“No meditation. No yoga. No diets. RIP forever while being alive” 
3 Likes
You realize the AFT site already has all the content? 
. It is harder to come up with content when it is already written lol. A different take on explaining things like simpleactualism makes sense… but re-writing the AFT does not.
Possibly what I could see being very useful is having multiple people write about their own understanding of a particular topic, how they relate to it, the experiences they had surrounding it. Then we could get many differing points of view on each thing. So there will be the gold-standard factual basis and reports conveying of the idea of the AFT, and then multiple takes on it. Different people will respond to different things.
Anyway I think we are at the point where we have a lot of idears and not a lot of doers. I’m not really looking for a consensus opinion on what to do next, because great, we reached it, but then who will do it? I’m more looking for people to start doing things. I also think more likely to twig someone to do something is seeing an idea they like/that speaks to them, and then they do it cause it’s fun, rather than a lengthy convo reaching a consensus opinion that doesn’t speak to them particularly…
And if no one wants to do any of these ideas then we won’t .
1 Like
Indeed, for me I have always had the enthusiasm to do things/ write things, but that comes from a drive to save people. How can I save anyone when my MO has kept me slowly circling at best?
I am reminded, thanks to @carpe_vitae , of the enthusiasm Peter and Vineeto had in going public within 5-8 months of talking with Richard.
I certainly feel invigorated lately. Even writing poems!
Perhaps it’s a matter of confidence. Do I have anything to offer people? When I think about it, I shy away, but I probably do have something helpful to someone out there.
“The N’vr-do-wells Guide to Being Interested in Actualism” by Andrew
“Still Alive and Trying” by Andrew
“Recalcitrant; The Beginner’s Guide to Being an 10 Year Veteran” by Andrew
2 Likes
I could provide the satire.
(I felt sick coming up with more titles, I withdraw my offer, it’s not really funny at all)
In my view and [although limited] experience colaborating with getting the word out in two spiritual organizations, this is the simplest and most “inorganic” way to start.
Articles allows great freedom, as someone like @JonnyPitt can write about PCEs mixing the account of his experiences with “theory” (quotes from Richard, elements of neuroscience regarding altered states of consciousness, etc.; whatever he wants).
In the same way he can write about what AF says about the three types of feelings while reporting his experiences with them (how he was discovering/understanding those differences, what difficulties he found, how this changed his general mood, his relationships, etc.).
Moreover, as was said, this format allows many others to write about the same things, simply from their own perspective and through their own biographical history.
Of course, as @claudiu did, the drafts could be put to the general consideration of others first here in order to receive suggestions etc. AND/OR could be given, for example, to @Srinath, who had already proposed in Getting the Word Out to make them “some (not heavy handed) editorial oversight”.
By the way, I recommend reading that topic, even to avoid repeating discussions/ideas (in fact, it should be merged with this one).
Articles also allow to share in different media a point of view or an explanation written in a good way (avoiding to say the same thing in a mediocre way), with a simple link (saving time), and reducing sterile discussions (for example in forums).
For example, two of my answers on Quora about a mathematical question and an electrical question allow me to share their links in different media every time I need/want to explain/answer the same thing (beyond having been found/read a few thousand times organically in Quora, via Google search, etc.).
In the same way I take advantage of the articles already written in my blog on various topics.
1 Like
Merge! 
If I had control of the $20K, I would place half towards ads that drive traffic to the place that started it all, and the other half to the directors that operate and maintain that place for them to do with it whatever they think best. I am speaking of the only place on the internet that attaches a guarantee of authenticity onto the words that communicate what an actual freedom is and what it is not. There’s even a link provided on the homepage that directs visitors to this very forum, should visitors wish to engage actualism with an interested group. There is no better resource. No better place to learn about an actual freedom from the human condition than at the address of the person who (a) made its discovery, (b) lived the full meaning of an actual freedom, and (c) spent the next couple of decades meticulously articulating it to all and sundry. Simply put: If visitors find the content on the AFT website confusing and off-putting, they won’t find this place any less confusing and off-putting.
1 Like
That would require permission from the AFT trust, but if they went for it it wouldn’t be the worst use of money
Don’t see why permission would be needed. One is essentially just paying Google to share a link to a website.
Strikes me as courteous. Plus R&V have a history of being particular about how the media on the AFT is treated
interesting variable to consider is the fact that a lot of people here were actually introduced and directed to actualism via forums and quite successfully, specifically the dharma overground. i actually found actuallism via a buddhism subreddit thread that pointed to other threads on the dharma overground.
so i guess there’s merit and appeal in being introduced via organic and ongoing conversations, perhaps for the social proof aspect of it, or even as a softer first encounter with something that could feel a bit alien at first.
1 Like
Actually I agree with Andrew and Felipe. Organic is the way to go.
another good practice when doing this kind of thing is a/b testing.
if we were to keep it simple, here’s an example of what could be done as such test, with both keyword phrases pointing to the same landing page (relevant to the implied topic here):
a) “how to be happy” or “how to be happy all the time”
b) “how to stop suffering/sadness” or “how to stop being sad all the time”
interestingly, i suspect we’d receive different results from those, both in terms of quantity and quality. for instance, i’d venture to say as an hypothesis that people looking to be happy would be more “shallow” or unwilling to stay and do the work entailed in being permanently happy, while the people looking from the negative angle would be more deeply in touch with their dark side and more invested in the need and urgency to find a solution, even as a life-or-death matter.
2 Likes
I do actually have the beginnings of 2 articles. Maybe more.
One I think would help someone else avoid spending a decade before getting results.
The other is the 5 years overdue report on visiting Richard and Vineeto.
I could also write something to help ex-christians navigate to the starting point.
I think it would be good for me to help in whatever way. Perhaps curate articles, or create wiki links.
As Claudiu said, it’s not about rewriting the AFT. Rather documenting peoples experiences applying actualism.
1 Like
I agree abt the organic thing insofar as someone will be aware, “I’m clicking on an ad.” It’s a different thing than clicking on a regular google link via search, or hearing about it through some other means.
It raises some interesting questions though about how to get the word out, and whether ads might work against the perceived purity in some way.
1 Like
I am quite inspired by the whole idea.
I was pondering yesterday about the fact the AFT is not specifically written for me. Obviously not, it isn’t written to anyone specifically. Apart from when Richard was specifically writing to me. 
An article by me, about actualism is written for me. It will appeal to me, obviously. It may also be closer to appealing to someone else.
With enough articles, by the diverse group we have here, we could create essentially more “entry points” to the main gig, the AFT.
1 Like
What’s the organic / inorganic distinction being pointed out exactly?
My thought was to collect eg peoples reports of how they got their first PCE, what helped them get a second or third or others , what they wish they would have known etc. and then collect these into a page of a guide to PCEs. Instead of just me writing about it (like an article) it’d rather be a collection of people’s reports. My thought isn’t to write a guide to PCEs per se but to share what practically worked for people. It seems “organic” to me in the sense that it’s “community”-generated content , albeit with some curation and direction (so Less organic perhaps than just a forum post).
And then do this for a number of “hot topics”… but it seems spreading the knowledge of how to have a “first” PCE would be quite impactful
This is separate from the ad idea btw… it’s orthogonal to it. This is more about content to add on actualism.online
2 Likes
While the ideas and arguments in the rest of your post seem good enough, your summary:
does not necessarily follow.
The last person I connected with Simple Actualism had known about the AFT site for many years. He always found it very confusing and off-putting. And Simple Actualism seemed to him much clearer and more pleasant. Of course, it’s anecdotal evidence, but for years others have said similar things about the AFT site. Why not try something different now that we can? After all, the AF Trust has (or can get) its own money to apply to advertising, SEO, site aesthetics, etc., if it wanted to.
Considering that the ideas we are discussing include, above all, the creation of another kind of material (i.e., we are not referring to “this place” only -the forum-, as it exists), I think there is a possibility that, indeed, new material could seem to many people less confusing and off-putting as an entry point to AF, than the AFT site.
2 Likes
My understanding of the organic/inorganic distinction was about ads versus content.
Consensus isnt required. If you enjoyed the ad experiment, keep it running! I think it’s fun.
I really like that there could be a curated place for articles by us. I am going to write them either way, as it’s very clarifying for myself.
Again, as you said “idears” vs “doers”.
As long as we are having fun, it will happen. If anyone gets everything lumped on them, that doesn’t sound fun.
Hire a developer with some of the money!