(s) in a correspondingly more grounding manner, and generally experimenting to find what works best for them. Self-command and self-sufficiency is encouraged in my methodology, because that approach is intrinsically grounding, strengthening and self-empowering. That's how I got myself out of my own desperate 'hole'.

By contrast, all other methodologies I'm aware of that are notionally pointing in a sort-of similar direction to mine, are intrinsically ungrounding, and load their users with actually harmful beliefs and illusory realities as standard, so that the users are accumulating serious problems, at least in the long-run. That includes all meditation-based methodologies.

Of course, anyone can have something untoward happen when using ANY method at all, or none, for the simple reason that unrelated problems can coincide. Just because you become ill later in the day doesn't necessarily mean that there was anything wrong with your earlier meal at a highly reputable or indeed ill-regarded restaurant! For that reason in particular, I'm careful not to give safety guarantees, beyond explaining the fundamental benignity of the methods, and the strategy to adopt if / when you get any impression of garbage interference / attack come to your notice.

It really is a matter of applying common sense and not getting paranoid about Is this safe? or 'what might happen'.

Indeed, generally speaking, when a person is asking that question — Are Philip Goddard's ideas and methods safe?, they're really speaking out of an ingrained fear of trying anything that might be genuinely life-changing. Such people are generally looking for excuses for not making radically positive changes in their lives.

The quoted question is full of misunderstanding, in fact. As already noted, nothing in this life is 100% safe! Stay in bed for the rest of your life, to be sure you won't be splatted by a bus when you cross the road! But no, don't go to bed at all, because you might roll over too far and fall onto the floor and sustain injuries! … I could go on and on about that, but I hope one gets the picture!

If I were selling my methods, on the basis of a 'selling-a-dream' sort of list of improvements you're supposed to get from those methods, and with no mention about issues that particular people might have arise from use of the methods, then, I'd be falling into line and doing just what the vast majority of people disseminating their own purported life-improvement methods / products do. That's a relatively unsafe to downright harmful way of going about things. Generally speaking, the main benefit there would be just to the practitioner's / guru's bank balance!

Why is that so harmful? — Because the practitioner / guru / purveyor is then playing on his customers' / clients' gullibility, seeking to get them to trust him when they have little or no genuine grounds for doing so! They then regard the methods / products as something 'cut and dried', which effectively takes over their responsibility for their own well-being. That's disempowering for them, and renders them more ungrounded, gullible, and vulnerable to the garbage.

My own approach aims to keep things not just as safe as possible, but also as beneficial as possible, not through telling people I and my methods are safe and trustworthy, but by giving them a proper understanding of the methods and how to use them, and giving detailed exceptionally candid accounts of my own relevant life experience to assist them with a whole mass of very helpful understanding of what they're dealing with and issues that may arise, and ways to address them. That way, people are being invited and encouraged to take proper responsibility for themselves — something that's strongly deficient in the vast majority of people.

One particular safety advantage of my whole methodology over that of the majority of 'healing' / 'self-realization' methods or traditions is that this is intrinsically a fully do-it-yourself 'system'. Therefore it lacks all the potentiality for picking up new issues and compounding extant ones, that is such a hallmark of practitioner- / guru- / teacher-mediated systems. That should be no surprise, considering the problems I found with all the 'healers' and 'teachers' who I had dealings with. — Yes, I learnt the hard way what a mass of problems those individuals carry and readily transmit to others, despite all their façades of inscrutable perfection! — And most of those charge you good money for their actually harmful services, while my writings and methods are available free of charge!

"This site is contradicting scientific / expert consensus, so is of poor quality"

Oh no, it isn't!
(Please do read the relevant pages more carefully, without preconceived notions this time!)

If people, including those who rate sites for search engines, understood the decidedly shaky nature of what they're regarding as 'scientific [/ expert] consensus', there would be much less of a problem. The reality is that even if a particular consensus is genuinely scientifically based, or 'expert-based' (whatever is meant by an 'expert'), it can and readily does become an orthodoxy — a belief by any other name, — and thus then has divorced itself from its original scientific basis.

So, somebody else can independently publish new data, and understandings based on those data, which are patently and indeed maybe potently genuine, and which challenge one of those 'scientific' orthodoxies, and have his/her work widely discounted simply because (s)he isn't part of the scientific 'community' or 'Establishment' and hasn't already gained their approval. What use is that?

— Indeed, isn't it fundamentally the responsibility of search engine site assessors to do their best to recognise such cases and effectively whitelist their sites (at least, provisionally) so they don't get caught in the traps that are really intended for misinformational and otherwise harmful sites and thus get substantially down-ranked?

True, a lot of quacks and pseudo-scientists do exist and are quite a problem for us all, and I greatly welcome sensitively applied search engine site assessment procedures to penalize their harmful pages, but there also exist a sprinkling of maverick individuals who are genuine explorers and thinkers who have sharper and more flexible mental faculties than the vast majority of professional scientists but for various circumstantial reasons have remained more or less completely outside the professional scientific 'community', and tend to be shunned by the latter because of their orthodoxies that are being challenged.

One great 'Achilles heel' of the whole 'scientific' Establishment — materialistic reductionism

Science is tremendous! — That is, genuine science, where/whenever it's unpolluted by beliefs, orthodoxies or personal or political agendas.

In practice, the 'scientific' Establishment's firm attachment to the materialist-reductionist belief system (materialistic reductionism) is a particular extremely harmful example of its shortcomings. That may not be a significant issue, say, for identifying new viruses and developing vaccines to protect us against them, or understanding the minutiae of the Universe on a physical basis — BUT it's one HELL of a big issue in the arena of what people in their ignorance call the 'mind'.

Psychiatry and 'mental health' (its widely used euphemism) is a virtually total disaster area, all because it and its practitioners fail to understand in the slightest degree either the nature of what they're calling the 'mind', or even to recognise that there are, or at the very least could be, non-physical underlying causes for the various disturbances of one's day-to-day life experience that people experience, which need to be identified, understood and resolved.

Psychiatry also hasn't even a valid working model of what a fully, healthily functioning human being is like (WTF!!!), so it has no valid yardstick as to how much, and what sorts of, positive change need to be aimed for in their clients. Where's the sense in that?!!

What the psychiatry / 'mental health' Establishment uses in lieu of a valid working model is to rely upon a vague notion of what is within a socially acceptable range of supposed 'normality' — completely failing to understand that ALL 'normal' people are in at least considerable degree dysfunctional, never mind how well they appear to ordinary people to be doing in their lives.

In my tellingly no-pussyfooting page How all psychiatrists could begin genuinely to help their clients, with a loving directness and lack of deference that is pressingly needed, I explain the extent to which the whole field of so-called 'mental health' / psychiatry is desperately off the rails, and what they need to do to start getting themselves properly on-course. They need to learn and get practising the very basic principles of addressing and resolving ANY issue — something their materialistic belief system has so far prevented them from doing. Those principles are clearly presented in the aforementioned page.

What psychiatry's practitioners are doing is consistently ignoring and seeking to hide any trace of a notion of underlying non-physical causes (because within their belief system any causes can only be physical ones — i.e., in the brain), and so they inflict upon their patients victims a range of harmful to seriously destructive treatments to try and suppress the troublesome manifestations and so HIDE the real issue! It's like doctors and co-workers in a supposedly real hospital giving a patient with serious heart problems treatments with painkillers and local anaesthetic to ameliorate the chest pains, without recognising the existence of a mysterious thing called the heart (those who recognise the existence of a 'heart' are mentally disordered, of course)!! — Seriously, it's that unscientifically based!

Genuine science adapts its understandings and methodology to the framework of reference of each respective arena in which it's applied — including recognising its own limitations and constraints within the respective arena. OUR science does so at best only patchily, with a complete loss of its marbles when it comes to the human 'mind', because the crucial understandings required there take one outside the materialist-reductionist belief system. In other words, our science is great, tremendous, for so many things, but genuine science currently simply doesn't exist to any recognisable extent in the field of so-called 'mental health'.

The point I'm coming to here is that this site at least largely concurs with any genuinely scientific consensus, particularly because I have a scientific background, and science has always been in my blood — but this site strongly contradicts and blows the whistle on a pervasive, stultifying and desperately harmful UNscientific, belief-based and glaringly irrational consensus among the professionals with regard to all that is perceived to be 'of the mind'.

Are Philip Goddard's working model and methods peer-reviewed?

Here, not wishing or meaning to cause offence, I have to say in some exasperation to askers of that ill-considered and orthodoxy-based question, Come on — please get your brain into gear and get RATIONAL yourself about this!.

Really! I've made it abundantly clear all over this site that, as far as I can tell, I'm a sole pioneer in this work, with a wide range of the belief-based disciplines and traditions (and apparently Google) pitted against it, not because there's anything misinformational, anti-science or harmful about it but because their belief systems drive the people carrying them to ignore or seek to suppress what contradicts / challenges their beliefs, no matter how beneficial and important that challenge may be. In some cases vested business interests are involved too.

As I'm a lone pioneer in a fully rational approach to self-actualization and genuine mental health, of course at this stage my work hasn't been peer-reviewed — for the blindingly obvious reason that there aren't and couldn't be any professionally recognised 'peers' who are suitably qualified to review it, because at the moment such individuals are all locked into their own particular orthodoxies and belief systems! Surely it doesn't require 'rocket science' to recognise that simple fact!

So, the fact that my work isn't 'peer-reviewed', at least in the sense usually meant, doesn't tell you anything about the quality of my work and methods — though it does help underline their uniqueness. If there were relevant 'peers', who would have to be outside all traditions, disciplines and orthodoxies, then of course my work would be reviewed by them!

Let's remember, too, that the peer-reviewed papers in professional journals on psychiatric treatments and 'methodology' are all within a totally BOGUS modality, which does its patients victims immense harm at almost every turn, because its fool practitioners are all colluding in trying to apply a medical model to the human 'mind' in attempts to hide the clients' issues, and so consistently evade any suggestion of addressing the real (non-physical) underlying cause of client issues. Again, please see How all psychiatrists could begin genuinely to help their clients.

At the moment there's only one (two-pronged) way to get a reasonable idea of whether my work and methodology are any good:

• Read carefully through this site, having set aside ALL belief and preconceptions, and see for yourself the rational, belief-free basis of it all;

• Get some idea of the effectiveness of my working model and methodology by experimentally taking it on yourself over at least a few months (including using the core practices as near daily as you can manage), and also seeing what other people using it say about it. I've already given links for that further above.

  — But be aware that the methods' effectiveness does depend on the user having sufficient (right) motivation, depth of awareness, and mental clarity / focus to start with. Also, generally it can't be expected to work well for anyone who tries out the methodology with an intent to find fault with it. That's self-sabotaging, and I'm well aware that plenty of people do that sort of thing, because they're living in so much fear of the degree of positive change that my methods can bring about.

  They (well, some of them) want to be 'cured', yet at the same time want to continue living more or less the same way apart from that dratted 'cure'! They'd not get anywhere of any use with that outlook, and can look forward to recurrences and very likely progressive increase of troublesome episodes at various times through the rest of their lives, because the real issue had never been addressed!

"The site's standpoint and methodology are highly controversial"

In forums and other places where people draw attention to or comment upon this site, I've seen the above, and variants thereof, commonly stated with regard to this site's contents. What such statements tell you first and foremost is that the individuals who made them are 'sheep', who seek to use pejorative rhetoric to dismiss or at least to render unappealing anything that challenges their own limited, belief-constrained view of the life experience. They are the modern equivalents of the ignorant people who opposed the rationally-derived early models of our solar system and Universe put forward by Copernicus and Galileo.

Yes, in the broader context I'm in some very good company, albeit my 'discoveries' being more in the arena of philosophy / metaphysics and of course what people unhelpfully call mental health — and, more to the point, addressing the overall problem of human irrationality and general dysfunction!

The reality is that NOTHING in the whole of 'Existence' is intrinsically or objectively 'controversial', just as nothing is intrinsically good, bad, or right or wrong. So, if you want to describe in a rational and useful way something that's challenging to majority views you need to say exactly what's significant about it, leaving out that empty and prejudicial epithet 'controversial'.

The particular attribute of my writings on this site that has earned them the 'sheep' appellation of 'controversial' is simply that they challenge and cut through existing beliefs and orthodoxies, and are rationally based for a change! The fact that my writings are putting forward a (tiny) minority view and are exceptionally challenging to the outlooks of the hugely vast majority, however, doesn't in itself inform you as to the quality or otherwise of those writings.

If you want to establish the worth of these writings, then, you'd need to read carefully through them and actually test for yourself the working model and methodology and thus find out to what extent they're rationally, and indeed directly evidence-based, rather than just spouting yet more of the quagmire of belief and 'received wisdoms' and twisted reasoning that has fouled up the whole of human existence so far. You'd need to see if the working assumptions in my working model make more comprehensive and helpful sense of the life experience, and enable more issues to be resolved, than all the other extant views and belief systems about the nature of 'reality' and the life experience.

In fact, as already emphasized, these writings are conceived and very much based in a rational, self-scrutinizing mindset, and based on actual personal observations and rigorous interpretation and testing, the like of which I've never seen in any other writings on the issues that I cover here. For this reason, in terms of real integrity and worth, they stand head and shoulders above all the much more popular and highly rated writings relating to the nature of reality and of human experience, including all religious scriptures and all the other siren outpourings from 'spiritual' teachers, gurus, channelled 'great Masters', and traditions and all that. So of course the 'sheep' vast majority automatically react by using prejudicial and at least implicitly pejorative terms to describe my work (and indeed me).

How can the most rational and practical approach to the whole arena of understanding the nature of reality, and the life experience that we've had so far, be described as 'controversial' and thus implicitly of very dubious worth? Unfortunately that appellation immediately associates this soundly-based working model and methodology with all manner of quack and scam methods and modalities that also get ill-advisedly called 'controversial' when actually more aware and rational people would describe them as what they really are — ill-founded or indeed fully scam systems (nothing controversial about that!).

It's a bitter irony that the writings on healing, self-actualization and the nature of reality and human experience that are not described as 'controversial' are to varying extents irrationally based — usually based simply on belief and 'received wisdom' (which is just more belief) or various cocktails of pseudo-science and false reasoning, and are all at least to some extent harmful — very much including of course all 'holy' books and scriptures, regardless of which tradition or belief system they're associated with.

Please therefore let's all drop use of that weasel word 'controversial' for anything at all, and learn to use a proper objective description of the particular object / writing / challenge / issue that's being referred to. That would benefit everyone.

"The site's bounce rate is very high, so it can't be any good!"

That of course is another 'sheep' statement, made by people who have little or no understanding of website traffic dynamics and the various factors that determine a page's bounce rate! — Let's explain.

The so-called 'bounce rate' is the proportion of site visitors who land on one page and then leave it without clicking through to any other pages on the site. While I don't have that figure for any of my sites, I have no doubt at all that for this site it would be much higher than people would expect for a supposedly good site, and would presumably be regarded as very poor indeed to the owner of a commercial website, and cause for alarm.

But does that really mean that this site is really of poor quality, with regard either to design or to its content? — In fact no doubt the vast majority of people, full of their own beliefs and preconceived notions, would say that indeed this site is lamentably poor in all sorts of ways. However, this site wasn't primarily intended for that vast majority in the first place. Indeed, this site has an integrity that many a more popular site lacks: it presents information and a working model and methodology that challenge a huge range of majority views and beliefs, with a level of honesty that can never be approached by any belief-based site contents (belief intrinsically being a self-dishonesty).

Therefore, the majority who come here would start reading on their landing page and would pretty quickly shrug their shoulders with a discreet Oh dear! or somewhat less discreet What a f*cking idiot!, and would promptly go elsewhere (and of course the odd one sending me an argumentative or abusive email via the Contact page).

My page How to die peacefully and with dignity has a very high bounce rate, so there's something wrong with it, is there? — If you stop and think about it, of course it would have a high bounce rate! Most people visiting that page are wanting to die or indeed to commit suicide. To their disappointment / frustration they find that the page is presenting a whole approach that most people wanting suicide wouldn't be interested in, because they're desperate and fixated on going ahead with suicide.

Yet that page nonetheless saves lives, because a small proportion of visitors to that page do actually 'get the message' and suddenly realize that I'm presenting on this site a genuine means for them to clear themselves of the very issue that's making them want to 'end it'. I can go only so far in trying to get the message across, because the majority of people are just too closed in their outlooks, and set in their ways.

That page is correctly titled and described, but it isn't about how to commit suicide (surely if it was, its title would say so!), and indeed it emphasizes that the real need for most people feeling an apparent need to die at the present time is to clear their emotional issues / garbage interferences that are making them feel driven towards 'ending it' — and it points to means presented on this site for them to get clearing those issues.

Similarly, this site's homepage has a very high bounce rate. That's inevitable, because lots of people looking for quality sites on 'self-realization' find this page in search engine lists, and so land on it, then, again, leave it with an Oh dear!or something much less complimentary, basically because they were really wanting it to be another spirituality-based (and thus belief-based) site that at least reasonably keyed in with their own beliefs. Yet there's no way that I can usefully or legitimately change the site's SEO (search engine optimization) to attract more of the 'right' people and less of the 'wrong' ones — that is, apart from the odd small detail tweaks that I make here and there. It's not my fault that almost universally people believe 'self-realization' is part of spirituality!

Also, this page gets a lot of spurious visits that I have to assume come from computers that are part of one or more botnets. They look like genuine visits, though not giving a referrer string, and so can't be filtered out of my site statistics, but there's a certain pattern of the number of them varying in sync with the number of hacking attempts caught in my sites' bot trap system. They fluctuate between a roughly estimated additional 25% and 150% of what I estimate would be the genuine traffic that appears in my statistics for supposedly non-bot traffic for this page. Its bounce rate appears thus to be much inflated by a lot of mystery spurious traffic. In any case, generally a site's homepage would always be the primary one to get targeted by unwanted bots, some of which disguise themselves as regular browsers and so all too often can't be filtered out from the statistics.

Of course, anyway it's the 'sheep' mentality and not common sense that believes that what isn't liked by a fair proportion of the population must be rubbish. This site is about cutting right through all that nonsense and actually getting looking at and understanding what's actually there — not what people believe is there!

As the saying almost goes, If you really can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen - but please do hang on just a little to give yourself a chance to rethink and get seeing what you're missing!

"What a lot of rubbish you've written!…"

Sure! In case you missed it further above, just have a look at these examples and living proof of what rubbish I write.

This site saves lives. — Many of them! Not just figuratively but actually.

'The proof of the pudding is in the eating', as they say. What could be more rubbish than that?!!