Journal de Henry

Journals
1062

Thanks Vineeto.

I was very hesitant to reply after the deleted post. As in, I really questioned why I was going to object to something without having anything alternative, as in an “answer “ to offer, and then divulge the rest of the thoughts, again, with nothing to offer as far as a useful answer.

Between Kuba’s replies and yours, I see there has always been an extremism about how I approach actualism, which is the same as anything I do. I either can master it, or I give up and hang around it, talking about it.

There is a huge amount of various efforts that can indeed be made between those extremes.

I particularly like how you say this;

For a fair while I had some subtle success with this “convoluted “ way of dealing with choice.

Echoing Geoffrey and others, “choosing to allow”, and “allowing myself to choose “ and other variations of multi-level linguistic permission giving, and granting, and otherwise humorously talking myself into a light-hearted mood.

Thanks for the conversation. It has created “space” in my mind between the extremes. Perhaps I would indeed prefer to allow myself the permission to choose feeling good, and in light of the repeated fact that external circumstances often are not to my preference, to continue feeling good, enjoying and appreciating that very feeling, anyway.

Haha

So, hijack of Henry’s journal has softly landed, and all passengers are safely making their way to the snack bar and luggage collection.

1063

Well, maybe we can have a candid chat at the snack bar about this quote, and the general idea Richard has written down many times, and that is the direct reproach given in being “taken aback by the implication and ramifications of such obvious ignorement /ignoration of my specific responses and explanations, online….”

It is not at all obvious “ignorement” unless one otherwise expects that other would at all times have remembered and considered everything one has said and written to them. I barely remember what I just said, let alone someone’s entire online repository of conversations.

As for my statement about “orthodox” actualism;

It is not at all “risible” unless you otherwise expect that I am ignoring the orthodox way that Actualism is presented in. Perhaps you thought “orthodox “ means something other than it’s literal meaning, but in both Richard’s response and your own, what explanation is there for this “taken aback, and risible” framing of his and your thoughts?

Is it truly such that you forget how ‘normal’ works and have to keep commenting on it? I am trying to understand this particular quirk.

I have been for the entire time “taken aback “ and found it “risible” that anyone free would be surprised at anything at all in the human condition, and it’s always seemed that Richard especially was taking “jabs” at people when saying these types of statements.

Honestly, it comes across as if Richard was “dropped in from the sky” and had no handle on what the others were experiencing. As if he had never experienced it.

In plain terms, it has always come across as both an uneasy indication that Richard wasn’t able to relate, even if only from memory, or was intentionally insulting people.

The “taken aback “ could do with some explanation.

1064

Andrew: Thanks Vineeto.
I was very hesitant to reply after the deleted post. As in, I really questioned why I was going to object to something without having anything alternative, as in an “answer “ to offer, and then divulge the rest of the thoughts, again, with nothing to offer as far as a useful answer.
Between Kuba’s replies and yours, I see there has always been an extremism about how I approach actualism, which is the same as anything I do. I either can master it, or I give up and hang around it, talking about it.
There is a huge amount of various efforts that can indeed be made between those extremes.

Hi Andrew,

Indeed. And not just “various efforts” also fun experiments and valuable insights which can be actualised.

Andrew: I particularly like how you say this;

Vineeto: then you can choose that you might want to be a different (enjoyable and harmless) feeling.

Andrew: For a fair while I had some subtle success with this “convoluted” way of dealing with choice.

Well, well, it’s only “convoluted” when you call it so, else it’s naïvely experimenting with choices you have never made because your “extremism” didn’t allow for them so far.

Andrew: Echoing Geoffrey and others, “choosing to allow”, and “allowing myself to choose “ and other variations of multi-level linguistic permission giving, and granting, and otherwise humorously talking myself into a light-hearted mood.
Thanks for the conversation. It has created “space” in my mind between the extremes. Perhaps I would indeed prefer to allow myself the permission to choose feeling good, and in light of the repeated fact that external circumstances often are not to my preference, to continue feeling good, enjoying and appreciating that very feeling, anyway.
Haha (link)

You are welcome. Now it’s up to you to keep this “space” “between the extremes” open and play with the new options.

Cheers Vineeto

1 Like
1065

Andrew:

Richard: Although somewhat taken aback by the implications and ramifications of such obvious ignorement/ ignoration of my specific responses and explanations, online, it was a simple matter to point out how the moment-to-moment monitoring of the affections is, of course, an affective monitoring – along with reminding him how the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago was a family man working 12-14 hours a day for 6-7 days a week in order to feed, clothe and house everyone (mortgage commitments, hire-purchase payments, and etcetera) – and to thereafter verbalise what is freely available for perusal and edification on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. (Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 3 Feb 2016)

Andrew: Well, maybe we can have a candid chat at the snack bar about this quote, and the general idea Richard has written down many times, and that is the direct reproach given in being “taken aback by the implication and ramifications of such obvious ignorement/ ignoration of my specific responses and explanations, online….”
It is not at all obvious “ignorement” unless one otherwise expects that other would at all times have remembered and considered everything one has said and written to them. I barely remember what I just said, let alone someone’s entire online repository of conversations.

It might not look like “ignorement” to you because you weren’t active on the Actual Freedom mailing list and are therefore ill-informed about the situation. What was obvious, indicated already in the portion you snipped –

Richard: Early on in my six-month visit to India in 2010 the person anonymised as Respondent № 04 on The Actual Freedom Trust list – whose first post is date-stamped 09 Jan 1999 on my portion of the web site – arranged to meet with me. Arriving after an early-hour inter-city train trip he spent around four or five hours with me and about an hour or so into the conversation he happened to mention, en passant, how he was not able to put the actualism method into practice at work as he could not be attentive to how he was experiencing this moment of being alive, each moment again, during his workaday hours as the job-description required that a large percentage of his time be spent at a computer station being attentive to the myriad manoeuvres on the computer screen virtually every moment of the day. (Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 3 Feb 2016)

– that this particular person was one of the first subscribers (No. 4) and was actively reading and commenting on the list until August 2005 where he admitted a lack of interest –

No. 4: ‘… I don’t have enough motivation to go beyond this [dropping the feeling so early, upon it beginning to arise, as if it never arose], because this itself is much better than most of my peers’. (Monday 1/08/2005 5:19 PM).

5 years later he subscribed to the Direct Route mailout for the sole purpose to arrange a meeting with Richard in India (link). One would at least surmise a certain interest in what Richard has had to say about actualism and how to put it into practice including the correspondences he himself had with Richard (20 all told and often long ones at that). For instance –

Richard to No. 4: The name of the game is to habituate an affective imitation of the actual each moment/ each place again – to consistently feel as happy and harmless (free of both malice and sorrow and, thus, their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – so as to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth to be apparent sooner rather than later … therefore whenever/ wherever there is the slightest diminution of that felicity/ innocuity it speaks for itself that some event, which has been constantly granted the power such as to customarily render that peace and harmony short-lived, has been permitted, via a lifetime of continuous/ routine ignoration, to wreak its havoc once again. [Emphasis added]. (31 Jul 2005)

Hence Richard’s expression of surprise at their not knowing about the affective aspect of monitoring of his feelings.

As for your taking umbrage at Richard’s term “taken aback”, here is what the dictionaries have to say what this phrase can mean –

Surprise, shock, stun, stagger, astound, astonish, startle, take by surprise, nonplus, bewilder.
Sample usage: The family seemed taken aback by the overwhelming generosity of their neighbours. (Merriam-Webster).

Of course there are other meanings such as dumbfound, daze, shake (up), jolt, throw, unnerve, disconcert, disturb, disquiet, unsettle, discompose, knock sideways, knock out.

As dictionaries are descriptive and not prescriptive it says more about the attitude of the reader’s choice to take the word as an insult or criticism rather than a simple description of astonishment.

All words are formed and used by feeling beings and therefore Richard was careful to find and use words, sometimes rare ones, which have the least emotional connotation, and he also he gave extensive dictionary definitions (often in footnotes/ tooltips) to explain which meaning is indicated. But nevertheless, despite the clear overall description of an actual freedom being devoid of ‘self’ and therefore sans any instinctual passions/ the affective faculty, some people still insist that Richard expresses malice and contempt, condemnation and “intentionally insulting”. It is part of the unbelievable/ unimaginable, incomprehensible/ inconceivable nature of the pristine purity of this actual world.

There were others who considered “golly”, equally an expression of surprise, as a malicious utterance. Viz.:

Respondent: … [is that] peace on earth is no where to be found in your correspondence.
Richard: Golly … all I did was ask my co-respondent whether they have ever got angry and, as they replied in the affirmative, I further enquired as to whether they, therefore, know from first-hand experience that it is a fact they got angry. Viz.:
• [Richard to Co-Respondent]: ‘I asked you whether you have ever got angry and you replied in the affirmative: therefore you know from first-hand experience, do you not, that it is a fact you got angry?
How on earth you can interpret that as being steamrolling/ verbally attacking (let alone devoid of peace on earth) has got me beat … and the same applies to my next enquiry:
• [Richard to Co-Respondent]: ‘You asked that friend of yours if he was angry and he replied in the affirmative: therefore he knows from first-hand experience, does he not, that it is a fact he got angry?
And my next after that:
• [Richard to Co-Respondent]: ‘And the same applies to each and every one of those people getting angry: provided they too report being angry they too know, do they not, from first-hand experience it is a fact they are angry?
And what I wrote after that:
• [Richard to Co-Respondent]: ‘Perhaps if I were to put it this way (in case that still appears tricky to you): by the very fact of having got angry on various occasions you report first-hand experiences (you are not expounding theory or hypotheses); by the very fact of having got angry that friend of yours also reports a first-hand experience (he too is not expounding theory or hypotheses); by the very fact of getting angry each and every one of those people getting angry can report first-hand experiences as well (they too would not be expounding theory or hypotheses)? (Richard, AF List, No. 89e, 26 Jan 2006).
If I might suggest? Instead of interpreting my words try taking them at face value … as I say what I mean, and mean what I say, it will make comprehension a whole lot easier. (Richard, AF List, No. 87a, 26 Jan 2006).

Andrew: As for my statement about “orthodox” actualism;
It is not at all “risible” unless you otherwise expect that I am ignoring the orthodox way that Actualism is presented in. Perhaps you thought “orthodox” means something other than it’s literal meaning, but in both Richard’s response and your own, what explanation is there for this “taken aback, and risible” framing of his and your thoughts?

Here is what orthodox means according to the Oxford dictionary – “following or conforming to the traditional or generally accepted rules or beliefs of a religion, philosophy, or practice. Synonyms: conservative, traditional, observant, conformist”.

How does that square with actualism or an actual freedom –

Richard: To be seeking spiritual freedom is to be going 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

From the Homepage: Actual freedom - new, non-spiritual, down-to-earth and actual.

And this from the Respondent Richard visited in India –

Respondent: After I wrote my comments on the earlier 3 parts of the e-mail yesterday and saved as draft, I was thinking about the newness issue of the actual world. Then this morning suddenly I got an insight (or is it an insight ?). I saw myself made of beliefs, feelings, emotions etc. So anything which is not this ‘I’ has to be new for if it is not new it would still be part of ‘me’.
Richard: Excellent … nothing of ‘you’ will remain. Nothing.
Respondent: Whether I will get into actual world or not by your method, but whenever ‘I’ cease to exist, whatever unfolds, has to be completely new, completely fresh with no shadow of the old.
Richard: Yes, this moment is never-to-be-repeated … thus it is ever-fresh and has to be visited again and again (unless one lives here all the time). One cannot re-visit it in memory … as one can in the affective world’s reverie and nostalgia. Thus it is ever-perfect and impeccable in its purity. Nothing dirty can get in … hence it needs no guarding. (Richard, AF List, No. 4, 26 Jan 1999).

Naturally, for someone who would want to make actuality fit their own paradigm, it may appear offensive, dogmatic or orthodox. Devika, when she changed into Irene, pleaded with Richard to allow love being part of actuality. The identity will use any trick in the book to remain in existence. Feeling being ‘Vineeto’ found this out on many occasions. But the purity of the actual world was irresistibly attractive and ‘she’ the instinctual/ emotional identity, had to finally lay down ‘her’ arms and consequently gladly agreed to ‘her’ demise.

Andrew: Is it truly such that you forget how ‘normal’ works and have to keep commenting on it? I am trying to understand this particular quirk.
I have been for the entire time “taken aback” and found it “risible” that anyone free would be surprised at anything at all in the human condition, and it’s always seemed that Richard especially was taking “jabs” at people when saying these types of statements.

Perhaps, just perhaps you confuse an actual freedom with what equanimity means to Buddhists?

Andrew: Honestly, it comes across as if Richard was “dropped in from the sky” and had no handle on what the others were experiencing. As if he had never experienced it.
In plain terms, it has always come across as both an uneasy indication that Richard wasn’t able to relate, even if only from memory, or was intentionally insulting people.
The “taken aback” could do with some explanation. (link)

If you read more of the correspondences on the Actual Freedom website you may discover the sheer volume of explanations and descriptions and personal reports Richard presents in order to meet people’s objections, explain their puzzling misunderstandings and have them comprehend the startling out-of-this-world-ness of the purity of actuality. I have never met anyone who was as much actually caring about his fellow human beings as Richard – actually caring meaning assisting them to bring their suffering to an end sooner rather than later.

It speaks for the warrior being still very much alive and active, looking for threats and insults from everywhere, including the only place, the actual freedom website and the present discussion forum, which could assist you in getting out of this war-zone.

I remember an early message of yours (somewhere in 2009) saying that “I get up each morning girding myself for battle”. This message had a deep visceral impact on ‘Vineeto’, so much so that I still remember ‘her’ being “taken aback” (as in shocked) about how not only you but presumably many other people lived their lives as a constant instinctually-driven battle, looking out and defending against enemies, and ‘Vineeto’ was determined to do something about this situation, in herself, to demonstrate that such forever adversarial attitude need not go on forever.

Here is the actualism method again – in case your previous reading was stopped by the “taken aback” phrase, this time explained by two correspondents –

Richard: Aye, it is so very simple that some find its radicality hard to understand … for instance:
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘(…) After all, that’s the whole point of this, isn’t it? Not just to unravel the accrued identity, but to be happy and harmless. The method is incredibly simple: I am not happy now; I was happy a minute/ hour/ year ago; Ascertain what caused me to stop being happy; Get back to being happy as quickly as possible. No wonder this is so radical – it has none of the trappings and dogma that humans seem to need to create around such an elemental concept. Of course, sometimes simple things are the hardest to understand’. (Tuesday 6/05/2003 11:22 PM AEST).
Or that its utter simplicity escapes them:
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I have spent a lot of the last 18 months thinking about actualism, but the utter simplicity of it has escaped me. Let me take a snapshot before it flies away again. The idea is to spend as much time as possible feeling good, great, excellent or perfect. The universe itself needs no work, it is already fine. The peak experience shows that when we are okay the universe is perfect beyond compare. Human life can be fantastic. The universe doesn’t need to be improved before people can be happy. All we have to do is eliminate our own misery and malice, which resides right here in the breast (or brain stem)’. (Sunday 1/05/2005 11:44 AM AEST).
(Richard, AF List, No. 60g, 30 Oct 2005).

The only person you can change, and need to change, is yourself.

Cheers Vineeto

2 Likes
1066

Thanks Vineeto.

Indeed, I had never considered that I was/am looking for “incoming attacks “ constantly.

Again, I am left puzzled at how I was ever going to get anywhere with this!

It reminds me of a comedian who recently talked about general anxiety, where he had thought it was perfectly normal to a certain way around people.

It’s less of a warrior, and more of a worrier. I know this because although I do remember saying what you remembered, it was I believe borrowed from someone else saying it, and when I heard them say it, I identified with it heavily. I was in my mid twenties, in a large corporate setting talking to the drafting manager. At the same time I had been going through extreme psych/spiritual events whilst leaving Christianity only a few years prior. The process went on for around 5 years. In that time I had even given myself a new private name, which was coupled with (in hindsight) sub-clinical hallucinations both visual and auditory.

(All this is self diagnosing here)

One of the things I had been contemplating in the last few weeks was the amount of terror I suppress. Specifically related to Christianity and the otherwise ghoulish nature of the doctrines of hell and sin. The medieval invention of hell, with its Dante and others horror was more real to me than I had previously thought. Wired into me, and intertwined with everyday anxiety which might be considered more “everyday “ and normal.

It may all well be something very normal, as there was always this sense that I was craving notoriety, that I had “no excuse “ and craved something to explain my ineptitude.

However, even typing that out I can see the “sin nature” doctrine speaking, That I am forever doomed except by the grace of god.

It would seem that I have only one MO that has results, disappear then cause (in my mind) a “stir” and by someone else’s “grace” get saved. If only for a few weeks.

It’s always been a huge source of guilt, that I would desire there to be something “wrong” with me. Whilst these entire time, there was indeed always something that was “off” but it was not directly those things at all.

Thanks

1 Like
Andrew
Andrew
Andrew
Quotes
1067

Andrew: Thanks Vineeto.
Indeed, I had never considered that I was/am looking for “incoming attacks” constantly.
Again, I am left puzzled at how I was ever going to get anywhere with this!
It reminds me of a comedian who recently talked about general anxiety, where he had thought it was perfectly normal to a certain way around people. (Video-clip)

Hi Andrew,

This is the basic instinctual programming of ‘what can I eat, what can eat me’ at its most basic. It expresses itself emotionally and in varying strength. You can observe it in animals, from the jellyfish to the most developed mammal, and of course in humans.

I was quite surprised about its complete absence when I first became actually free, even though I knew it would happen. I was even wondering how I would get along without this constant instinctual compass, how to deal with other human beings. It turned out to be utterly fine and deliciously intimate to only meet flesh-and-blood bodies. Intelligence is indeed sufficient to assess each and every situation sensibly and act accordingly.

Now, Richard discovered and described a process where one can not only subdue/ suppress/ repress those instinctual passions via the age-old laws of conduct, dating back millennia to some god/goddess or bodiless entity, but that one can, with pure intent, whittle away both the social identity and passions and feelings and eventually manumit the physical body from the entire instinctual-emotional identity as well.

Andrew: It’s less of a warrior, and more of a worrier. I know this because although I do remember saying what you remembered, it was I believe borrowed from someone else saying it, and when I heard them say it, I identified with it heavily. I was in my mid-twenties, in a large corporate setting talking to the drafting manager. At the same time I had been going through extreme psych/ spiritual events whilst leaving Christianity only a few years prior. The process went on for around 5 years. In that time I had even given myself a new private name, which was coupled with (in hindsight) sub-clinical hallucinations both visual and auditory.
(All this is self diagnosing here)
One of the things I had been contemplating in the last few weeks was the amount of terror I suppress. Specifically related to Christianity and the otherwise ghoulish nature of the doctrines of hell and sin. The medieval invention of hell, with its Dante and others horror was more real to me than I had previously thought. Wired into me, and intertwined with everyday anxiety which might be considered more “everyday” and normal.

I appreciate your detailed feedback.

You must have been particularly sensitive and impressible in that the doctrines and descriptions of hell and horror left such a lasting and persistent mark of terror on you.

Andrew: It may all well be something very normal, as there was always this sense that I was craving notoriety, that I had “no excuse” and craved something to explain my ineptitude.
However, even typing that out I can see the “sin nature” doctrine speaking, That I am forever doomed except by the grace of god.

It looks as if you haven’t left Christianity completely behind yet, at least there is still the belief of the devilish and divine interference of some supernatural being operating. Are you perhaps able to remember an early PCE where you experienced that everything is already perfect? (Check out FAQ 64a for inspiration).

It was an insight from a PCE which enabled feeling being ‘Vineeto’ to finally be done with any belief in God whatsoever. But she had already loosened up the belief in the Christianity via Eastern spirituality where a human being is ‘God’ on earth and then questioned the validity of that claim via sensible contemplation. Viz.:

‘Vineeto’: Finally one evening, when talking and musing about the universe, I fully comprehended that this physical universe is actually infinite. The universe being without boundaries or an edge means that it is impossible, practically, for God to exist. In order to have created the universe or to be in control of it God would have to exist outside of it – and there is no outside! This insight hit me like a thunderbolt. My fear of God and of his representatives collapsed and lost its very substance by this obvious realisation. In fact, there can be no one outside of this infinite universe who is pulling the strings of punishment and reward, heaven and hell – or, according to Eastern tradition, granting enlightenment or leaving me with the eternal karma of endless lives in misery.
This insight presupposes, of course, that there is no place other than the physical universe, no celestial, mystical realm where gods and ghosts exist. It also implies that there is no life before or after death and that the body simply dies when it dies. I needed quite some courage to face and accept this simple fact – to give up all beliefs in an after-life or a ‘spirit-life’.
But I could easily observe that as soon as I gave up the idea of any imaginary existence other than the tangible, physical universe, everything, which had seemed so complicated and impossible to understand became graspable, evident, obvious and imminently clear.
When the enormous consequence and implication of slipping out of this insidious belief in any God or Higher Being dawned on me, I was at the same time free of anybody’s authority. I was free of the fear that had been spoiling every relationship with every man in my life: father, brothers, male friends and boyfriends, employers, teachers and Master. (A Bit of Vineeto, #oneevening)

Andrew: It would seem that I have only one MO that has results, disappear then cause (in my mind) a “stir” and by someone else’s “grace” get saved. If only for a few weeks.

Ha, that is not very a satisfying way to live, is it?

Andrew: It’s always been a huge source of guilt, that I would desire there to be something “wrong” with me. Whilst these entire time, there was indeed always something that was “off” but it was not directly those things at all.
Thanks. (link)

Guilt is a terrible weapon of dominance, and Christianity is as responsible of wielding it as any other religion. What allowed ‘Vineeto’ to reduce and whittle down ‘her’ guilt of being alive – such as having to be useful to be allowed to take up space, apart from the guilt of being ‘bad’, sinful, disobedient, unenlightened and all the rest – was the factual understanding (confirmed by the PCE, but also via the sensible explanations from Richard who had first made sense of it) how the human condition operates. It also made it clear that ‘she’, like every other human being, is in this situation by no fault of her own.

Richard: The term ‘Human Condition’ is a universally-accepted philosophical expression referring to the situation all human beings find themselves in when they emerge as babies on this verdant and azure planet which begat the human race and whereat humankind flourishes. This well-known phrase refers to the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures down through the ages. There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone; all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their affective-psychic nature and a ‘light side’.
The battle betwixt ‘Good and Evil’ has raged since time immemorial and it requires constant vigilance lest sorrow, with its ever-attendant malice, gains the upper hand. An admixture of social mores and cultural folkways seek to control the wayward self which lurks deep within the human breast; and some semblance of peace – an ad hoc and uneasy truce – prevails for the main. Wherever virtuous morality and principled ethicality fails to curb this ‘savage beast’ some form of law and order is maintained – albeit, ultimately at the point of a gun – by state-sanctioned policing.

Richard: As I slowly started to unravel the mess that humankind was deeply mired in by unravelling it in me, I discovered a second layer under ‘my’ acculturated ethnicity … ‘I’ was brainwashed into being a ‘man’ and not simply a flesh and blood male body. Under the enculturated layers lies a further identity … the genetically-inherited animal ‘self’. It took me years and years of exploration and discovery to find out that ‘I’ was a ‘me’ – a ‘being’ – and not simply a flesh and blood body. By identification as ‘me’, a psychological/ psychic entity was able to ‘possess’ this body. It is not unlike those Christians who are said to be possessed by an evil entity and require exorcism. Only this ‘possession’ was called being normal. Therefore, every human being is thus possessed by an ‘alien entity’ … I discovered that a ‘walk-in’ was in control of this body and that this ‘walk-in’ was ‘me’. (Richard, AF List, No. 12a, 28 Jan 1999)

There is more as that correspondence continues but this part already explains that being normal means being possessed by “‘me’, a psychological/ psychic entity”, who, because ‘I’ am not actual, naturally feels guilty and afraid to be exposed as a fake. No god of any description is even necessary to instil this guilt for being a contingent ‘being’ [non-factual, dependant on the existence of the instinctual-passional identity], it comes with the genetically endowed package at birth. Gods/ Goddesses are invented to justify feeling the guilt in the first place. It is my guess that those fictitious deities and supernatural beings wouldn’t have the convincing power they have over human feelings if the guilt of being a ‘being’ wasn’t there in each person to begin with.

When ‘Vineeto’ increasingly understood this, ‘her’ guilt of ‘being’ was gradually dislodged by recognizing that ‘she’ could do something about ‘her’ situation – ‘she’ could reduce the power of the ‘self’ by becoming more and more happy and harmless and enjoying and appreciating being here. To explain in short – ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings enhance the identity while felicitous and innocuous feelings diminish the identity and thus sincerity is able to reduce/ even dissipate the guilt or unease being an impostor. Being ruthlessly honest and sincere is an essential ingredient to stop hiding and become naïve, enjoying the adventure of unravelling the mysteries of the way we tick and the conditions we are born into.

So, Andrew, you can safely abandon the terror and guilt of the god of the Bible or the god of Spinoza or any other Supernatural deity now that you know where the guilt originates, coupled with the good news that you can do something about the source of your unease of being a ‘being’.

I suggest you read it slowly, it is at first mind-boggling but will make sense if you allow common sense (rather than defence and terror) to operate.

Cheers Vineeto

6 Likes
1068

Wow thank you for this piece on the origins of guilt, that is quite mind-boggling indeed! It makes sense why the various 'me’s have such a pull towards the doctrines of religion. It’s like ‘I’ can find synchronicity between ‘my’ intrinsic guilt for being a fraud in possession of this body and the doctrine of forever being a sinner, and in some dirty way the various 'I’s actually relish in these feelings, in accepting punishment in order to gain atonement and the rest of the madness, that is quite staggering to contemplate.

Especially when I consider some of the utter horrors of the past, especially those inspired by religion. Is it that the various 'I’s (knowing deep down what they are) have been gladly taking the punishments in order to atone for something that can never be cleansed.

I remember reading some account of various saints experiencing martyrdom, and one in particular (which I will have to paraphrase) mentioned a saint being burned on a gridiron and at one point calling out to the torturer’s to say “you can flip me now that side is done”. I read this just in disbelief of what on earth could result in these kinds of things taking place. Not just the torture but the utterly twisted way in which the martyr would relish in what is going on.

This goes some way to clarifying the madness.

2 Likes
1069

Thank you Vineeto!

I appreciate your time on this topic, as it has been so central to me, even when I didn’t know it was!

This quote above, supports something that has been in my thinking lately, at least it’s a similar insight. That ‘being’ uses ‘morality’ and indeed any ‘value’ system at all, as a tool. the ‘self’ is surviving through the very tools which are “supposedly” keeping it in check!

It “seems” that it is keeping us in check, but I suspect that’s only part of it, that it’s intrinsically linked to the ‘self’.

Like you said the gods had an easy time as all the aspects of the ‘self’ where already in place, the highly social, yet immensely ‘selfish’ entity uses all of these inventions, primarily to survive as a ‘self’.

It’s been highlighted recently as certain events which could be called “immoral “ (in my upbringings set of rules), and whilst factually harmless, gave me a lot to think about my own “morality “. As I witnessed others live their “morality “ and be fine!

I will reread your posts as it is very refreshing to have these feelings linked back to the broader context of “eat or be eaten” fears and aggressions.

Thanks

Andrew

1 Like
Quotes
1070

Vineeto: It is my guess that those fictitious deities and supernatural beings wouldn’t have the convincing power they have over human feelings if the guilt of being a ‘being’ wasn’t there in each person to begin with. (link)

Andrew: Thank you Vineeto!
I appreciate your time on this topic, as it has been so central to me, even when I didn’t know it was!
This quote above, supports something that has been in my thinking lately, at least it’s a similar insight. That ‘being’ uses ‘morality’ and indeed any ‘value’ system at all, as a tool. the ‘self’ is surviving through the very tools which are “supposedly” keeping it in check!

Yes. Now when you instead of the subtle detachment by calling it ‘being’ or ‘self’ boldly acknowledge that ‘you’ are this very ‘being’ or ‘self’, the sentences would read like this –

[example only]: ‘I’ use morality and any ‘value’ system at all, as a tool. ‘I’ am surviving through the very tools which are “supposedly” keeping ‘me’ in check! [end example].

What this does, it puts the choice right back where it belongs – ‘you’ can now choose to do something about it. You can decide to reduce the dominance of ‘me’ by diminishing malice and sorrow, by becoming more felicitous and innocuous via the actualism method as described. (This Moment of Being Alive)

Andrew: It “seems” that it is keeping us in check, but I suspect that’s only part of it, that it’s intrinsically linked to the ‘self’.

Richard: A social identity is a psychological creation manufactured by society to act as a guardian over the wayward rudimentary self one was born with. All sentient beings are born with a biologically coded instinctive drive for physical survival which, when one is operating and functioning with a group of people, is potentially a danger to the survival of other group members. Hence the need for principles and morals and ethics to regulate the conduct of each person … with appropriate rewards and punishments to ensure compliance.
In a well-meant but ultimately short-sighted effort to prevent gaols from being filled to over-flowing, a social identity – a psychological guardian – is fabricated in an earnest endeavour to prevent the offences from happening in the first place. This ‘guardian’ is programmed with a set of values and charged with the role of acting as a conscience over the wayward self. A conscience is made up of a sure knowledge of what is Right or Wrong and Good or Bad … as determined by each society. By and large this enterprise has proved to be effective – only a small minority of citizens fail to behave in a socially acceptable manner. (Library, Social Identity).

As such the social identity is as much an aspect of ‘you’ as the instinctual passions which the social mores are attempting to curb.

Richard: One can become aware of all the socialisation, of all the conditioning, of all the programming, of all the methods and techniques that were used to control what one finds oneself to be … a wayward ego and compliant soul careering around in confusion and illusion. A ‘mature adult’ is actually a lost, lonely, frightened and cunning psychological entity overlaying a psychic ‘being’. (Library, Social Identity).

However, this suggestion comes with a warning –

Richard: Warning: It is an utterly fundamental proviso that pure intent [garnered from the PCE] be dedicatorily in place – as an overriding/ overarching life-devotional goal which takes absolute precedence over all else – before any such whittling away of the otherwise essential societal/ cultural conditioning be undertaken. [Emphases added]. (Library, Social Identity).

I gave you the whole picture regarding guilt in the last message and this one in order that you can comprehend the origin of your guilt and therefore your beliefs in deities and demons may be understood as a hopeful/ terrifying diversion from the very reason why you experience an unease about being a contingent [non-factual, dependant on inhabiting a flesh-and-blood body] ‘being’. Recognizing these facts allow you take remedial action. I can also recommend Richard, Selected Correspondence, Guilt and Richard, Catalogue, Sin with links to follow for further information.

Andrew: Like you said the gods had an easy time as all the aspects of the ‘self’ where already in place, the highly social, yet immensely ‘selfish’ entity uses all of these inventions, primarily to survive as a ‘self’.
It’s been highlighted recently as certain events which could be called “immoral” (in my upbringings set of rules), and whilst factually harmless, gave me a lot to think about my own “morality”. As I witnessed others live their “morality” and be fine!
I will reread your posts as it is very refreshing to have these feelings linked back to the broader context of “eat or be eaten” fears and aggressions.
Thanks Andrew (link)

It can certainly help you in being more kind to yourself.

Cheers Vineeto

3 Likes
1071

02/25/2026

It’s been a minute since I’ve written here and some interesting things have been developing, so worth an update as well as the chance to be visible for suggestions or corrections :slight_smile:

Things have been going very well for me on multiple fronts, the lack of romance in my life has been causing me much less suffering than it once did, work has been getting easier seemingly by the week, and overall the knot that is ‘me’ has been gradually loosening.

One of the big themes for me over the last year has been investigating all the various rumored conspiracies going on in the world, NWO, illuminati etc. That has proven quite interesting and I find myself today with a much different worldview than I held 1 year ago. One of the first bricks to tumble was realizing that I had been essentially imbibing without any critical thought every opinion I read on reddit; it was quite embarrassing to discover that I had been doing that and yet considered myself an intelligent adult. I still don’t see myself as someone who ‘knows what’s going on,’ but I have been able to draw many correlations that I didn’t know about before at all. I’ve come to see that much of how the ‘normal’ worldview is maintained is via a purposefully constructed & well-funded network of ‘news’ sources which enforce via ‘full-court-press’ specific ways of seeing the world.

This was all beginning to take shape as the information surrounding Jeffery Epstein has been gradually gaining steam and then bursting through the Overton Window Kool-Aid man style last month. It is now seemingly completely mainstream to question the ‘normal,’ which itself has many interesting implications.

All of this is complicated by the extremely atomized information world now with social media. Who believes what depends on what their specific algorithm or subculture has fed them, though there are still only a few ‘main-streams.’

All of this has had me questioning myself more closely than ever regarding what I know and don’t know, and where beliefs are filling large knowledge gaps. It became clear to me a couple of weeks ago that much of my investigating via youtube was still subject to much of the same pitfalls of ‘knowing’ which I was falling into before: just because some confident-seeming ‘content creator’ was saying something, doesn’t make it a fact. To have any confidence at all involves much more in-depth research, little by little, and even then you’re often left drawing not much more than strong correlations.

All of this was beginning to lead me into a bit of a tizzy until a week ago I was reading some posts by @claudiu & @Vineeto which reminded me of the simplicity & purity of pure intent. All at once, my complex ‘figuring it out’ was replaced by an exquisitely straightforward observing of the parking lot around me and birds playing in the breeze, and me naively wondering just what this world is made of.

I’m a long way from having a clear picture, but I think this progression has placed me in a more sincere & genuine place to put it all together.

–

Another element of this has been contending with the toll that these monstrous humans have taken on humanity… I came across a video the other day that purported to report an interaction with Jeffery Epstein wherein he explained that he ‘hadn’t been happy in years.’ Here was Richard’s hypothesis, that we humans harm one another out of an miserable & feisty self… taken to the most extreme degree. I can see how someone could become trapped in such a state and not know the way out.

I have more to ponder on this topic but perhaps that is enough to start with.

2 Likes
This moment has no duration
1072

Yes, however it isn’t concocted in a vacuum. People want this ‘normal’ world view. I want it, to be honest. The facts are so heinous, so unbelievably grotesque, so very…evil, that like all feeling beings, we want relief! We want a ‘normal’ to hide in.

Rape of children is so prevalent, that it’s difficult to find a family not affected by it. The “industrial “ scale rape of children that powerful people such as presidents and kings et al get up to, is nothing new.

I see the world on the brink of something quite amazing, in that the ‘normal’ view that we all wish was the extent of our dramas, is crumbling. Normal, as you say, is now more and more what was very recently “conspiracy theorist” territory.

‘Normal’ is losing it’s market share.

1073

Yes, I have found that to be consistent. People will resist uncomfortable facts to defend a more ‘cozy’ worldview or defend current rulers.

It will be interesting to see what comes next

1 Like
1074

What did Richard say about shit like this? Something to the effect of accepting an unacceptable world as it is…

Andrew stated that fucking children has been somewhat standard forever. That’s definitely true if we consider childhood marriages. That’s an ongoing phenomenon around the world. It was pretty accepted up to about 50 years ago too. Elvis met Priscilla when she was 12 or something and married her as soon as she turned 18. Jimmy Page had a 13 year old gf. Stephen Tyler bragged about having an underage gf in his autobiography. But marriages and groupies had the façade of consent. I think with Epstein there may have been a façade of consent as well. Even though these men should have known that a girl can’t consent because they would never consent unless coerced in some subtle or overt way. For the most part, they probably ignored that because it was so self-validating to do so. But just the fact that they went so out of there way to pursue this is quite incriminating. It seems there was a great impulse to exploit underage women and zero impulse to help them. There’s even rumors circulating that some of these victims were barely post pubescent. As a voter and purveyor of current events, I suppose it’s reasonable to get fooled once in a while. Like Clinton was a known dog but I didn’t suspect him to be a criminally active ephebophile. I was wrong. Trump otoh, well that guy used to publicly brag about it and sexualize his own children. So he was an easy one to spot. I guess I can see how people would ignore basic creepiness. Even from a married middle age man running for office. They might shrug it off as not being real, as being overblown. But I did expect people to draw a line somewhere. That no one has is surprising. But it is what it is. When it comes to politics and nationalism, I guess there are no standards. To accept an unacceptable fact is our goal.

This moment has no duration
1075

Hi Jon! Long time! Well, a while anyway.

I have an opinion about what is happening in the American political/psychic reality. That being that there is a mass discovery going on right now about the delusional distance that the classical “psychopath “ glamourised in movies, and the real deal.

That and the depth of so called “personality disorders “.

I have this opinion because I am projecting my own experience on an entire nation! Haha.

It’s one thing to make movies, and have “conspiracy theories “ and believe as a huge number of Christians do that the “devil” is real, etc, but to live it, to have it as the everyday experience, on masse!

This moment has no duration
1076

Hi Andrew,

I haven’t even been following Epstein. I consider it old news as in everything I needed to know, I already knew. To what extent the current and former power players fucked kids is most certainly newsworthy. But the fact that they knew what Epstein was up to and did nothing is all I really need to know as a voter. And I knew that since about 2018 or so.

As far as the rest of it goes, it’s also old hat. The guy tried every attempt in the book short of an organized insurrection to stay in power. Now that he’s back in power, what did anyone expect? The interesting think-piece about it is how much of his power grab is overblown. Hysteria is systematically manufactured. Look at the Mueller report. His supposed collusion with Russia was all the news for over 2 years. The report comes out and it was almost a nothing burger. It may have been a complete nothing burger. I actually read the report but I forget if there was anything in it truly incriminating. I know most of it was complete zilch. Even the first impeachment was about 85% hysteria. I have no doubt Trump was going to or thinking about exhorting Zelensky and therein lies the 15% but, in reality, nothing happened. No plan was even set in motion. So lots of hysteria. Sorting out the hysteria from what’s actually happening is interesting.

My opinion isn’t the same as yours. I don’t think anyone is discovering anything. No one seems to care except those on the left already addicted to the daily news cycle and outrage machines. No one anywhere is learning anything. The left was already aware and already in an incredulous outraged state. The middle still doesn’t care. And the right has chosen to not care anymore now that they can no longer deny that their guy had no problems with sex trafficking for roughly two decades. So everyone who had already picked a side is still firmly on it.

For the record, I picked my side after the Iraq invasion. The republicans may have moved the needle in their direction with their more rational approach to Covid but January 6th, their subsequent continuing devotion to Trump, their belief that a woman doesn’t have the right to defend herself from a dangerous fetus (as all fetuses inherently are), and how easily they dismiss certain restrictions on the power of the state has moved it right back to where it was. I would say, nowadays, I’m now Team Massie and Team Paul over any other faction even though both belief a woman doesn’t have a right to defend herself from fetuses. So I’m really on no team but certainly have my opinions. The most important is that none of this new and everyone in the political sphere is crazy. And everyone outside of it is callous.

This moment has no duration
1077

From where we stand, it’s most important to cultivate a sense of needing to do something to fix the situation. I said to accept what is unacceptable. But that’s not fully it. It’s to help fix the madness and the callousness. To fully adopt a program of self-immolation and/or virtual freedom and naiveté to help those close to us and even the whole world.

This moment has no duration
1078

Jon: What did Richard say about shit like this? Something to the effect of accepting an unacceptable world as it is…

Hi Jon,

When you surmise what Richard said, it would be advisable and beneficial for your fellow readers to actually check “what did Richard say about” with what he actually said. Richard never said “something to the effect of accepting an unacceptable world as it is…”

Here is what Richard suggested to those interested in doing something about the human condition for themselves (and every body’s benefit), by themselves –

Richard: I did everything I could to be as happy and harmless (as free of sorrow and malice) for as much as is humanly possible. This was achieved by first putting everything on a does-not-really-matter-in-the-long-run basis. That is, I would prefer people, things and events to be a particular way, but, if it did not turn out like that, it did not really matter for it was only a preference. I chose to no longer give other people – or the weather even – the power to have me annoyed, irritated, irked, or even peeved[1], if this was possible.
[1] See Richard, Selected Correspondence, Aggression, 13 Jan 2013)
Then, as it was patently obvious in those experiences of pristine purity how this very moment of being alive is the only moment of ever actually being alive, I began to treat each moment again as precious. After all, it is not as if we have an unlimited amount of moments and – unlike a bank account which can be replenished – our supply of such moments is our most valuable (albeit dwindling) asset. In practical terms this meant being aware of how each precious moment was being experienced; if feeling good (felicity and innocuity) was the prevailing experience then this attentiveness ensured enjoyment and appreciation, of the sheer fact of being alive, each moment again; if feeling bad (unhappy and harmful) was the prevailing experience then whatever had displaced feeling good became readily apparent, upon such attention, with so much at stake. (Out-from-Control Reports, Richard)

Here is another description –

James: … My question is: Can I accept the unacceptable? (…)
Richard: Given that people are as-they-are and that the world is as-it-is there are more than a few things which are ‘unacceptable’ (child abuse, rape, murder, torture and so on). What worked for me twenty-odd years ago, as a preliminary step, was to rephrase the question so that it makes sense (rather than vainly apply any of those unliveable ‘unconditional acceptance’ type injunctions):
• Can I emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable?
This way intelligence need not be compromised … intelligence will no longer be crippled. (Richard, List B, James2, 18 Aug 2001).

I snipped the bulk of your post, being a conglomerate of hearsay, rumours, guesses and political opinions from the popular press, which you conclude with –

Jon: But it is what it is. When it comes to politics and nationalism, I guess there are no standards. To accept an unacceptable fact is our goal. [Emphasis added]. (link)

How have you determined that all this you presented is “fact”? Have you researched what you presented here to be established facts (something that happened the way it is told), or is it just a regurgitation of what someone else said, what you read in the popular press, or seen in the TV news? Have you gone to the sources and searched for reliable references, checked cross-references from the other side of politics, so that you can confidently say that these are facts. Or did you merely repeat what already confirms you pre-formed opinion and political and moral persuasion (as in “I picked my side after the Iraq invasion”)?

If so, the intelligence is already compromised by picking beliefs, taking factoids and hearsay as facts and representing it with your own moral stance of opinion. And all these factoids and rumours of doom and gloom you are trying to emotionally accept even though they are already of dubitable repute.

-

Jon: From where we stand, it’s most important to cultivate a sense of needing to do something to fix the situation. I said to accept what is unacceptable. But that’s not fully it. It’s to help fix the madness and the callousness. To fully adopt a program of self-immolation and/or virtual freedom and naiveté to help those close to us and even the whole world. (link)

Ok, now you are being more specific.

When you say “it’s most important to cultivate a sense of needing to do something to fix the situation” are you talking about a feeling, or a bunch of feelings? Or are you perceiving a lack of feelings that you ‘should’ have because you say “important to cultivate …”? Also, since you started the sentence with “from where we stand”, are you perhaps trying to have a collective solution for what you feel to be the problem?

To clarify, as the only person you can change is yourself, and this is all you need to do. Hence the question will be ‘what is most important from where I stand …’

Remember, Richard said, in the long conversation he had with you about peasant mentality –

Richard: Astonishingly, I find that social change is unnecessary; I can live freely in the community as-it-is. (Richard’s Journal, Article 20)

Hence, before you rush into action “to fix the situation”, wouldn’t it be sensible to determine what exactly it is from where the need/ the feeling arises “to fix the situation”? I am asking so specifically because the answer to this question will guide and crystalize your intent, and what specifically you have in mind/at heart when you say “to fully adopt a program of self-immolation”.

Cheers Vineeto

2 Likes
This moment has no duration
Andrew
1079

Hi Vineeto,

Was the above misstated? Are you asking 1) if it’d be sensible to determine what exactly the situation is or 2) From where the feeling of needing to fix the situation arises?

This moment has no duration
1080

Hi Vineeto,

Thanks for this quotation. In context of the discussion, this really helps me understand the the way Richard used and intended this idea!

@JonnyPitt I am being overly optimistic in my opinion that something is being learnt by ‘America’.. Clearly, this isn’t the case. (You are “on the ground “ so I will default to your experience on that point).

There is something unique happening though. Something very powerful.

What is clearly not happening is the supposed power of “love” prevailing. Or empathy.

I watched this video the other day, and it made it very clear why that is the case.

The curve of empathy flattens very quickly. After a single person, the supposed saving grace of humanity is already drifting to a flatline.

Cheers

Andrew

1081

I did say hysteria is systematically manufactured. And gave two example in which the left did just that.

Sorry. When I said ‘fact’, I should have said reality. As in, bad shit done by bad people resulting in not so good things. In that particular sentence I wasn’t referring to any specific bad things or any specific person or people. To accept the unacceptable would have worked better.

Have I researched whether Trump or Clinton and others knew of the sex trafficking? I have not. I know that neither of them did anything for those kids and it seems they should have known something was up. And both of those characters fit the mold though Trump with him owning Miss Teen USA and his various on the record Epstein comments, on the record sexualization of I believe two of his children: one as a baby and the other when she was a grown adult. Stuff like that. Really fits the mold. But no I haven’t researched exactly what he knew and when he knew it or whom personally victimized if anyone. As far as Jan 6 goes, I just know of the phone call to Raffensperger, the many lawsuits, the riot, the speeches preceding it, the pardons and the lack of (presented) evidence that there even was (sufficient) voting fraud and the plan to kick the election to the House for what’s called a contingency vote. That’s good enough for me but I have learned that sometimes the players themselves don’t give you their best arguments and though they may have the right conclusions they still seem like lying crazy people. For example, until I studied the Ukraine situation, it seemed to me all the republicans were just spreading conspiracy theories. And they were. But, nonetheless, their conclusion was right. So they were right (imo) but their reasoning was way off. So I do have experience with the truth of the matter not being what it seems. Like I often trust the advocates of the counter-position to give their best arguments. But sometimes they give terrible one and until you go and learn what the best arguments actually are, you unaware that are even good arguments. It’s a weird phenomenon but you can’t rule out that someone may actually be right even though they give nothing but bad arguments.

This moment has no duration