If Actualism were a race to VF/AF: investigation is removing track obstacles; enjoying and appreciating is sprinting.
This model can be tricky though, as it may implicitly ingrain a counterproductive sequential logic (“I must remove the obstacles first”), which can give one excuses to hold back, and thus lead to procrastination and paralysis.
After some contemplations while feeling pretty good, I recently realized this may be way better: rather than removing anything beforehand, just move fast and consistently enough; and when you make it to the other side (ie. feeling excellent); from there then figure out how to remove the ties that pull you back. IOW:
Cross the bridge and then burn it from the other side.
Or:
Just get lost, and if you hanselandgretelly find a small breadcrumb, gently remove it before it takes you back to bigger ones and eventually to where you came from.
Aside from the sequential advantage, I also realized just how differently feels the thought of “removing” anything to make progress: such an idea while in the grasp of full-on ‘me’ almost always manifests as intellectual lucubrations and imaginations; on the other hand, while feeling great/excellent, such an idea manifests more as commonsense intuition, as in smaller and easier affective decisions, rather than big obstacles to be overcome.
Organic simplicity vs. synthetic complexity, I guess.
Hey, BTW, I know all that from me (including the word ‘model’) may have sounded over-intellectuallized (ironically), but it manifested in such a straightforward way at those moments, in a way that also encompassed what you just said, lol.
For instance, even though I wasn’t PCing, it’s easier to sense that intellectual sequentiality making less sense, as in there’s nothing much for ‘me’ to achieve when feeling excellent as cause and effect. It was easier and natural just to make microdecisions and redirect my attention and affective energy to enjoyment and sensuousness whenever I had a small bump.
Life in the real world (ie. when I’m not in a particularly actualist mode) often feels as episodic as a poker game. I’m dealt different cards with different good and bad potentials each time again, but in the end I know it’s just a circular game in which I win some and lose some without any fundamental breakthrough.
As such, the game gets old eventually, just a repetitive routine, and that’s the actualist metacognition that I sometimes perceive as a curse (when I feel kinda hopeless about an end being in sight), but that I know is a blessing deeply (it’s just a voluntary game and one can choose to walk away from the table).
So, a losing streak or a catastrophic outcome in one round often get my ass off the couch, but the awareness of the circular nature of the game can also be a good trigger to do so, albeit not as powerful as it lacks the potential energy to bounce back as powerfully.
Funny yet very predictable how negativity bias works in humans. I’m always scanning for all kinds of threats and risks to my personal survival. I’m super apprehensive with financial, professional, social and romantic processes and goals. Constantly finding faults, having regrets, emotionally overreacting to events and losses. IOW, constantly feeling like a failure as a result. Makes sense since all these themes are intrinsically tied to my survival: resources, shelters, social safety nets.
How come I’m not even close to be as sensitive to any risks and failures to my actualist process and goal? This seems also obvious, since the ties to me as an individual don’t seem as direct compared to said core needs. Immediate survival is not at stake. What is at stake though? Harmony, peace on earth… And yet these don’t feel like primary needs to ‘me’ intuitively speaking.
A challenge then may be understanding existentially what’s really and fundamentally at stake here, and elevate it all from secondary to primary needs (?) to start intuit them as core; therefore becoming way more sensitive to any threat, risk or failure to my own actualist process and goal, and then ramp up my commitment and effort to prevent and correct any deviation more often.
I always find it funny how we can think of all the negative outcomes of a particular situation, but we never consider of the positive. At least not naturally. (It seems).
It’s of course a spectrum, and there’s likely some people who are either deluded by the positive, or just naturally positive. But I find it very telling how both ends of the spectrum fail to be an appropriate solution or ways to relate to being alive. And the obvious choice would be to get rid of the way of relating altogether because only an identity can relate.
But dude, why do you never think about the positive potential and only the negative?
Those themes might be intrinsically tied to ‘your’ survival but they have no bearing on actual danger/safety, in fact those very mechanisms actively prevent human beings from living in safety and prosperity.
Have you considered that those ‘dangers’ which ‘you’ intuit are not actual, that is to say they have nothing to do with facts?
And further that those very mechanisms which appear to offer ‘safety’ are actually responsible for the wars, murders, suicides, depression etc?
This only clicked today for me, as a result of a situation which by all ‘normal’ means could be labelled as serious. And yet it came to be seen that those ‘safety’ mechanisms are actually hurting me and my fellow human beings by all measures. Meaning that not only do they inflict suffering but also they get in the way of sensibly and intelligently dealing with the actual situation at hand.
All in all as @geoffrey wrote, the known is the unsafe, ‘I’ am the unsafe.
Ye, there’s a reason why this post exists (pretty self evident, eh? lol). Negativity bias is present in all humans, but it is particularly present within me, probably because of trauma and the strategy I have adopted in my life to survive as a result (currently working on it with very focused psychotherapy, BTW).
Basically, this post is due to I’m aware this is a very clear pattern of mine, and if this is a pattern and a strategy very ingrained and habitual, then it just occurred to me today that I can leverage it to my actualist advantage in some way. Still considering how exactly.
Yes, well put. I need to take such contemplations in on a deeper level. That’s the challenge. I’ve seen how the “real world” strategies and tactics take root very quickly as they make sense in the system and framework I’m accustomed to operate in: makes sense to even operate in the antidotes: sometimes greedy, sometimes cheap; or sometimes horny, sometimes avoidant; all makes intuitive sense. Seems like they have a lot of fuel on their own with all the dopaminergic quick rewards and cortisol penalties, I guess. This is really circular though, and I’m getting tired of jumping from one circle to another in the same general all-circle-encompassing mega spiral.
These days I’m trying yet again to disinvest in the old ways and start investing in these. And this flipping (from the “real” to the actual) of perceived dangers, risks and failures could be another tactic to at least reset and change my priorities, aside from the purely positive side of actualism, of course.
Indeed and perhaps I should have said ‘we.’ It’s a common phenomenon and I always find it fascinating that it tends to be where we default. The only solution we seem to have is to delude ourselves with positive thinking. But then there’s the 3rd alternative…
I have recently come across the fact of loss of intimacy as being supremely motivating. ‘My’ action is inherently a block to intimacy; yet the self craves intimacy. That craving becomes the motivation to remove oneself, as it becomes increasingly clear that the self aka the emotionally-generated ‘Being’ is in the way.
From there, success multiplies success as it becomes unavoidably evident that less of ‘me’ means more intimacy, and that that same intimacy begets greater peace & harmony with others - and another multiplier comes into play when that is extended to all humanity.
For me, it began at the personal/interpersonal boundary.
True, and this is in line with something I’ve been pondering lately as conditions seem to be improving to make moves on the interpersonal level. Briefly, now that I’ve been working on issues through EMDR psychotherapy, I’m moving from being crippled (as in survival mode such that I couldn’t even see anything beyond my self) to being more “normal” (and therefore more relaxed and considerate with others).
Though this has quickly produced an improved vantage beyond my expectations, this is where real world solutions hit the brick wall. I can see that those negative/heated states people elicited in me are receding to make room to more neutral/cold ones. While before strong feelings like fear and anxiety dominated, now indifference and boredom can take their place. As these are naturally less intense, they are far from ideal but provide a more stable platform to launch. IOW, the boundaries are still there but they seem shorter enough now that I can see the other side (the intimacy side) and no longer looks that alien.
So I am running out of excuses to take the next step and do this intimacy thing now. A good part of why my actualism is so episodic was because once people came into the equation, that inevitably interrupt any momentum I had. EEs have always been infinitely easier for me to achieve than IEs (I recall only true one, but I had to focus a lot to pull that one off, lol). I feel more confident and motivated to really address this part of actualism that was once so hidden to me.
Yes, people are the most challenging / triggering thing, and also the most rewarding. It will take time, but the satisfaction that comes from the improved results via ‘keeping your hands in your pocket’ during times of emotional upset, not to mention increasing sweetness & closeness, rapidly brings on an addictive obsession to become even more intimate, and to uncover whatever of ‘me’ remains.
I often describe to friends that feeling good at will is like a superpower. And that speaks volumes of how low is the bar in regards to your regular emotional literacy in us humans. Why something so simple and straightforward seems like the hardest thing to do or even conceive?
Here’s an example from the other side: Aside from any clinically depressed individual for whom this may not apply, it is usually very frowned upon that when a person is sad, they receive the advice of “don’t be sad”. The usual response is “ah, thanks captain Obvious, how come I never thought of that!” and to reject the idea in total disbelief and derision. Some hold their depressed or sad identities so dearly that become offended after that idea is even uttered.
It reminds me of that correspondence of Richard, in which he’s accused of giving simplistic advice, and surprisingly to many Richard concurs: “Ah, yes, I’m glad that anyone finally noted that this is so simple!”
If you ask the internet or the AIs “how to feel good all the time?” (which, BTW, is one of the popular queries on Google when you type the words), you’ll receive the same regurgitated advice, which usually implies indirect, conditional and circumstantial ways to (hopefully) cultivate (some) happiness (now and then).
It seems like it never occurred to anyone in human history, until Richard, that feeling good all the time is actually about feeling good all the time. The secret was hidden in that tautology all along. Indeed, feeling good at will is the easiest human super power if you just come to terms with such simplicity.
To follow up on this re:negativity bias, yesterday I had a great night as I took a walk that put me feeling great, with a decent degree of sensuousness, followed by dinner and a tea in company. The momentum of the walk, plus basic attentiveness, was enough to sustain that state for the vast majority of my interaction and that proved to be a great sample on how this could be.
I was able to appreciate in real time how seamless and free-flowing interactions are in such state where ‘I’ am not as present. There was very little to no friction or reactivity to all the conversations and gestures that took place.
The difference this time is I was actively letting me be a bit weird in company, even stating that my self was diminished and I was experiencing the whole moment more sensuously. Maybe there’s something to that degree of transparency that I was missing: basically that being authentic is safe even if I were to go full actualist in social contexts, as I rarely let myself be that there.
This is only a small step but it was a great proof of concept of a larger process. To the original point regarding negativity bias though: to flip this to my actualist advantage is important that I learn to appreciate those great moments more often, as well as I learn to depreciate the bad ones. To both acquire that unusual taste and make the usual one unpalatable.
The cool thing with this one is that other people will turn any change in line with their own worldview anyways, they might see you as a nice dude that has some ‘interesting opinions’
Whenever I talk to my friends about life they always say “oh but you’re just so chill about everything”, and that’s about it, they don’t call me out for being a closeted actualist haha.
I think these fears would only somewhat ‘materialise’ let’s say if you were to go round the streets and push actualism as a belief system, that would probably cause some weird reactions, but of course we don’t end up doing any of that anyways.
What I can observe in myself is that those fears of being genuine are not to do with any practical concerns relating to others but rather ‘my’ fears of stepping outside of the boundaries which ‘I’ have demarcated for ‘myself’, it’s daring to take off that mask which is ‘my’ social identity. It’s no longer straining to present a certain image in which ‘I’ have invested ‘my’ whole life, that is the fear. Which means that deep down ‘I’ believe this image is necessary to grant ‘me’ some kind of security, but the question is what if this game is actually unnecessary?
From Richards Journal, Article 9 :
The outline, the boundary that created the distance, was all in ‘my’ reality ‘I’ created a substitute security for this original safety… a safety which has never known any threat, nor ever will. This genuine safety has no need for precautions.
Oh, to be clear, the company I was talking about that I revealed this was my girlfriend. I just got out of the closet recently and my girlfriend is confused about the whole thing, but we have a deal about being transparent about how we feel in general, and I also said I have the challenge of showing how it is to be with an actualist for her to get an idea.
That day was a bit of a sample, and the allowed weirdness I was referring had more to do with what I did to sustain my enjoyment/sensuousness, which was basically behaving in a different way: unusually focusing my attention on senses rather than busying myself in producing conversation, trying to impress her, etc.
Interestingly, I think there was a still some kind of presence that may have looked odd to her, like a shadowy or lurking self still blocking the expression of the background enjoyment at the surface level. IOW, I was feeling great and behaving in a relaxed way, but still with serious gestures and postures. It’s like I didn’t fully let myself go full weird because my face in public is usually serious and not expressive. So allowing me go fully weird would be me relaxing even at the outer layers.
In my case this works even funnier given the gap of my normal personality and the intended actualist way of being. What has happened in the past is that whenever I got out of the closet, given how I have sucked at explaining actualism and my personality which is often unexpressive and cold, people not only bring their own bias to what I’ve said, but also take note on my contents and behaviors to interpret actualism in the wrong way. For instance, in some situations, some friends often take the chance and roast me with comments such as “remember, Felipe doesn’t have any feelings”.
It’s been a while since I’ve talked about actualism or any actualist practice or state with non actualists though. I think I did initially, a decade or so ago, because I was still too excited when I discovered it.
But, overall, long story short, the crux is that I’ve been compartmentalizing my actualist efforts to when I’m alone exclusively. It’s like I’ve been in Severance in that sense. I can be a very happy, easygoing and expressive individual in my alone time, but I bet no one that knows me considers me as happy or a particularly nice guy given the way I generally behave and talk, all the contrary.
The goal to openly integrate this happy and harmless way of being into all my contexts, including work and relationships (this relates to the conversations of actualist identity vs other identities you had in Claudiu’s thread, BTW), as it’s also been a challenge to contravene decades of a tyrant, very avoidant and cold social identity, which always denies and boycotts those efforts.
This whole step of being transparent with certain people about it could help “me” as an initial bridge to be more authentic in regards to the intended goal, if that makes sense.
Yes it makes sense, essentially you are in the process of becoming sincere. It’s an interesting one because I remember going through a similar period. I also started off at the cold and repressed side of the spectrum. So initially it seemed that in order to be sincere ‘I’ had to give others access to ‘myself’. It was a conscious attempt to break down those cold and repressed walls. What I was doing though was becoming vulnerable.
What I found is that this worked up to a point, because later down the line I noticed that in giving others access to ‘myself’ I ended up tangled up with their own beliefs and emotions (the very thing this cold and repressed identity was created to prevent). But this was still a step forward because the intent to be sincere was there, so next I had to find a way to be sincere without getting tangled up in other’s beliefs and emotions.
I think at this point it can click what the method is all about, that it is not about adopting an ‘actualist identity’ which becomes just another defensive layer for the already cold and repressed identity, but neither is it about becoming vulnerable with all the mess that this inevitably creates.
And now it makes sense to me why it is called the wide and wondrous path, because each moment again it is about finding a way to continue blending this sincere/pure intent into one’s daily life. And each time the answer has to be genuinely discovered because it is outside of the ‘tried and true’. No combination of what came before works and so each time something completely new has to be discovered. But then it is so worth it because each discovery is so priceless.
About the whole negativity bias and loss aversion thing, a funny realization came to me the other day:
I was walking in the park feeling great and then one of those intrusive self-doubts came to me trying to interfere and spoil the moment: “what if you were suddenly totally incapable of feeling good/sensuous at will and lost all connection to pure intent?”
I have this self-sabotage impulses from time to time, so I’m accustomed to them. The interesting part happened next when a thought followed up with: “what if you were totally incapable of feeling good/sensuous at will and lost all connection to pure intent forever?”
My next reaction was feeling/thinking: “wow, that would be hell on Earth!”
If we go by this, it seems I intuitively know that normal mode: hell; actualist mode: heaven, and yet I don’t choose heaven over hell at all times.
Seems then that I very much appreciate having an exit, but I don’t always walk towards it to actually take it.
Indeed, once you go actualist you never go fully back, I know that for a fact, at least personally, as even in my worst moments I know there’s an alternative exit. Question is why not going all in Actualism for once and for all instead of half heartedly going back to normal again and again?
The episode made me “duh!” and left me with a more logical click, a bit more strengthened conviction to reach for the heaven’s door.
It seems a big part in this is habituation, we are inclined to habituate to whatever the new normal is, from there it takes conscious involvement again and again to up level.
So you never really get to rest on your laurels with actualism, as @claudiu wrote a while back “allowing it is not a lacklustre approach”.
Allowing enjoyment and appreciation is the doing aspect of the method, it is an active thing to be done with all of one’s ‘being’, over and over.
Once you habituate to feeling good and you are ready for more then again it is this active doing which gets you to the next level and so on it goes. Yet as I wrote in my post to @Andrew each time it takes an active daring to proceed further, so it seems in the end everyone sets their own pace.
The cool thing is that when I consider what changed experientially since I stepped out from control, it is not in line with ‘resting on my laurels’ but rather this active component was revved up to such a degree that it took on a life of it’s own, the cogs just keep turning, so even now it is not a lacklustre approach, in fact it’s the very opposite.
