I see haha, it’s like Richard had some secret juice because he got to where he was the quickest so we must copy him step by step even when he is specifically advising not to.
Perhaps it was the millions of other variables that made Richard - Richard that were responsible for his ability to plough on so quick.
I mean there would be 1 way to test this theory @rick and that is to commit yourself towards this ‘original route’ and see what happens.
Though it makes sense to heed the warnings of someone who has been there and done that, quickest of all as well! To avoid his advice whilst trying to emulate what he did step by step seems like an insult to Richard’s integrity.
Is he knowingly dishing out half baked advice? Has he kept the best ingredients to himself? Is he just too old and forgetful now?
Just saying to keep an open mind about these four-letter actualist words. Yesterday the AFT regarded empathy as contraindicative. Today it’s being prescribed. Who knows - maybe tomorrow, forgiveness?
Ok so in this scenario Richard goes public with a method that he unknowingly got kinda wrong. He goes out to the world to proclaim that he has found a way out of the human condition for all without having a supremely high level of confidence in the method first? Again this is an insult to his integrity, it would amount to spewing out solutions without knowing with certainty that they work.
Why is it that Rick knows better? When he has less qualifications to make any statements? Yet it is Richard who must have somehow missed some crucial bit of information and not Rick?
It seems kinda back to front to me haha. It’s like when I am teaching BJJ and I show a white belt some principle or technique that I have come to learn from years of training, I have utter confidence in this technique and how it is to be executed, I am qualified in knowing that it will benefit them, and yet the white belt will turn their head and instead copy some cool move they saw on YouTube because somehow they know better, so be it I guess, then they end up taking the longer way.
This is not to say that Richard is infallible but it seems there is theme in your writings Rick, to put more emphasis on seeking out apparent contradictions in how the method is presented than to try to comprehend where it is that you might be off. It’s like the lack of personal success must be because the method itself is wrong, could it be the other way around?
Hmm this is interesting. We’re directly talking about ways to do it. You’re saying Richard succeeded by maximizing love and compassion , and that this is an effective way to go out from control … so the way for you to do it would be to do just that (maximize love and compassion).
And then you will see if it works (results in out from control) and then you can report what happened if you’re so inclined.
Yeah I agree, this is the line that has to be somehow carefully navigated, to apply one’s own intelligence instead of blindly accepting someone else’s vision. But at the same time ignoring the warnings of others who have been there is not wise either. It would mean starting everything from scratch. How do I know that the guy who designed my car did it right? Should I learn everything about how a car functions before I get in and drive? What if that %0.001 chance that he got it wrong is true.
I particularly like the “if you know how, do it!” challenges.
That’s the acid test for sure.
On a slightly tangential note, but perhaps useful;
We use the words “love” “compassion” “empathy” et al, in a very nebulous way, due to the limitations of english.
Growing up I taught myself to read Koine greek and Hebrew. Enough to try and find out the “secret sauce” in the bible. Anyway, as a part of that journey, it turns out the Greeks had (have?) 6 different words for “love”. For us, we need to add adjectives to achieve the same meaning.
Which particular aspect of love does Richard name?
Agape love.
That is a direct use of the Koine greek used in the bible for “God’s love”.
For God so loved (agape) the world, that he gave his only son to die for it. (Jesus was God). He gave himself, in other words.
(Leaving aside the theology for now)
It right there in the exact word used, what type of love Richard was generating. A completely sacrificing one.
Of course, as anyone who has ever tried this, it’s not a 24/7 experience. It devolves into other flavours very easily. Eros, especially. One can’t go too far down path before the reproductive instinct is taking over.
However, I notice that like many others since the 60s who started using this word, Agape, the goal isn’t to sacrifice oneself for the world, but rather to spread this Agape love.
However, this type of love is specifically not the “spreadable” kind. It is sacrifice.
So, like so many within Christianity, those who have not understood the word itself, perpetuate the error that God’s love needs “spreading”.
Within Christian theology, properly speaking, God’s love is absolute. According to St John, Christ was slain before the foundation of the world. Jesus (God) dying for the world was always Plan A.
Take that as you may, but again, there is a clear distinction and “fork” between two different concepts of “Love”.
One that gets “spread around” in gooey globs of self important “vibes”.
And one which willingly lays down the entire omnipotence of being God, to get nailed to a cross. Willingly, and knowing beforehand that was his plan.
So, I would say that if Richard is in error, it’s one of naming here.
Agape, properly used, would describe completely giving oneself to the point of death.
I wouldn’t ask Richard to change the wording, as his “spreading agape love” use is exactly how it is understood in spiritual circles.
However, I wonder, considering how much he was deliberately sacrificing himself (the famous “neither express nor repress” episode with his then wife was surely not an isolated thing), that he was inadvertently using the correct word, but the action which got mixed in was the “spreading of vibes” type of “love”.
You know what - personally it actually makes little difference to me whether the road sign says maximize or minimize.
I’m unable to do either one.
This particular psyche has a mind/will of its own evidently.
Kudos to those who can manage to direct their feelings up and down, left and right.
My writing, exploration, and scrutinization was also intended as a message to those who may beat themselves up about indulging in or succumbing to “good” feelings, aka actualist no-no feelings.
Don’t beat yourself up for feeling those feelings. Hell, you’d be in good company. The best, actually.
Incidentally, it was perhaps the Buddhist conception of “Meta” which got pasted over the Christian concept of “Agape” which created the modern misuse of “Agape”.
I remember doing “Meta” meditation with Ajahn Brahms monks. Actively “spreading out” a feeling of compassionate love to all beings.
It is clearly not the same thing. An infinite and eternal god can’t be “spread out” or generated.
The Christian theology is literally “It is no longer I who lives, but Christ that lives in me”.
It’s a tangent, however the point is defining exactly what Richard was doing psychically, especially in light of his report of deliberately breaking down the identity, the social and instinctual aspects which had been seen to be in the way of “pure intent” (the palpable life force kind), I would lean to his “love” being first more of the Christian “Agape”, and later the Hindu/Buddhist “Meta”.
The only part that doesn’t line up is that there’s no actualist “no-no” feelings to beat yourself up about feeling. Though it’s obviously super common for people to do so. But no morality in actualism you write as if there is
Besides that - indeed silly to beat yourself up for feeling these things
@rick This is the good old ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ thing again.
If ‘I’ split ‘myself’ from ‘my’ feelings then I have this little person who is having feelings happen to them whilst at the same time being somehow separate from those feelings. This little person might try to control these feelings but he realises that this never quite works. So in the end ‘you’ just accept that ‘you’ cannot do anything about the way ‘you’ feel, ‘you’ are a victim to ‘your’ psyche.
If you trace back to the moment when the feeling (whichever one) was maximised/minimised or what have you, you will see that it was indeed ‘you’ who did it, most likely because ‘you’ felt that this was the appropriate way to respond - usually due to some belief but it could also be more of an instinctual reaction. Becoming aware of the ways in which ‘I’ respond and the reasons why ‘I’ respond in that particular way opens up a possibility to respond in a different way.
I would only say that it’s rather that you believe ‘it’ does
You are said psyche of course …
Ok I’ll say another thing - if you have no control say or direction in any of this then what’s the point of thinking about and writing about these things anyway? It won’t change anything either way.
You know what - personally it actually makes little difference to me whether the road sign says maximize or minimize.