Kuba: Thank you for your reply Claudiu, (link) I do appreciate your 2 cents . I think I do see your point, in that an active going for it is needed as opposed to a passive waiting for something to happen.
The question is just what “it” looks like, whether it’s a door or what have you .
“A door as big as the universe” seems to be a good target though! (link)
Hi Kuba,
The following quote might give you a hint “what “it” looks like” –
Richard: On the contrary, what is promoted and/or promulgated on the web site is enjoying and appreciating being alive/ being here each moment again – that is, despite the normal vicissitudes of life – by establishing a general feeling of well-being (a.k.a. ‘feeling good’), as a bottom line of experiencing and, thereby, all the while agreeably complying with the legal laws and observing the social protocols (i.e., the many and various customs, traditions, conventions, values, principles, morals, ethics, codes, observances, etiquettes, niceties, formalities, ceremonies, rituals, and so on, as observed in many and various ways in the many and various countries around the world).
Moreover, as a central aim in all the above is the fellowship regard of an actual intimacy[1] whereby it is impossible to not like one’s fellow human being – and given that the means to the end are no different than that end (other than affectively for the one, in the meanwhile, and actually for the other, upon the end) – then any phantasy talk about having to minimise ‘the impact on others’ is patently preposterous [back-to-front], as well, as to maximise ‘the impact on others’ is to facilitate a global spread of peace and harmony. [emphasis and italics in original]. (Richard, Selected Correspondence, Hedonism).
Footnote[1]: The fellowship regard of an actual intimacy:• [Richard]: ‘Furthermore, by being actually selfless [i.e., sans any identity whatsoever] – which means a total absence of both selfishness and its antidotal unselfishness – an actual intimacy prevails (due to an utter absence of any separative identity whatsoever); with no separation whatsoever fellowship regard is automatically the default condition (whereby it is impossible to not like one’s fellow human being); with that involuntary fellowship regard of an actual intimacy operating, come-what-may, acting in a mutually beneficial way is the status-in-quo (the complete absence of any self-centricity whichsoever ensures equity and parity be paramount)’. (Richard, List D, Jonathan2, 1 Jul 2015)
To clarify: this fellowship regard relates to both the flesh-and-blood bodies of one’s fellow human beings as well as the identity inside those feeling beings, which is generating the very suffering that an actual caring operates to bring to an end sooner rather than later. The word “suffering” is the give-away. Viz:
Richard: I like my fellow human being and prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later”. (Richard, AF List, No. 74f, 2 Feb 2006).
I write this specifically in response to a previous post of yours on 9 August 2025 –
Kuba: So indeed it will take an immense daring sourced in a deep and abiding caring. But what I see now (and I already dipped into this a while back) is that I have been aiming at the wrong target, not a genuine target.
To cut it short I have been aiming my caring towards other identities, towards ‘humanity’. And of course this can only have the effect of keeping ‘me’ chained to ‘humanity’. ‘I’ cannot sacrifice ‘myself’ for other identities or for ‘humanity’. The target and the beneficiaries of ‘my’ supreme sacrifice are the actually existing flesh and blood bodies.
And just as well because I have always struggled to care of other identities, after-all I know how rotten ‘I’ am and how rotten ‘we’ are, how could I have this deep and abiding caring for such entities? [Emphasis added] (link)
For a start, not caring for the “rotten” identity inside your body prevents you from winning ‘him’ as an ally to agree to your voluntary and cheerful demise. Why would ‘he’ – condemned and cast aside as not worthy considering, let alone caring about – want to sacrifice himself, and joyfully recognize that ‘you’, this very ‘rotten’ identity, have a vital job to do?
The misconception in your argument, bordering on dissociation, is that caring for your fellow human beings would keep you “chained to ‘humanity’” while ignoring what ‘being naiveté’ means. (Richard, Abditorium, Innocence, Naiveté). One doesn’t become actually free by chopping bits off that one deems unworthy.
Only when I genuinely like myself (all of ‘me’), and therefore my fellow human beings, can I allow myself to being less and less self-centric/self-centred via being naiveté, and in the absence of self-centredness caring becomes more and more intimate to the point of near-actual-caring. Two examples from the Selected Correspondence on Near-Actual-Caring –
Richard: As a PCE provides an experiential understanding of what an actual caring is – and that direct experiencing is streets ahead of any of my descriptions and explanations – it is the benchmark par excellence.
As such it is the quintessential point of reference upon which all terms of reference – and especially, for example, a near-actual caring – can be reliably and confidently sourced.
In the meanwhile, I will leave you with what I wrote, much further above, about the first time feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ experienced a near-actual caring as it very effectively conveys just how extraordinary a near-actual caring is.• [Richard]: “1. When feeling-being ‘Vineeto’s everyday feeling of caring first shifted into what has since become known as a near-actual caring the qualitative difference was so marked in its effect ‘she’ initially mistook it to be an actual caring (as per ‘her’ memories of PCE’s)”.
And –
Richard: Now, as the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago was in an out-from-control virtual freedom for something like five months – although not named as such back then, of course, nor thought of in those terms – I can readily report how ‘he’ was more empathetic during that period than ‘he’ ever had been in all ‘his’ 34 years of existence. So much so, in fact, that I would be inclined to characterise a near-actual caring as an acutely-empathic caring.
This acutely-empathic characteristic of the near-actual caring which prevails in the out-from-control way of being is, by virtue of not being self-centred/ self-centric, universal in its scope. As such there is no way the (self-centred/ self-centric) professional caring depicted in that article [quote] “aligns with” [endquote] a near-actual caring as that universality itself is the very potency required to effect the universal solution to the human condition – the ‘self’-sacrificial extirpation of blind nature’s instinctual passions by the feeling-being formed thereof cheerfully and thus willingly ‘self’-immolating for the benefit of this body and that body and every body … [Emphasis added].
Does this perhaps help to allow you to see “a door as big as the universe”?
Cheers Vineeto