Intimacy

Actualism
1

I’ll make an attempt at this. Please feel free to correct me if necessary.

The word “intimacy” can be used in two contexts:

  1. Affectional intimacy
    • This is the regular meaning when used in the man-woman context. It involves everything from minor feelings of affection to love.
  2. Actual intimacy
    • This is the term Richard came up with to refer to an immediacy[1] with everything in the actual world, including (but not limited to) his fellow human beings.
  3. … (see below)

“near-innocent intimacy of naïveté”

For a feeling-being, the one to aspire to is a 3rd category called “near-innocent intimacy of naïveté”, ideally through the imitation of the PCE (lest it be the cunning self’s generative version of reality). In contrast to immediacy/intimacy with objects, this “near-innocent intimacy of naïveté” with people—although essentially the same—is distinguished by:

RICHARD: […] the diminishment of separation is so astonishing as to be as-if incomprehensible/ unbelievable yet it is the imminence of a fellow human’s immanence which, in and of itself, emphases the distinction the most Selected Correspondence: Actual Intimacy

Does this “near-innocent intimacy of naïveté” involve affections[2]?

  • :exclamation:Virtually none :exclamation:

I recommend reading this post starting from the paragraph reading "It is completely non-sticky": Sweetness in the arms of the other - #10 by claudiu … the particular passage I want to highlight, in order to elucidate the particular aspect of this intimacy, is this:

While I don’t recall experiencing this “near-innocent intimacy of naïveté” with a person of opposite sex yet, I nevertheless I experienced something of how actual intimacy is described (in Srid's PCE Log - #7 by srid), which golden clew enabled me to suss out just how exactly this “intimacy” would be experienced when back in the real-world whilst imitating my PCE as close as possible (i.e., enjoying & appreciating) when with a female of the species, viz.:

(Note on the word ‘affection’[2:1])

Just to fully drive home the point in regards to that “particular aspect of this intimacy”: when an actualist enjoys & appreciates (i.e, imitates the PCE to the best of their ability) being here with a fellow human being of the opposite sex, this ‘intimacy’[3] has got :exclamation:nothing :exclamation: to do with any affectionate feelings of any form whatsoever.

Even to further drive home the point in regards to that “particular aspect of this intimacy”, this is how I experienced my latest PCE:

Thus, even when I’m with a female of the species, there is no reason why the experience cannot, essentially, be the same (sensate experiencing of the ongoing moment) … although, of course, with the added bonus of being able to interact with a conscious human being (just being able to talk—never mind touch, cuddle, canoodle, etc.—to one another is a bonus delight, atop the already-happening sensate delight all around). With a virtually fully developed sensuous attention[4], there’s of course :exclamation:virtually no room :exclamation: for even the tiniest of affections (aka. “longing for anything in any ‘other-world’”); when or if there’s a ‘dream’ or ‘hope’ (aka. “longing for anything in any ‘other-world’”) arising, that’s nothing but a sure sign of going astray … wherein the only sensible choice, is to course-correct back on the original path.

  1. Examples:

    ↩︎

  2. I use the word “affection” specifically in dictionary definition of “a gentle feeling of fondness or liking” albeit applied specifically in the sexual/love/romantic context … or, simply, the context of the euphoric bond between two selves. In this sense, “affection” is but a minor feeling compared to a ‘major’ feeling like love or attachment; these minor feeling often precedes the major ones, and thus constitute as things to be aware of as part of the ‘birfurcation’ in Grace’s scale of intimacy. ↩︎ ↩︎

  3. Dictionary definition of “intimacy”: “close familiarity or friendship; closeness” ↩︎

  4. Richard: “Attentiveness and sensuousness are the specific antitoxins for indulgences … they are both the cure and the preventive measure. Fully developed sensuous attention is a condition of total non-grandiosity and utter absence of longing for anything in any ‘other-world’.” Attentiveness And Sensuousness And Apperceptiveness ↩︎

2

The top-level dichotomy isn’t between ‘affectional’ and ‘actual’ – the “near-innocent intimacy of naïveté” doesn’t fit in either one (it’s not an affectional, as in loving, intimacy, and it’s not actual either)

Rather the dichotomy that I think you’re looking for at the highest level is affective vs. actual. Affective is the intimacy feeling-beings experience, while actual is the intimacy only in a PCE or when actually free.

Then, within affective intimacy you have a further split between affectional intimacy (what people typically mean) and then naive intimacy, which is the gateway into an EE/IE and then a PCE/self-immolation from there.

The trick for a feeling-being then is to go from wherever one is, towards the naive way of being intimate/way of being, which is what will deliver the goods

Also I think that thinking of actual intimacy as a “sensate immediacy” (‘just’ or not) is rather underselling it. It’s not just that you sense the other person, as in visually, ocularly, tactilely etc. There is also the immanence of being with another flesh and blood body, another human being. It is way, way more than just a sensate thing. There’s a delicious aspect to it that comes from being with someone else in and of itself, that is more than the sum of the parts of the senses. Maybe it relates to how one experiences pure intent not sensately, but, with one can say an “existential” sense – perhaps it is that same sense that senses the other’s presence? (@Vineeto what you think?)

Also I really like that post I wrote! I would second (or third, as it were) what I said there :smile: (Sweetness in the arms of the other - #10 by claudiu)

Lastly I would say the near-innocent intimacy of naivete applies not just to people, but to places and things too – there is an immediacy to the surroundings. Richard has oft talked about intimacy with an ashtray, for example, which often amuses people. So this is not something restricted only to being around other people – however, the more you go up the animate scale, the more of that other delicious quality comes into play – eg more with a dog than with an ashtray, and more with a human than with a dog.

1 Like
3

I did mean a 3rd category. I’ve edited the post to make it clear.

Noted. Experientially looking for it (whatever “quality” that is unique to IE; Richard describes it as “imminence of a fellow human’s immanence”) will be in the back of my mind as I go about experiencing / exploring these things.

Yes, this is what the word ‘immediacy’ (in a PCE, at least) captures quite nicely.

cheers,
-srid

2 Likes
4

Claudiu to Srid (link): The top-level dichotomy isn’t between ‘affectional’ and ‘actual’ – the “near-innocent intimacy of naïveté” doesn’t fit in either one (it’s not an affectional, as in loving, intimacy, and it’s not actual either)
Rather the dichotomy that I think you’re looking for at the highest level is affective vs. actual. Affective is the intimacy feeling-beings experience, while actual is the intimacy only in a PCE or when actually free.
Then, within affective intimacy you have a further split between affectional intimacy (what people typically mean) and then naive intimacy, which is the gateway into an EE/IE and then a PCE/ self-immolation from there.
The trick for a feeling-being then is to go from wherever one is, towards the naive way of being intimate/ way of being, which is what will deliver the goods.
Also I think that thinking of actual intimacy as a “sensate immediacy” (‘just’ or not) is rather underselling it. It’s not just that you sense the other person, as in visually, ocularly, tactilely etc. There is also the immanence of being with another flesh and blood body, another human being. It is way, way more than just a sensate thing. There’s a delicious aspect to it that comes from being with someone else in and of itself, that is more than the sum of the parts of the senses. Maybe it relates to how one experiences pure intent not sensately, but, with one can say an “existential” sense – perhaps it is that same sense that senses the other’s presence? (@Vineeto what you think?)

Hi Claudiu,

That is a brilliant way of rephrasing it, I could not have done it better myself. The word ‘affective’ includes a lot more than ‘affectional’.

Regarding the word ‘existential’ – I did a search for how the word was used and came across what you wrote referring to pure intent –

Claudiu to Jonathan: One does not experience it via thoughts, feelings, the psyche, or the senses, but rather, an existential awareness. (Richard, Claudiu3, 19 Feb 2014).

As such your use of the word is spot on – there is not really another word for experiencing pure intent. As a cautionary note – for a feeling being there is generally too much going on affectively (psychically) and sensately that, even though possible, the existential sensing almost never gets noticed except for pure intent – it can happen of course, if not confused with psychic sensing. Perhaps the term ‘immanence’ for perceiving the existence in intimacy is perfectly applicable. A watered-down general use of the word ‘existential’ would not benefit clarity in communication. For instance, when you visited Geoffrey and could sense his pure intent personified, that was certainly existential sensing.

As for sensing “the other’s presence” – I usually don’t sense anyone else’s presence outside of a sensate perception, except when there is an extraordinary event happening, for instance when I picked up a sweetness in the near-by town when Richard and Peter were interacting intensively. That would certainly be called an existential sensing event. Similarly, when at your first visit in Ballina I could sense you coming to the edge of the actual world.

Richard: ‘(…) This morning whilst interacting with Peter it [‘the quickening’] was happening for about an hour and a half, between 10:45 AM and 12:15 PM, to quite a marked degree … to such a marked degree, in fact, that at its peak Vineeto happened to experience it, at 11:28 AM, as she was getting into her parked car in a town about 35 kilometres away. She described it as a ‘sweetness’ (and thus took note of the time)’. (Monday the 17 October, 2011 8:31 PM).
(Richard, List D, Rick, 11 Feb 2012).

Just for fun I collected a few of Richard’s quotes where he used the word ‘existential’ on List D –

Richard: Indeed she has been interacting with me intensively with that very intention; an existential event of some considerable significance in regard to this intent took place between 3:30 and 4:00 AM on the 28th of August 2011, for instance. (…)
On this occasion, however, it was able to flow freely – it was as if a circuit had been formed betwixt the two of us – and a second, equally potent, surge of that existential immanence followed the first (again in an upwardly direction in and around my head and shoulders region) a short while later. (…)
… those potent surges were of such a magnitude that a rather remarkable man on another continent experienced what he had earlier reported as being a ‘gentle energy’ (which he had further described, then, as being ‘totally harmless’) pouring into him, transfixing him in a sort of immobility (not of the body) and overwhelming him to such an extent that he communicated with me four days later, via email, and we were able to establish, with all due care taken in respect to time-zone differences, that the two events were congruent. (Richard, List D, Claudiu, 9 Feb 2012).

Richard: … the next three months were a period I refer to as being ‘existentially exhausted’ (the epoch-changing events having taken an enormous toll on my resources) wherein I was nursed back to health by a very caring woman (…) and, existentially, I was firing on all sixteen cylinders; the period from then through to the significant existential event of the 28th of August, 2011, already referred in my email you responded to (much further above) was taken-up almost entirely by having the then-current situation move itself forward; it was in the 10-day period between that event and the 7th of October that the finer, crystalline ‘quickening’ had its genesis;
(…)
The second manifestation, starting 10-days after Vineeto became essentially the same as me (how I have been, on my own, all these years) did not come as a surprise – nor that significant existential event itself – as some-such outcome as that was our intent. I was very pleased, however, to no longer have to contain that immensity, that energetic immanence, which is of such a potency, of such a strength, as would previously (on some occasion) render me utterly passive, completely immobile and scarcely able to bear with it. (Richard, List D, Rick, 11 Feb 2012).

Richard: (The feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago – prior to late October/ early November 1992 – could only be existentially aware of pure intent via the direct/ immediate/ unmediated experiencing of the immaculate purity of the vast stillness of this actual universe’s physical infinitude (the ‘everywhere all at once’ source of everything apparent) because there had not previously been someone of sufficient naïveté to have enabled that pristine perfection into becoming purity personified). (Richard, List D, Rick, 28 May 2012).

Richard: Now, because the pure consciousness experience (PCE) – where ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is in abeyance (unlike an altered state of consciousness (ASC) where ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being reigns supreme as ‘Being’ itself) for the duration – experientially demonstrates how each and every identity has no existence whatsoever in actuality then any such offensiveness (previously experienced as affective/ psychic threats to ‘my’ existence/ to ‘my’ very ‘being’) loses its existential sting/ no longer has its dire effect. (Richard, List D, Rick, 21 Jan 2016).

Richard: Obviously, what was required was an in-depth investigation and exploration, an existential uncovering and discovering, a salutary seeking and finding, of the pitfalls and problems which have beset and tormented both genders (Richard, List D, Andrew, 28 Feb 2016).

Richard: Thus I experientially know, from that ongoing lived reality, how what is nowadays called Buddhism (as well as what has come to be called Hinduism) is not an existential solution to the human condition, as is Actualism, but a salvational solution (Richard, List D, No. 32, 23 Dec 2012).

Richard: Foreboding: this intensely apprehensive trepidation is symptomatic of the existential angst (the anguish of the essential insecurity of being a contingent ‘being’) which underpins all suffering. (Richard, List B, James3, 21 Nov 2002)

Claudiu: Also I really like that post I wrote! I would second (or third, as it were) what I said there (Sweetness in the arms of the other - #10 by claudiu)

It was an outstanding post, I especially liked your description of “jealousy-possession-love bundle”. It certainly comes as a package and everyone smitten with love experiences the rest of the bundle sooner or later. It is impossible to cultivate love without the other unless one wants to become enlightened. The vice-versa is true as well, when you give up jealousy or possession, love disappears – and with attentiveness and awareness can give room to intimacy. This ‘bundle’ is also at the heart of most power battles between the genders.

When Henry said “Dissolving into closeness with the other is freedom.” I was reminded of Byron Katie (a woman claiming to be enlightened) saying in an interview –

Sunny Massad: And how was your relationship with your husband’s body?
Byron Katie: Uhhhh. [Sighs.] First time we made love it was just amaaazing. It was radical! Cuz it was God with God. And it was the receiving of it and the giving ah, it was just amazing! (An Interview with Byron Katie).

That’s the best one can get within the human condition.

Also your explaining the actual experience of sweetness and the sticky sweetness of affection is excellent. “Naive intimacy and affectionate intimacy are impossible to combine.” Excellent.

Claudiu: Lastly I would say the near-innocent intimacy of naiveté applies not just to people, but to places and things too – there is an immediacy to the surroundings. Richard has oft talked about intimacy with an ashtray, for example, which often amuses people. So this is not something restricted only to being around other people – however, the more you go up the animate scale, the more of that other delicious quality comes into play – e.g. more with a dog than with an ashtray, and more with a human than with a dog. (link)

From your description it seems you know more about it experientially than you let on :blush:.

Cheers Vineeto

1 Like
5

I really appreciate that this thread exists.

One thing I still cannot stress enough here, in my original post, is how there is virtually no affections involved in man-woman intimacy if one’s also practicing actualism method by aiming towards “near-innocent intimacy of naïveté” (based, firmly on the memory of their PCE).

I don’t know if everyone realizes how radical this is. No romance, no love, no starry-eyed-looks, no ‘owning’ of the woman (she’s free to be how she is), no demand for reciprocral attraction, no ‘relationships’, no ‘tender’ emotions, no ‘nurturing’ feelings, no “I’m gonna take care of you” romance-lore expression, etc… because simply being here is enough, and on top she, a fellow human, is here with you. Does anyone realize the unconditional nature of this enjoyment?

What more, everything one does together can happen spontaneously without the ‘control’ of these affections; much better than the ‘controller’ can ‘do’ them, in fact (if anything, the ‘controller’ actually active blocks an ongoing intimacy from happening). It is so great to not know what’s gonna happen next; what freedom and what thrill.

All of this blew my mind yesterday as the PCE[1] unfolded. What transpired as a result for me was that the hitherto sexual/romantic energy had no more ‘object’ to latch on to (and thus, the whole ‘self-worth’ complex vanished without a trace!), because a superior alternative has been discovered. The ‘sensate reality’[1:1] is already here anyway. Day-dreams, in particular, still do come back as a habit (we will be meeting in a few days), and if I’m not aware, I can indeed go back to the old ways, but I gently become aware of them and return to imitating my last PCE.

It is like I’ve unlocked ‘a new way of being’. I wish I had known about all of this before. The reason why I kept dodging/arrogating the method, planning new strategms, etc. was ultimately to satisfy the desire for these affections. But it turns out that affections are only a hindrance for unconditional intimacy & immediacy.

  1. See Srid's PCE Log - #7 by srid ↩︎ ↩︎

2 Likes
6

That does sound truly groundbreaking Srid! Actualism is experiential and from what you write here it looks like you now have a solid referent for the “near-innocent intimacy of naïveté”, which indeed can at its full potential be ‘a new way of being’.

One thing that may be fruitful to contemplate from this advantageous experiential vantage point, is what the word “harmlessness” in the actualist lingo really points to/has as its referent. When being naive in this way, harmlessness is practically a given (e.g. “why would I want to hurt anyone/this person/that person?”). Since it’s so hard to see how harmlessness can make sense from the real-world vantage point of doom and gloom (how it seems like it would equate to letting people walk all over you/do whatever they want with you with no ‘ability’ to fight back), it may be useful to contemplate it, to really see what it actually is, how it isn’t at all what’s described in that parenthetical, and how crucial it actually is to the whole endeavor.

Cheers,
Claudiu

1 Like
7

Thanks for the suggestion re: harmlessness.

Regarding the day-dream habit, I soon discovered what underlies it: the ‘being-to-being’ deeper passions which also underly the various affections atop.

It feels like a silent euphoria of some sort (sensations are simmering & mildly undulating in the belly; which sensations become full blown when you ‘fall in love’), basically, to be ‘connected’ to her but at a profound level (belly; rather than heart or head). The affections are simply feelings that form atop it. And the day-dreams weave cognitive narratives around it all, aimed at keeping it ‘permanent’. All of this make up the “sticky” part in total.

So, now that I have become aware of the alternative — a sensuous immanence — what needs to be done is much clear. Regarding harmlessness, I think this is not only the best for me, but would also be the best for her — as in, for me to artlessly demonstrate, by way of ongoing experience of mutual interactions, that there is something superior to this ‘connection’ (whether she actually wants it or not is her business).

1 Like
8

Regarding this ‘connection’, I located a similar report by feeling-being ‘Vineeto’:

VINEETO: Even after dismissing love as a concept or an option of relating, I still had to be watchful of my ‘love-attacks’, as I called them. They would come through the backdoor, seduce me with a rose-colored mood and appear so nice and cosy – such a temptation to surrender back into loving Peter instead of meeting him directly. However, I had understood and experienced often enough that any feeling for the other, howsoever sweet and soothing, would only make him a projected imaginary figure on my own screen of emotions, which can so easily change at the slightest whim. It had nothing to do with the actual person or situation.

128x92

Being vigilant and persistently nibbling away at my habit of falling back into love proved to be a long process. After all, love and empathy are praised as woman’s greatest virtues! Later, love changed into the subtler version of feeling ‘connected’ to Peter, of having, through him, some kind of identity in my life. I caught myself wanting to use him as an outline for my own existence, as an anchor to define me as ‘person-in-relation’, a ‘self’. Examining it closer I discovered that this need for an anchor derives from the female instinct for protection. Only when I feel ‘connected’ to a person can I keep up the illusion that I can rely on this person for ‘bad times’. However, whenever I managed not to fall into the trap of love – what a delight then to discover the actual person, thrilling, alive, meeting for the first time and not knowing what either of us is going to say or do next!

Love is now replaced by this delicious state of crisp and exquisite awareness, where I am utterly by myself, there is no relationship between us whatsoever, and the next moment is unpredictable and without continuity to any past or future. Remembering again and again the joy of those wonder-filled moments always gave me the necessary intent and courage to keep removing any feelings that the ‘self’ kept producing. A Bit of Vineeto

These feelings are so seductive, yet I’m also aware that they automatically come with ‘the bad side’. Remembering my PCEs is the only way I can begin to break free of them, thus moving onto the ‘other side’ (as revealed in the PCE), which side is being described by feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ in the last paragraph above.

Fun & challenging times ahead …

P.S.: Regarding her “I am utterly by myself”, I’m reminded of Richard’s “The cute part in all this is that when you are totally self-sufficient, self-generating, then you can be with another one hundred per cent. This is a joy and a felicity for both yourself and the other.” This Moment Has No Duration

9

Turns out she doesn’t seem actually interested in resuming our association, so that is the end of it.[1]

Perhaps other actualists may be intereted in providing their experiential reports about “near-innocent intimacy of naïveté” in this thread?

  1. I suppose it does not matter as I will continue going about allowing PCEs on my own. ↩︎

10

Well, that was just a misunderstanding (I truly seem to be oblivious to the social signals in this context), and we will indeed be getting together in about 3 days time (I’ll be occupied during the next two days, and she wants to see me before going on vacation for the weekend).

As a honest description of my emotional state:

Last week upon hearing of her continued interest (in response to me emailing her, thanks indirectly to Vineeto’s reply), it brought back the old set of feelings albeit not at the same intensity. Stemming from the ‘being-to-being passions’ I wrote of above, there was also sexual desire, possessiveness, fear, etc. as part of it. I explored it all by staying with the feelings wherever those day-dreams took me. My intention has always been to become aware of every corner of affectional intimacy sufficiently enough to willingly and cheerfully step into enabling a near-actual intimacy instead, ideally derived from the memory of my PCEs (lest it be a calculated/ planned move towards controlled failure).

Fast-forward today, upon learning of the same continued interest, I see that the being-to-being passion is still there, creating ‘scenarios’ of the same (sexual desire, fear, etc.) but in an even milder intensity. That is to say, it is ‘easily manageable’ without overwhelming me. And that gives me further insights into it: underlying this affectional intimacy, there is a great sense of control - wanting to control her to be such and such (mainly, to remain affectionately connected to me forever and ever), and the day-dreams are but a ‘rehearsal’ of this. I now realize that to simply be here, sensately enjoying the physicality of it all, being thrilled of not knowing what’s gonna happen next (the ‘cutting-edge of reality’), and being unconcerned about her modus operandi[1] means giving up on that “control”.

Have said all that (and I’m being as sincerely aware of this affectionality as I can), I’m also ‘brushing up’ on my understanding of what near-actual intimacy means when put into practice. I wish to put into words what I understand so far, mainly so others can point to any errors or anything I’ve overlooked, which would indeed be beneficial for me such that I don’t go astray on Thursday night. There seems to be two components to near-actual intimacy:

  1. It is sensate, not affectional.
    • The being-to-being passions, which wrap up/ cover up sexual desire, would be non-existant.
    • Even sexual desire (as distinct from the sensuality of sexual arousal) would have naturally given way to the current-time awareness with increased sensuosity / closeness.
  2. In lieu of such affectionality, and in conjunction with the supplanted sensuosity, the experience/ awareness is (will be) such that there is an immanence-in-consciousness of the other
    • “Immanence” refers to “the physical presence of a fellow human creature/ of fellow human creatures, proximately pervading each other’s field of consciousness/ each other’s sentiency field such as to be, in effect, part-and-parcel of a consciousness-in-common (a.k.a. ‘common consciousness’)”
    • This mutual physicality of immanence-in-consciousness overrides/ supplants the usual affectionality/ union between separative ‘selves’ (which the being-to-being passion seeks to enable), such that in consciousness there is mainly an ongoing sensuos perception and increasing awareness of ‘common consciousness’ (and thus more of a self-less/ less self-centric experience).
      • Thus, naturally, in consciousness, there is less consideration of me as, say, a ‘man’, a ‘neurodivergent’ or any of the other social identities. I came across actually-free Vineeto’s “Source Experience”[2] and strangely I’m able to connect the dots to what she’s saying there, in regards to this ‘common consciousness’ being “genderless, formless, ageless and vast” (thus, less consideration of me as those social identities, and more experiential awareness of me as this genderless, formless, ageless ‘consciousness’ in action) with one’s “sense of fixed physicality falling apart (including the experience of two bodies, Richard and [herself])”.
      • Reading all of this twiged something in me, and I ‘stepped back’ and acknowledged how this ‘common consciousness’ can happen on its own with me letting go of the usual ‘control’ (over events, situations, people).

So, that’s where I’m. This letting myself go into ‘common consciousness’, while seems to be a delightful way of being to the nth degree, is also a bit … disconcerting at times, mainly because of unfamiliarity, and also because of the temptations of affectionality.

I wonder what Richard means exactly by " Fear is the barrier to being intimate … yet fear is the doorway into intimacy". Actual Intimacy; Artificial Intimacy; Pseudo Intimacy

  1. From Actual Intimacy; Artificial Intimacy; Pseudo Intimacy

    • In an actual freedom, intimacy is not dependent upon cooperation
    • An actual intimacy (no separate identity) requires no reciprocation.
    ↩︎

  2. From Basic Actual Freedom to Full Actual Freedom Part 3

    VINEETO: There is not much written down about the next events preparing me and leading me further into the mysteries of exploring and experiencing the infinitude of the universes – for instance on 30.11.2010 something happened which Richard and I called the Source Experience. I was able to allow the fundamental characteristic, or nature, of consciousness to fully be revealed and embraced – genderless, formless, ageless and vast. It was truly magnificent. Interestingly enough it was followed by/accompanied with the experience of my own sense of fixed physicality falling apart (including the experience of two bodies, Richard and myself) and since then a perception of physicality in flux ensued. The magic of exploring actual intimacy is truly wondrous.

    ↩︎
11

Srid: Well, that was just a misunderstanding (I truly seem to be oblivious to the social signals in this context), and we will indeed be getting together in about 3 days time (I’ll be occupied during the next two days, and she wants to see me before going on vacation for the weekend).
As a honest description of my emotional state:
Last week upon hearing of her continued interest (in response to me emailing her, thanks indirectly to Vineeto’s reply), it brought back the old set of feelings albeit not at the same intensity. Stemming from the ‘being-to-being passions’ I wrote of above, there was also sexual desire, possessiveness, fear, etc. as part of it. I explored it all by staying with the feelings wherever those day-dreams took me. My intention has always been to become aware of every corner of affectional intimacy sufficiently enough to willingly and cheerfully step into enabling a near-actual intimacy instead, ideally derived from the memory of my PCEs (lest it be a calculated/ planned move towards controlled failure).
Fast-forward today, upon learning of the same continued interest, I see that the being-to-being passion is still there, creating ‘scenarios’ of the same (sexual desire, fear, etc.) but in an even milder intensity. That is to say, it is ‘easily manageable’ without overwhelming me. And that gives me further insights into it: underlying this affectional intimacy, there is a great sense of control – wanting to control her to be such and such (mainly, to remain affectionately connected to me forever and ever), and the day-dreams are but a ‘rehearsal’ of this. I now realize that to simply be here, sensately enjoying the physicality of it all, being thrilled of not knowing what’s gonna happen next (the ‘cutting-edge of reality’), and being unconcerned about her modus operandi means giving up on that “control”.
Have said all that (and I’m being as sincerely aware of this affectionality as I can), I’m also ‘brushing up’ on my understanding of what near-actual intimacy means when put into practice. I wish to put into words what I understand so far, mainly so others can point to any errors or anything I’ve overlooked, which would indeed be beneficial for me such that I don’t go astray on Thursday night. There seems to be two components to near-actual intimacy:

Hi Srid,

While you say yourself that you don’t know what “this “near-innocent intimacy of naïveté” with a person of opposite sex yet, I nevertheless I experienced something of how actual intimacy is described” (link), you are nevertheless theoretical planning your upcoming meeting with ‘her’ in terms of “near-actual intimacy” even though you haven’t yet mentioned having experiences with the preceding scales of intimacy with a person of the other gender, with varying degrees of affections “sexual desire, fear, etc.” or love –

Richard: She has a scale of quality in regards sexual experience: good, very good, great, excellent and magical. (…)
To explain: togetherness is the companionship of doing things together – be it shopping, cooking, having sex, whatever – and pertains to the willingness to be and act in concert with another.
A closeness is where the personal boundaries are expanded to include the other into one’s own space; this is a normal type of intimacy.
A sweetness is when closeness entrées a lovely delight at the proximity of the other (although it can veer off into affection, ardency, love, oneness).
A richness (aka an excellence experience) is where sweetness segues into a near-absence of agency via letting-go of control and one is the sex and sexuality (the beer and not the doer).
Magical sex is where sex and sexuality are happening of their own accord – neither beer nor doer extant – and pristine purity abounds (an immaculate perfection). (Richard, List D, No. 6, 10 Nov 2009).

It is the third stage where Grace reported the “bifurcation manifesting where the instinctual tendency/ temptation was to veer off in the direction of love and its affectuous intimacy”. So your anticipation of what you are describing below is merely based on what you have read on the Actual Freedom website, particular from Richard and Vineeto describing their own experience in the actual world and how it may (or may not) eventuate when you meet up with ‘her’.

Srid: There seems to be two components to near-actual intimacy:

  1. It is sensate, not affectional.
    The being-to-being passions, which wrap up/ cover up sexual desire, would be non-existent.
    Even sexual desire (as distinct from the sensuality of sexual arousal) would have naturally given way to the current-time awareness with increased sensuosity / closeness.

At this stage this is mere wishful thinking because in your “honest description of my emotional state” you said “it brought back the old set of feelings albeit not at the same intensity. Stemming from the ‘being-to-being passions’ I wrote of above, there was also sexual desire, possessiveness, fear, etc. as part of it. I explored it all by staying with the feelings wherever those day-dreams took me.”

How do you envision these “‘being-to-being passions’” suddenly transforming into “not-affectional” “near-actual intimacy”?

Srid: 2. In lieu of such affectionality, and in conjunction with the supplanted sensuosity, the experience/ awareness is (will be) such that there is an immanence-in-consciousness of the other.
“Immanence” refers to “the physical presence of a fellow human creature/ of fellow human creatures, proximately pervading each other’s field of consciousness/ each other’s sentiency field such as to be, in effect, part-and-parcel of a consciousness-in-common (a.k.a. ‘common consciousness’)”
This mutual physicality of immanence-in-consciousness overrides/ supplants the usual affectionality/ union between separative ‘selves’ (which the being-to-being passion seeks to enable), such that in consciousness there is mainly an ongoing sensuos perception and increasing awareness of ‘common consciousness’ (and thus more of a self-less/ less self-centric experience).
Thus, naturally, in consciousness, there is less consideration of me as, say, a ‘man’, a ‘neurodivergent’ or any of the other social identities. I came across actually-free Vineeto’s “Source Experience” and strangely I’m able to connect the dots to what she’s saying there, in regards to this ‘common consciousness’ being “genderless, formless, ageless and vast” (thus, less consideration of me as those social identities, and more experiential awareness of me as this genderless, formless, ageless ‘consciousness’ in action) with one’s “sense of fixed physicality falling apart (including the experience of two bodies, Richard and [herself])”.
Reading all of this twigged something in me, and I ‘stepped back’ and acknowledged how this ‘common consciousness’ can happen on its own with me letting go of the usual ‘control’ (over events, situations, people).
So, that’s where I’m. This letting myself go into ‘common consciousness’, while seems to be a delightful way of being to the nth degree, is also a bit … disconcerting at times, mainly because of unfamiliarity, and also because of the temptations of affectionality.

In high-flying word-formations such as “mutual physicality of immanence-in-consciousness” and the arrogation and appropriation of descriptions such as “‘common consciousness’ being ‘genderless, formless, ageless and vast’” and “fixed physicality falling apart” – as if this will miraculous happen to you because you read about fully actually free people reporting it – you may have forgotten that you are still a passionate feeling being, experiencing “‘being-to-being passions’”, which when ignored for what they are[1], easily give rise to such unrealistic anticipation cloaked in ‘actualistic’ phrases.

[1] I am also reminded that you have had months, if not years, of Vipassana training, where one deliberately sets aside any ‘inappropriate’ feelings with varying techniques. This habit might not have completely left you.

There is an example of an audio-recording with Alan, who was particularly fond of cloaking his self-reports in ‘actualistic’ phrases as if they were his own experiences, and Richard wrote some editorial comments (link), including a warning that it can result in an altered state of consciousness (see hypomania). The whole exchange is very informative. Here is a sample –

Richard: Thus I do know it is possible to slip into a hypomanic state whilst illuding oneself that it fits the criterion for ‘out-from-control’ as per actualism lingo – and I especially know this via gradually talking a person so afflicted back out of it over time – and one of the hallmarks is the initial difficulty in ‘reaching’ such a person (they are ‘out of reach’ of normal discourse) due to the certitude such a state imbues. (Hypomania)

Perhaps this excerpt is also informative as a cautionary note so as to assist in providing yourself with an “honest description of my emotional state” –

• [Respondent № 27]: “I have similar questions about the distinction between ‘feeling intimacy’ and ‘actual intimacy’. Could you define exactly what you mean by those terms – as well as just exactly what you would say is going on when there is a ‘feeling intimacy’?”
• [Richard]: “So as to circumvent coining new words I chose to make a distinct difference between the word ‘actual’ and the word ‘real’ (plus the word ‘fact’ and the word ‘true’) whereas the dictionaries do not: thus when I talk of the actual world, as contrasted to the real world, whilst both words refer to the physical world I am making an experiential distinction (a distinction in experience).
I usually put it this way: what one is (what not who) is these eyes seeing, these ears hearing, this tongue tasting, this skin touching and this nose smelling – and no separative identity (no ‘I’/ ‘me’) inside the body means no separation whatsoever – whereas ‘I’/ ‘me’, a psychological/ psychic entity, am busily creating an inner world and an outer world and looking out through ‘my’ eyes upon ‘my’ outer world as if looking out through a window, listening to ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ tongue, touching ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ skin and smelling ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ nose.
This entity, or being, residing in the body is forever cut-off from the actual – from the world as-it-is – because its inner world reality is pasted as a veneer over the actual world, thus creating the outer world reality known as the real world, and experiences an affective intimacy (oneness, union, unity, wholeness) wherein the separation is bridged by love and compassion … instead of an actual intimacy (direct, instant, immediate, absolute) where there is no separation whatsoever.
In other words, no separative identity in the first place means no division exists to be transcended”.
• [Respondent № 27]: “Is there no intimacy in feeling intimacy?”
• [Richard]: “Yes, there is the feeling of being intimate”.
• [Respondent № 27]: “If that’s the case, why do you call it feeling ‘intimacy’?”
• [Richard]: “Because that is what it is … the feeling of being intimate”. [emphasis in original]. (Richard, AF List, No. 27d, 18 Nov 2002).
(…)
Perhaps if I were to put it this way: a feeling-being, residing as they do in their ‘self’-created ‘inner world’, feels separated from other feeling-beings as a matter of course (who, whilst similarly residing in their own ‘self’-created ‘inner worlds’, nevertheless manifest as residing in that feeling-being’s ‘self’-created ‘outer world’) and seeks to bridge that ‘self’-generated separation in the only way a feeling-being can—affectively and psychically—such as to experience a feeling of being intimate (i.e., a feeling intimacy a.k.a. an affective intimacy), when successful, and even unto an affective-psychic union, a ‘oneness’ experience, when that feeling of being intimate, through having become a loving intimacy, then transforms itself, via what is known as “falling in love”, into a state of being called “being in love” (i.e., being love itself as “a state of ‘being’”).
(Richard, List D, No. 46, #intimacy2)

In other words, as long as strong passions, waxing and waning in intensity, as described by you, are operating, a near-actual intimacy is not yet possible. Your description of “great sense of control” indicates rather the beginning stage of falling in love. A near-actual intimacy can only be experienced in an ongoing excellence experience, also known as the state of being out-from-under-control.

For a collection of experiential descriptions of the feelings and results of being in love see Richard, List D, James, 8 Aug 2015.

Cheers Vineeto

1 Like
12

Vineeto’s excellent reply gets to the heart of the matter: actualism is experiential, and, having not experienced a particular thing, it is not worthwhile to try to imagine or describe what it might be like, but rather, to stick with what one does know plus any advice from how to go from ‘here’ to ‘there’ (rather than trying to place oneself ‘there’ already).

With that in mind, as to:

I don’t think this is a good way to go about ‘looking’ for this. Unless you are in a PCE, everything ‘I’ experience is affective – with the peculiar exception of pure intent, but even then the experience of pure intent is different in a PCE than out of a PCE.

To put it directly, a naive intimacy is affective – incredibly so, to an nth degree, to a larger degree than ‘I’ usually feel feelings. It’s an ebullience – however, a felicitous one (rather than a loving or affectional one).

As such to be looking for a “sensate” type of intimacy will be missing the point, and probably preclude one from finding a naive intimacy… the key is it is a feeling, you won’t get to experience it by trying to avoid feeling feelings (which you aren’t necessarily explicitly saying here or thinking about doing in those terms, but, it sounds like it goes in that direction).

Or if I can put it this way: from a far-away perspective, such a naive intimacy resembles a powerful feeling far more than it resembles an imagined “sense-only” experience as one might have been going for w/ for example vipassana or samatha training.

However because it is naive it will have a through-line of pure intent/purity laced through it, which makes it magical, and the experience of which shows where all the affectional-type approaches go wrong, and you will find a natural/innate caring arise/come out of nowhere/having had been there all along (of course I care and want the best for everyone!). Following whatever through-line of purity you currently have running, will lead you there, too

I say this just so you don’t inadvertently shut yourself off from it by trying to avoid feeling strong feelings, remember, as a feeling being, fun is a feeling, so is naivete!

Cheers,
Claudiu

1 Like
13

Thank you, Vineeto & Claudiu. I will take some time to reflect on it and get back in a bit. When I made a clean break with her back in mid-Dec one of the things she had to say about me was that I was afraid of my feelings. :slight_smile:

Quick question to Claudiu: could you expand on this? You mentioned ebullience. This doesn’t include love or the being-to-being passions (or any of the loving/affectional ones), but does it include or exclude attraction? And sexual desire?

14

Having digested both the responses, taken a nap, and them re-read/ digested them again, I’ve come to just allow all these feelings as they are, and then ‘take whatever next step’ from here. What that ‘next step’ will be, I don’t know. I’ll figure that out on Thursday (and the days before). But the intent to effectuate something better (deriving ultimately from my PCEs) remains here as guidance.

Specifically, when I’m with her and when these being-to-being passions surface (they surely will of course) I’ll allow and even enjoy them (they are so pleasurable anyway), without trying to hide them from her even. As I fully feel them, perhaps something can happen or change (due to intent), but I’ll explore/experiment in real-time, and then report what I find out … instead of doing it ‘the other way’ (plan how to do it, and then sudorifically do it). Get down to the bass tacks. First principles.

Vineeto, that last quote from Richard regarding the entity residing in the body and experiencing oneness/union is quite spot on. That is indeed the crux of the affectional intimacy I’m experiencing. It really gives me an experiential sense of ‘contrast’ between affectional intimacy and this new yet-to-be-explored way of being.

And so, this doesn’t matter as much anymore. :slight_smile: In my experience, the being-to-being passions are just a touch above the sexual center, and thus they basically act as ‘carrier’ of sexual arousal, which is perhaps why sex-with-love is often considered better (for the ‘penetration’ is happening at both physical and being level simultaneously).

1 Like