Something which seems to take me out of the way I usually operate and indulge in is seeing that I am feeling some particular feeling and it seems all the while this moment is happening. It’s like, why would I want to feel bad (or antidotally good) when this moment is happening irregardless? At one point the thought occurred to me “how could any of this be happening without ‘me’?”. It seemed almost disconcerting like there’s a deep feeling of ‘I’ am needed. My mind boggles at the ramifications of the universe happening on its own.
Yes as I was on the road to being insane and abnormal otherwise haha.
Ah yes I can I see I was being sloppy with my writing and will try to refer to the dictionary definitions. The word logic seems to me to be co-opted. The reason I had phrased it as such was because I have heard the word ‘logical’ being used a few times by people (including me) to describe themselves and show how their way of thinking is “superior” to others who are being “illogical” via following their feelings or utilizing intuition. But nonetheless both are circumscribed by ‘me’.
Yes and I find that the genuine intent to be happy and harmless is very key. Actually I’m feeling very good right now as I write this and I chose to feel good.
I am having difficulty in seeing in what way I am creating and perpetuating “the rigged system” if I was born into it and it had already existed. With that said though, I remember I was having this discussion with my partner on how the few rule over the many. It ended with me sort of defending the idea of not rebelling because rebelling would ultimately mean widespread bloodshed and mayhem. I notice that I take a side (affectively) when I am speaking with my partner. Perhaps my obedience and loyalty is under the guise of ‘I have no choice because otherwise I would essentially be executed’? This is funny because I have wrote so far about the indignation which would fuel rebellion.
In regards the feeling of ‘being prisoned’, I notice that it activates more so when it feels like others are mad or not in a good mood around me. Perhaps that does more relate to childhood hurts or to being a victim 
. Actually I notice a common thread underneath all this is that there’s a feeling as if someone is making me feel bad or forcing me to. And maybe that was the case when I was a child that I took all of those hurts into myself uncritically but now I can just choose to feel good irregardless of what others feel.
For the feeling of resentment at having to work at all, I do have the belief in an ideal operating where with more and more work being automated then that should be freeing up people to have more free time instead. Again seems to go back to it being ‘unfair’ that the ‘few’ reap the rewards of that automation and the ‘many’ suffer. But now as I think on it, that feeling is not factually true. Here I can see that I am identifying again with the ‘many’ and all that that entails (resentment, indignation, obedience, etc). I can also see how there seems to be the feeling that one would “escape” that rigged system by trying to become one of the ‘few’. So the belief operating is that only the ‘few’ have what the many are disfranchised from. And even further to that, the feeling is that by being at the top, I would be able to somehow evince an equitable society (which quest for equity in regards everyone and myself has become more clear for me as one of the main driving factors for an actual freedom). But this comes to mind:
[Richard]: Fortunately, for yours truly and any body whose resident identity is taking notice of these words, ‘he’ had absorbed the hard-won revelations of one of the peasants who, having sought fame and fortune to escape a working-class childhood, had achieved a considerable degree of success in that enterprise (becoming a member of the world’s pecuniary super-elite, those 200,000-odd persons known to be of $30 million net-worth and above, who constitute something like 0.003% of the population by some accounts).
Viz.:
• [Richard]: ‘As for your query about the identity who used to inhabit this flesh and blood body all those years ago: the ego-self (aka ‘the thinker’) had a brief flirtation with ‘illusions of grandeur’ whilst a practising artist in the late 70’s until ‘he’ read an interview with Mr. John Lennon who, to put it as briefly as possible, reported that there was nothing ‘at the top’ and that fame [and fortune] had no intrinsic worth (…)’. [emphasis added].(Richard, The Actual Freedom List, No. 53c, 30 March 2004).
As I reflect on this it seems that it’s peasants[mentality] all the way to the top. I can see how what I feel and believe is nothing new. I am no special than the rest in this regard. This was very eye-opening now as I read it in regards the origins of that deeply held feeling of disfranchisement:
SRINATH: Hunter-gatherer tribes in the Amazon had to be quite careful about the territory they were permitted to forage in and were subject to brutal raids by other tribes.
RICHARD: The fact that hunter-gatherers, being driven by the same instinctual passion of territoriality[
](javascript:void(0)) as modern day feeling-beings are, were thereby subject to territorial warfare is beside the point insofar as to ‘forage’ – as in, ‘to wander in search of food or provisions’ (American Heritage Dictionary), for instance – in that manner (i.e., within any such tribal territory as was thus forcefully demarcated) was not a matter of theft, larceny, stealing, despoliation, direption, and etcetera, but rather a case of, basically, just helping themselves to whatever was available therein.
So there be no misunderstanding: nowhere have I suggested the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is one of peace and harmony (either personal peace or communal harmony) or that it be preferable over capitalistic enterprise (be it privately-owned or publicly-owned capitalistic enterprise).
Indeed, the ability to generate capital – so essential for the elimination of poverty, for the maximisation of health and safety, for release from debilitating manual labour (from having to ‘earn the daily bread by the sweat of the brow’), for the proliferation of the arts and sciences, and so on – is of inestimable benefit.
SRINATH: I too would ask a similar question re: the fundamental nature of the disenfranchisement.
RICHARD: Okay … the most ‘fundamental’ aspect of all, then, is illustrated by the distinction between my deliberate usage of the word ‘disfranchisement’ and the word ‘disenfranchisement’ (which both you and Jon used) as the word franchise – derived via the now obsolete usage of the word frank, from the Late Latin francus, meaning ‘free’ – refers to the ‘condition of being free’ (the noun suffix ‘-ise’, occurring in loanwords from the French language, indicates a quality, condition, or function).
Viz.:
• frank (adj.): an obsolete word for free, generous; C13: from Old French franc, from Medieval Latin francus, ‘free’; identical with Frank (in Frankish Gaul only members of this people enjoyed full freedom). ~ (Collins English Dictionary).
Thus the word disfranchise refers to being deprived, lacking or having lost that original ‘condition of being free’ (‘original’ as in having been free in the first place) inasmuch the prefix ‘dis-’, being privative, indicates a negation or absence.
Viz.:
• dis- (pref.): a prefix occurring orig. in loanwords from Latin with the meanings ‘apart, asunder’ (disperse; dissociate; dissolve); now frequent in French loanwords and English coinages having a privative, negative, or reversing force relative to the base noun, verb, or adjective: disability; disarm; disconnect; dishearten; dishonest; dislike; disobey. ~ (Webster’s College Dictionary).
Whereas the word disenfranchise refers to being deprived of an enabled or caused ‘condition of being free’ (as in, having a previously granted freedom withdrawn, for instance) as the prefix ‘en-’ forms verbs with the general sense of enabling or causing someone/ something to be in the condition, state or place referred to by the word it prefixes.
Viz.:
• en- (pref.): cause to be in a certain condition: enable; [e.g.]: encourage, enrich, enslave; a prefix forming verbs that have the general sense ‘to cause (a person or thing) to be in’ the place, condition, or state named by the stem. ~ (Webster’s College Dictionary).
Now, while this distinction may initially appear to be pedantry on my part it serves, nevertheless, as a useful illustration of how relatively little time it has taken – despite the vast majority of the millions of years of human development, prior to the ‘free-range’ life-style being hijacked by the ‘property-rights’ way of life, over which our human/ hominid ancestors lived an original condition of being free to, basically, just help themselves to whatever was available (and I have seen plausible estimates of it being 99.8% of those millennia) – for modern-day thralls[
](javascript:void(0)) to atavistically feel and thus intuitively think of their ancestral disfranchisement as being a prehistoric disenfranchisement.
In other words, the domination of the enthrallers[
One of the reasons I provided ‘The Garden of Eden’ as an example of some ancient ‘golden age’ wherein life was in some ill-defined way ‘free’, in my initial post at the top of this page, is because of it being such an archetypal case of ‘that which can be given is that which can be taken away’ (and taken, what is more, with creatorship impunity). Howsoever, the edenic mythology has an extra twist to its knife insofar its disenfranchisement is the fault of the disenfranchised – not of the disenfranchiser as is the everyday reality – and, as such, redemption requires total obedience (a.k.a. complete surrender) to the enfranchiser.
The many and devious ways and means whereby upwards of at least 98% or more of the peoples alive today are, in effect, in thrall to so few (yet obscenely rich) enthrallers are quite fascinating to contemplate as the continuance of such thralldom depends solely upon the ongoing complicity of the enthralled.
Hence the term ‘peasant-mentality’.
SRINATH: Still it must be said that the sheer magnitude of disparity in resource distribution we have today cannot really compare to that of a hunter-gatherer life, where the elders/ chieftains aren’t that much better off resource wise.
RICHARD: Indeed so … and, furthermore, due to the inexorable law of mathematics all usurious ‘resource distribution’ (a.k.a. wealth) eventually, and quite predictably, shifts into the hands of an elite few.
And further in the “tropical seashore tale”:
Rchard: So, given that everybody alive today has a stone-age ancestry – there is simply no other way of arriving here on this planet as human beings other than as descendents of ‘hunter-gatherer’ lifestyle ancestors (be they of the far-past or near-past) – the transition to the prevailing ‘property-rights’ way of life is an ancestral legacy to be atavistically addressed as the beneficence accruing via the ability to generate capital (so essential for the elimination of poverty, for the maximisation of health and safety, for release from debilitating manual labour, for the proliferation of the arts and sciences, and so on) is inestimably superior to the beneficence accrued in any pre-pecuniary lifestyle.
For now my mind is quiet, but will see what comes up. This would be life-changing if I could come up on it experientially:
Viz.:
• [Richard]: Astonishingly, I find that social change is unnecessary; I can live freely in the community as-it-is. [endquote].
I am reminded of this Spongebob episode when I think of conceiving myself akin to a sponge 
. But with that said my initial hurdle is this feeling that I am responsible for others giving offense in the first place. Like I am putting something out there for others to react to. I feel guilty for not being “squeaky clean”. But actually as I am writing this while feeling good, I think that if I was feeling good in the first place, I wouldn’t be putting something out there that would elicit such a reaction. The word harmless is at the forefront of my mind. But nonetheless others may still give offense or take offense so there’s no need to feel guilty or take and give offense in turn when I can be happy and harmless.