Vineeto to Kuba: That’s why a mere conceptual assessment is not enough – you need the ongoing experiential confirmation that not only is an actual freedom what you want to have but that it is what you want to be. With this clarity the perspective shifts to a down-to-earth action to imitate the actual and make this the number one priority of your life, practically and pragmatically.
Then your evaluation won’t be from the all-or-nothing frame of reference as in “yet in the cave ‘we’ remain” but how much better your life has already become despite not having become actually free yet.
Claudiu: How does this work though since I can never be actually free? Since I have to disappear entirely for actual freedom to be what is, since it is the disappearance of me? (link)
Hi Claudiu,
Welcome back.
I appreciate that you interrupted your present hiatus to point out that what I wrote to Kuba could potentially misleading, especially for an actualist who is not experiencing what Kuba described (link). When I wrote “you need the ongoing experiential confirmation that not only is an actual freedom what you want to have but that it is what you want to be”, I was responding to Kuba’s words that “it is not Terra Actualis but it is certainly not reality anymore.”
I remember ‘Vineeto’s’ condition at this point very well where, although ‘she’ was rarely in a long-lasting PCE, nevertheless frequent apperceptive moments, i.e. ‘self’-less perception, occurred, where ‘she’ could not distinguish between ‘her’ doing it and it happening. Hence her ‘being’ and what ‘she’ wanted to be were increasingly in alignment even though the decisive event had not yet happened.
I also found your own writing from January this year –
Richard: Therefore a mortal or transitory shape or form, comprised of immortal or perpetual stuff, can indeed ‘know that which is immortal’, or, as I have said before, as this flesh and blood body only (which means sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being: as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And if you gaze deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars you will be standing naked before infinitude. (Richard, List B, No. 33g, 12 Oct 2001).
CLAUDIU: I reread it and was just blown away by how immaculate and perfectly articulated Richard’s writing is. I experienced what I’ve called “Richard’s energy” while reading it – which refers to pure intent, of course. The flawlessness of what he apperceptively wrought leaves nothing but admiration and a salient desire and aim – I want to be that! (link)
At that moment for you there was no question ‘who’ wanted to “be that” – it was obvious that ‘you’ were willing to abdicate in order for you “to be that”.
You asked –
Claudiu: How does this work though since I can never be actually free? Since I have to disappear entirely for actual freedom to be what is, since it is the disappearance of me? (link)
Magically. 
Now ‘you’ exist, now you don’t.
The way it works, described semantically correct, “to want to be that” would be spelt out this way –
Co-Respondent: I can’t say. It seems like it was the energy/ order that happened simply re-aligned. It is almost as if that is calling one, though there is fear to answer that call …
Richard: Does the fear increase if you allow yourself to consider that the words ‘it is almost as if that is calling one’ are the same-same as saying: this utter fullness is this brain’s destiny; this is what one is here for?
Co-Respondent: No, the fear abates. There is order in the perspective you express. Thanks for putting it like that.
Richard: Okay … this is important, vital, pivotal: ‘I’, the thinker, know that ‘I’ cannot do it … ‘I’ cannot disappear ‘myself’. Only the ‘utter fullness’ can, and the ‘utter fullness’ is ‘calling one’, each moment again, and it is only when ‘I’ fully comprehend – totally, completely, fundamentally – that to be living this ‘utter fullness’ is to be living ‘my’ destiny will one be able ‘to answer that call’.
This full-blooded endorsement means it then becomes inevitable.
Co-Respondent: Are you being predatory?
Richard: I do not have that capacity … only you can allow yourself to be ‘taken away’ .
Co-Respondent: As the thinker assuming divided existence through a one-dimensional adulterating of the more than 3-D fullness of that, I doubt ‘I’ am going anywhere.
Richard: On the contrary … ‘you’ are going into oblivion for this is ‘your’ birthright. The doorway to freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind … for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of accomplishment. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement … it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while.
It is not an event to be missed … ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory. [Emphases added]. (Richard, List B, No. 25f, 18 June 2000).
I think it is serendipitous that you came back to the forum at this junction of the discussion because the last entry in your journal was –
Kuba: Effectively it is that the experiential aspect is traded for an intellectual involvement.
So the experience of actuality is it’s own verification, not sure why ‘I’ am so hellbent on making a synthetic map out of it, as if the experience itself needs additional support…
Claudiu: Yes it’s something like this. You can always make a ‘story’ about whatever happened. But the story is never the thing. So describing the thing ends up being making a narrative of it and I don’t find it helpful to me or others at the moment. (link)
What Kuba eventually discovered in the meantime was that –
Kuba: I think where I have gone wrong (quite severely) in the past is where it concerned blending the above into ‘my’ moment to moment experiencing. What I can see now is that there is actually no way for ‘me’ to enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive if ‘I’ am not at the very least sincere. Because if ‘I’ am not sincere it means there is something to hide and there are parts of ‘me’ in opposition.
(…)
I wonder why the resistance to sincerity in the first place, it seems fundamentally that ‘I’ don’t want to be seen. ‘I’ go into some extraordinary efforts to hide, to split, to deceive etc. And actually the way of ‘me’ hiding is the painful and difficult way, the way of ‘my’ exposure is the way to ‘my’ dissolution and that is actually the easy way. (link)
Only ruthless honesty and sincerity can discover, recognize and disable such ancient, deep-seated patterns that you would then describe as narratives.
To (inadvertently) maintain the old paradigm (‘me’) and attempt to merge it with actualism, the resulting experiences are of the “ethereal/ non-existent/ imagined target of projected perfection” as Felix so aptly called it (link). Because when the progress in becoming increasingly happy and harmless and more frequently able to enjoy and appreciate being here is tangible, noticeable and demonstrable, it is quite easy to describe.
Since everyone has grown up and was conditioned in the ‘Tried and Failed’ paradigm, there can well be pockets of this spiritual, ‘it’s-all-in-your-mind’ perception regarding actualism practice. And the sooner one discovers any remnants of such blue-print, the sooner one can experience the down-to-earth success when applying the actualism method, which can easily be recognized and described.
Cheers Vineeto