@milito.paz has apparently started a rumor that the actually free Vineeto cried when a police officer wrote her a ticket, and used this as a way to excuse himself for acting in potentially odd ways:
@Kub933 used the same example to similarly excuse any perceived “weirdness” on the part of one claiming to be actually free:
Vineeto has decided to clarify the matter, and she just posted it on the Actual Freedom Trust website, which I reproduce here:
Humm this is more akin to Milito’s “rushed skim-reading” (Milito’s Journal - #91 by milito.paz) than your usual thoughtful caring and consideration and detailed analysis of a topic at hand!
For me it’s very clearly different, and provides important context.
“Vineeto can cry when a cop writes her a ticket”: Implies causation. Cop writes ticket → Vineeto cries in response. A very typical feeling-being reaction. Why would an actually free person cry in response to getting a ticket? How weird! Well if a fully actually free person can cry as a reaction to a negative event, that must mean any oddities any claimant makes must be ok to overlook
“Vineeto cries to get out of trouble with police”: Implies intent. Vineeto encounters police. Vineeto wants to get out of trouble with them. So, she cries. The motivation and intent for the crying is from Vineeto’s side. Why might she do it? It’s certainly manipulative. But, maybe she had good reasons. Very strange anyways! How odd the actually free people are, I guess they can really get up to anything and it’s ok, doesn’t mean they aren’t free. Us feeling-beings cannot judge, we are too clouded by our feelings to be able to discern, we should just believe what someone who claims to be free says .
Both are missing the vital context of what prompted Vineeto’s “crying”, and also how it happened, and what the conclusion and reason for telling the story in the first place is.
What actually happened:
Cop wants to pull Vineeto over
Vineeto deems it unsafe to pull over immediately, so she slows down, drives a bit further, and then pulls over
The cop becomes passionately upset about this
Vineeto explains why she did it, but it doesn’t help, the cop continues being passionately upset about it
Vineeto realizes further explanation won’t work
Concomitant with realizing the officer wants her to feel remorse, she allows a “true facsimile of a feeling” to manifest, starting as “an uprising of a sob from the gut area” where she “allowed it to continue”.
The cop is satisfied at this apparent display of remorse, and, having gotten what he wanted, calms down and writes her the ticket.
Conclusion of the story: a common fear that feeling-beings have is that they need feelings to navigate the feeling-being world, and thus they will be “handicapped when dealing with feeling beings”. Vineeto’s story shows that even this fear is unfounded, a fully actually free person with no trace of affect or feelings, can still produce, when needed, a convincing facsimile of an feeling, to easily and smoothly navigate the world-as-it-is with people-as-they-are.
A few vital differences between what actually happened and the mischaracterizations of what happened:
Vineeto did not initiate the sob from her side or her own impetus. She understood that this is what the cop wanted, and it was a response to what the cop wanted.
The impetus for the sobbing was neither a reaction to getting a ticket, nor a desire to get out of trouble. It was to give the cop what they wanted so that the interaction could proceed to a reasonable conclusion.
She didn’t get out of trouble with the cop, he still wrote her a ticket.
There’s nothing about her story that can be construed as it being a weird thing that a fully free person can cry. It’s not an intuitive/emotional reaction. It wasn’t an intentful manipulation. It was a response to the circumstances at hand, sensibly and insightfully arrived-at (the together-with-the-realizing-it-happened as is typical of insights), and the amazing thing was that the facsimile of the emotion could be conveyed easily, smoothly, effortlessly, not as in a psycopath emulating an emotion but rather as a sensible response to the situation.
To use it as an example to discount out-of-hand, without digging into it, apparent weirdness of a claimant-to-being-free, and use it as a motivating factor to not dig in or do any due diligence to their claims, is neither sensible nor insightful nor productive for any involved!
What great timing that you write this just after I post the below
The thing is that the way I see the situation has not changed since you have detailed it just now or since Vineeto wrote her response. I never took it to be some hidden affective response or some manipulative tactic to begin with.
The reason I used this example still stands, even after all those detailed descriptions, it makes me think what was the point of all that?
And I can see why one would eventually leave the forum, because I can spend hours composing these meticulous posts but this is not how I want to be interacting. It’s the difference between sitting down and having a coffee with someone and being one of the correspondents on the AFT, I don’t want to be doing that second one and my suspicion is that this also prevents other people from freely engaging.
It’s like I remember one of my first posts on the old forum was something like “Hi guys, blah blah…I hope to make it all the way to actual freedom this time” and Alan’s first post to me was something along the lines of “Welcome, maybe replace the word hope and you’ll have a better chance”. It’s like come on man you know what I mean, we’re not on the AFT here.
I will answer in more full later but, for now, I’ll just ask you to look through your journal threads and see how much words and detail you spend in describing and examining yourself! I would call it meticulous, and highly discerning, all good traits. Just an example I quickly found: Kub933's Journal - #967 by Kub933 . Why not apply that same/similar energy to the topic under discussion here?
Well I guess the problem is I don’t even know what the topic under discussion is anymore This seems to be a common outcome of these super detailed discussions.
That meticulous energy needs to be directed at the crux of the issue, not all the fluff around it.
What is the crux here?
There is frustration, I think the same frustration you would have felt from Srinath if he was still a feeling being during those discussions we mentioned.
Just a few brief things, maybe it’s good to take some time to let what we’ve said sink in and ruminate
You mention a rift — maybe you’re looking for a feeling of safety or security or of which way to go? I think you can resolve this by going towards what you know to be actuality, towards pure intent, the EEs and PCEs you’ve had
I wrote what I did here because I found the distinctions important, and there wasn’t really a way to elucidate them all without lot of words!
I’ll say from my actual-freedom-mimicking-ASCs. Emotions are distorted in them (obviously). They still happen. But perceived as only physical, not really an emotion, a hangover etc… the distinction of how the sob came about for Vineeto vs “Vineeto cried cause/when/due to/while/etc a cop gave her a ticket” is really vital there for distinguishing between the two.
If there’s any doubt and experiential clarity is lacking, it does seem safer to go with what’s written on the AFT site, and what Richard and Vineeto write, rather than anyone else… up until that clarity is back.
I’ll let things percolate for myself a bit then can come back and hopefully adeptly address the crux !
.