I was being just normal regular feeling-being consciousness and then I began wondering which I unknowingly did via an existential probing , and then there it was, this richly sweet and fine purity was all of a sudden immanent.
Interestingly Vineeto picked up my existential probing at the time, although she didn’t know my side of the experience until I told her later. In an email to me on July 11, 2012 she wrote:
I told her about my side of it and this was her response on November 16, 2014:
(Just as an aside, I quote from these emails freely once I determine there’s no personal information in them, as Vineeto told me a while ago that I can publicly share whatever she writes to me privately if I think it’ll be of benefit. And I always ask if it’s a gray area.)
I had a dream that I wrote such a good forum post describing my thoughts and experiences that Richard gave it the “hibiscus emoji” (ie the “meaning of life” emoji) — with the username richard.actualfreedom
When I wrote “It’s like before I wasn’t actually enjoying and appreciating — now I certainly am.” – I was having an excellence experience, whereas before I wasn’t.
It’s not that I wasn’t enjoying and appreciating before… … I was … … but it was not as much as in the EE.
Outside of the EE, even though I am experiencing pure intent (and have still been continuously), it’s still like something is missing, which is present in the EE, and is becoming familiar to me now… that piece that is missing is allowing the pure intent to be dynamically operative from “its” side.
When that piece is in place then I experience the operative purity as a breath of cool air… and the enjoyment skyrockets!
Also it is increasingly clear that the only thing ‘I’ can do, and the only thing ‘I’ have to do, is to allow the purity to be operative… it’s actually not a “big” thing per se. Like it isn’t ‘hard’ to do… but I have to want to do it. And at the same time, it’s no ‘meagre’ thing… it makes a world of difference …
It could be exactly that. But it’s good to be mindful of the trap of pleasing ‘Richard’ or ‘Vineeto’ - instead of moving towards actuality yourself. This is what feeling being does well after all, creating good-feeling ‘worlds’ to go into - instead of escaping them and going into the actual world. And as you get closer to the finish line and are suffused with purity, the difference between good feelings and feeling good can get quite subtle. Let sincerity and awareness be your guide.
for sure and I appreciate the advice! I will keep an eye out.
While writing the post I realized it came off like it was approval-seeking. But the experience of the dream was more that I was going down the right path and Richard’s emoji served as a confirmation of that – as opposed to a ‘good’ feeling of feeling like I’m doing a ‘good’ job (as in receiving a positive moral dividend)
One thing I actually was thinking recently is no matter how much I may interact with you or Vineeto or Richard, exchange ideas, give reports, ask advice, etc., at the end of the day none of it will result in me self-immolating — I still have to actually do it myself! There’s fewer and fewer distractions that I let myself get distracted by .
I was spreading an avocado on some toast with a fork and it was the most magical thing I have experienced.
The avocado itself consisted of coruscating infinitely distinct and smooth shades of green.
As I pressed the avocado into the toast I got fascinated with the experience of smushing the avocado around. I turned the fork over with the prongs down and started raking the smushed avocado, and as the fork was making furrows in the greenness, I distinctly experienced it like I was scratching my own back somehow, that I was delightfully and joyously making furrows in myself, if I were something that enjoyed having furrows made in it!
However it is not that I was the avocado… rather there was no separation between me and the avocado. Me and the avocado were made of the same thing and had the same existential status… we were both the universe itself and I was the universe interacting with itself. (‘Claudiu’ of course was in abeyance at this point.)
I had a very visceral experience of what it means that “you can’t argue with the wisdom of the real world”.
I was interacting with someone and I could see how their thoughts and even feelings and emotions were happening as a result of this immense and massive, apparently (solid and totally unmovable) black psychic backbone. From this psychic backbone issued forth all the ways one should think and feel and behave and act and talk. This backbone is the framework upon which an identity is built… we are all just constructed out of this backbone, that exists only in the psyche.
There is no way an individual person could come up with this backbone. And you can’t explain an individual person’s behavior without such a backbone. This is why people get so defensive and upset when core beliefs are questioned … the apparently solid and apparently unmovable backbone actually isn’t solid or unmovable … it doesn’t exist at all. Because of this, it requires constant defending and upholding. When it is questioned, it’s an attack on the very foundation of existence - it is apparent insanity to question or try to change or move any piece of it. It’s the very foundation of society … it dictates how ‘reasonable people’ should behave. To question it is to question what it is to be reasonable per se.
Yet of course it can and does move … different societies and cultures have different backbones and it can shift over time. But i suppose that for everyone this psychic backbone the same , as in being apparently solid and unmovable.
Be that as it may it’s clearly impossible to try to argue with it or change it. There is no fruit to be had there.
Seeing this I was wondering how I could possible operate safely in the world if it were to disappear for me. And what I saw is that there is no reason or need to instantly discard the knowledge it contains , per se! That is, if the underlying psychic energy supporting it were to disappear… … I would still be able to use the “shape” of it and imitate what I normally would do if it were still present. Meaning that as a worst case I can do the same thing I would otherwise … and then I could gradually replace it with sensibility, as things come up. So nothing will be lost if it disappears for me.
It also makes sense now how the Social identity isn’t instinctual and how a guardian can persist after basic actual freedom - the guardian is the shape of it, now no longer being fueled instinctually.
It also means that the backbone is not primary, although it appears to be — the raw instinctual passions , of aggression and fear and desire for example, all can easily override it if they are powerful enough. In a war zone or a revolution it all collapses as if it never was (and indeed it never was)… until it forms and settles into a new shape.
I was with a family friend and a few other people and the friend was considering buying a property here. They were asking me and my partner for advice as we have been living here. A particularly big potential wrinkle - a deal-breaker really - came up, and I pointed it out, that if that were the case it would really lower the value of the property and it wouldn’t be the good deal they think it is.
I could tell they were disappointed, but this time it was different. In the past I would naturally empathise with them, and feel that same disappointment… and then I would want to make them feel better. As clearly they wanted the deal to work, I would tell them it’s ok, it’s probably a good deal anyway, don’t give up, so that they would feel better. But I realised this would be doing them quite a disservice! Because if it isn’t a good deal, they shouldn’t do it… and it would actually be rather … maybe not “uncaring” per se, but it wouldn’t be good for them, to paste over the facts of it. Empathising and assuaging isn’t actual caring, not at all.
I also witnessed everyone else around the table doing just that – trying to assuage them – and it was just even clearer that it isn’t the most caring I could be!
And therefore I didn’t feel bad about disappointing them at all! I didn’t do anything ‘wrong’. I didn’t feel ‘good’ about it in terms of being gleeful at their bad feeling… but I couldn’t do anything else. It wasn’t the ‘right’ thing to do, but it was the sensible thing to do.
I find myself in the process of buying a house and it’s a nonstop riding of a stress/excitement/anxiety wave. Not sure how to “get out of it” . It has fun aspects but mostly feels bad. I understand that everything will be ok regardless, and can even experience some of this pure safety from time to time, but I still worry.
I am at a point where it seems tricky to talk about actualism without seeming pretentious.
The main thing is that I am seeing actualism is actually “below” or “closer” or “beneath”, as opposed to “above” like I instinctively thought.
The ‘layer’ which I’m talking about things being below or above, is the social identity , or the moral layer.
Basically just due to habit and what I am famíliar with, it’s natural to take on actualism as a set of things I should or shouldn’t do. I should feel good … I shouldn’t feel angry … etc. i already thought I knew that actualism wasn’t this … no “shoulds” in it. But I feel like I have now observed it at a deeper level that I have been taking it as a set of shoulds.
So it’s a lot simpler and more basic than I thought. If I feel bad… it’s not that there’s a moral or set of rules question of that I shouldn’t feel bad and I should feel good. If I am thinking or feeling that way , I’m already “above” and it’s too late. Instead I have to get back “below”… to the part before moral or social reasoning. There there isn’t any should. I can feel bad if I want. It feels like there is no reason not to feel bad. I think before I would avoid this because it meant I’m a bad actualist. Of course there is a reason not to feel bad … … isn’t there?
But now I see that there’s in fact no “should” type of reason. Once that is gone though … … well it’s up to me. And feeling bad isn’t as enjoyable as feeling good. So that’s the “reason”. But there’s no imperative to it. I can feel bad if I want. Any feeling that I should or shouldn’t feel bad … … now feels like completely the wrong approach. No one can force me not to feel bad
you’re telling me I think it has more to do with society not appreciating someone applying their own intelligence unless they earned the title of authority. what say you? do you think you personally sound pretentious when thinking/writing about actualism?
Is there a paradox here of some sort? I’m not an expert in logic or the such. But technically, if things are going well then you should feel good. It’s just that you shouldn’t carry the attitude that you shouldn’t feel bad. Something like that… Maybe this is what the spiritualists mean by transcending.
Put another way, in basketball you should score baskets. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to do so and attempting to avoid missing. That’s the point. It’s when things cross over into moralistic territory and perhaps this is what you mean when you’re saying moralistic thinking is a layer above the actual?
I suspect this is a trap people fall into over and over. I have taken to reminding myself that I should be a feeling being first so I don’t fall into the trap of being too dissociated from feelings to fully recognize them.
I tend to think morals are perfectly fine if they’re fully appreciated for what they are: a set of quick and dirty rules for understanding life. Kind of like a tutorial for life that can provide shortcuts but is no substitute for thinking for oneself.
.
I think it has more to do with society not appreciating someone applying their own intelligence unless they earned the title of authority. what say you? do you think you personally sound pretentious when thinking/writing about actualism?