Syd: Also, I’ll use this opportunity to directly respond to Vineeto’s question since I forgot to include it before:
Vineeto: Do I understand you correctly that you are saying that you now disregard the hedonistic contracts à la Onfray?
Syd: Yes.
If I descend once again into ‘love’, I’ll find my way back to happiness and harmless as swiftly as possible (assuming I haven’t yet developed the knack for becoming aware of the ‘bifurcation’ yet). Just being happy and harmless obviate many of these ‘tactics’. (link)
Hi Syd,
Thank you for the clarification. A few things regarding your previous post I will mention –
Syd: … surely don’t consider sexual freedom to be harmful?
Such generalisation is just an undergraduate debating ploy.
There is a world of difference, literally, in what you consider “sexual freedom” and what I call have experienced for many years as an actual intimacy with a fellow human being which may, or may not, involve sexual play. Here is how Richard described it –
Richard: Now, the way to have intimacy unfold, in all its luscious wonder, is to be aware all the while (with that unique human ability to be conscious of being sentient) that your sexual partner likes being with you so much that they are willing to spend their most valuable asset – their time – not only being with you but having you inside them/ having them inside you (dependent upon gender) for this most physically intimate way of associating possible.
In other words one is always aware, with that second-level awareness, all the while primary consciousness is sexually engrossed, just how precious this opportunity is as – out of all 3.0 billion women/ out of all 3.0 billion men (dependent upon gender) – this fellow human being has chosen you, and only you, to be so intimately entwined with. In short: having sex/ being intimate with her/ with him (dependent upon gender) is very special – so special as to be precious – and this very preciosity readily enables giving oneself completely to one’s partner – totally and utterly – during sexual congress. (…). (Richard, List D, No. 20, 9 Dec 2009).
Syd: In regards to “disregard the other person as a fellow human being”, what I find interesting is that my modus operandi with the WomanFromNov largely operated as that (disregard her as a fellow human being) the moment those love feelings usurped, as I was solely focused on my own feelings.
Indeed, already the designation “WomanFromNov” is depersonalised, like a faceless woman known only by the time of her appearance. Will the next one be called WomanFrom… March or May?
Besides, as Claudiu already explained to you (link), the first spanner in the works (as in “usurped”) is lust, before love even appears on the horizon.
Syd: “I can’t say if I would have wanted to go as far as to establish a ‘contract’.”
When I wrote ‘contract’ I meant a “mutual arrangement, deal, settlement, undertaking”.
Syd: In regards to “[sincerity] does not mean ‘true to your feelings’ but true to facts and actuality – and feelings are not facts”, what does that mean in detail? Are you referring to rememorating one’s PCEs (else why use ‘facts and actuality’)? (link)
Richard: Sincere/Sincerity:
The word ‘sincere’ can be traced back to the Latin sincerus, meaning ‘whole’ or ‘pure’ or ‘sound’, and which is arguably derived from the roots ‘sin-’ (one) and ‘crescere’ (to grow) in that the Latin ‘sincerus’ originally referred to a plant which was of pure stock – not a mixture or hybrid – and thus came to mean anything which was genuine (as in ‘true’ or ‘correct’) and not falsified, adulterated, contaminated.
Sincerity is to be in accord with the fact/ being aligned with factuality/ staying true to facticity (as in being authentic/ guileless, genuine/ artless, straightforward/ ingenuous).[Upload failed]
To Be Sincerity: (snipped correspondence to Syd, (Richard, List D, Syd, 26 May 2009)
*
Richard: And the key to unlocking naiveté is sincerity, pure and simple.
Respondent: Can one ‘try’ to be more sincere? Curious.
Richard: Sincerity, or any expansion thereof, is not a matter of trying: anybody can be sincere (about anything) – all it takes is seeing the fact (of anything) – and in this instance the perspicuous awareness of blind nature’s legacy being the arch-crippler of intelligence ensures one stays true to/ correctly aligned with that (that very factuality/ facticity seen).
And which (being aligned with factuality/ staying true to facticity) is what being sincere is … being authentic/ guileless, genuine/ artless, straightforward/ ingenuous. (Richard, AF List; No. 68d, 18 Oct 2005)
(Richard, Abditorium, Innocence, #Sincere)
There is also a page in Richard’s Catalogue where on the page for ‘sincere’ you find a whole collection of quotes where he talked about being ‘sincere’ with links you can look up for context.
*
As both Kuba and Claudiu have already answered your queries brilliantly I see no need to continue my own involvement in the matter.
Cheers Vineeto