Kub933's Journal

Man there is an awesome quote somewhere by @geoffrey that sums this up but I can’t find it! It mentions that in order for ‘me’ to self immolate, nothing ‘human’ can be left unknown to ‘me’, including this very rottenness.

And this rottenness can be quite astounding to comprehend when it’s seen as part of the big picture. That the very same mechanism that will cause ‘me’ to love another and protect them from harm is the one that will cause ‘me’ to destroy them, to describe one aspect as ‘good’ and the other as ‘bad’ is ultimately arbitrary.

The closest I can find is this one :

Art being the expression of an experience, if I was to make music, it would be felicitous. No other possibility.
But the human condition is not invisible to me, forgotten, or repugnant, may it be in its musical expression ripe with grandeur, tragedy, or the beauty of sorrow. It is the realm in which my fellow human beings live. The realm where ‘I’ lived. In the absence of identity, there is an un-imaginable appraisal of the feats of humanity, which is only on par with the appraisal of its flaws

That gives somewhat of a flavour to that big picture that I am referring to, the one where the hero is as guilty as the one being saved.

This makes me wonder, to what extent it is required that this rottenness be incrementally brought into sharper and more comprehensive focus.

This rottenness that is ‘me’, not separated by some comfortable layer of ‘actualist identity’ but the realm in which ‘we’ are all on par in our rottenness.

It seems like proceeding into a place which without pure intent would result in madness or depression, where ‘I’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’.

In the music thread, of course :joy::joy:

Yeah, the usual ‘realm’ @geoffrey can be found in :joy:

1 Like

Damn that is a good quote tho! So one proceeds into that ‘dark soil of humanity’ free of any buffer, to find that it is what ‘one’ is, that is where the daring and audacity comes in and that is where ‘my’ destiny can be achieved.

The seeing is the ending of ‘me’

This was, on my part, kind of a wink at the humanities bros that might be around hahaha.
This points to a very famous quote in literature/philosophy:
Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto (Terence)
… quote that from its humble beginnings in a comedic scene, was taken out of context and widely used - starting from antiquity up to the renaissance, enlightenment, and beyond - according to the varying needs, concerns and views of the time.
I’m not sure if I encountered if first in Montaigne or Rousseau, but it was in my late teens and it (my own interpretation of it) made a firm impression on me. To me it meant that there was something in me that could be called ‘humanity’ and was shared between all humans, and that this thing had within itself the whole range of what humans were capable of ; that there was in me such a potential, and if it was only the ‘circumstances’ of my particular life that were to be thanked for the depths of it not being expressed, it nevertheless had to be acknowledged, known, and taken responsibility for.
Needless to say that such a point of view didn’t need to be amended much upon discovering actualism. Only needed was the realisation that ‘I’ was humanity, instead of it being that thing over there, known by then in all its immensity, that had me in its grasp… and the ‘good news’ that the full seeing of this would be, indeed, its end.


So giving TMOBA more attention as per Geoffrey’s recommendation and contemplating Richards latest writing is clarifying the method for me. Main points :

  • The application of the method and investigation are 2 completely different things.

  • Investigation does not automatically lead to the successful application of the method, applying the method does :joy:.

  • One gets back to feeling felicitous by seeing the silliness of having those feelings usurped.

  • One investigates when one realises that a boundary has been placed which prevents the continued application of the method.

  • Once the boundary has been removed one still has to apply the method :joy:.

  • The ‘juice’ behind the effectiveness of the method is the potent force of the felicitous and innocuous feelings.


Oh and :

  • ‘Neither good nor bad’ is not feeling good, it is neutral and is ultimately a dead end. Focusing on ‘feeling felicitous’ makes this click for me.

Got some movement lately, finally :tada:

I can see what I have been missing is a connection to something that is outside of the human condition. ‘I’ have been trying to clean ‘myself’ up all on ‘my’ own. And ‘I’ did chip away to a point where ‘I’ as a social identity am largely reduced but ‘I’ am still here as a ‘being’.

Without pure intent the gravity of ‘being’ always returns ‘me’ back to the same point, back to stuckness. And from there where can ‘I’ go other than the same old?

So what I have been doing recently is exactly what I have been doing a couple of years back with great success, which is all about opening myself up to this other dimension of experience by rememorating the flavour of purity.
To rememorate is to allow the possibility that it is here now, and before I know it it is already being lived. The thing I realised yesterday is that this purity itself never falters, it is the connection that falters, which means that if ‘I’ so wish it is always possible to continue receiving this blessing, each moment again.

What I got yesterday was that ‘I’ have been trying to do it on ‘my’ own as some twisted aspect of pride. ‘I’ wanted to prove that ‘I’ can fix ‘myself’ up from the inside, that it is possible for the human condition to be fixed. So as a result ‘I’ have been swimming against the current, all alone, without any support from this purity, and man it is hard work! :sweat_smile:

In terms of how to open up to this other dimension of experience, the doorway is delighting, delighting at being here now, often it can take even just a smidgen of delight to begin opening up to this other world, and from there ‘I’ just sit back and enjoy the ride.

So it’s something like this for me at the moment :

  • I do some work to ensure that I am at least feeling good.
  • From this position of feeling good I allow myself to delight, in doing so I invite the possibility that this purity is here now.
  • Once tasted I simply allow it, I allow this purity to saturate my experience to the point where I am swimming in it. Then as Richard writes I am no longer intuitively making sense of life, a whole new dimension has just opened up. It’s not a PCE but it’s a different way of ‘being’.
  • Then I enjoy and appreciate it of course, and perhaps reflect back on the human condition from this superior vantage point.
  • When it begins to fade, I simply play that same game over and over.

I can see here that it is possible to eventually be in a place where one is more or less in a continuous EE and going in and out of PCEs, sort of hovering on that edge of ‘reality’ where one can ‘poke through’ at any moment.

So in short it seems my problem was that ‘I’ was going only as far as ‘I’ can do on ‘my’ own. Whereas now I can see that this is but the beginning of the ride! ‘I’ do some work initially and then ‘I’ allow the purity to do it’s thing.

I’m just trying to pinpoint what other reason I could have for not allowing this purity each moment again. It seems that I wanted something static, so it seemed that if ‘I’ could change ‘myself’ without outside assistance then it could be something that could be statically lived, essentially ‘I’ could remain ‘me’ but a virtually happy and harmless ‘me’ and ‘I’ could remain like this indefinitely, some kind of a cop out essentially.

Whereas pure intent is dynamic, every time ‘I’ allow it, ‘I’ am going on some kind of a ride that can fundamentally change ‘me’. And of course if ‘I’ continue allowing it and hovering on that edge of ‘reality’, then ‘reality’ cannot be sustained indefinitely.

So is an in control virtual freedom essentially a cop out from proceeding towards actual freedom :thinking: with the operant words being in control. I can see why Peter and Vinneto would have stayed there for quite a while as they were pioneering the direct method, it would be like another one of them ‘sandpits’ where one can safely play whilst essentially buying time.