Vineeto: Most of what you feel others would be thinking and feeling is what you feel about “being felicitous and innocuous”. (…)
Chrono: This is actually a point I’ve glossed over but now it’s obvious. How I view how others feel about being happy and harmless may actually be what I feel. They could be one and the same. There’s an illusion of uniqueness. Now I can come to a more clear choice.
Hi Chrono,
It makes finding out what is affectively happening so much easier when one can do away with any projection / automorphism which at first happens almost automatically. Only then one can get on with the job at hand, changing oneself, the only person one can actually change.
Vineeto: Mmh, that “mountain of fear” possibly has to do with you fighting the feeling and thus adding affective energy to it. See if you can loosen the control a bit, allowing the fear to just be there and you will notice how it diminishes simply by not objecting to it. From there is only a hop and a jump to feeling ok/ feeling good, and then you can explore what it is made of. It’s the automatic habit of rejection which makes it appear like a mountain.
Chrono: Yes I think that perhaps is what it is. I allowed myself to feel it and it seemed overwhelming. But it seems I had been afraid of being afraid. Just feeling it gets rid of that sitting on a ‘mountain of fear’ sensation. I allowed it to first wander where it would on its own, it veered towards cynicism and seriousness. An expectation of the worst. But what you wrote in the following quote helped me:
‘Vineeto’: (…) Only by accepting it as an adventure and at the same time doubting its actuality it lost its power over me, leaving me battered but proud like after a victorious, well-fought battle. (…) (Actualism, Vineeto, AF List, Alan-a, 28.7.1998)
Chrono: I had not approached it like that before. I wouldn’t doubt its actuality because it felt so true. So I had inadvertently been taking this ‘mountain of fear’ as truth. So the opposite thing I had been trying to do was allowing the fear to be there but I felt like I had to do something about it. So that would also feed it and it would mount in intensity. In the middle is a strange belief of something like ‘if I am feeling it, then that is what it is’. The feeling has the final say in the matter. But with this approach, I do not have to be afraid of the fear. I think the loosening the controls a bit is what I need to do right now.
Ha, yes, all strong feelings are generally perceived as “truths” – that’s the very nature of feelings. So in order to find out what is really going on you first need to take a step back (=get back to feeling good) before you can contemplate what’s happening … or when the feeling is too strong, then sit with the feeling, neither repressing or expressing it until the third alternative hoves into view. In case of fear that may be the thrill to discover what’s behind it all.
Respondent: When I feel fear, fear seems to reinforce itself and stays put.
Richard: It is not all that uncommon to feel fear feeding off itself, as it were, and mounting in intensity almost exponentially – as in a panic attack for instance – yet closer inspection reveals that it is none other than ‘me’, a fearful ‘me’, who is fuelling/ refuelling the fear (‘I’ am fear and fear is ‘me’) with ‘my’ own affective energy.
Respondent: When I think of any belief about the fear trigger, the fear seems to reinforce the belief.
Richard: Oh, indeed so … that is a phenomenon well-known by many a draconian.
Respondent: Each fear is a self perpetuating.
Richard: The key to success lies in realising that fear does not go anywhere (meaning that nothing ever happens except more fear). (Richard, List AF, No. 79, 21 June 2005)
Peter created a schematic in the Actual Freedom Library showing that in the perceptive process feelings demonstrably come before thought. Hence feelings always appear as ‘the truth’ before thought even questions them. That’s why diligent attentiveness is required to notice when feeling good diminishes.
Richard: … that is how it operates naturally (as is borne out by laboratory testing): sensate perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; cognitive perception is tertiary.
The sensate signal, a loud sound for example, takes 12-14 milliseconds to reach the affective faculty and 24-25 milliseconds to reach the cognitive faculty: thus by the time reasoned cognition can take place the instinctual passions are pumping freeze-fight-flee chemicals throughout the body thus agitating cognitive appraisal … and whilst there is a narrowband circuit from the cognitive centre to the affective centre (through which reason can dampen-down and stop the reactive response) the circuitry from the affective faculty to the cognitive faculty is broadband (which is why it takes some time to calm down after an emotional reaction).
Not that I knew anything of these laboratory tests all those years ago … but it is always pleasing when science proves what one has already sussed out for oneself. (Richard, List B, No. 12r, 11 Jan 2003).
Chrono: I applied this the week prior when my partner and I had a disagreement of sorts. Basically she was upset that I had not drove her home in the morning. I woke up and asked her (admittedly reluctantly) if she wanted me to drive her but I was too hesitant in just getting up and taking her due to my tiredness. Afterwards when I asked her if something was wrong she would say no (all the while the vibe was that something was wrong). After a few days she finally explained it after some prompting. There was the usual fear within me of where even with these disagreements I start to feel ‘oh so this is the end of the relationship’. She wanted me to reciprocate or do something for her in some way to show her that I am sorry (despite me already apologizing). I immediately thought that may be what she wanted was for me to suffer as well. But I declined going down that road. I asked for her part to communicate if she was feeling less than good and say if she doesn’t feel like talking about it at the time. She first said that she felt a little better just expressing her upset. Then after some eating, she was able to reason out that I had already helped her with her move to her new apartment and that she couldn’t ask for more. Throughout this I had the temptation to feel bad along with her because it seemed callous otherwise. I did end up falling into a bout of it but I was able to clearly see its workings while it was happening. It was rather insightful when I told her that I felt like I needed to suffer and she responded with ‘I’m not sure what I can do about that’. Some part of me feels that to suffer for another is caring. Another way that this ‘put others before oneself’ manifests. It’s a deceitful tactic to being more self-absorbed. Actually I am finding that relationship itself or perhaps this “connection” with another person hinges on this way of operating. Because when I contemplate feeling good come what may in this kind of scenario, a fear of the end of the relationship comes up. But I continually find that my partner much more enjoys when I feel good.
A fascinating process – especially as you described that “throughout this I had the temptation to feel bad along with her because it seemed callous otherwise”. You could see that “relationship itself or perhaps this “connection” with another person hinges on this way of operating”.
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)
The whole correspondence is a fount of information on the third alternative to suffering together and callousness.
Vineeto: When you understand what Richard is saying here, the whole system of this communal imperative can come crashing down –
Chrono: I have been observing the past couple of weeks how all-encompassing this way of being is. It’s evident in many interactions (and even while being on my own) with many supporting beliefs around it. I re-read this article after many years now and I can see it more in a comprehensive way that I could not before. Before it seemed only intellectual. The part that sticks out for me is where Richard asks “Has anyone fully realised that the community does not exist for the good of the individual?”. I can see the chastising in myself. I can see the coercion and shaming. Also I am wondering if ‘the whole’ and ‘the other’ are the same. If my identity is a product of all of this, then ‘the other’ to whom I am trying to relate to must be the same? It seems to scale from ‘the whole’ to ‘the other’.
When you can recognize the ‘other’ as a fellow human being, afflicted with the same genetic and social programming then you can also see that ‘the whole’ is made up of many other fellow human beings.
Chrono: Anyways, I have a recurring experience these past few days of an increased autonomy. It is completely my choice how I feel and I can feel good no matter what anyone says. It does not matter what anyone says either. These feelings of reproach in regards to this are nothing but paper tigers. The seeing is that nobody really knows what they are doing. I am wondering though, is feeling happy and harmless unconditionally the best thing that I can do for others and myself?
Yes, being happy and harmless is the best you can do for yourself and for others … apart from becoming actually free.
Chrono: Also perhaps relatedly I am noting that underneath this is a deep feeling of angst that comes more and more to the fore. Sometimes experienced as meaninglessness and sometimes as agitation. It feels like the fabric of my reality and is not of my choosing.
Indeed fear is at the core of your ‘being’ – ‘I’ am fear and fear is ‘me’. These quotes might shed some light on it –
Richard: Usually the frightening aspect dominates and obscures the thrilling aspect: shifting one’s attention to the thrilling aspect (I often said jokingly that it is down at the bottom left-hand side) will increase the thrill and decrease the fright as the energy of fear shifts its focus and changes into a higher gear … and, as courage is sourced in the thrilling part of fear, the daring to proceed will intensify of its own accord.
But stay with the thrill, by being the thrill, else the fright takes over, daring dissipates, and back out of the corner you come. (Richard, List B, James3, 7 Nov 2002).
And:
Richard: As for the distinction between the frightening aspect of fear and the thrilling aspect of fear: generally speaking one is paralysing and the other is galvanising; one is animating and the other is immobilising; one is incapacitating and the other is stimulating; one is vitalising and the other is debilitating; one is disabling and the other is enabling; one is energising and the other is crippling; one is discouraging and the other is encouraging … and so on.
I will leave it up to you to feel which one is which … and which one to choose to be. (Richard, AF List, No. 27e, 3 April 2003).
Chrono: There’s more and more to read that comes up and seems relevant to what I am feeling. I may need to just take a few days off to read intently . I have now been reading the correspondence on caring and benevolence. Richard writes that there is:
Richard: a vast gulf betwixt feeling benevolent (with feelings such as pity, sympathy, empathy, compassion and so on) and actually being benevolent (free of malice).
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).
Chrono: I am trying to see what this vast gulf is. I see after all of the above reflection that caring also includes myself (which is a huge step for me). But I am finding a bit of conflict between a near actual caring being an acutely empathic caring and feeling good come what may. How can it be both? Or also to put another way, how can I emotionally accept the suffering of humanity (I am assuming this is what is meant in the ‘how can I emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable?’)? Or am I mis-understanding something? Perhaps I am taking it out of context. (link)
Caring about yourself, i.e. becoming a friend to yourself, is indeed important, else how can you genuinely care for another fellow human being.
In the correspondence with Srinath Richard first explains the difference between empathetic caring, “vicariously sharing another person’s feeling”, and the non-empathic caring, i.e. “warmth and understanding” drawn from impressions based upon verbal and visual cues alone, promulgated by Assist. Prof. Jamil Zaki for care-professionals to prevent empathy burnout. Richard then makes it clear that neither alternative is salubrious and facilitates to end suffering forever.
Nowhere could I find the term “acutely empathetic caring” so let me know where you got it from. It is certainly in conflict with a near-actual-caring or feeling good come what may.
[Correction: Richard likened “acutely empathetic caring” to “near-actual-caring”. Viz.:
Richard: Now, as the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago was in an out-from-control virtual freedom for something like five months – although not named as such back then, of course, nor thought of in those terms – I can readily report how ‘he’ was more empathetic during that period than ‘he’ ever had been in all ‘his’ 34 years of existence. So much so, in fact, that I would be inclined to characterise a near-actual caring as an acutely-empathic caring. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, Srinath2, 13 Aug 2016)
Regarding near actual caring –
Richard: Thus Vineeto is emphatic that unless this “near-actual caring” term refers to “a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” with a marked-action effect, such as is illustrated above, it is to no avail to utilise such terminology. (List D, Srinath2, 6 Aug 2016).
In other words, it only occurs during an excellence experience or an ongoing EE (being out-from-control).
Maybe you need to revisit that correspondence because it has packed a lot of information in it.
Chrono: Or also to put another way, how can I emotionally accept the suffering of humanity (I am assuming this is what is meant in the ‘how can I emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable?’)? Or am I mis-understanding something? Perhaps I am taking it out of context. (link)
Emotionally accepting means to give up resenting that it’s happening or blaming others for it happening when/ if you can acknowledge that everyone (of no fault of their own) is inflicted with the same instinctual passions as you are.
Cheers Vineeto
. I feel this aggression more intensely when I think about the ‘unfairness’ in the world. When I watch the news, it does not make sense and I just play out a scenario in my head of how whoever I think is responsible (usually the “upper” class) gets punished severely. It’s truly a never-ending cycle. But now I experienced myself as responsible as well. Seeing all this makes it easier to sift through the facts as that pull towards how I should think or approach life based on if it feels ‘Right’ or ‘Wrong’ has greatly lessened. But even further to that, my intent to feel good come what may now can stand on its own. Because when I saw that others were also keeping at bay this same unbridled aggression, it became more clear that no one actually knows what they are doing. Previously I wrote that others seem to know something that I don’t. Now there’s no reason to go along with that feeling as it seems silly. It’s very fascinating how all of these feelings come together and feed each other. Many of them also seem to be weaker now. Especially the negative ones that I was feeling with my partner where I felt like I had to be anxiously grasping. I’m able to allow her more to be in her own space and I meet her from where I am if that makes any sense.
. I think ‘oh yes everyone knows this’, but I am seeing more nowadays that everyone does not see that this is the only moment of being alive. When I tell my partner or friends something like ‘isn’t it interesting that it’s always this moment?’, they often almost dismiss it and not realize the full import of it. Just the other day I was noticing this moment more and more and ‘pushed the envelope’ a little further. It’s so wonderful that this is the only moment of being alive, so precious, that I simply don’t know how to describe it. I had to take a step back from this further seeing after that because I had tears in my eyes. What would take me to ‘push the envelope’ more?
! Now I really have no excuse 
.
back then, of course, nor thought of in those terms – I can readily report how ‘he’ was more empathetic during that period than ‘he’ ever had been in all ‘his’ 34 years of existence. So much so, in fact, that I would be inclined to characterise a near-actual caring as an acutely-empathic caring.
: