Chrono's Journal

[cross.chrono]

@Vineeto

The alternative to “relationship” and “connection” with their unwritten implicit implications is being as sincere and naïve as you can allow yourself to be. As Richard describes it in a long correspondence with Martin –

Richard: So, bearing in mind the distinction betwixt the near-innocent intimacy of naïveté and the affectional intimacy of romance lore and legend, as clearly demarcated in the two preceding email exchanges, plus the footnoted account regarding feeling-being ‘Grace’s oft-repeated observation (about a bifurcation manifesting upon the onset of the third stage), then … yes, steadfastly being as true to an imitation of the actual as is feasible (i.e., staying as faithful as is imitatively doable to actuality) and thus unwaveringly liking one’s fellow human creature/ one’s fellow human creatures – despite that instinctual urge, drive, impulse, or any other similarly blind appetitive craving/ longing/ desiring for an affective-psychic coupling or bonding form of consummation (i.e., merging, blending, fusing, uniting, or any other state of integration, unification, oneness, nonduality, and etcetera) – is a significant feature in the enabling of the IE’s delineated in the first of the two preceding email exchanges. (…)

Put succinctly: as all what blind nature is concerned about (so to speak) is the survival of the species – and even then any species will do as far as blind nature is concerned – then it is patent that blind nature cares not a whit about any such finesse of focus being articulated here. (Richard, List D, Martin, 6 Mar 2016)

There’s an insistent emergence of sexual desire during the periods of angst that I mentioned above. It promises a fulfillment, perhaps an instinctual fulfillment. It could potentially blossom into love. It promises a dream and eternity. It’s presents like an antidote to my meaninglessness. It would definitely fall into the “instinctual urge, drive, impulse, or any other similarly blind appetitive craving/ longing/ desiring for an affective-psychic coupling or bonding form of consummation”. I will focus on being as sincere and naive as I can be.

@Vineeto

Remember, or better rememorate and presentiate, your PCE and the difference will instantly become clear to you. The affective feelings of “pity, sympathy, empathy, compassion and so on” create a bond, whereas benevolence does not.

(see Richard, Audio-Taped Dialogues, Compassion perpetuates sorrow and Compassion gained through forgiveness binds).

The “compassion gained through forgiveness binds” dialogue is very very relatable. It’d be relatable to pretty much everyone I know. I just had my parents ask me why I wasn’t visiting them. And they are also almost always trying to guilt me into feeling bad about it. I’m not quite sure why I visit them when I don’t really want to. We do not have anything in common. As Richard suggested, I asked “what is my investment?”. The answer is pretty much that I will find “fulfillment”, but only with their permission. This is my ‘connection’ and loyalty to them. The fulfillment will be that I will be freed and accepted to be me as I am. But now I see why this can never happen. It’s an ideal and it cannot happen as long as I remain an identity. I can only relate to them as ‘son’ and them to me as ‘parent’. It’s not just that I want them to give me permission and accept me as I am but I also want them to be free in the same way. As I read this dialogue, I am realizing that what I really want is to meet others freely as fellow human beings with no ‘connection’.

@Vineeto

Perhaps if I put it this way – to be able to be “acutely-empathic caring” one is necessarily aware of and sensitive to (not closed off from) one’s own and other people’s feelings.

In the below quote Richard used the word “acutely” in a related context –

Richard: It is initially difficult to comprehend living life sans feelings … as a child, a youth and as a young man I was particularly sensitive in comparison with my then peers – I felt everything keenly, acutely – and always preferred the company of females to males anytime. I was easily hurt by others and had difficulty hurting anyone or anything – boys pulling wings off flies at grade school sickened me to the stomach – and all the killing I did as a farmer’s son was quick and efficient in that I ensured it was as painless as is possible (I have no objection to killing per se). The rough and tumble of typical manly pursuits such as competitive sports did not interest me at all … and I felt like a fish out of water during my six years in the military. I felt life deeply, passionately and it is no wonder I fell for the summum bonum of human feelings: the altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’. After my break-through into actual freedom I went through thirty months of mental anguish thinking that I had lost the plot completely (although physically everything was perfect). (Richard, AF List, No. 7, 14 Jun 2000).

I am very much like how Richard describes experiencing himself here haha. I do feel others’ suffering acutely but due to not really knowing what to do with it, I’ve built a persona around pretending to be ‘tough’ like everyone else. What I was trying to get my head around was the fact that if one is to be experiencing ‘acutely-empathic caring’, then one is at that time feeling the suffering of others. I was wondering something like ‘how can one be feeling good if at that time you are also feeling the suffering of others (feeling bad)?’. A suffering which I cannot seem to look away from. I will read the correspondence with Martin you suggested to see how I can come across the third alternative consistently.

@Vineeto

When this “acutely-empathic caring” is combined with the naïve/ pure intent to bring an end to all the suffering and mayhem within the human condition (which had certainly been the case for ‘Richard’ in the period he described in his above correspondence, then this deeply felt empathic caring results in action.

Ah I was wondering what the “button” was. I’ve had this confusion with the term ‘doer’ and the following clarified it a lot:

Richard: To explain further: when out-from-control – out from being under control of the ‘controller’; that self-centred/ self-centric ‘doer’ (i.e., the ‘doer’ of deeds; the ‘actor’ of acts; the ‘speaker’ of words; the ‘thinker’ of thoughts; the ‘feeler’ of feelings) – the primary impetus of agency is the benevolence and benignity of pure intent being dynamically operative via the full concurrence of the ‘beer’ of those deeds, acts, words, thoughts, feelings (i.e., being the experiencing of same, as a state-of-being, as opposed to doing them).

So then for me the ‘doer-ship of actions’ is always the ‘doer’ (self-centric) unless something causes me to go out-from-control. Another point of clarification is how this ‘doer’ and ‘beer’ is not the ‘ego’ and ‘soul’. As I understand it then the only way I can allow this “benevolence and benignity of pure intent being dynamically operative” is by the way that you mention. And only a naive ‘me’ can allow this. Relatedly, would it be correct to say then that in an actual freedom, the ‘doer-ship of actions’ is this benevolence and benignity of pure intent (which is not self-centric)?