Because i am more “direct” . No talking about actualism, no theories about nature and the psyche etc, just “this is what i want, and this is where i am going”.
No specifics, but let’s say “gentle attention” sums up both.
I think that your assertion of there being no war to start with (whilst still being a being) , most certainly does not apply to yourself and anyone who is not free.
Psyche is war (and all the rest). If nothing else, a war with oblivion.
Being direct cuts through, one does not even have to raise one’s voice or be aggressive in any way. There is nothing there one is talking too, and nothing is doing the talking. All a passion of fantasy.
There is the idea, somehow held in the mind, “things can and should be better than this”
This seems a very doom and gloom statement to make, whilst there might not be a complete freedom from war, conflict etc it is certainly possible to be virtually free of war with oneself and the other. Just look at what Peter and Vineeto did whilst still feeling beings.
I can’t speak about Claudius relationship but I most definitely don’t experience myself at war with Sonya, definitely not whilst feeling good. There might be conflicts that crop up every now and then however they are more the outliers as opposed to the norm. The day to day interaction is that of relative equity, fun and peace, to call those ‘being at war’ would not be fitting at all.
And it is not a black or white situation, it is more a gradient of spending more and more time in less and less conflict with oneself and the other, all the way until conflict disappears forever.
And it starts from just feeling good now, If I am currently feeling good, enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive, there is no war, and this can be prolonged by continuing to feel felicitous/innocuous each moment over.
This is the great thing about actualism, that it delivers the goods along the way, to wait until the psyche is over in order to stop the war is to do nothing to improve one’s situation. It’s like waiting for that ‘something’ to clean up my life whilst I sit back and continue being malicious/sorrowful.
Hmm earlier you said it’s “pimp or be pimped” (ie a battle of control) - but based on your reply here it seems you conceive of what you’re doing now as “something else”. So by your own admission does it already mean you found an alternative to “pimp or be pimped”? Or do you fit the being more “direct” within this same framework of battle for control?
Hmm…I never asserted there was no war to start with. The battle of the sexes has been going on for millennia. What I said is that if there is no battle, no war, then there are neither winners nor losers — meaning there is an alternative to waging the war, that does not entail surrendering/capitulating.
So I’m recommending that instead of fighting the war and trying to win it - like countless men have done in the past - or admitting defeat/giving up and surrendering to the other - that another countless men have also done in the past - the way forward with regards to actualism is to stop fighting the war.
My experience is like @Kub933 - it isn’t black or white , there’s a gradient of less conflict , less battles , that is palpably noticeable when I compare it to the start of my relationship. Indeed it’s impossible to have zero conflict while being a feeling-being - that’s why the goal is to be virtually (as opposed to completely) happy and harmless and to minimize (as opposed to eliminate) the good and bad feelings - but minimized it can be, and very greatly so.
But if you’re just trying to win the war then you’ll never see the possibility of this.
Just a quick reply to this: I would be very interested in hearing more about your experience and what you have learned. Especially since you’re not in a relationship with another actualist. Maybe an idea for another article?
@claudiu.s@Kub933 , i also have had a relationship with next to zero conflict. 15 months living together, 3 years in total.
The absence of conflict is not the absence of war. Neither is is particularly hard to achieve.
Just settle for someone less than what you really want, then pretend it’s what you really want.
Not fighting the battle? That neither brings peace or freedom. Because the real battle is within oneself. Repression is the ongoing war.
People generally want to give each other what they perceive that person wants. Simply because that is easier way of getting along with people, it doesn’t require any courage or fortitude to go along with the path of least resistance.
It’s sorta funny to read two men saying “it not black and white” as if the appeal to such a position is revealing some nuance of insight.
It most definitely is black and white. All the grey is what is getting called “Cope” these days. Seemingly clever justifications hiding the pathetic reality that one is not getting the “prize” promised.
However, this is as always text. And it’s easy to type out positions reflecting “correct” points, or “incorrect” points, without actually exploring the territory under discussion.
I am not at war with my partner. Though if one was a fly on the wall, it may seem that way.
I am war. I am rotten through and through. The answer is not however to go with what the other is perceived to want.
It’s only when i am standing my ground, i can perceive myself and the other. I spent years believing an absence of conflict was a good thing. It’s “cope”. No different to the millions of grey souls compliantly keeping a false peace.
@Andrew What I am referring to is not just the absence of outward signs of conflict such as arguments, shouting, fighting etc. Of course one could just resign to live a mediocre life and bottle up any discontent so that on the outside one appears to be free of conflict and living the ‘perfect life/relationship’. That is the traditional path of repression and denial which is actually how a lot of normal relationships operate.
I am referring to a relative absence of sorrowfull/malicious vibes in me and between me and my partner and a palpable felicity/innocuity that has replaced those. This has nothing to do with coping or settling or giving the other what they want.
It has all to do with giving oneself fully to the other, enjoying and appreciating, fun, delight, naiveté, intimacy… Where in this can you see “grey souls compliantly keeping a false peace.” ?
The other thing that might be useful to bear in mind is to just think back to a moment when you were feeling good or happy and harmless, you will notice that in that moment the ‘war’ is virtually gone. In that moment you are not at war with yourself meaning that you cannot be at war with another. In order to be at war I must be sorrowful/malicious and if all of my energy is fuelled into feeling felicitous/innocuous then what energy is fuelling the ‘war’ ?
Sorry I am going off on one now I also have the image of my 4 year old brother who is always a great demonstration of naïveté, of course he is not innocent so he has the potential for malice/sorrow however a huge amount of his time is spent having a ball, it is very clear that in those moments he is not at war with himself one bit. So how much of this ‘war’ is learned and re-enacted? You could maybe think back to when you were a young child and pinpoint a time when the ‘war’ didn’t exist. Pinpoint a flavour of that naïveté because that is something that is possible to have again now for yourself and to share it with others.
The crux of what i am “standing up for” is “gentle attention”.
Whenever i perceive myself or her in the bedroom not being right here, but otherwise acting out a role, then i stop allowing that. When fantasy or those gentle senses and sensations are not there, i am guiding myself and her back.
I understand why saying “pimp or be pimped” isn’t going to come across with humour, but there is for me something about being able to lead, stand up without neediness or begging, and in a way use the same basic psychic manipulation to get what one wants.
Of course, this isn’t your experience. Or claudiu’s. It is mine however.
It’s also something i am writing down to remember.
This reminds me a little bit of a conversation that Richard had with someone who was abandoning the spiritual viewpoint and how they had this energy of indignation. Richard explained that this energy of indignation was necessary to break the emotional bond with the old way and it sounds like very much what is happening here.
I definitely remember feeling that way lots of times, a sorta ‘fuck you real world’ feeling when I was finally sick of having to live my life a certain way. And I think this is not an issue as long as the end goal is firmly kept in mind which means that even the indignation will eventually have to go and be replaced by felicity/innocuity, naïveté, purity.
Yes, same same. There is always that movement of being which is messy and not particularly thoughtful or even deliberate but reflects the basic sentiment “this is not it”.
I think that this post makes it “pimp or be pimped” a little more clear to me, but let me see if I understand it right.
Are you and your partner trying to experience together a new way of relating in bed? I infer this from your saying that you are not only trying to guide yourself but also her back [to the senses, I understand].
Is it correct that she also seeks/wants to achieve a “gentle attention”, or am I wrong and it is really a unilateral intention, only yours?
But could you describe a little more this “gentle attention”?
Is it an inner goal, related to the inner battle that you have described happening in you?
Is it an external objective, a behavior you want to achieve towards the other or a behavior you want the other to have with you? It can be both, sure.
Of course, this is not just another topic but your journal so, if you don’t want to, don’t answer/comment on anything I ask you (journals often doesn’t seek to get a coherent discussion, diverse voices, points of view, etc., but to brainstorm, record thoughts/emotions informally and incoherently, even merely do catharsis, etc.).
Oo boy you are a recalcitrant one. And very good at missing the point. I can see why Richard got stern with you and was “telling you off” when you met him in person
Maybe you can reflect back to our conversation about naivete? It seemed that that sparked something in you. If you are able to re-spark it again and then re-read what we’re writing then it might start to make more sense for you.
What you are talking about is the second alternative I listed, not the third. I’ll spell it out for you more clearly:
What you are clearly talking about in your response is the second alternative - admitting defeat, giving up, surrendering to the other, going with the “path of least resistance”, “keeping a false peace”, “going with what the other is perceived to want”, etc.
As such it should be abundantly obvious now that what me and Cuba are talking about is not this, but is a 3rd alternative, the alternative that actualism makes possible.
I tried the ‘surrender’ approach at first as well in my relationship and I found it very lacking. I just ended up feeling bad, I was too sincere to fool myself into believing that it is what I want.
I also tried the ‘fighting’ approach and it also found it very lacking – if I ‘lost’ I would feel worse than usual, yet if I ‘won’ then I would feel bad anyway because my partner felt bad as a result of losing, and I didn’t like that either.
So it seemed I was stuck between two shitty options – surrender and feel bad, or fight and both me and her feel bad.
But what I discovered is that it’s possible to not avoid conflict, in the sense of giving in, but also to be able to navigate conflict in a way that resulted in both of us being happy. The very core of it came down to refusing to be malicious with her – something which she noticed and appreciated. Thus even in the midst of an argument she is able to tell that there is no hard feeling, no malice, no resentment, from my side.
The other side of it was refusing to subsume my own happiness and put myself down. This way I would not give in to some form of compromise that I wouldn’t like anyway, which she would end up being unhappy with too because I was unhappy with it. It also forced me to actually confront the issues, at the risk of losing the relationship – which risk paid off immensely. It did require courage and fortitude to go on this path, and it was well worth it.
What it really comes down to is that we’re both adults, able to choose what we want to do with our lives. So I don’t impose any requirements or ‘must do’ on her. She is free to live her life as she pleases. And I am free to live mine as well. If she does things that are a dealbreaker for me then that would end the relationship, and likewise me with her. But so far we’ve been able to resolve everything where we’re both able to continue being happy in the relationship.
What if one was someone reading your posts in this journal? Because I only went by what you wrote earlier (emphasis added):
Is it not clear from what you wrote here that, whether or not you yourself are war, what you are describing is a war with women (among other things, including nature, with being a man, and with you yourself), which in the case of women is conceived as boiling down to being verbally direct, which you then started doing deliberately?
If this is inaccurate, it’s only because what you wrote earlier is inaccurate, regarding what you described as your war with women.
I’m not sure how to say this without being offensive, and no offense is intended, but this response indicates a basic lack of reading comprehension regarding what Cuba and I wrote.
What Cuba and I are referring to by “it” when we say “it is not black and white”, is that with regards to relationships, it isn’t the case that on one end you have 100% constant raging wildfire battle conflict, and on the otherside you have 100% completely harmonious actual freedom aeonian peace and harmony, and that all you can do is continue fighting until one day you magically become actually free at which point the situation is completely resolved.
Rather it’s that we have been able to, in our relationships, gradually have more and more peace and harmony, a general increase in peaceful harmony. That is, even though we still have conflicts, they are fewer and further in between. The “gray” in our metaphor is this range between relatively more conflict and relatively less conflict – which is something entirely other than what you make it to be in your metaphor. It is far, far, far different from and far superior to simply “coping”.
The point Cuba was making is that you don’t have to wait until you are actually free to reap the benefit of actualism - you can start right away. However, that would mean you would have to stop fighting the war that you currently are fighting yet somehow also aren’t. And I perceive an unwillingness to do that.
Why that is is something for you to determine. But I might recommend starting with rekindling that naivete that was perhaps sparked in our earlier conversation, such that you can stop the “real battle” within yourself, start to be your own best friend, be easier on yourself, be gentler and more liking and likable, at which point the rest of it will all become a lot easier.
The only thing I would add @claudiu is my actual name is Kuba (pronounced sorta like koobah) I only chose cub933 as my avatar for no particular reason.
I smiled widely at your use of one of my all time favourite English words ; recalcitrant.
My brother and i riffed on this word for days as tradesmen. Instead of swearing at the cornice, or sheeting, or whatever else, we would come out with “this cornice is recalcitrant!”.
Such an elaborate word, with maybe something in common with calcification. I’ve never looked it’s etymology up.
I was saying “pimp or be pimped” in a humorous way, hence three laughing emojis, and a reference to Shakespeare. And later explained that I’ve been listening to a lot of rap and hip hop.
The crux of it, is the recognition of no one gets a free ride. That safe, “loving” cocoon, is an illusion in relationship, one is always in a transaction.
The deeper meaning for me was seeing what being a ’ man’ is; and that i had been at war with this in hopes of a loving cocoon.
There is no such place. Being a ‘man’ is indeed important if one wants to be with a ‘woman’. If one is not being a ‘man’ then you can be sure the ‘woman’ will start looking for one.
There are no negotiations in this. However, i saw how being a ‘man’ is actually very useful in one of it’s most famous aspects ; confidence and being direct.
In this way, there has been a crossover between my ongoing aim of feeling great and enjoying life, and what ‘she’ is looking for.
Further, to answer the question what is “gentle attention”, it is exactly that, and it is a direct expectation of what i want from her. (and myself).
Being gentle in the bedroom. Slowing down to enjoy the subtle sensations. Avoiding acting, avoiding fantasy, avoiding being a characture of a ‘man’ and ‘woman’.
Enjoying this, in my case, has meant breaking through my own fears of losing her. The simple fact is, she is really attracted to me. She wants to please me. It was me not guiding the relationship, which is what a ‘woman’ wants: leadership.
It’s also a test of sincerity. Without her overt intentions to be an actualist, there really is only the option of being a ‘man’.
We used to say as Buddhists “skillful means”. Very much this. (I may have not mentioned that i was a Buddhist, not just a meditator looking for the escape). Funnily, this may be a reason way i haven’t succeeded with actualism. I am an ‘Actualist’.
If what you mean is that given the circumstances it’s the only option for her (in her mind, for her self) that you be a “man”, I understand. But if what you mean is that the only option for you is to be a “man” (meaning by this to remain a feeling being with the masculine characteristics of the self, which include that type of leadership, etc.), I cannot understand how even achieving “gentle attention” could be compatible with pursuing actual freedom.
Or maybe I am understanding you correctly and this is what you mean by the internal war you have in this field and the perception of being externally in a permanent transaction?
Alternatively, being alone would not be another option to avoid being a “man”? Or not being accompanied is not an option for you?
There was an analogy in Buddhist circles, where one builds a raft to cross the river, only to discard it on the other side.
To answer the question; it’s both. One is already possessed. Under control. Leaving behind being a ‘man’ will guarantee ‘she’ is not there any more.
It was Claudiu suggesting “how about intimacy?” when i broke up last time. This was a great point.
I was feeling far better on my own. Which, i later saw was because i could deceive myself better on my own. I could fantasise about being more attractive, a better person etc. It was not going to get me anywhere better.
So, being in relationship, one has to understand that if one wants it to continue, then one has to work with the world as it is.
I also have the image of my 4 year old brother who is always a great demonstration of naïveté, of course he is not innocent so he has the potential for malice/sorrow however a huge amount of his time is spent having a ball, it is very clear that in those moments he is not at war with himself one bit. So how much of this ‘war’ is learned and re-enacted? You could maybe think back to when you were a young child and pinpoint a time when the ‘war’ didn’t exist. Pinpoint a flavour of that naïveté because that is something that is possible to have again now for yourself and to share it with others.
(pronounced sorta like koobah) I only chose cub933 as my avatar for no particular reason.