In the context of this convo it sounds like you’re saying that if an actualist were to wish to a trickster genie that he were happy forever, and that genie then murdered his family and friends and cut his limbs off but somehow made it so the actualist was happy despite this, that this would be a successful actualist result. After all the actualist got what he wanted - happiness - didn’t he?
But there’s only two ways this could really happen:
1- the actualist remains a feeling being but is somehow still happy. This is basically impossible … you can’t just not react to those close to you dying and literally being plagued. And the way a feeling-being reacts is emotionally. Actualism isn’t about stopping to feel things.
So the only way the genie can succeed is by somehow hypnotizing or enthralling said actualist so that things don’t affect them anymore, ie causing them to be so detached that these things don’t affect their personal bubble of happiness.
Which is not what actualism is about. But it is what Buddhism is about! “Equanimity towards all phenomena” and some such.
2- The genie makes the actualist actually free.
If the genie offered the option to be actually free in exchange for murdering one’s friends and family and cutting off one’s limbs, why on earth would anyone accept this when you can become actually free without someone doing such horrible things? It would be highly inconsiderate lol. I would even say that anyone who would accept this would care so little and be so self-centered that they’d have no shot to be actually free and saying yes would disqualify them (it’s a hypothetical so I can make up the rules :)).
So the only way would be if the genie tricks the actualist — murders their family without telling them. Yet even if actually free it’s not like the murder of your family wouldn’t affect you. Irena leaving Richard affected him. He tried to convey what it’s like in one of the DVDs but seemed to not have a good way to do it. It’s just that the effect isn’t one of emotional sorrow. But it wasn’t his preference. Even so his experience of himself remained perfect throughout. It’s like the toast with butter analogy — on a scale of 1 to 10 there are 1s and there are 10s. But the experience is of perfection regardless.
———
It’s all a silly hypothetical anyway but in a careful analysis it doesn’t have anything to do with actualism.
You know I really wasn’t intending to analyze that little genie hypothetical to any length. It was just a passing thought that I figured would capture, in its own weird way, how radical and revolutionary it was for Richard to identify and then, more incredibly, choose to have what it was that he truly wanted, namely, everlasting and unconditional happiness. All as a feeling being. (That point is important.)
That said, it has been very interesting to see the responses to that and to my clarifications. One more technical point I’m inclined to address, just because the responses were so curious:
This response was so interesting. How can you say it is “impossible” as a feeling being to be happy while those close to you are dying and literally being plagued? That you can’t just not react. Firstly, as if reacting with happiness is not a legitimate reaction! Secondly, it’s as if one can only feel either happy or unhappy depending on the situation. Thirdly, it sounds like you don’t want to feel unconditionally happy. @Kub933 had the same response. Which is fascinating to me. You all really want to feel unhappy when “bad” things are happening (like people dying or being plagued).
I almost didn’t believe you all were serious whenever you all would say, in previous posts and topics, that you all wanted to feel bad. But its really sinking in now that you guys truly, truly want to feel bad. Damn.
And the way a feeling-being reacts is emotionally. Actualism isn’t about stopping to feel things.
Correct. But in actualism, those reactions and feelings to every single event without exception (even someone’s death) are supposed to be felicitous. Maybe you preferred they not be dead. But if they are, then your happiness is not affected one iota. As a feeling being. Else you have strayed off the wide and wondrous path. That was the experience of the virtually free feeling being Richard.
This is actualism 101, guys. I expect these kind of responses and objections from those unfamiliar with actualism. Frankly, it’s bizarre having to explain things like this to the long-ago-initiated. I feel like I’m losing my mind here.
Hmm… I’m speaking from a pragmatic place not a theoretical one. I would suggest you try it yourself and see how it goes, except that it would mean one of those close to you is getting murdered and I wouldn’t wish that on you or them.
If you’re aiming to be in such a way as to react with happiness when someone close to you is getting murdered … that certainly isn’t actualism! Lol.
Again I’m speaking pragmatically. If your wife gets murdered , you ain’t gonna be happy about it. Now there’s no reason per se not to continue to enjoy and appreciate being alive regardless… as being upset wouldn’t bring her back… but practically speaking it’s gonna take you some time to process that and get back to that point.
We aren’t describing anything other than how you yourself are. It’s a universal human thing. You are just not seeing it at the level we’re talking about.
Well there’s no “supposed to be” in actualism…
You’re several steps behind us . We aren’t saying anything so strange. You just don’t see it yet. You aren’t at the point where it makes sense what we’re saying , or even where there’s a hint of something that might make sense. So there’s a vast disconnect.
Can’t answer the question as-is. It’s called a virtual freedom because you’re virtually free, not actually free. You can’t eliminate feeling bad - and you don’t try to. Rather, you minimize it. It’s relatively/virtually unconditional, not actually unconditional like actual freedom. So you maximize enjoyment as much as you can. That’s the actualism method - and certainly not impossible!
Holy shit. I just now realized why I thought – for all these years! – that an unconditional affective happiness was possible. It was because that is what Richard said back in 2005 when I was on his mailing list. He has since “updated” the archives.
The exact wording of “unconditional happiness” and “unconditional harmlessness” as it pertained to virtual freedom (hence, feeling being) had stayed in my mind.
amazing what sticks, especially considering ‘virtual’ means “almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to strict definition”.
Which is to say the original wording is to say something like “[…] not an almost-but-not-completely sorrow-free (and therefore unconditional) happiness […]” – which is to say how unconditional can it really be if it’s not completely sorrow-free? Just a ‘speck’ of sorrow then
But if it tripped up one person it means it can trip up many people. The updated wording is much clearer!
Incidentally Vineeto’s pretty good about updating the site if you find any apparent inconsistencies, e.g. all the quotes you found about the ‘self’ being or not-being a physical or a metaphysical entity, if it’s something she or Richard can update to site to clarify they may be amenable to that.
The thing for me (and I have to play with words a little here) is that there is 1 ‘condition’ on happiness and harmlessness - and that is existing in this universe, it is the perfection of this universe which is where felicity and innocuity (which the actualist is aiming for) is sourced.
Whereas this picture of like existing in some happy and harmless ‘spell’ or ‘bubble’ (which is really referring more to enlightenment where ‘I’ am removed from the actual and exist in a self centred fantasy) creates a sense that one is somehow removed from the world and yet still being happy - this leads to a sense of numbing or insensitivity which creates these images of watching others be murdered with a smile.
Whereas the happiness and harmlessness which we are discussing is inextricably built in with actually existing in this world, which means being inevitably involved in it, which means it includes care and consideration automatically. It is all part of the same ‘package’ which is sourced in the perfection of the actual, this is where pure intent is important because it is ‘my’ connection to that ‘dimension’ of existence.
@Kub933 I agree with your “one condition” of happiness, and where it is ultimately derives from (the perfection of infinitude).
Maybe it would help you understand what I was getting at – and which was not intended to be provocative – if I were to provide Richard’s own genie thought experiment by which mine was directly inspired. (He found its employment useful in the context of revealing what people truly wanted deep down inside themselves). All I did in my version, for my purposes, was to make the genie a trickster who (perversely) enjoyed heaping loads of unforeseen and undesired consequences upon his unsuspecting masters, which was my off-the-cuff attempt to keep with the context and theme under the original discussion that involved “fearing changes or consequences that come with getting what you want.” Accordingly I fleshed out a couple horrific things a trickster genie might do in line with his mischievous inclinations (killing one’s children, inflicting one with illness, etc). The point being that with uncaused and unconditional happiness, there is nothing at all a trickster genie – or anyone or anything – can do to disturb that happiness. Nothing that could make the wisher, who wished for happiness, regret their wish.
Richard (2003): Many years ago, in face-to-face conversations on the topic of being happy and harmless, sometimes, after going round and round the same nonsense to no avail, I would suggest to my fellow human being that we put what is being discussed into the realm of wishful thinking, a fantasy as it were, and suppose a childhood fairy complete with twinkling wand were to drop by, or a genie were to pop out of a bottle, or whatever, and put to them the opportunity to be either happy (never mind being harmless in this exercise as the aim was to make it as uncomplicated as possible) for the remainder of their life or be unhappy – and whichever they were to choose it would be immediately granted with full irrevocable effect – then which would they choose? Not altogether unsurprisingly the other would invariably say they would choose to be happy, of course (whilst looking at me as if I were some kind of idiot), yet when I would then say that very opportunity is just here, right now, each moment again in actuality, for life itself is indeed a magical wonderland granting happiness and harmlessness by the bucket-load, they would look at me as if I were some kind of trickster (for extracting from them what they really wanted by devious means) and could become quite irked. Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 59
And by that small change in the hypothetical you created a monster
I think there’s not much more to add here I think it seems all ironed out at this point.
The quote you sent though hit HARD! The universe is indeed dispensing happiness, harmlessness and delight by the bucketful and I have my own little genie each moment again - me, it can really be that simple.
I thought of another element of the fear involved with the desire for intimacy, which is that it’s not the same as other desires in that it draws one closer to oblivion.
Where other desires may be relatively simple, such as desiring a good meal, the desire for intimacy contains the implication of oblivion, which as discussed in this thread is the center of everything as far as ‘being’ goes and thus contains a lot of psychic energy.
I don’t know if this has already been covered, but I think that besides that fear of oblivion, intimacy can also bring up all sorts of fears and aggressive impulses in people. It can put you in a very vulnerable place where fight/flight mode can easily kick in. Then there are all sorts of fears like that of being used, having the particularities of ‘me’ not be dealt with considerately, shame, body image insecurities, previous relational and sexual patterning can come into play. Then there’s circumstances in one’s life that men probably find easier to hive off when it comes to sexy time than women can.
I think it’s difficult to reduce all of this into a simple biological or psychosocial cause as every individual is a singular and complex blend of all of the above.
Men are probably more guilty of seeking a simple and reductive cause for failures in intimacy and the drawback of even using an ‘actualist’ paradigm or filter is that it can be then be used to beat up on one’s partners - or oneself for failing the standard. Especially as feeling beings or even when with a feeling being partner better to keep this complexity in mind and try and connect with your partner, be they man or woman in a way that keeps them uniquely in mind.
Been there. I tried calmly explaining to her that the true reason she was furious at me was because she was born with “animal instinctual passions,” once.
Yeah this is interesting because a man’s habit of forcing things with logic can persist, now armed with the ‘actualist viewpoint’, but the same underlying theme is being played out.
I had an interesting thought related to this concerning relationships. Often when we get very intimate with someone, we become equally sensitive to being rejected by them. So we begin pulling back a little out of fear. We are afraid of being obliterated/annihilated. But turning that fear into thrill means you lean into this feeling. You turn towards the door marked “oblivion” and move towards it.
New level / way of putting it that maybe makes more sense.
It’s not that I want to suffer per se … it’s that I don’t want to let go or stop being the way I am, even if it entails suffering and letting go/changing would entail enjoyment.
So the desire to keep being me / to not change outweighs the desire to be unconditionally happy. Or better yet it’s a case by case thing (ie in this situation … etc … the suffering is worth it)
Which is silly because I am trading an experience of enjoyment (whether affective or actual doesn’t particularly matter for this) for maintaining an ephemeral and illusory and ultimately rotten ‘being’. It’s not worth it!
The suffering helps maintain the ‘seriousness’ of me and my agendas, and I want to be serious so that others will ‘take me seriously,’ in other words so I have power over them.
Similarly on an internal level the suffering tells ‘me’ what is ‘important,’ and because it is ‘important,’ it’s hard to imagine letting it go or even wanting to let it go. There’s a gaping void standing at the door of that option.
Which makes it especially interesting that the final becoming free was pretty easy for everyone after Richard. What happened to that void?
Edit:
"‘I’ would roar back into full existence creating havoc for this body and every body, given half a chance. I had to ‘die’ so that this body and every other body could live peacefully. I would need to truly die. The enormity of this dawned on me suddenly like it never had before. The enormity of what I had to give up. It took my breath away. Suddenly I felt a twinge of sadness that emerged from me like a thin pungent streak. But it cut-off abruptly as if in mid-air, still-born.
Nothing else happened."
The altruistic desire for peace is enough to want to end that void… the prime directive of the ‘self’ toward the survival of the species is enough to end all other concerns
. We aren’t saying anything so strange. You just don’t see it yet. You aren’t at the point where it makes sense what we’re saying , or even where there’s a hint of something that might make sense. So there’s a vast disconnect.
.
amazing what sticks, especially considering ‘virtual’ means “almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to strict definition”.