Felipe: Now that I think about it more, there’s a reason why it was hard for most here to grasp what actualism was all about, even after decades of the method being public. The method was about feeling all along, and we didn’t quite realize it (to this day even, at least fully, in my case).
Hi Felipe,
Are you really suggesting that not only you but also most people (as in not just I but we all) were unable “to grasp what actualism was all about” because they did not understand that “the method was about feeling all along”?
Here is one quote from the go-to page for the actualism method, in the first paragraph under the second banner (I have highlighted the words ‘feeling’ and ‘affective’ (‘characterised by emotion; affectional, emotive’. (WordNet 2.0).) for your convenience –
Richard: This perpetual enjoyment and appreciation is facilitated by feeling as happy and as harmless as is humanly possible. And this (affective) felicity/ innocuity is potently enabled via minimisation of both the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ feelings. An affective awareness is the key to maximising felicity and innocuity over all those alternate feelings inasmuch the slightest diminishment of enjoyment and appreciation automatically activates attentiveness. [Emphases added]. (Richard, Articles, This Moment of Being Alive)
The inserted tooltip in this paragraph makes it even more clear –
[Respondent]: Could you list some examples of what you’d classify as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and what you’d classify as felicitous/ innocuous feelings so I could keep an eye out for them.
[Richard]: As a broad generalisation: the ‘good’ feelings are those that are of a loving (ardent feelings of profound affection and endearment) and a compassionate (empathetic feelings of deep sympathy and commiseration) nature; the ‘bad’ feelings are those that are of a malicious (spiteful feelings of intense hatred and resentment) and a sorrowful (melancholy feelings of yawning sadness and grief) nature; the felicitous feelings are those that are of a happy and carefree (blithesome feelings of great delight and enjoyment) nature; the innocuous feelings are those that are of a harmless and congenial (gracious feelings of ingenuous tranquillity and affability) nature.
The following may be of particular interest:
• [Richard]: ‘The felicitous/ innocuous feelings are in no way docile, lack-lustre affections … in conjunction with sensuosity they make for an extremely forceful/ potent combination as, with all of the affective energy channelled into being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible (and no longer being frittered away on love and compassion/ malice and sorrow), the full effect of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – which is ‘being’ itself – is dynamically enabled for one purpose and one purpose alone. (…) The actualism method is not about undermining the passions … on the contrary, it is about directing all of that affective energy into being the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (that is, ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself) in order to effect a deliberate imitation of the actual, as evidenced in a PCE [a pure consciousness experience], so as to feel as happy and as harmless (as free of malice and sorrow) as is humanly possibly whilst remaining a ‘self’.
Such imitative felicity/ innocuity, in conjunction with sensuosity, readily evokes amazement, marvel, and delight – a state of wide-eyed wonder best expressed by the word naiveté (the nearest a ‘self’ can come to innocence whilst being a ‘self’) – and which allows the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to the infinitude, which this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is, to operate more and more freely. This intrinsic benignity and benevolence, which has nothing to do with the imitative affective happiness and harmlessness, will do the rest.
All that was required was ‘my’ cheerful, and thus willing, concurrence’. [Emphases added]. (Richard, AF List, No. 60f, 29 Sep 2005).
Just out of curiosity, what did you think, for all those years, the actualism method “was about”?
Felipe: Similarly, when you talk about actualism to other people, look how they automatically categorize it as a philosophy or a religion/ spiritual pursuit. There seems to be a lack of a word to hit the nail on the head (perhaps a challenge/ opportunity to “market” it better? haha). (link)
Perhaps it would make more sense, when you introduce your particular … um … philosophy of actualism to others, to rather share your own experiential discoveries instead of a method you obviously have not yet understood even in principle. Possibly, your own difficulty in explaining actualism to others is because you are lacking experiential expertise/ confirmation (and not because of the lack of a word to describe the actualism method and aim). Besides, what good is ‘marketing’ when it’s misleading?
You could also watch out for a tendency to blame something else (i.e. the method and missing words) instead of finding the causes for the lack of expected results in your own misunderstanding –
Richard: What I have observed over many years is that a normal person has a propensity to blame – to find fault rather than to find causes – when it comes to dealing with the human condition … if for no other reason than that finding the cause means the end of ‘me’ (or the beginning of the end of ‘me’).
Whereas endlessly repeating mea culpa keeps ‘me’ in existence. (Richard, List AF, No. 27c, 9 Sep 2002).
I wish you speedy success now, in feeling happy and harmless, as you seem to begin to grasp “what actualism was all about”. A re-read of the instructions and associated webpages might be useful. (Library, Topics, Method). Some answers to the frequent questions and common objections could also be informative.
Cheers Vineeto