Kuba: Hi Vineeto,
Thank you for your replies, there is so much here I don’t know where to start!
Well maybe with the objection I just had whilst reading the quote about Richard’s innocence and how others would “deposit ordure on it”. I have certainly observed this with the writings of all the actually free people, in that they cannot ‘bite’. I remember even some discussions on here between Srinath and Claudiu, and although there was perhaps aspects of peasant mentality which were displayed in Srinath’s writings there was still no possibility for him to ever ‘bite’. Which of course this is incredible because it means that peace is guaranteed.
But something does not sit well with ‘me’ here, in that ‘I’ clearly still have some investment into ‘standing up for myself’, in that it is not just about walking away with the goodies but it is about winning the ego-battle.
And it seems it is because I cannot allow the other to continue on with their modus operandi. That yes I understand that I can walk away with the goodies and yet in the process of walking away with the goodies I don’t want to re-affirm the modus operandi of the other as being correct, sensible etc.
I will give an example, the other day I was driving out of the area near my house which has a 20mph speed limit, I got to a junction and I looked to see a car quite a distance ahead and so made the judgement to pull out. Now had the car been going at anywhere near 20mph I would have had sufficient space to come out, and yet because they were clearly going way past the limit the car ended up being rather close to me and beeping at me. So this was just a complete reversal of accountability, in that the speeding driver is beeping at someone for a problem that only exists because they are themselves going way past the speed limit.
So my response in this situation was to slow down to exactly 20mph so the speeding driver would be forced to follow me at the correct speed. So it is like trying to change the other, but then on the other hand how can I allow someone to be rewarded for acting in such a way? (link 2 Oct 2025 20.59)
Hi Kuba,
You are presenting lots of reasons for your righteous indignancy but it is nevertheless an affective righteous anger. No wonder you hesitate putting everything on a ‘it doesn’t matter’ basis – righteous anger when slighted is such a self-enhancing feeling. (Btw, the real-world solution of pacifism is not the solution either).
Here is what you have written to Chrono, only two hours before the above message (2 Oct 2025 18.50) –
Kuba: Reading your post I had a similar experience this morning, that a place exists where everything is in its rightful place, which is amazing to say the least. But then how ‘I’ experience ‘myself’ is never like that, no matter how hard ‘I’ try ‘I’ can never be right. And I am wondering now is it precisely because ‘I’ am forever out of time. ‘I’ am all those things which are not actual, not happening now and so ‘I’ can never experience life in that manner – where everything is in its rightful place.
But the interesting thing is that the normal way to approach this feeling is to try to correct things, perhaps by pursuing a moral excellence, but when that “flicker” happens there is nothing at all that had to change, other than ‘me’ going into abeyance. So it is that everything is already in its rightful place now, the universe does not have to change 1 bit.
So it is like Richard wrote in that the last bit will always elude correcting, ‘I’ cannot be made right, ‘my’ very ‘being’ is forever out of time. Which I have previously seen this as a curse – in that ‘I’ can’t fix ‘myself’, not to the degree of what the PCE demonstrates. But actually it’s a blessing, in that what the PCE shows, of everything being correct, this is already always the case and it is ‘me’ that simply has to disappear. (link)
What happened to that experience “that everything is already in its rightful place now” and all the other experiences you reported which inform you of the same perfect actuality. It seems that in your steeple-chasing modus operandi for extra-ordinary experiences you omitted to establish a golden clew to pure intent, which could inform and aid you when you are affectively feeling, and justifying, indignation about other people’s wrongs and thus forgetting about your commitment to being happy and harmless, if it was ever there in the first place.
Here is how Richard responded to a similar situation –
Respondent: When I feel righteously angry I consciously want to go back to ‘feeling good’, but since I feel justified in my anger, it feels good to be angry, making it difficult to get back to ‘feeling good’.
Richard: One of the major issues the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago attended to very early in the piece was the indignation – ‘anger excited by a sense of wrong, or by injustice, wickedness, or misconduct; righteous anger’ (Oxford Dictionary) – which had dogged him from almost as early as ‘he’ could remember (‘he’ was often moved to indignancy because of injustice/ unfairness whilst still in grade school for instance) as righteousness, being oh-so-readily justifiable, is such an insidious feeling.
Respondent: To me, corrupt has always meant, by definition, being evil. But how do I see this anger as corrupt when I accept that there is no good and evil?
Richard: Just for starters: try seeing how the (readily justifiable) righteous anger, with all its feel-good virtuosity, precludes one from enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive – the only moment one is ever alive – through being as happy and as harmless as is humanly possible via felicitously/ innocuously feeling good (rather than virtuously feeling good) … instead of seeing righteousness as corrupt (and therefore, by a definition, evil) which depravity is further complicated by choosing to accept there is no good and evil even though the real-world, the world that maybe 6.0 billion peoples live in, is rife with it.
Respondent: Most things that are corrupt can be seen as survival strategies, which means they could be seen as neither good or evil.
Richard: Indeed they could … yet it is undeniable that maybe 6.0 billion peoples nurse malice and sorrow – and thus the antidotal pacifiers love and compassion – in their bosom.
Respondent: How can I make myself see corruption when I don’t see things as good or evil?
Richard: Perhaps if I were to put it this way? Now that you have neatly solved the existential dilemma which has bothered theologians/ metaphysicians for centuries (simply by redefining good and evil out of existence) … where are you at?
Here is a clue:
• [Respondent]: ‘… I feel righteously angry (…). (Richard, AF List, No. 79, 9 Feb 2005).
Richard: As a matter of related interest … one of the most persistent forms of anger is indignation (or righteous anger/ justifiable anger): it can be eradicated rather simply by the realisation that its raison d’être – a guardian against injustice, unjustness, unfairness, inequality (partiality, discrimination, and so on) – is as much a human invention as those concepts it defends … justice, justness, fairness, equality (impartiality, indiscrimination, and so on). (Richard, AF List, No. 66, 27 Apr 2005a).
Richard: … the term ‘cognitive dissonance’ would be better described as a ‘feeling-fed cognitive dissonance’ as it is not just a mental blockage which causes people to be unable to grasp innovative things that are to their own advantage and to fight so hard to retain the existing belief systems which are inimical to their welfare.
It is the strangest of incongruities in regards to human pertinacity that peoples will invent reasons and struggle to maintain a state of affairs that is detrimental to their own advancement … even those conditions which enslave them. (Richard, AF List, No. 30, 22 Oct 2003).
Perhaps you can now begin to understand more comprehensively why your identity so strenuously objects to agreeing to ‘your’ demise despite frequent experiential knowledge of the purity and perfection of the actual world.
Cheers Vineeto