Appreciation, the key to enjoyment and becoming likeable and liking

Actualism
1

One of my favorite ways Richard describes naivety is to be likeable and liking. Here is a quote from the Pure Intent page:

and to be naïveté itself is to be the closest one can come to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’ (innocence is where ‘self’ is not) whereby one is both likeable and liking for herewith lies tenderness, sweetness and togetherness, closeness – whereupon one is walking through the world in a state of wide-eyed wonder and amazement, simply marvelling at the magnificence of this physical universe’s absoluteness and delighting in its beneficence, its largesse, as if a child again (guileless, artless, ingenuous, innocuous), with a blitheness and a gaiety yet with adult sensibilities (whereby the distinction betwixt being naïve and being gullible is readily separable), such that the likelihood of the magical fairy-tale-like paradise, which this verdant and azure planet actually is, becoming ever-so-sweetly apparent is almost always imminent.
Selected Correspondence: Pure Intent

Lately, I’ve been coming into contact with people who express interest in actualism. It has been interesting because everyone is different, has different beliefs, and in a brief conversation there’s little room for any significant exploration to happen. I’ve been reluctant to talk about actualism to people in my life, but after recent shifts, and much contemplation, I realized that I’m doing them a disservice by indulging in their delusional beliefs, beliefs about being an amorphous identity inhabiting a body.

Aside from pointing out that they’re a brain with instinctual passions that’s imagining itself to be a soul inhabiting a body, I’ve been finding the only thing I really care to impress upon people is the power of appreciation. It’s a doorway to ever increased enjoyment of life and enjoyment is a doorway back to appreciation. They key is to understand the difference between appreciation and gratitude, which I could vaguely grasp at first, but has since come into clarity:
Appreciation
2. a full understanding of a situation.
and also
Appreciate
1. recognize the full worth of.

Appreciation can be developed like any skill. It can begin a little clumsy at first, but it eventually becomes a powerful muscle that engenders ever increasing enjoyment, sensuosity, intimacy, and sagacity. And most of all, it helps one become likable and liking. Because if you appreciate a quality of something, it indicates that you like it. And when you’re able to appreciate the actual individuals you come into contact with, that means you’re liking them. And since you’re an individual, you can appreciate yourself too - and thus like yourself. And viola, you are likeable and liking. And then it’s your choice as to whether you want to stay in that vibe space or not. Best part: there’s no need to “push.” One can put that energy into developing the appreciation muscle instead. Or energy towards nurturing that which they appreciate about themselves, other people, and other things. (I don’t mean affective nurturing)

Is it that easy? What do y’all think?

Obviously, I’m having fun with appreciation lately. And it has an interesting relationship with enjoyment. It was noticing what I enjoyed as I went through my day, what I enjoy about this moment, about things, about people, about places and such, that developed the muscle of appreciation. Sensuosity is interlocked in this process because one needs eyeballs, ears, nose, smell, taste, touch, etc, for there to be something to appreciate. To me, it fundamentally seems like it’s a cognitive movement that is intertwined with sensuosity and facticity. There’s a feeling element too, that seems to be approaching wonder. Like - “!wow! that’s cool. I like that. Happy. Fascinating.”

It starts to become a super-power. It’s literally so easy to encourage people and befriend them through the power effortlessly expressing appreciation. It’s the only way to give an authentic compliment. It’s allowed me to engage with groups of people where I would have otherwise been too nervous. Appreciating the actual world gives one license to ignore the feeling being that is supposedly inside someone else. Understanding the full-worth of people, places, and things, engenders one with a wisdom that felt-based intuition cannot. The only thing my intuition needs to do is feel happy-and-harmless.

To me it seems like it’s really just a matter of practicing enjoyment and appreciation, and the process will demand that you figure out what’s getting in the way. There’s been a lot of trial and error, and a certain amount of pushing that wasn’t fun or effective. But Richard is right that a momentum starts to build and it’s validating to experience it.

I love that I can be confronted with any object, idea, person, etc and immediately get to understanding the full worth of the thing based on what’s happening in the actual world and not the world of imagination. Instead of attempting to get other people to understand my inner-world, or trying to understand theirs, it can just be done away with completely and I can talk to them about more intelligent things like what is actually happening and what exactly it is that I am currently appreciating.

If you’re ever in someone’s home and you express appreciation for a specific decor choice, express curiosity about it, express delight about it…they become delighted. It’s not rocket science. And to do so authentically you have to genuinely feel delighted due to the fact you appreciated said object with a sensuous appraisal. You’re not expressing how it makes you feel a deep sense of beauty, you’re expressing what you enjoy about it and that you enjoy it.

I can even appreciate memories of people by recalling the actual things they did, the sacrifices they made, the challenges they confronted, and how far they’ve come, how they’ve impacted my life - - because the recollection is becoming less interested in self-centered details and more interested in the facts and comprehension of what it means to be a human being.

It offers an avenue out of the trap of being a competitive instinctual being. The appreciation becomes the ‘rules of engagement’ instead of attempting to find security in “rules and regulations.” That is, to rely on one’s own understanding is powerful, and appreciation leads to a comprehensive appraisal of life.

I would liken appreciation to be synonymous with “the art of living.” That is to say, one can develop an appreciation for doing the living of life, much like a painter can develop appreciation for a landscape and thus use his skills to capture it expertly on canvas. Except for an actualist, the appreciation gets translated into enjoyment and benevolent action. It’s as if one allows the universe to sculpt one’s character and appreciation is your consent.

I would liken enjoyment as “the fruits of appreciation.” Appreciation begets enjoyment and enjoyment feels good. Appreciating feeling good reminds one of the entire point of what they’re doing - - “oh yeah, I want more of this.” Feeling good makes appreciating a breeze and appreciating leads to more enjoyment. This is a naive, fun, lively, jovial, relaxed, peaceful, appreciation - - it’s way more capable than the stuffy sort of appreciation of an art snob. And it can invite everyone in on the fun.

The point is, the development of appreciation can be practiced and yield significant results. My sense is that if someone is more contemplatively inclined, and needed to evoke more enjoyment, then appreciation would be what to focus on. I’m truly not sure where someone should start, but if I were to recommend anything to chew on, it’d be that. Have all the realisations, and dissect what you can, but stomping the gas-pedal on appreciation will supercharge enjoyment and contemplative potential. If you’re not going to read the website, which I highly recommend and cannot endorse overlooking, at least start playing with appreciation.

Naivety can’t be understated and I think a great way to hone in on it is to becoming likeable and liking. Put another way, to feel authentically likeable and liking. The only way you’ll let yourself feel that way is via an authentic route and appreciation can reveal the way. Discover a gentle and naive appreciation for things, with your own idiosyncratic adult sensibilities, and you can lock on to something invigorating and fun. A light touch is great, no need to waste calorific energy on disingenuous excitement.

It’s a great thing to develop! Nothing else better to do anyway, and you’ll never get bored again.

In this process I’ve felt like an imposter, crazy, fanatical, uncertain, fearful, and much else. But time and time again, it’s proven way more fun and effortless to lock onto a naive vibe, kick back, and appreciate whatever I’m doing. And whatever it is, wherever I am, it’s always a sensuous affair. If it isn’t, then I’m off with the fairies as they say down under. (Sensuosity and facticity might as well be synonymous in my book).

Okay, all for now.

1 Like
2

I enjoyed reading the other bits of this post but I think this one could do with a closer inspection. Is it merely that ‘they’ indulge in the belief that ‘they’ are an identity inhabiting a body? Or is it that ‘they’ are that very amorphous being inhabiting ‘their’ host body?
The difference is important because no matter how hard ‘they’ try to stop imagining ‘themselves’ to be a soul inhabiting a body, ‘they’ will still remain so, a soul cannot stop believing in itself without doing some ‘psychic gymnastics’, ultimately leading to some kind of an ASC.

‘I’ cannot choose to stop believing in ‘myself’, that would be a circular action with a ‘me’ still remaining at the end.

And furthermore how could ‘you’ the amorphous being inhabiting ‘your’ host body possibly speak from lived experience when pointing this out? As ‘you’ are that very condition which ‘you’ are trying to stop others from indulging in, is that not blatant hyprocrisy?

So then you have to revert to belief, you have to speak as an ‘actualist’ rather than a fellow human being pointing out a fact which you know from your lived experience.

I think this segues well into what @Felipe was writing about the other day. It seems those issues surrounding talking to others about actualism mostly come from the fact that one is not speaking from lived experience but rather presenting actualism essentially as a belief system, so the one listening will naturally have some reservations.

Maybe one is urging others to be happy and harmless whilst demonstrably nursing sorrow and malice within themselves, or one is talking about the merits of ceasing to ‘be’ whilst continuing to ‘be’ :laughing:.
On the other hand when a fact is seen there is 100% certainty, so ‘I’ don’t have to put on a ‘actualist’ hat in order to describe it to others.

1 Like
3

Because I don’t believe myself to be a soul inhabiting a body. It’s that simple. Do you imagine yourself to be a soul inhabiting a body? Soul is a word of convenience because everyone is familiar with spirituality. You can use the word without believing in it.

And I don’t think it’s wise to indulge people in this delusion because I lived through it. Frankly, I would have rather been told the facts. Why would I encourage someone else to believe something that isn’t factual? The conversation can go in any direction and start in any way, but fundamentally - - no, there is no long lasting separate entity inhabiting the body. Full-stop.

I have zero experience being a soul. I’ve never personally astral projected, left my body, or gone to heaven. I can’t in good faith encourage someone to spend their limited calories wondering about astrology and manifesting and karma when they could be wondering about something much more rewarding.

Whether or not I have instinctual passions is entirely different. And I can start talking about them as soon as I want to. As for this soul, it’s a common pitfall people fall into which prevents them from recognizing their instinctual passions. They won’t take a look under the pretty hood that is their soul to see that it’s nothing other than an animal.

But there is no such thing as this precious soul. So there is nothing to be scared of losing by looking under the hood. It’s simple and one doesn’t necessarily need to be exposed to actualism to come to this conclusion.

The point is, I’m under no pretense that I exist as anything but a flesh-and-blood body and I do not know why anyone would wait until becoming actually free to recognize that fact. I do not believe that there is any soul inside the body, or that I am inside a body. I won’t even engage someone in playful philosophical games about the topic. They can get that somewhere else.

It’s this simple: You’re a brain with instinctual passions and a sophisticated social identity to keep those passions under control. The more you imagine yourself to be something that you’re not, the more you’re locking yourself into the real world. People are so apt to complain about the real world, and some that I meet appreciate hearing about an alternative to either being materialistic or spiritual.

But I am an actualist, and a fellow human being, pointing out to them facts that I know from my lived experience. What is the issue again?

I have to revert to belief to imagine myself to be a soul inhabiting a body. I have zero lived experience as a soul. I have a lot of experience lived as an instinctual animal. There’s no need to beat around the bush with mature adults. That is the lived experience I’m talking to them about, why might you assume otherwise?

Since one is at all times always free to do whatever one wants, one can wear any hat they like. There’s no need to be an identity trying not to be an identity by cautiously avoiding imagined hats. I for one enjoy putting on a hat without actually believing I am the hat.

Facts are what makes it possible for one to have conviction. And Richard has provided an excellent roadmap that has yielded results. The term actualist is an excellent way to describe what I’m interested in. Will I have to become fully actually free before I can conveniently call myself an actualist? Are there rules around this that I’m not aware of? Will I have to become fully actually free before I can talk about my lived experience? Who will make that decision for me? Seems like you want to :slight_smile:

Was there something about my post that indicated I was malicious and sorrowful about mentioning to others how fun it is to enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive? And how freeing it is to no longer imagine oneself to be a soul inhabiting a body? Do you take issue with that or are you just cautiously warning me of potential traps that may or may not be happening in these nuanced and spontaneous conversations I’m enjoying. I’m open to input on any advice I may have given, but without being there, you are taking potential issue based on me possibly being malicious and sorrowful.

But! I would hate to bring the wrath of the enjoyment and appreciation police upon myself, I did not know it was an offense to talk about actualism until one is actually free. I will keep my conversations about said topic limited only to the official channels where the proper authorities can ensure that I’m not telling people about actualism because I’m malicious or sorrowful.

Anyway, I appreciate the sentiment but now I turn the turn-tables back to you and gently suggest with the lightest of ‘maybes’ that it be you who is projecting onto me.

Unless, that is, we should change the topic to how we might fall into the trap of identifying as an actualist when talking to others and how to avoid it.

4

I think there’s no definitive answer or prescription about all this. It’s all so contextual.

For instance, when I told that group of friends about actualism and the whole constellation of actualism considerations (how we perceive, how we are, how’s the universe), they thought at first it was pretty cool and insightful (well, at least some parts).

To the point that this friend who mocks me with “remember, Felipe has no feelings” began to regurgitate my discourse to other groups, one of those occasions even as a flirting tactic (using actualism-related stuff, or rather pseudo-actualism, to impress the ladies, lol).

Then, when this friend told me he was suffering for whatever reason, I once or twice suggested to him that actualism may help alleviate, even if not taken fully, to which he basically stopped me and told me “I don’t want to lose my humanity!” or “I don’t want to stop being human!”, which was an obvious sign that I shouldn’t push anymore. I still talk about actualism with him from time to time, but only to share how I’m dealing with issues rather than trying to recommend it.

IOW, there are people who are so traditional or close-minded that there’s no chance that I even remotely think of bringing any related topic ever, while others are more receptive to explore life in general up to a point, generally when things can be perceived as whacky or “inhuman” (another very open minded friend, for another instance, once told me that actualism was “crazy buddhism”; he also was worried/afraid for what that way of thinking would do to my moral compass).

So basically all this is highly dependent on context, circumstance and kind of people. :man_shrugging:

5

So in terms of the soul, Richard specifically used this word because it is a good catch-all word that most people are familiar with, which refers to one’s innermost ‘being’, that amorphous sense of ‘presence’ which exists in all human beings (bar the actually free).

So we can switch things around and get rid of that word (soul) and then I can ask you whether you experience yourself to be a feeling being? If the answer is yes then the follow up question would be - can ‘you’ (the feeling being) stop existing as a feeling being merely by no longer believing yourself to ‘be’ one?

If you look sincerely into ‘yourself’ you will find that this is not possible, and thus ‘being’ is not something that others indulge believing in, but rather something ‘they’ are. That is why self-immolation is the only way to eradicate the human condition, ‘I’ will ‘be’ a feeling being (aka soul) all the way until ‘I’ altruistically self-immolate.

Hence why I am pointing out that there is something to explore in those statements you made :

I realized that I’m doing them a disservice by indulging in their delusional beliefs, beliefs about being an amorphous identity inhabiting a body [feeling being aka soul].

Aside from pointing out that they’re a brain with instinctual passions that’s imagining itself to be a soul [feeling being] inhabiting a body

To summarise ‘I’ do not merely imagine/believe ‘myself’ to ‘be’ a feeling being, a feeling being is what ‘I’ am.

3 Likes
6

Richard: “In my experience I have found that the self is made up of two parts: the ego and the soul.”

@edzd It may be that on the surface level you do not believe in the soul, but by any name you do as @Kub933 points out have a deep enduring sense of ‘being.’ Whether you ‘believe’ in that or not is immaterial if that is your ongoing experience of being alive.

I think this may be a case of taking pot-shots at spiritualists (who more explicitly ‘believe in a soul’ and all the rest that comes with those belief systems) while neglecting that oneself has plenty of beliefs in play.

Here is a selection of Richard’s correspondence on the subject of the soul

2 Likes
7

Hi Ed,

To assist in your fully appreciating just what “soul” refers to, here is an essentially perfect relating-together of the words “psychic”, “psyche”, “soul”, and “spirit” (source), with emphases added:

Now that the terminology is straightened out, it should be clear: it does not matter whether you “believe [your]self to be a soul inhabiting a body or not”. As you not only have emotions and sentiments, but actually are those very emotions and sentiments, the word “soul” simply refers to the very “seat of the emotions or sentiments” that ‘you’ (the feeling-being reading this) are, by ‘your’ very nature.

In other words, there is no way to be a feeling-being other than to be that, and the word “soul” aptly denotes this.

The facts are that you are continuing to live through this illusion (not delusion), because that is simply the default, normal or natural way of being conscious for human beings on this planet, at least as of this moment.

I will take this opportunity to advise you to, while you are reading this, intuitively “feel yourself out”, look for the “center” of your emotions, intuitively reach for that feeling of knowing yourself to exist, allow yourself to feel the answer to the question “How do I know that I exist?”

Now, with that feeling firmly at the forefront, really consider and contemplate that this feeling that you are feeling of yourself is precisely that “long lasting separate entity inhabiting the body”. This is who ‘you’ are. This is ‘your’ very nature.

The only way out is to disappear entirely, to self-immolate. ‘You’ cannot end ‘yourself’ but ‘you’ can allow ‘yourself’ to go into abeyance and allow a PCE to happen. From that stand-point I would advise that you consider, now apperceptively rather than intuitively, how do you know that you exist? You will find the answer to be quite different than outside of the PCE, and this distinction will help you navigate the waters towards actuality.

If there is a quibble about the descriptor “long lasting”, it is worth noting that unless you do become actually free, you will live your entire life and die with your entire lived experience having been one of being that separative entity (whether acknowledged or not).

Have you ever felt any feeling or experienced any emotion? These are all experiences of “being a soul”.

The facts are exactly the opposite. You do not exist as only “a flesh-and-blood body”. Vineeto is an example of someone who exists as a flesh-and-blood body only. ‘You’, on the other hand, exist as a feeling-being parasitically inhabiting its host body. Denying this reality only serves to strengthen ‘your’ grip and perpetuate ‘your’ existence, because how can something that already doesn’t have any existence whatsoever possibly go into abeyance or loosen the controls (which controls it can’t have because it doesn’t exist) or self-immolate?

As to the ‘actualist identity’ aspect, I will just point out that being mistaken about an aspect of actualism and speaking about this mistaken understanding to others with great conviction while under the impression that it is in line with and accurately reflecting of actualism, is precisely a way in which an ‘actualist identity’ would manifest and end up being deleterious to being happy and harmless and progressing towards actual freedom.

Cheers & best regards,
Claudiu

  1. as the word spiritual means ‘of, pertaining to, or affecting the spirit or soul’, according to the Oxford Dictionary, it too is used by those of either a secular or spiritual persuasion to refer to the self-same ‘being’, at root, with differentiation again being a matter of a partiality/leaning connotation). ↩︎

5 Likes