The scientific article you recommended seems to be indicating there is no central point of control for emotions - but perhaps I’ve misunderstood it.
It’s not about trying to control emotions, but rather about defining them scientifically first.
If that is indeed the conclusion - doesn’t it seem to be indicating that there is no self? Neither one self, nor multiple selves?
Once one understands what emotions really are, the next question is: “who” constructs them?
PWR: — A different (updated) hypothesis and theory about the method of actualism.
If something can be improved, just do it.
Perhaps you can see where I got the impression from.
Yes, another wrong impression, but this time a justifiable one.
“A different (updated) hypothesis and theory ABOUT the method of actualism.”
It is possible to improve any method without necessarily adding anything to it, taking anything away from it, or changing anything about it. In other words, just find a new method instead of reforming the old one.
My argument is qualitative; not quantitative. It deals with inevitability. I am saying that pure consciousness, once achieved by one person, becomes a process with many technologies, and that if applied by one and another like a chain reaction, it will eventually reach its critical mass and become dominant.
Hegemonic consciousness has already become unsustainable and is flirting with the old divided mind, with societies and entire generations increasingly “schizophrenic”, alienated and polarized, on the verge of a return to a New Dark Age. This is why discussing climate change, environmentalism and other irrelevant topics is like worrying about a leak on the Titanic.
So to be clear, you devised a new method specifically for yourself and it has led to an actual freedom from the human condition?
Yes and I called this new method because of its basic characteristic, a “path WITHOUT resistance”.
Time to add a few more explanations that may help others understand the process of this discovery.
The ego (a central operator for a legion of disconnected selves) chronically lies to itself, because otherwise it would evaporate in a few seconds like a snowflake under the midday sun.
The pragmatic function of any method of actualism is to eradicate this lying operator (in reality, a tyrannical censor) in oneself without allowing another Operator (with a capital O) to take its place.
The trick, in short, is to recognize intellectually and then experientially that that mindspace occupied by the constant (and exhausting) memory of maintaining an ego (with all its identities and reactive programs) is the only and last resistance to be overcome.
Without a resistor, even temporarily, the objective material world and its phenomena reveals itself instantly to pure consciousness.
The so-called “real” world is always seen through the optics of a tarnished and distorted lens that only creates illusions (circular emotions, feelings, beliefs and thoughts). Taking off those sunglasses requires a different kind of courage (or audacity, if you prefer). In my case, the conditions I was living in were more than enough to encourage such courage. “Eat the frog,” as they say. Necessity is the mother of radical paradigm shifts.
To live 24 hours a day, every day, free from this multitude of conflicting fictitious identities, is to exist and think in an almost indescribable condition (although it is possible to describe it, something Richard has already done in exemplary fashion).
My contribution is not to repeat what has already been said and written, nor to replicate the best quotes of my predecessors, but rather to reveal that there are other ways to reach the top of the same mountain (an allegory).