It sure is fascinating to ponder but very hard to describe since we are not talking about an experience and not the interaction between two Lego pieces for instance. It’s a bit like asking what the interaction is between imagining playing basketball and actually picking up a basketball and playing. Not saying experience can’t be described but it’s worth asking: “what would a perfectly satisfying answer look like?”. Which is why I was satisfied with the “state of being connected” quote because it matched my own personal experience.
2 Likes
[Richard]: ‘(…). One can bring about a benediction from that perfection and purity which is the essential character of the universe by contacting and cultivating one’s original state of naiveté. Naiveté is that intimate aspect of oneself that is the nearest approximation that one can have of actual innocence – there is no innocence so long as there is a rudimentary self – and constant awareness of naive intimacy results in a continuing benediction. This blessing allows a connection to be made between oneself and the perfection and purity as is evidenced in a PCE. This connection I call pure intent. Pure intent endows one with the ability to operate and function safely in society without the incumbent social identity with its ever-vigilant conscience. Thus reliably rendered virtually innocent and relatively harmless by the benefaction of the perfection and purity, one can begin to dismantle the now-redundant social identity. The virtual magnanimity endowed by pure intent obviates the necessity for a social identity, born out of society’s values, to be extant and controlling the wayward self with a societal conscience’.
Pure intent has always been something that confused me at first regarding AF. When I first read about it I interpreted as some kind of religious or spiritual state and there was an aversion to what I was reading. I believe I mentioned before but when I was first exposed to AF (2004) my first 2 years were spent reading the site and looking for weaknesses and points of attack. To prove it is some form or religion, cult, spirituality, etc. This is how I used to spend some of my spare time, breaking down and attacking religions, cults, theism, etc. This was one of the areas that draw a lot of my initial scorn and attack.
I don’t know if I have misunderstood but to me pure intent was akin to remembering the PCE and what is gleaned from that experience, that everything is ultimately ok. That this is a genuine way of existing that is possible for this flesh and bloody body.
I always interpreted connection more as the synonyms association or relationship rather than some actual phenomenon of connecting, like connecting two wires or my phone to bluetooth. This association is now to know something tangible, a state that is known, experienced, as opposed to a hypothetical, theorised, conceptual. The memory of the experience of a PCE and awareness of everything that could be in alignment with that end goal, to the point of eventually experiencing a PCE again and eventually permanently is that pure intent.
RICHARD: G’day No. 13, Just putting in a plug for what is propagated by the website.
The ultimate source of an actualist’s pure intent is, of course, the pristine purity of the innocence which prevails in the pure consciousness experience (PCE).
For those who are unable to recall/ unable to trigger a PCE there is the near-purity of the sincerity which inheres in naiveté – the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’ – which naiveté is an aspect of oneself locked away in childhood through ridicule, derision, and so on, that one has dared not to resurrect for fear of appearing foolish, a simpleton, in both others’ eyes and, thus, one’s own.
(Because ‘naïve’ and ‘gullible’ are so closely linked – via the trusting nature of a child in concert with the lack of knowledge inherent to childhood – in the now-adult mind, most peoples initially have difficulty separating the one from another).
Now, seeing the fact (as ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) that it is plainly and simply ‘my’ choice as to how ‘I’ experience this moment (the only moment one is actually alive) is a first step leading to its discovery.
And, as the part-sentence you have quoted (further above) has been extracted out from the middle of the first paragraph of the section entitled ‘The Who And How of Attentiveness And Sensuousness And Apperceptiveness’, in the ‘Attentiveness And Sensuousness And Apperceptiveness’ article, then the opening lines provide a clue to an answer for your queries. Vis.:
• [quote] ‘The intent is you will become happy and harmless.
The intent is you will be free of sorrow and malice. The intent is you will become blithesome and benign. The intent is you will be free of fear and aggression. The intent is you will become carefree and considerate. The intent is you will be free from nurture and desire. The intent is you will become gay and benevolent. The intent is you will be free of anguish and animosity. The intent is that, by being free of the Human Condition, you will experience peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this body … as is evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) (…)’. [endquote]Spelled-out sequentially that first part of the paragraph, immediately prior to the part-sentence you extracted, can look something like this:
- The initial intent comes from a vital interest in becoming happy and harmless.
That intent thus creates a vested interest in being free of sorrow and malice.
- The initial intent comes from a vital interest in becoming blithesome and benign.
That intent thus creates a vested interest in being free of fear and aggression.
- The initial intent comes from a vital interest in becoming carefree and considerate.
That intent thus creates a vested interest in being free from nurture and desire.
- The initial intent comes from a vital interest in becoming gay and benevolent.
That intent thus creates a vested interest in being free of anguish and animosity.
All of this vital interest/ vested interest enables sincerity – as to be in accord with the fact/being aligned with factuality/ staying true to facticity is what being sincere is (as in being authentic/ guileless, genuine/ artless, straightforward/ ingenuous) and to be sincere is to be the key which unlocks naiveté … then the summing-up sentence can now look something like this:
The [sincere/ naïve] intent, then, is that by being free of the human condition you will experience peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this body … as is evidenced in the PCE.
As that summary sentence leads straight on to the sentence you have part-quoted from then it too can now look something like this:
• [quote]: ‘(…) An actualist’s intent is a [sincere/ naïve] intent and discovering how to blend this [sincere/ naïve] intent via attentiveness – into one’s conscious life is the process that places one on the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom … this path is a virtual freedom’. [end quote]
Which in turn is immediately followed by the how-to sentences:
• [quote] ‘Uncovering how to prolong the condition of virtual freedom – via attentiveness and sensuousness – is still another process. These are felicitous and innocuous processes, however, and they are well worth the effort for attentiveness and sensuousness are central to virtual freedom and the key to the whole condition. Attentiveness and sensuousness are both the goal of actualism and the means to that end: one reaches apperceptiveness by being ever more sensuous and one activates sensuousness by being ever more attentive … and one activates attentiveness by no longer ‘feeling good’. [endquote]
In other words, it is the experiencing of no longer ‘feeling good’ (or ‘feeling happy/ harmless’ or ‘feeling excellent/ perfect’) which activates attentiveness again (as in it ‘jogs the memory’ to pay attention).
It is all a very, very simple method, actually.
Therefore, these other intents such as to be sincere, naive, happy, harmless are in alignment with this pure intent, the closest approximation to pure intent or a PCE a self can achieve, a starting point for those like me who at first hadn’t had a PCE (it worked because I eventually ended up having one, and had 7 during that most successful period).
In each moment, the chance to take responsibility for your individual happiness and harmlessness in a sincere and naive manner. Each failure, no biggie, another opportunity comes as long as one is alive (and conscious…that helps) and attentive to the fact this is the only moment and that ultimate decision of how to experience this moment of being alive is always up for grabs. You can cop out and fall under the influence of an emotion. It’s ok, there is another opportunity to be aware and make a better choice, and another and another…oh and here’s one.
• [quote] ‘Nevertheless, one is still ‘human’ and to be ‘human’ is to err … and most people are very ‘human’ and err repeatedly.
Despite [sincere/ naïve] intent, the actualist lets their attentiveness slip now and then and one finds oneself stuck in some unfortunate – but normal – ‘human’ failure. It is attentiveness that notices that change … and it is attentiveness that reminds one to apply the [sincere/ naïve] intent required to pull oneself out.’ [endquote]That paragraph then goes on to point out how the process proceeds from there:
• [quote] ‘Slipping into ‘normal’ happens over and over, but the frequency decreases with the assimilation of the fact that the absence of anguish and animosity in one’s moment-to-moment experience allows one’s daily life to be peaceful and harmonious way beyond normal ‘human’ expectations. Once attentiveness has exposed those affective set-backs, sensuousness provides a more considerate and carefree condition … one is happy and harmless for ninety-nine percent of the time.’ [endquote]
And it finishes with both a summary and a lead-in to the next paragraph:
• [quote] ‘It is attentiveness which notices the change from ‘normal’ into happiness and harmlessness, and which reminds the actualist to maintain the [sincere/naïve] intent needed to keep one blithe and benign … and which allows apperception to freely happen. Apperceptiveness makes possible salubrity and sagacity (…).
We can procrastinate, we can self-deceive, we can give excuses, we can be the victim, we can indulge in hedonism, we can hide in escapism, we can go down that same old same old road again…that is fine it is not the end of the world. You are free to make whatever choice you want, but being aware that you can make a choice that is different means you have chosen to allow the same old, same old, whether consciously or not. I don’t know about the rest of you here, but I am definitely tired of that same old, same old now. Something has shifted for me personally of late, I don’t want what has always been.
Ultimately, you have that choice again. How do you want to live this moment of being alive?
1 Like
That’s great to hear 
, its nice to have you writing on the forum again.
I remember when I came back to Actualism a couple of years ago feeling a similar way and making an agreement with myself that I was going to do it no matter what.
3 Likes
Thanks. Yes, I recall seeing your return and renewed focus, it seems things are going really well for you, it has definitely been inspiring. As regards interacting on the forum, it has just been an extremely busy year in my personal life and work life rather than a lack of interest in actualism, but plenty of in the marketplace challenges. (For some reason the word marketplace always creates the image of some man trying to sell fish). When you have 3 kids, a parent with exacerbating dementia, a demanding job, a demanding wife (only joking) it was hard to make the time to catch up and interact on the forum. I was reading but it was like I was just getting through a few comments a day and it was like the forum had become an instagram-like infinite scroll. Things are a bit more balanced at the moment which has helped me catch up.
3 Likes
You actualist people are amazing. I was trying to get my head around investigation and @Kiman recent post was so helpful. And now son_of_bobs post about connection to Pure intent for those who have not had a PCE. just Wow 
2 Likes
I was reading the AFT on pure intent last night and noticed something I never had before, and it had a substantial enough effect on my experiencing that I thought it might be worth writing up a bit here.
Ok, so in the bowels of the AFT I came across this passage I had never seen before – just kidding, it was the pure intent footnote on the homepage, something I’ve read several times already. But for some reason, I saw it differently than I ever had before:
[Richard]: “Just to set the record straight: altruism (in its biological sense) is only the key to the process of ‘self’-immolation – going into blessed oblivion – and has nothing to do with living everyday life happily and harmlessly … the appearance of benevolence ensures that all interactions (including with oneself) are benign and beneficial. (…) Life is truly this simple: the pure intent to have the already always existing peace-on-earth become apparent, as evidenced in the pure consciousness experience (PCE), is activated with the nourishment of one’s innate naiveté via ‘the wonder of it all’ … whereupon an intimate connection, a golden thread or clew as it were, is thus established whereby one is sensitive to and receptive of the over-arching benignity and benevolence of the ‘another world’ of the PCE – which is already always just here right now anyway – and one is not on one’s own, in this, the adventure of a lifetime.
And sincerity works to awaken one’s dormant naiveté.”
Richard, Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 27d, 6 Dec 2002
So here Richard is indicating that pure intent is activated by naivete. Previously I had always thought of it as being sourced in the PCE, partly because he frequently refers to in those terms.
- NAIVETE:
Richard: For those who are unable to recall/ unable to trigger a PCE there is the near-purity of the sincerity which inheres in naiveté – the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’ – which naiveté is an aspect of oneself locked away in childhood through ridicule, derision, and so on, that one has dared not to resurrect for fear of appearing foolish, a simpleton, in both others’ eyes and, thus, one’s own.
One surely has to be naïve to contemplate the profound notion that this universe is benign, friendly. One needs to be naïve to consider that this universe has an inherent imperative for well-being to flourish; that it has a built-in benevolence available to one who is artless, without guile.
Naivete allows one to consider the possibility that the universe is inherently benevolent.
- SINCERITY:
“to be sincere is to be the key which unlocks naiveté”
Richard: Be sincere, utterly sincere … sincerity is sourced in naiveté.
Given that it is, plainly and simply, always ‘my’ choice as to how ‘I’ experience this moment then the optimum manner in which to do so is, of course, sincerely/ naïvely.
Thus the part-sentence in that previous post of mine [quote] ‘and to be sincere is to be the key which unlocks naiveté’ [endquote] is worth expanding upon.
The operative words in that part-sentence are [quote] ‘… to be the key …’ [endquote] and with particular emphasis on the word ‘be’ (rather than ‘have’ for instance).
In other words, to be sincerity (not only have sincerity) is to be the key (not merely have the key) to be naiveté (not just have naiveté).
(Bear in mind that, at root, ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ and it will all become clear).
As there is something I have oft-times encouraged a fellow human being to try, in face-to-face interactions, which usually has the desired effect it is well worth detailing here:
Reach down inside of yourself intuitively (aka feeling it out) and go past the rather superficial emotions/ feelings (generally in the chest area) into the deeper, more profound passions/ feelings (generally in the solar plexus area) until you come to a place (generally about four-finger widths below the navel) where you intuitively feel you elementarily have existence as a feeling being (as in ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being … which is ‘being’ itself).
Now, having located ‘being’ itself, gently and tenderly sense out the area immediately below that (just above/just before and almost touching on the sex centre).
Here you will find yourself both likeable and liking (for here lies sincerity/ naiveté).
Here is where you can, finally, like yourself (very important) no matter what.
Here is the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’.
Here lies tenderness/ sweetness and togetherness/ closeness.
Here is where it is possible to be the key.
I’m aware that the above was something the affers grabbed onto for awhile and that approach didn’t go anywhere particular for them. For me, the significant part is the connection between Sincerity, Naivete, Pure intent, and the Benignity + Benevolence of the Universe.
Sincerity is about getting the whole of oneself on board. It’s about recognizing what one knows and does not know. It’s about recognizing that one genuinely does want to know the answers to the questions of the universe. That one does indeed want one’s own and everyone’s lives to be better.
- PURE INTENT:
Pure intent is a manifest life-force; a genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe.
(from the same footnote on the home page)
So I drew up a quick diagram to simplify for my own benefit:
Sincerity → Naivete → Pure Intent → Benignity + Benevolence of the Universe
Having read this and not being capable at this time of having a PCE at will but knowing that I could access Naivete, I determined to be as naive as possible in the interest of increasing my connection to pure intent.
I started by ensuring my own sincerity was 100% in place. I wasn’t thinking in terms of Richard’s intuitive-physical directions from above, I was simply paying attention to my own intuitive sense of sincerity.
Once I had that, I opened up to a sense of naivete. Recognition that it could indeed be a fundamentally benevolent universe, despite what all the philosophers, psychologists, moralists, and mystics profess.
As soon as I did that, I felt a palpable benevolence arising in my experiencing. It was very noticeable, and clearly something that I had been ‘blocking’ via constant concern about ‘my’ issues.
This is pure intent.
There is something circular happening here where sincerity allows one to admit that one is naive, and naivete allows one to face the possibility that the universe is indeed inherently benevolent and benign. Once this possibility is grasped, then one’s attention toward the universe immediately makes the ‘possible’ evident: the benevolence & benignity are immediately there to be experienced.
And once the benevolence & benignity are experienced, it can become a runaway train: more benignity & benevolence is more verification that the universe may indeed be benevolent & benign; and more naive recognition of this (seemingly increasingly likely) possibility, the greater the connection to this same benignity & benevolence (which comes from outside of oneself - it is the fundamental character of the universe).
I can also see why Richard emphasizes getting a good dose of pure intent going before attempting the actualism method:
Warning: It is an utterly fundamental proviso that pure intent 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.
(from the AFT home page)
Despite how one might wrangle & attempt to effort their way toward becoming free/investigating, it may well do more harm than good, & certainly be painstaking & slow progress. When pure intent is firmly in place, the benevolence & benignity pouring in seemingly makes everything easy. It simultaneously makes the entire undertaking have a character of enjoyment, and clearly points the way toward the freedom we’re all aiming for.
As something of an afterword, it’s apparent to me now that even if one has had numerous PCEs - as I have - that the connection to pure intent may not be that strong. I was immediately struck upon conclusion of this experiment how much more felicity & enjoyment there is - literally always available, on tap - than what I had as an ongoing daily experience. I will continue to emphasize this in my own Actualism practice for as long as it seems beneficial.
I can remember previous periods in my life when my ongoing connection to pure intent was far more substantial, but various confusions, selfishnesses, and life events seem to have blunted it in time. I’m extremely… “chuffed” to have arrived back where it all began.
4 Likes
Its interesting you say this because from few days I’ve been thinking and experiencing now n then something in the same lines about Pure intent.
What I noticed in myself - which may be peculiar to me or at this stage - is that when I reflect upon Pure intent in terms of purity and harmlessness, then I move towards this good feeling/ divine/ pacifist territory…but instead when I think of the actual world in terms of richness and vitality, then it leads to a more delightful and wondrous place
This also accords with Richards “delight is what is humanly possible , given sufficient pure intent” passage
1 Like
Your description reminds me of how when some people get into actualism it’s all about ‘freedom,’ where for others it’s all about ‘harmlessness’ - it’s a case of ‘The Blind Men and the Elephant,’ where we each have different touch-points & experiences with purity, and we all have yet to go ‘full-monty.’
So long as you know what the words ‘happiness & harmlessness’ mean, it’s hard to go wrong.
Another thing - perhaps that difference has to do with subtle beliefs about “harmlessness = pacifism”
I was reading some of Richard’s selected correspondence the other day and I was very struck by his self-description of having a ‘lack of consideration’:
RICHARD: My previous companion would oft-times say ‘there is no-one in there’ or ‘there is no-one home’ when feeling me out whilst looking at me quizzically … she also would explain to others that, contrary to expectation, it was sometimes difficult to live with Richard (it could be said that living with some body that is not self-centred would always be easy) as it was impossible for her to have a relationship because there was no-one to make a connection with. She would also say that Richard does nor support her, as an identity that is, at all … which lack of (affective) caring was disconcerting for her, to say the least, and my current companion has also (correctly) reported this absence of consideration. Put simply: I am unable to support some-one who does not exist (I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world).
This flew directly in the face of how I was used to thinking about ‘caring,’ and reveals the radical nature of actual caring.
I’m used to thinking of caring consisting of ‘not upsetting anyone’ (emotionally), but here something very different is at hand.
Another sample of this attitude:
Richard: many years ago the identity inhabiting this body was conversing with ‘his’ then mother-in-law, painstakingly explaining why’ he’ was no longer able to do something – something which eludes memory nowadays – and was both surprised and pleased to hear the following words ‘he’ spoke in response to her reproachful ‘oh, you have hurt my feelings’ (manipulative) reply to ‘his’ carefully explicated account:
• ‘Then why carry [harbour/ nurse] such feelings … surely you leave yourself open to all manner of hurt by doing so?’
And yet, when I burst into tears on Richard & Vineeto’s boat in 2018 (having just recalled a particularly painful episode from adolescence), they offered me tissues, told me that my reaction was ‘par for the course’ for someone discussing such matters with them, and to my impression were extremely caring. What’s going on?
Damned if I know - but it’s certainly not the ‘normal’ caring!
Perhaps perusing this page will enlighten us both:
Frequently Asked Questions: The Difference between Feeling-caring and Actual Caring?
3 Likes
When it comes to actual caring, it was clear from one of my earlier short PCEs what its about…once we see in a PCE that it is possible to be completely free of suffering, then it becomes difficult to entertain feeling caring via stuff like consolation, compassion, empathy, pity etc…although admittedly, as a feeling being, these good feelings have continued to arise…So actual caring is primarily about not wanting another person to suffer ever aka having an interest in another’s complete elimination of suffering than having to control suffering
From a PCE, I can see myself offering tissues to someone crying as that is quite a straightforward thing from seeing tears…but saying something like “hey baby don’t cry”…am not exactly sure of that 
1 Like
I think the role of pure intent is in increasingly making that freedom from suffering apparent as a possibility / actuality, which makes those kinds of ‘good’ and conciliatory feelings less and less appealing.
In my experience part of what leads to actualism remaining mere moral injunctions to follow is not having a strong connection to pure intent. Because ‘I’ don’t know what ‘I’ am aiming for, I grasp for whatever flotsam I can find - easily done when Richard et al have spread so many words - and then ‘I’ mentally attempt to combine it into something coherent.
There are worse pieces of flotsam out there to grab for, but pure intent is still the guide non pareil.
1 Like
Yes this is so true…its just that age old morality that leads to that good feeling/ divine / pacifist territory !
1 Like
I suppose in that sense, it’s just a question of whether we find divinity, or the actual more seductive!
I think this further elucidates precisely what Richard means by the ‘connection’ to pure intent:
As I have previously likened the connection, betwixt naïve intimacy and that benedictive perfection and purity, to a metaphorical ‘golden thread’ or ‘clew’ – which I both commented on (parenthetically) and quoted in this very email you are responding to – does it not strike you as a trifle odd, upon considered reflection, that the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago (who coined that term) would call an allegorical ball of yarn and etcetera “pure intent”?
In other words, and keeping with the allegory for the nonce, unless that ‘clew’ be imbued/ suffused with the overarching benevolence and benignity (i.e., pure intent) it will remain but a lowly ball of yarn and etcetera and not attain to the status of ‘golden thread’.
Put simply, it may be as much a function of the way sentences are structured – containing as they do both a grammatical subject and object with various types of joining words betwixt the two – that it apparently can be read by some peoples as if it be the connective (i.e., “a thing that connects” ~ Collins English Dictionary) which is the pure intent.
(emphasis mine)
Amazing post @henryyyyyyyyyy, I wrote something so similar back in old diaries back in the day, it is crazy. I wish I hadn’t thrown them. This has unlocked something for me. Back in 2006, this was the big connection that got me into first major breakthroughs and then PCE territory.
I have found myself getting back to being sincere over the last few years (approx 2018) and it was tough but that connection to naivete has been harder than before, to release myself from this post trauma hypervigilant bind that manifests. I am finding pure intent and benignity even harder this time too.
My brain just seems to remember trauma and pain avoidance reflex so much quicker, like those pathways are lightning fast and habitual. Threat identification, in record speed. I notice anything not going in my favour, increase in prices for every day items, losing in a game of chance, getting a slight uncomfortable symptom or medical issue (I am talking to you diarrhoea), kids being naughty then it immediately jumps to this belief that the universe is non benevolent. Like it is all against me. The entirety of my being has taken a stance that the universe is against it. I deeply believe it and awareness of it has brought it to light but not sufficiently diminished this belief yet. It is has become some deeply engrained anti-life belief in me.
I recently realised that this belief also hilariously makes “me” special. You don’t have the universe against you, do you? See, your not as special as me.
The felicitous moments constantly perturbed so easily, it is weird though, last few weeks slowly getting back to increased felicity though no EE’s for awhile.
Last year was going so well, getting to this cosy and comfortable place. Increased stressors have pushed me into a corner and I can see every stressor has become fuel for that belief.
A belief to absorb all other beliefs. If it doesn’t work in my favour the universe is bad and not benevolent. It is actively against me, despises me and wants me dead!
1 Like
Richard is the bomb.
The exquisite detail is unparalleled.
It’s been so very pleasant becoming a “fanboy” of his style. It took a decade and a lot of mushrooms, but dang, if the guy just nails it.
I, for the first time get why some of the actually free peeps don’t write or even report; Richard has simply said it perfectly already.
1 Like
Regarding the threat response, remembered pain, and trauma;
The very self which is responding, automatically remembering etc et al, is the very reason that there is any of it to begin with.
It’s the ultimate catch 22. Whatever that means.
Something that was significant yesterday was that the exact response (pain etc) which is triggered, is exactly why psychic self-immolation makes so much sense.
The entire shit-show is one big confused reaction. Which, if it where to result in simply an unpleasant afternoon, would be of not much consequence. We have of course, an entire planet in just such a state, going to war, (and everything else which I can hardly stand to write).
It’s the reaction itself, spinning of into more reaction whilst audaciously being an Identity which must gently see it’s own shadow, it’s own complicity in the entire ongoing event.
The insanity of it. The generator of suffering falsely trying to protect from additional or new suffering whilst continuing to be the very thing that maintains and enables the suffering in the first place whilst simultaneously sabotaging the very acts that minimise that suffering.
The belief of the universe against me seems to link up to other beliefs.
The belief that humanity is terrible and needs to be punished. The rage and fury within me that wants the entirety of the human race to die. It just seems to be the extreme end of my rage a weird satisfying feeling when there. Like my rage gets sated if i take it to that extreme.
That i deserve to die. That the universe would be better if I was dead. It is just some extreme manifestation of sorrow and frustration and self pity.
That I will suffer or die, that the bad things are just build up events for more terrible suffering and possible death definitely coming my way soon. Such as war coming to UK, Russia is going to nuke us, all doomsday scenarios.
Yet, as obvious as it is, the rancour we feel isn’t susceptible to criticism.
"Feelings about feelings " pretty much sums me up.
That rage isn’t useless though. It’s energetic and active. Richard has many times made this point that an actualist isn’t passively engaged with life. Rather the opposite. Over the last while, maybe 6 months , when feeling that very angry hateful feeling about someone, I will simply say to myself “I will end you”. Meaning that I am the very same stuff that they are, the same phenomenon of self being generated locally in this body. There is no difference in the type of stuff.
If one can indeed change , then it’s a “death blow” for all other examples of identities currently believing that they are the victims of some cosmic conspiracy.
1 Like
Beliefs are funny this way haha. What I can suggest from experience is — even though it feels right , find the distinction in your experience of the feeling of the belief , and the common sense thinking that shows it isn’t true. The common sense doesn’t automatically eliminate the belief right away. But you can experience both simultaneously. I remember seeing an interview with someone with schizophrenia where he says basically that he knows his delusions aren’t real, 100% he is aware of that, but he believes them anyway. I’ve had this experience too, it’s not special to schizophrenia 
But then don’t suppress or repress the belief. Don’t endorse it either. Just let it be while latching onto the common sense (which doesn’t have any felt weight to it). Keep your hands in your pockets. Eventually the believing will diminish ! And then one day it will vanish entirely.
1 Like
Yes thanks, I have been doing this actually for years now, with the anxiety as well to the point that it would just be my body going through the motions without the conviction of the belief. So, I have that confidence that it can work and diminish its influence over me. It was previous discussions in the other forums that helped me get back on track though and do this. This time I am just expressing newer associations I have realised among the beliefs.
It seems like I need really strong reactions to try and feel something, possibly some aspect of that sort of numb state during depression and then my anti-d meds. Now I am doing ok and off meds not feeling that numb state much at all but definitely still chasing more extreme emotions in this anger or sorrow, or the other reliable highs, eating, looking at attractive women, escapism in some show or movie.
Thanks, its funny this goal oriented mind set I have makes me forget the process, as I have now had this happen with other beliefs, like I used to feel ashamed if I spilt something on myself, that is gone now. So, I know the drill experientially but still somehow forget and just want the outcome I desire, like being rid of that influence.
It is like as soon as something is in my field of awareness as regards a belief from a possible blind spot then I want something to happen right now, be gone belief. Instant gratification.
2 Likes