Journal de Henry

Journals
982

Hi Vineeto,

Mmm that makes sense. Where I drew my perception from is when Richard wrote that, for example, “the very stuff of a flesh and blood body, being the same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe, is as old as the universe (which is eternal).” [link].

And as both humans and stars are the “stuff of the universe” then I am in that sense made of the “same-same stuff” as the stars are, which is namely “the stuff of the universe”.

I found this collection of quotes that conveys the picture as well, with some particularly interesting bits that I emphasized!

The surface of the Earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean. On this shore, we’ve learned most of what we know. Recently, we’ve waded a little way out, maybe ankle-deep, and the water seems inviting. Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return, and we can, because the cosmos is also within us. We’re made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself. {!!}
Carl Sagan, 1980

Our Sun is a second- or third-generation star. All of the rocky and metallic material we stand on, the iron in our blood, the calcium in our teeth, the carbon in our genes were produced billions of years ago in the interior of a red giant star. We are made of star-stuff .
Carl Sagan, 1973

The spectroscope analyzes the light if you please, and shows what it is made of. What was the surprise of the tireless searchers when they found common earth metals burning in the mighty sun!

There was once a little girl who cried out with joy when she realized for one little moment that the earth is truly a heavenly body, and that no matter what is happening to us we are really living right up among the stars. The sun is made of “star stuff, and the earth is made of the same material, put together with a difference.”
Ellen Frizell Wyckoff, 1913

It is true that a first thoughtful glimpse of the immeasurable universe is liable rather to discourage us with a sense of our own insignificance. But astronomy is wholesome even in this, and helps to clear the way to a realization that as our bodies are an integral part of the great physical universe, so through them are manifested laws and forces that take rank with the highest manifestation of Cosmic Being.

Thus we come to see that if our bodies are made of star-stuff,—and there is nothing else, says the spectroscope, to make them of—the loftier qualities of our being are just as necessarily constituents of that universal substance out of which are made

“Whatever gods there be.”

We are made of universal and divine ingredients, and the study of the stars will not let us escape a wholesome and final knowledge of the fact.
Albert Durrant Watson, 1918

We are made of the same stuff as the stars , so when we study astronomy we are in a way only investigating our remote ancestry and our place in the universe of star stuff. Our very bodies consist of the same chemical elements found in the most distant nebulae, and our activities are guided by the same universal rules.
Harlow Shapley, 1929

They all convey this same basic idea, that the matter that constitutes the stars is the same stuff as the matter that constitutes the planets and our bodies, namely it is all the “stuff of the universe”.

I think in a general sense this is what Richard is conveying with saying “the very stuff of a flesh and blood body” is “the same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe” (of course without any spirituality in it like Watson added!)

That being said I see your point that whether our bodies are literally directly formed from the same stuff that actually formed the Sun, requires theorizing and hypothesizing – it’s actually a different statement than just saying it’s all matter (and the same elements at the base of it, the iron in a star is the same as the iron on Earth).

To that end I find it far more delightful to say that “the planet grows human beings” and in a much more meaningful sense we are made of the same stuff the planet is, as it grows us! :appreciation:

Cheers,
Claudiu

3 Likes
983

On rereading I see that part of the issue is ‘identifying with’ the objectified star-dust, which is a form of projection, whereas it is direct to say “I am this human body, composed of the same matter which composes the rest of the universe, grown on earth.”

I can see how looking out & identifying with something distant & grand becomes self-aggrandizement (which is where the mystique and power of the Moby song comes from).

Regardless of where I came from, I am now this flesh & blood body experiencing life here and now.

I’m interested in how this relates to the lack of centre upon actual freedom:

"…it is ‘I’ who, being a central figure in ‘my’ scheme of things, proposes that there is an outside to this material universe. There is not. This universe has no edges … which means that there is no centre either. With no centre to existence we are nowhere in particular.

Being here, as an actuality, is to be anywhere at all, for infinity is everywhere all at once.

The star-dust, nebulae, etc. is not really ‘out there,’ as there is no separation without identity… something for me to ponder.

3 Likes
984

Vineeto: As Richard explained, ‘Vineeto’ “had shifted ‘her’ familially-inculcated and societally-instilled allegiance to ‘the system’ at large over onto the spiritual commune” and therefore had no issue with real-world peasant-mentality topics such as career, status, wealth and ‘disguised slavery’ except those applicable in the commune. For instance, the ‘slavery’ consisted of doing work without pay in order to belong to a slightly more privileged ‘inner’ circle.

Kuba: I was going to write this exactly that these ‘counter culture’ values can end up working in the same way as spiritual values in that they are very slimy to get hold of. They appear to offer an escape from the grind and yet it is all the same game under a different guise. Which does make it that much harder to expose. And this has been the case exactly with me, that it was so obvious for me to release those values as they applied to working a career etc and yet those same values would leave me restless unless I was constantly progressing in my “alternate endeavours”. The hierarchy, the power, the recognition, the belonging etc it was all there but hidden. (link)

Hi Kuba,

Ha, you are so right. I remember when Richard in an early conversation in 1998 said that he could drive buses through the large holes in any religion/ spirituality, ‘Vineeto’ was flabbergasted as ‘she’ could not see any hole in any of their/ ‘her’ spiritual beliefs. ‘She’ had swallowed Eastern mysticism hook, line and sinker thanks to the powerful seductive atmosphere of divine love and compassion in the commune. People who haven’t experienced it personally usually don’t comprehend the power of these psychic vibes emanating from an enlightened ‘being’ and just deem followers as silly, while not recognizing their own entrapment.

If ‘Vineeto’ had noticed any structure and/or hierarchy of values and principles, for instance privileges for those with a lot of money, it was ok, because the goal was ‘good’. Hence dismantling it all took a while and questioning loyalty at the start made it a lot easier.

Cheers Vineeto

4 Likes
985

Claudiu: Hi Vineeto,

Vineeto: I have been pondering your “we are all literally made of star-dust” and was wondering why it doesn’t quite describe how I experience myself. Today I found the quote I had in mind and it helped me put my thoughts on this phrase in order –

Richard: The very earth beneath our feet is ‘our base’ … this planet grows human beings just as it grows the trees and the grasses and the flowers (although in the final analysis, of course, it is the universe itself which is ‘our base’ as it ‘grows’ the suns and planets … and I am putting ‘grows’ in scare quotes deliberately as it is an analogous term). (Richard, List B, No. 25g, 16 May 2001).
Richard: As such, physically I am ‘grown’ by the earth, and apperceptively I am “the perfection of the stillness of infinitude personified as a sensate and reflective human being” (Richard, General Correspondence, Page 07, 22 Feb 99).

Vineeto: Whereas I cannot honestly say that I am “star-dust” (as in “gaseous swirls of matter (as seen in nebulae) condensing into varying forms of stars, small planets, gas giants, etc”). In other words, I am the universe experiencing itself as a human being, I am not the universe per se, as in “gaseous swirls of matter”.

Claudiu: Mmm that makes sense. Where I drew my perception from is when Richard wrote that, for example, “the very stuff of a flesh and blood body, being the same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe, is as old as the universe (which is eternal).” [Richard, Selected Correspondence, Happy2 =Richard, AF List, No. 66, 26 May 2005].
And as both humans and stars are the “stuff of the universe” then I am in that sense made of the “same-same stuff” as the stars are, which is namely “the stuff of the universe”.

Hi Claudiu,

Thank you for your detailed explanation. As you know it’s not easy to separate scientific fact from interwoven beliefs which so often influence the conclusions of their scientific findings. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that some have indeed discovered that “We are made of star-stuff”.

I guess you are aware that when you said “I drew my perception” you have been applying logical deduction to Richard’s “directly (apperceptive) experiencing of its own perpetuity”, which can on occasion go side-ways when you move from the general to the specific.

First there is the statement “both humans and stars are the “stuff of the universe””, “then I am in that sense made “of the “same-same stuff” as the stars are” … and then (logically) I am of the “same-same stuff” as star-dust. Even though the logic is correct it does not describe how I experience myself. I am “being the same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe” in that I am grown by the earth –

Richard: It is this simple: the very stuff of this body (and all bodies) is the very same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe in that it comes out of the ground in the form of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is consumed, in conjunction with the air breathed and the water drunk and the sunlight absorbed.
I am nothing other than that … that is what I am, literally. (Richard, AF List, No. 44e, 10 Oct 2003).

Richard is reporting (using your quotes) his apperceptive experience to emphasize that “one is that eternal stuff” –

Richard: … the very stuff of a flesh and blood body, being the same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe, is as old as the universe (which is eternal).
Richard: … the very stuff of a flesh and blood body, being the same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe, is already always existent – and, as this flesh and blood body only (sans identity in toto), one is that eternal stuff … directly (apperceptively) experiencing its own perpetuity. (AF List, No. 66, 26 May 2005).

It’s only a minor point but I thought it useful to highlight the difference between rational/ logical thinking and direct apperceptive experiencing.

Claudiu: I found this collection of quotes that conveys the picture as well, with some particularly interesting bits that I emphasized!

The surface of the Earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean. On this shore, we’ve learned most of what we know. Recently, we’ve waded a little way out, maybe ankle-deep, and the water seems inviting. Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return, and we can, because the cosmos is also within us. We’re made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself. {!!} Carl Sagan, 1980
Our Sun is a second- or third-generation star. All of the rocky and metallic material we stand on, the iron in our blood, the calcium in our teeth, the carbon in our genes were produced billions of years ago in the interior of a red giant star. We are made of star-stuff .
Carl Sagan, 1973
The spectroscope analyzes the light if you please, and shows what it is made of. What was the surprise of the tireless searchers when they found common earth metals burning in the mighty sun!
There was once a little girl who cried out with joy when she realized for one little moment that the earth is truly a heavenly body, and that no matter what is happening to us we are really living right up among the stars. The sun is made of “star stuff, and the earth is made of the same material, put together with a difference.” Ellen Frizell Wyckoff, 1913
It is true that a first thoughtful glimpse of the immeasurable universe is liable rather to discourage us with a sense of our own insignificance. But astronomy is wholesome even in this, and helps to clear the way to a realization that as our bodies are an integral part of the great physical universe, so through them are manifested laws and forces that take rank with the highest manifestation of Cosmic Being.
Thus we come to see that if our bodies are made of star-stuff, – and there is nothing else, says the spectroscope, to make them of the loftier qualities of our being are just as necessarily constituents of that universal substance out of which are made.

“Whatever gods there be.”

We are made of universal and divine ingredients, and the study of the stars will not let us escape a wholesome and final knowledge of the fact. Albert Durrant Watson, 1918
We are made of the same stuff as the stars, so when we study astronomy we are in a way only investigating our remote ancestry and our place in the universe of star stuff. Our very bodies consist of the same chemical elements found in the most distant nebulae, and our activities are guided by the same universal rules. Harlow Shapley, 1929

Claudiu: They all convey this same basic idea, that the matter that constitutes the stars is the same stuff as the matter that constitutes the planets and our bodies, namely it is all the “stuff of the universe”.

It seems very similar and yet they all fall short (because of the innate identity) to recognize that, because the universe is actually infinite (not merely “immeasurable”) and eternal, they could experience infinitude directly as the flesh-and-blood body.

I found an interesting quote how Richard operates, which everyone, who still has the faculty to believe intact, can apply –

Richard: You see, the way that I operate is like this: when I start to read a philosophy – or listen to someone expound one – I quickly ascertain whether the ultimate point of it is whether one can find ‘The Truth’. If this is the case, I drop it in the waste-bin where it belongs. Eighteen years ago I discovered – and have had it affirmed again and again in the following years – that ‘The Truth’ is but a philosophical nom de guerre for god. (Richard, List B, No. 21, 27 July 1998)

For instance in this situation –

Q: Did Carl Sagan believe in God?
A: Carl Sagan, the popular scientist, author, and TV star, was agnostic and had a scientific perspective on religion. Sagan identified as agnostic, but not atheist, and was open to new evidence on any subject. He believed that knowledge is always provisional and contingent upon further data.
Sagan’s widow, Ann Druyan, edited Sagan’s writings into book after his death, called The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God. In the book, Sagan examined the natural evidence for the existence of God.
Sagan yearned for a reconciliation between science and religion, … [emphasis added] (Quora, Lee Duer).

No wonder he was so popular.

Claudiu: I think in a general sense this is what Richard is conveying with saying “the very stuff of a flesh and blood body” is “the same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe” (of course without any spirituality in it like Watson added!)

Yes, this is good news as it makes it easier to communicate about actualism (the experience that matter is not passive) when there is the beginning of common ground.

Claudiu: That being said I see your point that whether our bodies are literally directly formed from the same stuff that actually formed the Sun, requires theorizing and hypothesizing – it’s actually a different statement than just saying it’s all matter (and the same elements at the base of it, the iron in a star is the same as the iron on Earth).
To that end I find it far more delightful to say that “the planet grows human beings” and in a much more meaningful sense we are made of the same stuff the planet is, as it grows us! (link)

I am delighted you can see the difference, Claudiu. I enjoy the discussion, it’s fun to tease out the distinctions.

Cheers Vineeto

2 Likes
986

Vineeto: Hence the expression that the planet grows human beings neither requires conjecture nor searching for the origin of flora, fauna and human beings in outer space.

Henry: I was initially trying to capture that I was observing (more) directly the matter that everything is composed of without the influence of feeling-fed narrative. Though the irony is that describing it as star-dust is reintroducing narrative as in ‘stars act as a forge for the creation of heavier forms of matter via fusion, which are then spread throughout the universe and condense into planets.’ Already this is treading into scientific theory which I haven’t researched deeply.
I found an article which describes this process: “After millions of years, immense pressures and temperatures in the star’s core squeeze the nuclei of hydrogen atoms together to form helium, a process called nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion releases energy, which heats the star and prevents it from further collapsing under the force of gravity.”
Through further research I found that the idea of nuclear fusion powering stars was presented in 1920 by Arthur Eddington, and that further observations such as stellar spectra, predicted energy output, neutrinos, helioseismology, lifetime of stars, and the relative abundance of the various elements support the current theory that stars are powered by fusion and thus the matter throughout the universe passed through stars.
However, I did have a chuckle when I saw that ‘theoretical models’ were part of the evidence, and it made it apparent that the theorizing since then has also been a model (though many of the aspects of evidence above are directly observable with the right equipment).

Hi Henry,

Well spotted, “spread throughout the universe” is clearly based on belief in an expanding of the universe. You are also alert to “‘theoretical models’” and probably already keep in mind that atoms and molecules and their smaller derivations are all theoretical thingymajigs (see Sir Brian Pippard).

‘Vineeto’ was initially quite delighted with the wonderful images from the Hubble telescope and collected many on the computer until one day Richard told ‘her’ that all images are artificially coloured, ‘translated’, if my memory serves me correctly, from measurement based amongst other input on ‘Doppler shift’ and redshift, both from the assumption that stellar object are ‘moving away’ in an expanding universe. As such the colouring is most likely not how these galaxies actually look like. ‘She’ soon lost interest after that information. I also found this curious quote in the Helioseismology link –

“The derived velocity law implies a supermassive object in the centre of the galaxy with 3×106 solar masses. This provides strong evidence for the presence of a massive black hole {!!} in the centre of the Milky Way.” (link)

Reading these ‘scientific’ presentations requires a lot of care and caution to sort any possible factual information from the generally believed narrative.

Henry: Further, on reflection it’s apparent that part of that theory is dependent on big bang theory, as the supposition is that the universe ‘started out’ in a theorized pre-matter form, transforming into plasma and ‘elementary particles’ (which exist theoretically as well) and then which condensed into “mostly hydrogen, with some helium and lithium.”

Ha, exactly. The first article you linked to states “Astronomers estimate that the universe could contain up to one septillion stars”. This limited number (despite its size) can only be confidently stated when one believes the universe to be finite in time and space (in order to leave room outside the universe for god(s) to reside :wink:).

Henry: From here, the lighter gases would eventually fuse to form the myriad of forms of matter we see today. However, with no big bang there’s no ‘beginning’ and so this chain of events doesn’t have to occur to produce that myriad of forms.
We do know that fusion occurs, it can be generated(?) in the lab (albeit for a short time), and it does produce heavier elements. But there is plenty of room for theory around the edges…

You do seem to get the drift – as Richard said, facts are thin on the ground.

Henry: Because of all this, I understand what you mean as far as this planet growing us as being directly observable, whereas “the sun is powered by fusion and therefore this is all stardust” is an abstraction based on a theoretical understanding. In me, it took the form of a meme – I first heard the phrase in a Moby song: Moby ‘We Are All Made of Stars’. (snipped lyrics and interviews) That famously solipsistic argument. So that indicates somewhat his attitude toward the universe.

As you demonstrate they are hopelessly steeped in non-material /spiritual fantasy and some are “famously solipsistic” as well.

Henry: All in all, it’s a reminder for me of the dynamics described in one of my favorite passages of Richard’s:

“Pure perception takes place sensitively just before one starts feeling the percept – and thus thinking about it affectively – which takes place just before one’s feeling-fed mind says: ‘It’s a man’ or: ‘It’s a woman’ or: ‘It’s a steak-burger’ or: ‘It’s a tofu-burger’ … with all that is implied in this identification and the ramifications that stem from that.”

In one instant was a quite pure experience (though there was still self present) and then I ‘translated’ the experience into a form that ‘I’ understood. (link)

This is a good description of what happened and you made a very valiant attempt to describe it that I recognized the significance and close-to-purity of this experience for you.

Cheers Vineeto

1 Like
987

Vineeto: Whereas I cannot honestly say that I am “star-dust” (as in “gaseous swirls of matter (as seen in nebulae) condensing into varying forms of stars, small planets, gas giants, etc”). In other words, I am the universe experiencing itself as a human being, I am not the universe per se, as in “gaseous swirls of matter”.

Henry: On rereading I see that part of the issue is ‘identifying with’ the objectified star-dust, which is a form of projection, whereas it is direct to say “I am this human body, composed of the same matter which composes the rest of the universe, grown on earth.”
I can see how looking out & identifying with something distant & grand becomes self-aggrandizement (which is where the mystique and power of the Moby song comes from).
Regardless of where I came from, I am now this flesh & blood body experiencing life here and now.

Hi Henry,

Don’t be too hasty with that statement. It is only factual when ‘I’ and ‘me’ are in abeyance.

“‘Identifying with’ the objectified star-dust” would be an additional removal (to being an identity) from actuality so it is beneficial to recognize and decline whenever it happens.

As ‘I’ am my feelings ‘I’ cannot disidentify from what ‘I’ am, and any dissociative attempt to do that is counterproductive. ‘I’ and ‘me’ have to become extinct for one to be here permanently as “this flesh & blood body experiencing life here and now”.

Henry: I’m interested in how this relates to the lack of centre upon actual freedom:

Richard: "…it is ‘I’ who, being a central figure in ‘my’ scheme of things, proposes that there is an outside to this material universe. There is not. This universe has no edges … which means that there is no centre either. With no centre to existence we are nowhere in particular.
Being here, as an actuality, is to be anywhere at all, for infinity is everywhere all at once. (link)

As you are not “this flesh & blood body experiencing life here and now” unless you are in a PCE, this question cannot be answered as is. In a PCE you may experience to be “nowhere in particular” and get a glimpse of what it is to “be anywhere at all, for infinity is everywhere all at once.” It is marvellous, albeit it can be somewhat disorienting at first.

Henry: The star-dust, nebulae, etc. is not really ‘out there,’ as there is no separation without identity… something for me to ponder. (link)

Exactly. It’s grand when you recognize that the universe is “not really ‘out there’” and then can experientially verify it over and over.

Cheers Vineeto

1 Like
988

this struck a cord with me. but namely because the consciousness experiences i’ve had that mostly closely align with the state you and richard describe - where the psychological self/center is completely gone, there are only senses and a direct awareness of infinity - were actually pretty overwhelming. a lot of agitation/remnants of fear were still present and were experienced very acutely without the buffer of the psychological self, kind of reminiscent of the adjustment period richard described, and i definitely felt disoriented too. it makes those experiences feel like a little less of a compass for me because they actually didn’t feel super desirable. did you have an adjustment period too, once you arrived at full freedom? is this overwhelm/transitional agitation just part of the experience?

2 Likes
989

Ah this is great it now clicked for me! The common understanding is actually back to front, in that the sensate world is taken to be a construct manufactured (imperfectly) by the brain and it is the “sub-atomic postulates” which are taken to be real (implying them to be actual), they are taken to be the underpinnings of some ultimate reality which we can never have direct access to but nevertheless can theorise about. And of course this conclusion is but a stone’s throw away from God (disguised as Truth), where it inevitably lands.

The facts are actually the other way around, for example what fire actually is, is that very thing which is experienced sensately. The actuality of what fire is can only be known sensately. Whatever “postulates” which exist as the “real underpinnings” of what fire is, those things are the constructs.

Wow so the whole understanding of the world does a flip upside down here, the actuality ascertained sensately is what things actually are, anything else that comes after this is not actual. Yet in the real world it is the other way around, the sensate world is given no credence at all and instead those “postulates” are the very fabric of reality, of objectivity etc

So solipsism disappears into oblivion here.

4 Likes
990

Hi Scout,

If the experience is not “super desirable” then odds are it was not a PCE.

In a genuine PCE there is no “agitation” or “remnants of fear”. This indicates your felt/emotional self/core of your being was not actually in abeyance, merely masquerading as if so.

Here is an experiential report that may help elucidate matters:

I have had PCEs that did not stand out quite as much as that one – but it is very important to use as your guiding light only that which you genuinely can be 100% confident is a PCE.

The very first one I had after visiting Richard & Vineeto for the first time was similar in its quality:

My advise would be to have high standards, a very high bar for what a genuine PCE is, and to be open to the possibility that there’s far more to it than you’ve seen so far!

Cheers,
Claudiu

4 Likes
991

Yes indeed, I am always blown away by the difference from even an excellence experience to the magical perfection and purity of the PCE, it’s in a category of it’s own. And every time it happens I am once again utterly blown away by just how perfect and pure and magical it is. It is simply beyond ‘my’ wildest dreams, this is no hyperbole.

2 Likes
992

In fact it is not just that it is not given credence, it is actually invisible. The “sensate world” itself is understood as photons etc and the experience of this “sensate world” is an identity’s passionate creation.

So actuality remains unseen, so of course it is given no credence.

All this is so much fun, I am having an absolute blast! Certainly one is walking the wide and wondrous path when it is this much fun :grin:

2 Likes
993

Vineeto: As you are not “this flesh & blood body experiencing life here and now” unless you are in a PCE, this question cannot be answered as is. In a PCE you may experience to be “nowhere in particular” and get a glimpse of what it is to “be anywhere at all, for infinity is everywhere all at once.” It is marvellous, albeit it can be somewhat disorienting at first.

Scout: This struck a chord with me. But namely because the consciousness experiences I’ve had that mostly closely align with the state you and Richard describe – where the psychological self/center is completely gone, there are only senses and a direct awareness of infinity – were actually pretty overwhelming. A lot of agitation/remnants of fear were still present and were experienced very acutely without the buffer of the psychological self, kind of reminiscent of the adjustment period richard described, and I definitely felt disoriented too. It makes those experiences feel like a little less of a compass for me because they actually didn’t feel super desirable. Did you have an adjustment period too, once you arrived at full freedom? Is this overwhelm/ transitional agitation just part of the experience? (link)

Hi Scout,

As Claudiu already pointed out (link) when there is “a lot of agitation/ remnants of fear were still present” at least that part of the experience was not a PCE. In a PCE the identity is in abeyance and so are all your feelings, passions and imagination. It could have been an after-effect of a PCE when ‘I’ get a shock that ‘I’ was not in control, or a mild excellence experience with a shock-effect, but as you say “closely align with the state you and Richard describe”, it again points to an excellence experience at the most.

This should be good news for you because an actual freedom definitely has no “agitation/ remnants of fear” and is much, much better than you can imagine.

Personally I did have a short adjustment period when I lost my centre of spacial reference permanently (link), which could only happen after I had dealt with the ‘guardian’, the social identity in toto – so there is no need for you to worry just yet.

I wish you eminent success with your adventure of being alive.

Cheers Vineeto

3 Likes
994

Vineeto to Scout :

“I wish you eminent success with your adventure of being alive.”

Me and @Sonyaxx were talking yesterday about your descriptions of how you experience yourself, that as a flesh and blood body you are ‘grown’ by the earth. Seeing that this is what human beings actually are I now understand the adventure in actualism, in fact the adventure in being alive.

This business of the universe ‘growing’ the earth which then ‘grew’ human beings, and as those flesh and blood human beings the universe can experience itself, this destiny is an adventurous destiny. Seeing that human beings were ‘grown’ by the earth is accepting our animal heritage, it is appreciating the inherent adventure in being alive.

I can see why Richard could not possibly dislike any of his fellow human beings, because he experienced directly what they are. I can get a flavour of this and there is such an appreciation simply for what human beings are.

3 Likes
995

Thanks for responding @Vineeto and @claudiu!

@claudiu, good to read your report - your description of a PCE feels familiar as there’s a number of experiences i’ve had as well where the world seemed vivid, sparkling, incredible, fun and light. It also felt like there was no “me” and without me, life was perfect, the meaning of life was in the living and this was the most obvious thing in the world. These are very much the experiences that drove me in this direction.

However there are other parts of Richard/Vineeto’s description like centerlessness and contact with infinity which I did not directly experience in those incredible moments (even though there felt like there was no “me”, and i had an understanding of infinity, there must have been some sense of center and slight separation from it). The moments where the center died and raw infinity coursed through me had a different flavor because they were so fundamentally different, it was very very overwhelming and disorienting. But I guess as @Vineeto said, it probably means there were still remnants of me left to feel this overwhelm

So I guess I’ve never experienced it all at once - total complete centerlessness and contact with infinity, at the same time that everything seems magical and fun and perfect. The centerlessness actually quite surprised me when I first experienced it because I couldn’t fathom until then how total the obliteration would be, and it had seemed to me that perfect happiness was possible with the far more shallow disappearance of “me” that had revealed the meaning of life prior. I wonder if this is the difference between basic and actual freedom

3 Likes
996

This was awesome to read, thank you for setting me straight on this. I’ve been trying to force something which wasn’t happening, it explains a lot of the dissociation that I’ve experienced over the years. It’s like the actualism equivalent of stolen valor, trying to ‘be’ something that I’m not!

1 Like
997

Scout: … because the consciousness experiences I’ve had that mostly closely align with the state you and Richard describe – where the psychological self/center is completely gone, there are only senses and a direct awareness of infinity – were actually pretty overwhelming. A lot of agitation/ remnants of fear were still present and were experienced very acutely without the buffer of the psychological self, kind of reminiscent of the adjustment period Richard described, and I definitely felt disoriented too. It makes those experiences feel like a little less of a compass for me because they actually didn’t feel super desirable. Did you have an adjustment period too, once you arrived at full freedom? Is this overwhelm/ transitional agitation just part of the experience?

Vineeto: (snip)

Scout: However there are other parts of Richard/Vineeto’s description like centerlessness and contact with infinity which I did not directly experience in those incredible moments (even though there felt like there was no “me”, and I had an understanding of infinity, there must have been some sense of centre and slight separation from it). The moments where the centre died and raw infinity coursed through me had a different flavor because they were so fundamentally different, it was very, very overwhelming and disorienting. But I guess as Vineeto said, it probably means there were still remnants of me left to feel this overwhelm.

Hi Scout,

As you have mentioned again “Richard/Vineeto’s description like centerlessness and contact with infinity” I am wondering if you can point me to the specific reports you are referring to in order that I can respond in a meaningful way. If you could also describe your own experiences in more detail so I can understand why you are comparing them to Richard’s and my descriptions.

You say – “The moments where the centre died” – when one is actually free, there is no “centre” which can die, so I am puzzled in what way your experience was similar to the descriptions you read.

Scout: So I guess I’ve never experienced it all at once – total complete centerlessness and contact with infinity, at the same time that everything seems magical and fun and perfect. The centerlessness actually quite surprised me when I first experienced it because I couldn’t fathom until then how total the obliteration would be, and it had seemed to me that perfect happiness was possible with the far more shallow disappearance of “me” that had revealed the meaning of life prior. I wonder if this is the difference between basic and actual freedom. (link)

Can you say something more about the experience of how the “disappearance of ‘me’” appeared to you “far less shallow” in comparison to “total complete centerlessness”.

While you are wondering “if this is the difference between basic and actual freedom” – I am in fact wondering, in light of your descriptions so far, if your experiences of “total complete centerlessness” were altered states of consciousness of the nature of an ‘actuality mimicking ASC’ (Richard, Abditorium, Hypomania).

It is not uncommon that the identity comes up with this cunning way to lead you away from, and disorient you, on your adventure to become actually free. This is all par for the course of dismantling the human condition. So I definitely suggest that you do not use these experiences as a compass or even indication of progress. You may find Kuba’s posts (link) and (link) informative and also my reply to him (link) on January 8 this year.

Cheers Vineeto

998

Vineeto: As ‘I’ am my feelings ‘I’ cannot disidentify from what ‘I’ am, and any dissociative attempt to do that is counterproductive. ‘I’ and ‘me’ have to become extinct for one to be here permanently as “this flesh & blood body experiencing life here and now”.
Vineeto: As you are not “this flesh & blood body experiencing life here and now” unless you are in a PCE, this question cannot be answered as is.

Henry: This was awesome to read, thank you for setting me straight on this. I’ve been trying to force something which wasn’t happening, it explains a lot of the dissociation that I’ve experienced over the years. It’s like the actualism equivalent of stolen valour, trying to ‘be’ something that I’m not! (link)

Hi Henry,

I am pleased that you got this in one – it’s a big and essential realisation to distinguish between the ‘outer’ world created by the identity within and the actual world. The identity creates a veneer pasting it over everything you see, hear, touch and smell.

Respondent: When a person is not experiencing either ASC or PCE, what is one experiencing?
Richard: Put simply: the normal, everyday reality that 6.0+ billion identities are pasting as a veneer over actuality.
Respondent: Is the ‘actual’ person NOT seeing the ‘actual’ world? NOT hearing the ‘actual’ world? NOT smelling, tasting, and touching the ‘actual’ world?
Richard: The flesh and blood bodies – all 6.0+ billion of them – are seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching (and proprioceptively sensing) the actual world.
Respondent: I haven’t noticed people walking into walls or failing to respond when called. What’s happening?
Richard: The facsimile walls and calls (the veneered reality) are sufficient for the purpose thereof.
Respondent: I won’t presume that my understanding based on my experience matches yours, but I find it intriguing that you used the phrase ‘pasting as a veneer over actuality’. I understand that all 6B+ persons are experiencing the ‘actual’ world …
Richard: All 6.0+ billion flesh and blood bodies are experiencing the actual world … the entity, or being, residing in the body can only experience their ‘outer world’ reality. Here (from the footnote in this e-mail you are responding to):

• [Richard]: ‘(…) ‘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 …’. [endquote]. (Richard, AF List, No. 123, 30 Aug 2006).

I like your sense of humour with the “stolen valour” expression – in fact when you are adapting “stolen valour” you are fooling nobody but yourself. To be “this flesh & blood body experiencing life here and now” there is no other way but to give ‘your’ “full-blooded endorsement” to ‘your’ demise –

Respondent: I can’t say. It seems like it was the energy/order that happened simply re-aligned. It is almost as if that is calling one, though there is fear to answer that call … .
Richard: Does the fear increase if you allow yourself to consider that the words ‘it is almost as if that is calling one’ are the same-same as saying: this utter fullness is this brain’s destiny; this is what one is here for?
Respondent: No, the fear abates. There is order in the perspective you express. Thanks for putting it like that.
Richard: Okay … this is important, vital, pivotal: ‘I’, the thinker, know that ‘I’ cannot do it … ‘I’ cannot disappear ‘myself’. Only the ‘utter fullness’ can, and the ‘utter fullness’ is ‘calling one’, each moment again, and it is only when ‘I’ fully comprehend – totally, completely, fundamentally – that to be living this ‘utter fullness’ is to be living ‘my’ destiny will one be able ‘to answer that call’.
This full-blooded endorsement means it then becomes inevitable. (Richard, List B, No. 25f, 18 June 2000).

And because the means to the end is the same as the end (enjoyment and appreciation) this is going to be a fun adventure. Remember to dust off, i.e. awaken, your dormant naiveté and you will experientially know what I mean.

Richard: Maybe it is suffice to say at this stage that I do stress how essential the pure intent of naiveté is … yet because ‘naïve’ and ‘gullible’ are so closely linked (via the trusting nature of a child in concert with the lack of knowledge inherent to childhood) in the now-adult mind most peoples initially have difficulty separating the one from another. Perhaps it may be helpful to report that, when I first re-gained naiveté (which is the closest a ‘self’ can approximate to innocence) at age 33 years, I would exclaim to whoever was prepared to listen that ‘it is like being a child again … but with adult sensibilities’ (naïve but not gullible). I was soon to discover, however, that being child-like is not it – children are not innocent – and that innocence is totally new to anyone’s experience (it is just that a child is more prone to readily allowing the moment to live one, from time-to-time, than a cynical adult is).
Thus the pure intent of naiveté provides the collateral assurance ‘I’ require to safely give ‘myself’ permission to allow this moment to live me (rather than ‘me’ trying to live in the present) and to let go the controls. Yet it is the direct experience itself which is the fundamental factor when it comes to making the curious decision to abandon both one’s present course and that of one’s peers and plunge into the adventure of a lifetime. (…)
This is what is important. (Richard, List B, No. 25f, 22 June 2000)

Cheers Vineeto

2 Likes
999

Thanks for your thoughts Vineeto, I started a new thread on this so as not to further hijack Henry’s journal with my lengthy response: Basic Freedom, Actual Freedom, ASC?

1 Like