Hunger

@Alanji or @Srinath could you possibly clarify this a little bit for me? Because I have (perhaps erroneously) always taken the sex drive as something that needs to be minimised so that the felicitous/innocuous feelings can be maximised. Whereas Richard’s quote seems to say that it is about directing all ‘my’ affective energy into the sex drive itself?

So is there a distinction between the sex drive and desire? if I am directing affective energy into this sex drive then it means it is not a physiological process but rather something arising out of the affective faculty. What is the difference between this affectively fed sex drive and the instinctual passion of desire with reference to this quote?

Thanks :slight_smile:

1 Like

Reading this whole conversation has made me realise that I have somewhat moralised and then pulled away from the enjoyment of sex during my involvement with Actualism. I think that seeing all the mayhem that desire caused in my life I jumped to some extreme position of moralising all sexual arousal as that desire. Thinking that sex and say going for a walk should be exactly the same if they are experienced when feeling felicitous/innocuous, whereas now I see that physiologically it is a much different experience. I am starting to see that there is a whole dimension that I have ‘shut off’ due to fear of dipping into the passion of desire, very interesting :smiley:

What I would suggest is, next time you find yourself in the situation where sex is happening, try following this advice then and there, directing all your affective energy into the sex drive. It will likely be great fun :smiley:

What then happens if you pursue it fully is all of ‘you’ is then being this one thing only, which somehow magically segues into an increasing intimacy and then, if you allow it, to ‘you’ disappearing entirely so there is just the sex itself happening with no ‘you’ there anymore.

It is certainly one of the most fun ways to have a PCE! :smiley:

The funny thing is I sometimes find myself not allowing the PCE to happen, at that moment, with a thought of like “It’s not fair, ‘I’ do all this work and living to get here and then ‘I’ can’t even be around to enjoy this?” Haha. But that’s another story.

1 Like

This points toward the difference between ‘self,’-emotion, and physiological processes. Richard describes his ‘neuronal mental anguish:’

[Richard]: ‘As a severe cerebral agitation … it all happened only in the brain cells. … In psychiatric terms the neurons were agitated: energised and excited with an excess of dopamine in the post-synaptic receptors, described as being similar to the effect of amphetamines, cocaine or LSD … yet nothing could be done about it with psychiatry’s extensive arsenal of anti-psychotic drugs. Initially I had no alternative but to seek resolution in terms of either ‘the known’ (psychiatry) and/or ‘the unknown’ (mysticism) …

…with no self present.

Speaking for myself I have had the experience of drinking too much coffee, thoughts racing, and eventually ‘laying down my arms’ and allowing myself to enjoy that weird over-excitatory brain-state.

And:

Exactly.

Perhaps there is still a neuronal over-excitation, but there is no suffering in it at all.

1 Like

Thanks @claudiu yes I will have to try this out to find out for myself, I am sure my partner won’t mind this experimentation either! :smiley:

1 Like

lets do it :wink:

I imagine the years spent being inquisitive and one’s ability to wrap one’s head around the AF website lends to this :slight_smile: Then throw in the lack of emotion and there’s nothing to stop oneself from being perceptive.

Back to the topic at hand, I look at this in a very simple manner:
If a man is not aroused - how will he have an erection to perform sex? Or for a woman, how would she become wet? And for hunger, how would one know that one needs to eat without it? (Though this would be easier to address by putting meals on a schedule).

I think as a feeling being there is a very fine and subtle line between arousal and lust. Or hunger and craving, since the presence of both at the same time (arousal/lust, hunger/craving) is so common in our experience that they become synonymous. I’ve only recently started to note the difference between the two, specifically when it comes to sex, since I no longer lust in the way I used to. I mostly attribute this to getting older but perhaps some work on the identity helped too.

In my experience, allowing myself to indulge in sexual proclivities while removing the guilt surrounding them went a long way. But once the guilt was removed, so was the excitement, and the proclivity no longer was triggering to me. Now it seems more a matter of choice as to what to indulge in and sex seems to move away from the mental and more towards the physical.

Great discussion thus far; we’re very fortunate to have some actually free people to chime in on matters like this.

1 Like

I experienced them synonomously to the point that the first time I noticed the difference of sex without lust, I was shocked

@Felix For example, do you ever feel involuntary sexual attraction to people other than your wife?

@Srinath Yes, I do. Much as Richard enjoys a female body. It’s nice. Not something that tortures me. Again you’ll need to be able to see how sexual arousal can occur without emotion for this to make sense. This same scenario would affect you very differently, probably.

Dona is well aware of my sexual attraction to other females – which is greater than her attraction to other males. She will point out to me what she knows I consider to be a good looking female coming up and I do the same for her with males.

@edzd If a man is not aroused - how will he have an erection to perform sex? Or for a woman, how would she become wet? And for hunger, how would one know that one needs to eat without it? (Though this would be easier to address by putting meals on a schedule).

You’re missing the point, Ed. In that ‘sexual world‘ there is no ‘being’ (it’s a PCE, albeit perhaps a rather different – and delicious - one). The “man“, “woman“ and “one“ of your questions all refer to the feeling being thus making them meaningless.

@edzd In my experience, allowing myself to indulge in sexual proclivities while removing the guilt surrounding them went a long way.

Yes, congratulations.

@edzd But once the guilt was removed, so was the excitement, and the proclivity no longer was triggering to me.

The feeling being objects most strongly to being deprived of his/her positive (or negative) reinforcement and ‘’highs’ of feelings.

Just to clarify it is indeed an affective world , the one that Richard refers to in any case:

This segues into a PCE, but the approach is via all ‘being’ being that instinctual sex drive.

Thanks Claudiu, I think I got confused. Explanation later - maybe :joy:

As was written elsewhere I think, all of the affective energy must be used to segue into the magical wonderland.

I’m not sure I am as Srinath was explaining earlier that he experiences arousal and the quote Cladiu provided indicates Richard does as well. So I’m slightly confused about your point. I’m not using arousal synonymously with lust or libido. Perhaps you could elaborate further. Or was it just a misunderstanding?

It could be a misunderstanding @edzd I took it to mean how does one get aroused without the affective element.

Ah yeah - I was trying to suggest that there has to be a non-affective element to arousal and I guess I could have made that more clear.

Why do you think there has to be a non-affective element?

I may have hidden your post while trying to edit mine or perhaps you hid it by mistake. Can a mod reinstate please, I can’t find out how to do it.

What is being described here (“when the sex is literally dripping off the walls“) is an experience happening during an intimacy experience with another (not an “experience of sex in a PCE” which is a separate well worthwhile subject for discussion). Only then can one experience “sexual enjoyment and arousal in the absence of sexual desire“ and it is an absolutely mind blowing (literally) experience – superior to any drug I or Dona have ever tried and that’s quite a few lol. Then there is no separation between us, it is exquisite.

I take it by ‘pops’ you refer to ejaculation. When orgasm does not necessarily lead to ejaculation (which becomes entirely voluntary) one can ride the crest of the wave as I think Richard put it. I can’t continue for too long as the experience becomes too overpowering (Dona similarly) - maybe because the self is still present, although in abeyance. Perhaps actually free people do not have this restriction.

I had occasion to be in touch with Vineeto regarding admin matters. Email is now working and any outstanding orders will be filled or refunded with apologies. If you do not hear/receive in a few days I suggest you get in touch with her.

I took the opportunity to ask Richard about sexual arousal. He confirmed he only gets sexually aroused (an erection) by tactile stimulation. The sight of a ‘sexy’ woman, although enjoyable, does not lead to an erection. Time will tell whether this is common in actually free people. I don’t think it’s very relevant but I report it for completeness. It could even be peculiar to Richard who is prone to some idiosyncrasies as the progenitor of actualism.

Thanks - I wonder if he gets aroused by general physical contact (IE. caressing his body, kissing, etc) or only genital stimulation. My guess would be both? Not really important, just a curiosity.

How about feathers? :thinking: :grin:

2 Likes