Hi Andrew,
Here is what Richard is saying in the above quote and how you described your own MO regarding alcohol –
Richard: Which means that nothing really matters in the long-term and, as nothing actually is of enduring importance (in this ultimate sense), it means that life can in no way be a serious business. (Richard, AF List, No. 66, 26 May 2005a).
Andrew: Alcohol; Softer me. Free association thoughts. Less social anxiety. Less internal critic. Something other than “Me” in control. Physical effects feel comforting. (…) There may be a natural hedonism available in leaning into that. (link)
What alcohol does, according to your description, it softens the impact of the social identity – the critic, the one who believes he has to fail, the one who is anxious … and while those instinctual passions are normally curbed by the social identity they get more of a free reign under the influence of alcohol. This is not “something other than “Me” in control” – what you experience are the less socially-controlled instinctual passions, which are nevertheless “Me” in control.
Your description of using alcohol to lessen the impact of your social control is the very reason why Richard gave this warning, repeatedly –
Richard: Warning: It is an utterly fundamental proviso that pure intent [derived from the purity of the PCE] be dedicatorily in place – as an overriding/ overarching life-devotional goal which takes absolute precedence over all else – before any such whittling away of the otherwise essential societal/ cultural conditioning be undertaken. (Library, Topics, Social Identity, #Warning)
And:
Richard: “(…) the social identity cannot safely be whittled away unless there be the pure intent to be happy and harmless, each moment again, born of the PCE, because this socialised conscience, the moral/ethical and principled entity with its inculcated societal knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ (cultural values), has been implanted for a very good reason.
It is there to control the wayward self which lurks within the human breast … which is why dedication to peace-on-earth is paramount.” [Emphases added]. (Richard, AF List, No. 25b, 24 Jun 2003)
What you call “natural hedonism” is one of the ‘good’, hedonically pleasant, feelings, which you confuse with being happy and harmless – it is not. Your shortcut of using a mind-altering drug (alcohol) to temporarily escape the socially conditioned critic is understandable but regarding actualism is leading you into a blind alley. For clarification and further information, I recommend Richard, Abditorium, Hedonic Tone.
We corresponded about the difference of feeling good and ‘good’ feelings before (12 Feb 2026) –
Richard: The words ‘good feelings’ – which refer to the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) – and the words ‘bad feelings’ – which refer to the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – are but a way of describing the effect of those feelings both on oneself and others.
Sometimes they are called the positive and negative feelings. (Richard, AF List, No. 44e, 1 Oct 2003a).
And to make the difference clear between feeling good and ‘good’ feelings –
Jonathan: [Richard]: What actualism – the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom – is on about is a ‘virtual freedom’ (which is not to be confused with cyber-space’s ‘virtual reality’) wherein the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to feel good, feel happy and feel perfect for 99% of the time. I make this very clear in my writing: [snip]. What I am reading here is, ‘good feelings along with bad feelings are minimized so that one is free to feel good feelings and thereby make a PCE more likely. Could you clarify?
Richard: Sure … the [quote] ‘good’ [endquote] feelings mentioned are the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) and the [quote] ‘bad’ [endquote] feelings mentioned are the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) whereas feeling good/ feeling happy/ feeling perfect are the felicitous and innocuous feelings (those that are delightful and harmonious).
Thus what you are reading – ‘good feelings along with bad feelings are minimised so that one is free to feel good feelings and thereby make a PCE more likely’ – would look something like this when spelled-out in full:
• [example only]: ‘the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting), along with the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful), are minimised so that one is free to feel the felicitous and innocuous feelings (those that are delightful and harmonious) and thereby make a pure consciousness experience (PCE) more likely’. [end example].*
(Richard, AF List, Jonathan, 4 Jan 2006).*
Andrew: That is that my body is “all for” living. It doesn’t need me at all. Like any animal without a ‘me’. Like a jellyfish for example that are washed up on the river’s edge. Those cells are not serious about anything at all! They are spawned, do what jellyfish cells do, and at some point end.
Just like every cell in my body. Whether it’s a human cell, or the other 50% of non-human cells, they are all just doing “cell things”.
I really enjoy this thought. I started doing some more exercise during the day, and “leaning into” the feeling. It’s not pleasant, but it’s what cells like! I can sense it that my body isn’t as attached to pleasure as I am. Muscle cells reward me with endorphins when they get to lift heavy things!
My focus has been to understand how to work with what I have right now. In all aspects. Rather than allowing the “seriousness”. That’s good to be reminded of, as it was what I was seeing in myself. Good to have a name for it.
The instinctual passions are also called animal instinctual passions – because all animals are endowed with instinctual programming/ passions to ensure their survival and species proliferation – even jellyfish operate by the principle of attraction/ repulsion, the most primitive instinctual behaviour. Jellyfish are not free from the instinctive/ instinctual programming or behaviour, they are not felicitous either, let alone harmless. They operate under the same principle as all instinctive/ instinctual programmed creatures – what can I eat, what can eat me?
If you choose to find relief in regressing to thoughtless, purely instinctive/ instinctual animal status that is your prerogative but please don’t claim you were thus inspired by actualist writings.
I can only recommend finding your initial sincere intent to feel good via the actualism method as you summarized it only recently –
Andrew: “Minimising the malice and sorrow, while maximising the felicity and innocuous, IS minimising the entire ‘self’ automatically” (19 Mar 2026)
… whereby minimising malice and sorrow means minimising both ‘good’ and bad feelings via attentiveness to how you feel and then, by recognizing that you are your feelings, choosing to feel good. It might require some firm common-sense to root out long-term acquired bad habits or longstanding training in feeling bad.
Andrew: Thanks for the links. (link)
Perhaps on sober re-reading you gain some better understanding and benefit.
Cheers Vineeto