Alexander: What is meant by “ascendant beer”? (link)
Hi Alexander,
As a short summary – in an excellence experience (EE) or intimacy experience (IE) the sophisticated doer (controller) is abeyant and the naïve beer is ascendant. The more you dare to be naïve the more the naïve beer (with pure intent) can come forward.
Even though it is best to understand it experientially, when you feel like a child again but with adult sensibilities, I have collected a few of Richard’s quotes for you to theoretically understand more of what the “ascendant beer” refers to –
Richard: To explain further: when out-from-control – out from being under control of the ‘controller’; that self-centred/ self-centric ‘doer’ (i.e., the ‘doer’ of deeds; the ‘actor’ of acts; the ‘speaker’ of words; the ‘thinker’ of thoughts; the ‘feeler’ of feelings) – the primary impetus of agency is the benevolence and benignity of pure intent being dynamically operative via the full concurrence of the ‘beer’ of those deeds, acts, words, thoughts, feelings (i.e., being the experiencing of same, as a state-of-being, as opposed to doing them).
And the words “primary impetus of agency” (‘impetus’ as in, “being dynamically operative”, that is) are used advisedly as, with the ‘doer’ abeyant and the ‘beer’ ascendant, the modus operandi of this mutual agency is indeterminable due to an incapacity to distinguish between the one and the other.
I have written about this quite extraordinary state of affairs before (albeit expressed as “unable to distinguish between ‘me’ doing it and it happening to ‘me’” due to those words of mine being read/ heard by a ‘doer’ and not a ‘beer’).
Viz.:
• [Richard]: “… one has to want it like one has never wanted anything else before … so much so that all the instinctual passionate energy of desire, normally frittered away on petty desires, is fuelling and impelling/ propelling one into this thing and this thing only (‘impelling’ as in a pulling from the front and ‘propelling’ as in being pushed from behind). There is a ‘must’ to it (one must do it/ it must happen) and a ‘will’ to it (one will do it/ it will happen) and one is both driven and drawn until there is an inevitability that sets in.
Now it is unstoppable and all the above ceases of its own accord … one is unable to distinguish between ‘me’ doing it and it happening to ‘me’.
One has escaped one’s fate and achieved one’s destiny”. [emphases added]. (Richard, AF List, Rick, 4 Jan 2006)
–
Richard: Lastly, because the terms ‘doer’ and ‘beer’ are utilised in religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical literature to refer to ‘ego’ and ‘soul’, respectively, it is apposite to point out here that those terms are not being used thataway when referring to the doer being abeyant, and the beer ascendant, in either a near-PCE – else IE’s and EE’s would instead be ASC’s (i.e., egoless) and thus not near-PCE’s – or when in an out-from-control virtual freedom. (Richard, List D, Srinath2, #out-from-control)
–
Richard: The gradations of ‘her’ [Grace’s] scale were, basically, good, very good, great, excellent, and perfect – whereby, in regards to intimacy, ‘good’ related to togetherness (which pertains to being and acting in concert with another);
‘very good’ related to closeness (where personal boundaries expand to include the other);
‘great’ related to sweetness (delighting in the pervasive proximity, or immanence, of the other);
‘excellent’ related to richness (a near-absence of agency; with the [sophisticated] doer abeyant, and the [naïve] beer ascendant, being the experiencing is inherently cornucopian);
and ‘perfect’ related to magicality (neither beer nor doer extant; pristine purity abounds and immaculate perfection prevails, a.k.a. an excellence experience) – all of which correlate to the range of naïveness from being sincere to becoming naïve and all the way through being naïveté itself to an actual innocence. (regarding “being naïveté itself” see A Quaint Clay-Pit Tale, last tooltip). (Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 28 Jan 2016)
(…)
Richard: In other words, just as it is possible for someone whose manner of living/ way of life is yet to have feeling good (i.e., a general feeling of well-being) established as a bottom-line of on-going experiencing, come-what-may, to have either an EE or IE (wherein the doer is abeyant and the beer ascendant), be they spontaneous or induced, from time-to-time – just as they can have a PCE itself (where identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty is abeyant) – so too can a person yet to be able to describe their modus vivendi as either “feeling as happy and harmless (as free of sorrow and malice) as is humanly possible” or “feeling excellent/ perfect for 99% of the time” such as to be designated “a pragmatic, methodological virtual freedom” (a.k.a. “a still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom”).
Indeed, anyone at all can have an IE or an EE – or even a PCE – at any time in their life (albeit totally ignorant of any such nomenclature and what they actually signify).
What sets the ongoing near-PCE known as “a dynamic, destinal virtual freedom” apart from ever other way of life/ manner of living is, as is expressed in that paragraph, by being in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent being dynamically operative – whereby the actualism method segues into the actualism process – such as to be pulling one evermore unto one’s destiny.
And here is why the actualism process is imperative:• [Richard]: “(…) the out-from-control/ different-way-of-being term, in actualism lingo, specifically refers to the actualism process superseding the actualism method – meaning the controlling doer is abeyant (hence: ‘out-from-control’) and a naïve beer is ascendant (hence: ‘different-way-of-being’) – whereby the benignity and benevolence of pure intent increasingly renders the otherwise essential societal moeurs (a.k.a. ‘mores’) redundant, whilst simultaneously precluding anomie [a.k.a. ‘lawlessness’] …”. (Richard, List D, Andrew, 28 Feb 2016).
–
RICHARD: The vital distinction is the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to infinitude – which has nothing to do with any affective felicity and innocuity – being dynamically operative due to the cheerful and thus willing concurrence of the beer.
For instance (from 2005):• [Richard]: “The actualism method is not about undermining the passions … on the contrary, it is about directing all of that affective energy into being the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (that is, ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself) in order to effect a deliberate imitation of the actual, as evidenced in a PCE, so as to feel as happy and as harmless (as free of malice and sorrow) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’.
Such imitative felicity/ innocuity, in conjunction with sensuosity, readily evokes amazement, marvel, and delight – a state of wide-eyed wonder best expressed by the word naiveté (the nearest a ‘self’ can come to innocence whilst being a ‘self’) – and which allows the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to the infinitude, which this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is, to operate more and more freely. This intrinsic benignity and benevolence, which has nothing to do with the imitative affective happiness and harmlessness, will do the rest.
All that was required was ‘my’ cheerful, and thus willing, concurrence. [emphasis added]. (Richard, AF List, No. 60f, 29 Sep 2005).
There is plenty more information on the website, for instance Richard’s selected correspondence, Richard’s and Vineeto’s out-from-control reports, and also several pages on the Topica Mailing List, especially (List D, Srinath2), (List D Martin), (List D No. 6) and (List D, Claudiu4, 28 Jan 2016 forward).
Let me know if that makes it more clear to you.
The pragmatic approach is to be ruthlessly honest with yourself, utterly sincere, and thus allow your hidden-since-puberty naiveté to come to the fore.
Cheers Vineeto