Well something that I have been considering is alluded to by the below texts
First one by Geoffrey in the Actualism diagram thread :
It is a third kind of feeling, but that is quite apparent in the flow chart in my opinion (it is as apparent as left denoting ‘feeling good’ vs. right denoting ‘good’ and ‘bad feelings’
)
The definition of feeling good as “ordinary feeling good” is quite sufficient in this context. Everybody should be able to relate to “ordinary feeling good”, and have recent memory of such, which is enough for an application of the method aimed at reaching that first goal of actualism, which is consistently feeling good (and btw, that is what I got from the “Alan and Dona questions”).
Once one has reached that condition, then one can define further. What I said in that video on that topic was in response to an ‘advanced’ question regarding moving up from feeling good to feeling great and beyond. My response assumed that the questioner had a sufficient grasp of the method, to the point of having somewhat reached such a condition in which indeed, the necessity becomes apparent to ‘refine’ one’s feeling good - not to change it, but simply to remove whatever was ‘mixed’ within it (good feelings, which made it still somewhat conditional), and in so doing reveal what was there all along: the ‘pure’ feeling good I talk about in the video. So it was there all along in that “ordinary feeling good”, it was just mixed with a bunch of other stuff.
Again, this is a somewhat ‘advanced’ theme, which most probably requires an active connexion to pure intent through naiveté, etc… and at that point, one does not really follow the above flow chart anyway, but simply ‘orients’ oneself toward enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive more and more.
So no, I don’t see the need to mention anything of the sort in this (excellent) flow chart, which aims at helping people get to that very significant (and awesome
And also by Richard in the ASA article :
A sincere actualist is attentive to feelings all the time, day in, day out, whether active or resting; whether in association or on one’s own; whether there is thinking as well as perceiving or not. When attentiveness is actual, one will notice when one becomes stuck in one’s feeling patterns; it is that very noticing which allows one to back out of the feeling process and free oneself from it. Sensuousness returns one’s attention to its proper focus: if one is actualising a virtual freedom at that moment, then one’s focus will be the actual object of actualism. If one is not in virtual freedom, one’s focus will be just a straight-forward application of matter-of-fact attention itself, just a simple noticing of whatever comes up without getting possessively involved: ‘Ah, this feeling … what is it … where is it … where did it come from … what is it made up of … what is it connected to …?’. Virtual freedom re-establishes itself easily by the attentiveness that it has not been current. As soon as one is aware that one has not been attentive then one is experiencing sensuousness in virtual freedom … and thence: Apperceptiveness.
The way I see it is that there are different levels of applying the method. At the beginning it is a lot more like what is described in the actualism diagrams (Actualism Diagrams Hub). One has to follow this step by step process, with certain specific conditions that have to be consciously followed and ticket off. It’s like I just bought a furniture set from IKEA and I have absolutely no clue how to put things together, I am constantly having to refer to the instructions to see if I am somewhat following the right process and where I stands in the big picture.
But then with practice as certain habits become internalised, it becomes a lot less like this structured process and more like this dynamic on the fly activity, more like the example of surfing. It’s all happening in real time, there is no longer any solid structure that is being followed. I think at this point, at least for me, it is a waste of time to continue looking for some ‘system’.
What I have noticed from my practice is that when attentiveness is current and when all these other little mechanisms have been internalised and run on automatic, that a lot of the time I don’t even need to find triggers for example. It’s like the mere seeing and the mere intention to get back to feeling good orients me in the right direction, and this can happen constantly, with each little blip. As Srinath mentions on the Simple actualism page (SIMPLE ACTUALISM - The Actualism Method) :
The idea is to constantly evaluate what your mood is on a moment to moment basis – this might sound tricky and difficult and it certainly can be initially. But it gets easier over time as success builds on success. Eventually, with practice this effort gets internalised and becomes rather like a thermostat where you can often automatically up-regulate to a better mood.
For me its like this nowadays, and actually this is very cool how many things the brain can do at once. Because certain building blocks are in place, affective awareness is habituated to ringing the alarm bell when feeling bad happens, attentiveness is habituated to immediately zone in on what is going on (like the eye of Sauron the second the ring is put on haha). Then because I am very familiar with my emotional landscape the second that attentiveness looks, it already knows exactly what the emotion is, what caused it, what theme it relates to etc. Its like all this information is processed in a blink of an eye.
Then either this activity in itself simply melts the emotion away OR secondary processes will jump in automatically also (they too have been habituated), this might include investigation for example.
So any ‘system’ with relation to applying the method is something to get one going when they have no clue what it is all about. But just like with any skilled activity you eventually begin to operate at levels that are beyond a step by step process. Then I think it’s about continually developing this skill as opposed to intellectually looking for further maps and steps. At this point it is to ones detriment.
Like I don’t know how to play piano but I know that when you play piano there will be a myriad of automatic and habituated processes that are shaping what is happening in real time, they are adjusting, correcting errors etc Whereas when I sit down in front of the piano for the first time you’ll have to tell me the difference between the white and black keys and what the general idea is for how I’m using my hands and you might show me this sheet that explains some basic song and tell me how to read the notes etc.