Vineeto: Indeed, this is the very way the actualism method works in a nutshell. By following a self-less inclination you are having fun and vice versa, felicitous and innocuous feelings don’t provide fodder for ‘me’.
Chrono: Much simpler when it’s actually applied as written haha. I have been reflecting more on what it means to be sincere and the part that sticks out more now is that it is to be in accord with the fact. What is the fact? The fact is the actuality ascertained in a PCE. How can I align with this fact? By enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. In a PCE, it is seen that only this moment genuinely exists and all is already perfectly happening.
Hi Chrono,
Let me stop you right there. Where you are going with this is that you can never “be in accord with the fact” until you are actually free. This is called a red herring and stops you from even starting. To be sincere, i.e. “in accord with the fact”, means you don’t deceive yourself when a good or bad feeling interferes with enjoyment and appreciation. Therefore you are as honest as you can regarding the feeling which is happening at this very moment of writing this – for example something like “ahh, I can never be sincere, it’s too difficult, I rather stay as I am”. Sincerely acknowledging what is happening you’ll eventually sort it out with the intent to being happy and harmless – and you have demonstrated many times before that you can do that excellently. If you notice imagination happening like creating future scenarios, you sincerely acknowledge that knowing something imagined is not a fact.
Chrono: And my struggle seems to be in seeing that I can never match this effortless perfection. Highlighting the belief that ‘I’ can be perfect. ‘I’ can only allow it through imitating it. ‘I’ can never be it. I feel viscerally conflicted or torn. There must be another belief why I do not simply incline each moment towards it. Perhaps I am jumping the gun again.
Of course, if you want to arrive before you start it’s a clear indication you are “jumping the gun” … and sincerely inquiring why you are going on this side-track will inevitably provide the answer and then you sort out what it right in front of you. Remember to get back to feeling good first.
Vineeto: It’s wonderful, isn’t it. To be ‘someone’ is the modus operandi for which you have been conditioned since childhood, backed up by the instinctual imperative of survival – but is this really still necessary? As you say “it’s actually enjoyable when I don’t”. It is also possible because you can be naïve with all your adult sensibility intact.
Chrono: I’m not able to even think of any reason why it’s necessary aside from the usual provisions of the feelings of warmth and belonging. I find it more enjoyable to be happy and harmless.
Excellent. What about the “feelings of warmth and belonging” – are you game to boldly go where you haven’t gone before and naïvely explore intimacy between fellow human beings in lieu of “warmth and belonging”?
Vineeto: Yes, the real-world rules, morals and dogmas operate in opposites and have only two alternatives. There is a third alternative.
Chrono: Weirdly has taken me a longer time to figure that out experientially. I just had this realization about sexual desire and why I have “trouble” with it. It occurs in every human being to some extent, so why am I making a big deal out of its occurrence? And I finally realized it, it’s because of repression. There’s a guilt surrounding it as I mentioned previously. But what if there was no guilt? Then I am somehow morally reprehensible. As I previously saw that ‘I’ cannot end ‘me’ and ‘I’ am already born this way, then there’s no taking blame for my feeling this desire. I understand better now where you say:
Vineeto: As for the second aspect of the “feeling of guilt” because “you are disregarding your partner” – when you deliberate shift your focus of interest from personal sexual satisfaction only to intimacy, the whole nature of sexual congress will change in the direction of including your partner, as a fellow play-mate, in the direct (bodily) intimacy of sexual congress.
To ease the pressure of what was originally repressed may take some persistence because repression happened not only because of the “feeling of guilt” but also because it is something unfamiliar to be explored/ experienced as to what happens when you lift the lid, so to speak. It helps to be a friend to yourself and be gentle and consciously enjoy the adventure, without back-pressure from yourself. Richard’s second part of the quote explains why it has never really been allowed to be explored naïvely.
Chrono: And also this section from Article 2 in Richard’s Journal I am able to see in operation:
Richard: Yet I discover that this actual world – in which this body is living – easily fulfils all the longings and desires that are commonly channelled into the Spiritual Realms. (…)
Why then would people rather be Sacred, Spiritual, Holy … not actual? Because their only alternative is to be vulgar, worldly, pagan … which they associate with the Diabolical, the Demonic, the Sinister. Enmeshed in a world-view wherein everything is divided into opposites, nobody is able to consider a third alternative: to be actual. In the divided world-view, the actual is never seen, and the physical is perceived to be uncivilised, anarchical, and hedonistic … and categorised by them as being profane. My intent is to find a way to continue to live in this undivided and indivisible actual world as ascertained sensately, instead of the ambivalent world-view of opposites with its necessarily discriminating groups, its opposing camps. (Richard’s Journal, 1997, Article Two).
Chrono: I am understanding now that the shift to intimacy is a different game altogether from the one that gives sexual desire a central role. That is, my focus on getting rid of it won’t work.
Indeed, half the job is to sort out what doesn’t work. The process of getting accustomed/ familiar with naïvely and gently shifting to intimacy in practice, might sometimes appear a balancing act between “holy” and “vulgar”. Don’t fall for either, keep looking for the fun and benevolent way (to yourself and your partner) – the third alternative.
Vineeto: Indeed, being in control is the sole function of this contingent ‘being’, ‘me’, the entity which does not exist in its own right and needs to control to prevent being exposed as such. ‘You’ need to keep working hard to justify ‘your’ existence, whereas “it’s actually enjoyable when I don’t”, when you can allow yourself to be what you are. You lessen control by progressively allowing the obstacles to enjoyment and appreciation to disappear via attentiveness and (if necessary) investigation – and thus by imitating the actual.
Chrono: Yes I recently noticed as it was happening how much that insults and compliments make up this being a someone. If ‘my’ whole point is to survive, then I’m only taking these on personally to survive. And now I have some more cues to look out for.
Ha, it is indeed so, when you look at the content of what your “belonging” really consists of – “insults and compliments” – punishment and reward – made valid by the feeling of power or loss thereof. Another confirmation that you were right when you said “being a “someone” is a serious business … and “it’s actually enjoyable when I don’t”.
Vineeto: I don’t know what holds authority, anyone’s authority, in place for you. For ‘Vineeto’ the very justification for any authority disappeared in one fell swoop with the startling apperceptive discovery – (A Bit of Vineeto, #oneevening)
Chrono: Actually the only authority I can think of is the authority of Humanity through morals, ethics, and judgements. But it all hinges on the idea of caring. I have been reflecting again on what it means to be caring in the real world vs being carefree and considerate. Can I be carefree AND considerate? I am reading the chapter titled “It is possible to be sensitive without being vulnerable”. And being ‘vulnerable’ in the real world is perhaps the gateway into what real world caring is.
The reason the described PCE (now snipped) was such a consequential event for ‘Vineeto’ because ‘she’ realised that every and all authority people assume stem’s from some god’s authority – god is the ultimate source for what is right and wrong, bad and good (=heaven and hell). All the values by which humans are socialised originate from the ‘Tried and Failed’ legacy of enlightened beings, gods and goddesses. Hence to realise that there is no room for god in an actual infinite, and perfect, universe, and the justification and ultimate origin of right and wrong disappears.
The same applies to your “authority of Humanity” and “the idea of caring”. While being caring and considerate are aspects of being harmless, the word “caring” in the real world is generally synonymous with feeling caring, i.e. giving out affective vibes of caring, sympathy and compassion, together with or even instead of practical caring. This is because humanity’s idea of caring is tightly linked to “putting the other before oneself”, being compassionate and self-less.
Hence the aim of being harmless together, including the considering the consequences of your words and actions might have, will a clearer guidance for what you want to be –
Martin: Does harmlessness have nothing to do with ‘others’?
Richard: (…)
• [Richard]: “(…) it may be worthwhile bearing in mind that it is impossible to be happy (be happy as in being carefree), as distinct from feeling happy, without being harmless (being harmless as in being innocuous), as distinct from feeling harmless, and to be happy and harmless is to be unable to induce suffering – etymologically the word ‘harmless’ (harm + less) comes from the Old Norse ‘harmr’ (meaning grief, sorrow) – either in oneself or another”. [emphasis in original]. (Richard AF List, No. 62, 26 Mar 2004).
Thus to be harmless as per actualism lingo (being free of malice) is beneficial both to oneself – plus it feels unpleasant (hedonically) to feel malicious (affectively) anyway – as well to others due to being unable to induce suffering either in oneself or another, via affective vibes and psychic currents, and vice versa. (…)
Martin: (…) I don’t think I’ve really understood what harmless means, as I can’t help but either put ‘myself’ or ‘others’ first (as a kind of denial of ‘self’) when I think of being harmless. (…) ‘Harmlessness’ feels like something you do to another human being – or an effect you have on them – but do you simply mean it as an absence of malice and sorrow?
Richard: Do you see how almost all of that paragraph you wrote as a lead-up to your query about being harmless – as in “but do you simply mean it as an absence of malice and sorrow?” that is – stems from or revolves around that hoary religio-spiritual practice of putting each and every other ‘self’ before one’s own ‘self’ (a.k.a. being an unselfish ‘self’) so as to counter selfishness? (…)
As being harmless does not feature in religio-spiritual practice – peace-on-earth is not on the religio-spiritual agenda – then the sooner that nonsense about being an unselfish ‘self’ is abandoned the better. (Richard, List D, Martin, 6 Aug 2016).
Chrono: But what does it mean to actually care?
Richard: … near-actual caring is, of course, epitomised by a vital interest in the suffering of all human beings coming to an end, forever … (Richard, List D, Srinath2, #near-actual-caring)
Richard: Hence it came to pass one fine evening that feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ realised, with a profound visceral impact, how ‘she’ had never actually cared – although ‘she’ certainly felt caring (in fact ‘she’ had a deeply – ingrained and ongoing feeling of caring about all the misery and mayhem) – and upon that realisation transforming itself into an actualisation (as per the intimacy-yearning process detailed in the ‘Direct Route Mail-Out № 05 email part-quoted at the top of this page) it activated “a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” and there was indeed action which was not of ‘her’ doing … to wit: the ending of ‘her’ and all ‘her’ subterfuge and trickery (just to stay in keeping with the above wording purely for effect). (Richard, List D, Srinath2, 6 Aug 2016).
You can find some more on intimacy and caring in Vineeto, Selected Correspondence, Intimacy. I also found ‘Vineeto’s’ correspondence with Tarin on being harmless instead of merely feeling harmless useful. (link).
Chrono: I was having an afternoon at work when there was a bout of increased delight. And I remembered that one of the objections that I feel is that ‘I’ need to be here to protect this physical body. When all of a sudden I realized that ‘I’ do not exist to protect this physical body. ‘I’ exist to protect ‘me’. The physical body is secondary to ‘me’. All of ‘my’ caring is self-centred. And I became aware of this most fundamental confusion. This just hit me in a very visceral way and I felt a shiver at the bottom of my spine. And I’ve just been aware since of all of ‘my’ caring since and the inherent self-centeredness of it.
Well spotted – “‘I’ exist to protect ‘me’”. Once you are aware of this fact it is much simpler to discover the identity’s tricks and diversions. As always, there is a way of interacting being less self-centred, i.e. being naïvely harmless and considerate and preferring/ valuing intimacy over sexual prowess.
Chrono: Recently a different issue has cropped up and has taken the place of previous issues. I am seeing indignation and slights featuring more. I for some reason am feeling more keenly aware of iniquities in every day interactions. I am more aware of ‘injustice’ and ‘unfairness’. I feel it really deeply. Both in daily interactions and in an overall rule of the world way. Perhaps these are issues I have not looked at in-depth enough. (I’m writing at work so I’ll have to re-visit my response). (link)
Can it be that you notice indignation more because you discovered how much ‘‘my’ whole point is to survive” ? You may find this familiar –
Richard: Speaking personally, the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago instantaneously rid ‘himself’ of the bulk of those school-age hurts and slights—whilst sitting out in the sunshine one fine morning, putting pencil to paper in order to finally record those dastardly events for posterity, as per a long-held and cherished ambition to do so at length—via seeing-in-a-flash that, as it was simply not possible to ever physically be a child again (and thus juvenilely susceptible to not only those bully-boys and feisty-femmes but any enabling teachers and principals as well), there was absolutely no need whatsoever to continue nursing them as a carryover grudge. It soon became increasingly apparent, thereafter, how those childhood hurts had been vital to the maintenance of the righteous indignation which fuelled ‘his’ plaints of injustice (a.k.a. ‘unfairness’) and, thus, ‘his’ mission to bring justice (a.k.a. ‘fairness’) to the world. (Richard, Selected Correspondence, Aggression, 21 Jan 2016).
Vineeto: Are you asking if the habit of being a ‘victim’ is related to a “need for power”? It certainly is, it is the flip-side of the same power structure, which, being sourced in the instinctual passions of fear and aggression, is operating ubiquitously.
Chrono: EDIT: Yes I was thinking they’re related. I can see it being a flip side of the same power structure but am trying to see the third alternative in it. I keep thinking then I’ll be taken advantage of. Actually I think my current issue is related to this being a ‘victim’ and is related to the need for power. Will have to reflect and write more on it soon.
Ha, the role of being a ‘victim’ at first appears more virtuous but it is only the other side of aggression inherent to the instinctual passions in each and every feeling being. If you can recognize this and affectively acknowledge it, then neither repressing nor expressing the feeling might allow the third alternative to hove into view.
Also the question ‘why do I need power’ may be interesting to contemplate. Personally, I have no power whatsoever.
Vineeto: By choosing to be naïvely happy and harmless you voluntarily withdraw from the battlefield (not as a pacifist or virtue-hunter) but as someone who prefers (i.e. values more) getting along in a beneficial way with your fellow human beings.
Chrono: This does make sense and I am thinking on it further so that I’m not repressing or expressing indignation in some cunning way. (link)
A reminder before you are getting too deep into thinking about the serious problems of life –
Richard: You need to have a keen sense of humour. This business of becoming free is not – contrary to popular opinion – a serious business at all. Be totally sincere … most definitely utterly sincere, as genuineness is essential. But serious … no way. Humour is essential – it is inevitable in an actual freedom – and one has a lot of fun along the way. An actual freedom is all about having fun; about enjoying being here; about delighting in being alive. All that ‘being serious’ stuff actively works against peace-on-earth. One has to want to be here on this planet … most people resent being here and wish to escape. This method will bring one into being more fully here than anyone has ever been before. If you do not want to be here, then forget it. (Library, Topics, Humour)
Cheers Vineeto