Drawing the line between feeling and fact

[claudiu]

I think what is key here is that the actual world is completely invisible to a feeling-being. Richard re-iterated this point to me a few times on my first visit. On one occasion he was telling me something about actual flesh and blood bodies. And I pointed to myself, to indicate what he was talking about. And he said no, not that body – I was perceiving a physical body, but not an actual flesh and blood body. The actual flesh and blood body I actually am was completely invisible to ‘me’. And likewise the actual flesh and blood body Richard was, was completely invisible to me.

And not only invisible to the eyes but also impossible to hear, smell, touch, etc…

And this applies not only to bodies but literally to all of experience, for a feeling-being. The actual world is completely invisible, imperceptible, not capable of being sensed.

Also see this correspondence where Richard explains the distinction between actual sensations and physical sensations. To summarize, for an actually free person there is no distinction - they are one and the same - while for a feeling-being, there are no actual sensations, only physical sensations.

Thus it is true that everything that a feeling-being perceives, be it ‘out there’ or ‘in here’, is ultimately of the same substance - whether it is a thought, feeling, sight, sound, taste, etc. It is all processed through and presented to ‘my’ affective consciousness as ‘me’ being conscious of ‘myself’. The experience in its entirety is affective, affectively-tinged. There is no portion or percentage of it that is actual. And there is nothing you can do about it. The actual world is only perceptible in a PCE or when actually free.

Thus with that in mind…

@rick

Presently, experiments on how experience can be reoriented upon discernment that no fundamental distinction exists between inward-appearing and outward-appearing phenomena are ongoing. Preliminary results indicate that as this fundamental distinction between ‘in’ and ‘out’ diminishes, so does the division-line such distinction apparently sustained. A closeness and intimacy felt with the surroundings manifests and intensifies as the separative divide between what was in here and what was out there weakens and withers.

That may be so, but as you are including feelings in this unification, if you succeed in what you are doing and that divide fully disappears, you will not be experiencing the actual world, but rather an affective unity, that will, you guessed it, include ‘you’ the feeling-being in all your rotten-to-the-core glory. This is none other than the spiritual path.

EDIT: And not only that but, as the actual world is entirely invisible to you in the first place – no amount of diminishing distinctions in your (already not-actually-existing) world, will ever lead to anything actual… thus all you are doing (and would be doing if you continue this) is essentially ‘rearranging deck chairs on the titanic’, rather than getting to the root of the matter (to wit, why is there an already-separative ‘me’ in the first place?)

@rick

What can’t be grasped is how that which is meta-physic gives rise to or effects that which must adhere to the rules of physics. It is not unlike the outlandish claims that demons, angels, and ghosts from the “otherside” are able to interact with people and objects in the physical world.

It is indeed not unlike that. ‘I’ ultimately have the same quality of existence as demons, angels, ghosts, and Santa Claus. Yet if you look at the state of the world, with all its wars, suicides, tortures, murders, rapes, etc. – these are all effects of these not-actually-existing (i.e. “meta-physic”) entities wreaking their havoc upon the world.

Again I contend it is impossible to truly grasp this point - just how non-existent ‘I’ am - without a firm PCE as a reference point.

@rick

Richard (2001): This physical universe is infinite and eternal (boundless and limitless).

Which means there is no space, no room, no possibility for anything that is not physical to exist anywhere at all. And the physical absoluteness: boundless, limitless, and borderless, is inclusive of all and is exclusive none. And if a fact means anything at all, surely it must mean something that is undeniable. For example, if there is the experience of repulsion, then that repulsion is undeniably, factually occurring; if it is factual then it must be included, by definition, in the boundless absolute. To be sure, instinctual passions are not the preferred experience, and once the button that dissolves them is located there will be no hesitation to press it. In the meanwhile, these recent discernments, being examined under the eye of critical observation, have been a welcome development. It is supremely satisfying to dip into the warm baths of a physical absolute every now and again.

When I brought up similar lines of reasoning to Vineeto - I was saying, for example, if I felt something in the past, isn’t it a fact that I felt something? Therefore what does it really mean a fact is not a feeling? And she said that I am just confusing myself, and it’s better to simply keep it straightforward – that a feeling is a feeling and a fact is a fact. This advice served me well.

@Srinath

@rick

The prospect that internal images, concepts, and feelings were no different, qualitatively, to externally perceived objects occurred after pondering Richard’s repeated reference to thoughts that were “sparkling, coruscating” as if he were dazzling at the glittering mirrors on a twirling disco ball, descriptions you don’t normally use for silent, private thought processes. Had he never deleted his imagination the presumption is that he would describe imaginative events in a like manner.

Interesting. Unlike Richard I can still visualise images after AF. But there is definitely a noticeable reduction in their vividness and how compelling I find them. I experience both sparkling, coruscating thoughts and images both. Delicate, striking abstract images in particular are noticeable at night when I go to sleep sometimes. I don’t make too much of them. But I did not think to demarcate these thoughts and images as actual, in opposition to say someone else’s non-actual thoughts and images - or maintain that they are they are the same as an actual apple or table. I think of thoughts and images both as being in the category of the virtual which I probably got from Deleuze and misappropriated. Not something I’d defend to the death. Just my sloppy way of thinking about it for now. (Virtuality (philosophy) - Wikipedia )

@Srinath would you draw a distinction between imagination and mental imagery? I think this distinction is being blurred here. My understanding is that imagination completely disappears upon basic actual freedom, while mental imagery does not. Thus one is affective (not actual) and the other is actual.

---

Incidentally I love being able to highlight text throughout the posts and click “Quote”, and add them to the reply here. Makes it much easier to answer!