But now reading past my post I am reconsidering what I wrote yesterday, I wonder if the fact that it hasn’t happened yet - only it could happen - is that I am waiting for the perfect opportunity, if such a thing even existed. I guess in ‘my’ gameplan that perfect opportunity would happen on ‘my’ final plateau but now I see there isn’t such a thing. It’s like I am describing things which have already happened multiple times and no cigar and then I am looking for more of the same as a solution. And yet probably I could have those experiences ten times over now and it would be a “almost” every time.
What I can certainly say is that all this considering I am doing now is no longer mired in suffering, seriousness or the sudorific. And to add there is a genuine thirst for oblivion now. It makes sense that ‘I’ needed all the ‘rules and regulations’ before, because ‘I’ was trying to force ‘myself’ to do something ‘I’ was not ready for, ‘I’ didnt want it. It seems once ‘I’ genuinely want it then all the ‘rules and regulations’ fly out the window.
It’s actually quite odd that it’s like this because ‘I’ remember ‘my’ resistance before, now there is an excitement and a taste of freedom when I do any of this considering.
Kuba: Whereas when ‘normal’ that black/red blob is too heavy and too persistently situated to budge. When naive ‘I’ am so light that it seems ‘I’ could just float away and never come back.
I will just add this as well, which it seems to imply that ‘I’ am not trying to take ‘myself’ into actuality. Because whenever those experiences happen and ‘I’ am so light like ‘I’ could just float away, there is always the thought of – ‘I’ would gladly disappear for good right now. There is never a thought of “I can’t wait to be actually free etc”.
As in there is a progression of ‘my’ burden being diminished and from there ‘I’ can see that what ‘I’ deeply desire is for that burden to end altogether, for ‘me’ to become extinct and to allow life to happen of its own accord without ‘me’ spoiling things anymore. (link)
Hi Kuba,
Thank you for clarifying this. The words “shift” and “morph” were misleading. Whereas when you say “for ‘me’ to become extinct” it is accurate and in accord with factuality.
Kuba: But now reading past my post I am reconsidering what I wrote yesterday, I wonder if the fact that it hasn’t happened yet – only it could happen – is that I am waiting for the perfect opportunity, if such a thing even existed. I guess in ‘my’ gameplan that perfect opportunity would happen on ‘my’ final plateau but now I see there isn’t such a thing. It’s like I am describing things which have already happened multiple times and no cigar and then I am looking for more of the same as a solution. And yet probably I could have those experiences ten times over now and it would be a “almost” every time.
What I can certainly say is that all this considering I am doing now is no longer mired in suffering, seriousness or the sudorific. (link)
There might be something as “the perfect opportunity” for altruism to come to the fore just as in the real world a child would be in danger of drowning first for someone to have the impulse to altruistically step in. But then there is already so much misery and mayhem happening to provide enough reason to make “all the difference for the world” (link) by ‘self’-immolating. Only you can know if/when, in whatever form, you are preventing such opportunity to arise or not.
Ask Geoffrey.
His own description of the event is very lucid, and although every single word is significant, I nevertheless highlighted some of them –
Geoffrey: I realised that I would indeed gladly die right now, gladly give away all I am, all I ever was, all I’ve done and felt since I was born, for peace-on-earth to be apparent (not even for me but) for everybody. For things to be as they are. And that it would be of no importance at all. No ‘weight’, no drama… just the only thing that made sense, the only sensible thing. [Emphases added]. (Geoffrey Report of Becoming Free).
Hmm ok thank you, I am particularly fascinated by what you wrote that ‘I’ am preventing such an opportunity to arise. Whereas before ‘I’ would see it as something that ‘I’ have to generate. But indeed it does seem like if anything ‘I’ am preventing altruism from being activated, as you said there is already enough reasons all around. This does make sense because selfism will be in place all the way until altruism is activated. So ‘I’ will seek to live another day until ‘I’ don’t, that is the end.
Certainly being stuck in a maze of ticking off imaginary checkboxes would be a good distraction, and seeking that ‘final plateau’ for ‘me’ is also in the exact opposite direction of allowing altruism to be activated.
Hehe so I see it somewhat now that at the end of the day all ‘I’ can do is put it off a little more. ‘I’ am putting off the enormity of the seeing, of what role ‘I’ play in this mess and the only way of rectifying it.
To put it in simple and frank terms - as ‘I’ am now, ‘I’ (the identity writing these words) do not see it without a shadow of a doubt that ‘I’ am the reason for all the wars, rapes, murders, suicides, sadness, loneliness depression etc. Of all the sorrow and malice which has plagued human kind since time immemorial.
I understand now the quote you posted a while back where Richard wrote that the ‘he’ that was took full responsibility and the action which resulted was not of ‘his’ doing - ‘I’ haven’t taken full responsibility yet.
‘Richard’ took full responsibility shortly after ‘he’ was approached by a fellow human being asking to be ‘his’ disciple.
So this whole out from control / not out from control saga that has been going on What I can say is that there was a qualitative shift last year and this qualitative shift has remained throughout. What changed then, has not unchanged, however it is as if ‘I’ the ‘controller’ have been trying to re-assert control or some semblance of control by habitually “doing what ‘I’ do”.
It took a long time to ween myself off this habit, but now that it has faded I can see that there has not been a further qualitative shift, that initial shift which took place has remained throughout.
What I can also see is essentially what Vineeto wrote to Claudiu a while back - That being out from control is not a leisurely club to hang out in. Of course this makes 100% sense now because what it means to be out from control is the very antithesis of having such a static plateau to hang out on. The very meaning of being out from control is that no such thing can exist. A more accurate description of it is that it is a dynamic phase which takes place en-route to ‘my’ self-immolation. The experience of being out from control is more to do with the lack of anything stable or static rather than chilling out on some rung on an imaginary ladder.
Essentially it is to say that being out from control is not a feather in ‘my’ cap, it’s more like ‘I’ am speedily loosing all ‘my’ feathers and ‘my’ cap
In fact it seems like the past year ‘I’ have been riding a bike down a hill and then habitually pedalling ‘my’ feet to match the speed lol
So something which seems very key just went with regards to the below :
Kuba: Just a quick one as I am about to go in to do some training. I noticed this specifically before I am about to go and interact with others (like right now for example). There is this fear of remaining naive, it feels tender but to the point of being vulnerable.
It reminds me of what Richard wrote that naivete is the intimate aspect of oneself which one has locked away due to fear of ridicule – this hits the nail on the head.
It’s like I am not supposed to be this intimate around others, there is certainly a fear there. I thought I had resolved this in the past but clearly there is more there. I remember that fear is ‘my’ hiding place, and when I consider what specifically it is that ‘I’ am hiding nothing comes to mind. It seems it is more that ‘I’ am afraid to be seen, not anything specifically about ‘me’, rather ‘I’ am afraid to be seen full stop.
It has been scary to interact with you Vineeto, it is quite a familiar feeling to me by now. Yesterday I began looking at this in a fascinated way and this morning I realised that it is because ‘I’ know that you already know ‘my’ secret. You know that the words you are reading are written by a fraud. And I don’t meant this in some way to put ‘myself’ down or that ‘I’ am some kind of a troll. It is that no matter how sincere ‘I’ am, ‘I’ am a fraud, ‘my’ very existence is fraudulent. And I notice that the fear I have been experiencing around interacting with others, it’s the same fear.
This fear seems very fundamental to ‘me’, like it is ‘my’ worst fear - to be exposed for the fraud that ‘I’ already know ‘I’ am.
I am not sure what to do with it but this seeing seems very important for some reason. There is not much left of ‘me’ now other than this fear of being exposed for the fraud that ‘I’ am.
So is the burden that ‘I’ experience the burden of having to maintain a fraudulent existence?
I remember when I was younger and I would lie about something it would very quickly become this big web that I then had to maintain, to keep checking the story was right etc. This was very exhausting and eventually I realised that it was just much easier to be frank. It’s something similar but just much more fundamental, as in ‘my’ entire existence is a web of that kind that ‘I’ am continually struggling to maintain.
Ha the below quote from Richard’s journal seems very apt at the moment :
Mercilessly exposed in the bright light of awareness - apperception casts no shadows - ‘I’ can no longer find ‘my’ position tenable.
‘I’ can only live in obscuration, where ‘I’ lurk about, creating all sorts of mischief.
‘My’ time is speedily coming to an end, ’I’ can barely maintain ’myself’ any longer.
Vineeto: There might be something as “the perfect opportunity” for altruism to come to the fore just as in the real world a child would be in danger of drowning first for someone to have the impulse to altruistically step in. But then there is already so much misery and mischief happening to provide enough reason to make “all the difference for the world” (link) by ‘self’-immolating. Only you can know if/when, in whatever form, you are preventing such opportunity to arise or not.
Kuba: Hmm ok thank you, I am particularly fascinated by what you wrote that ‘I’ am preventing such an opportunity to arise. Whereas before ‘I’ would see it as something that ‘I’ have to generate. But indeed it does seem like if anything ‘I’ am preventing altruism from being activated, as you said there is already enough reasons all around. This does make sense because selfism will be in place all the way until altruism is activated. So ‘I’ will seek to live another day until ‘I’ don’t, that is the end.
Certainly being stuck in a maze of ticking off imaginary checkboxes would be a good distraction, and seeking that ‘final plateau’ for ‘me’ is also in the exact opposite direction of allowing altruism to be activated.
Hehe so I see it somewhat now that at the end of the day all ‘I’ can do is put it off a little more. ‘I’ am putting off the enormity of the seeing, of what role ‘I’ play in this mess and the only way of rectifying it. (link)
Hi Kuba,
What you can do is turning your attention in a slightly different direction.
RICHARD: If the impact of pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) be not sufficiently enticing – an altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto is not, of course, only for the benefit of other bodies – then maybe a goodly dose of back-pressure may provide the requisite incentive.
I am, of course, referring to watching the evening news (or even soap-operas for that matter) and seeing – actually seeing – the human condition stripped-naked as it parades itself across the screen for those with the eyes to see … and thus knowing that, essentially, there too goes oneself, no matter how diminished.
I do know that it worked well for the identity inhabiting this body all those years ago when, being only human, the impulsion (being pulled from ahead) would, on occasion, lessen in its intensity and the propulsion (being pushed from behind) was most certainly helpful in vivifying a flagging intent to enable that which the PCE so magically evinced to occur 24/7.
So … what is it that permits one to not proceed? (Richard, AF List, Alan-b, 27 Apr 2005).
It also worked well for this identity –
‘Vineeto’: [Richard]: ‘When it is understood that the one is the epitome of the many and that ‘I’ am the ‘many’ and the ‘many’ is ‘me’. (link) (…) What does it mean, when you say ‘I’ am the ‘many’ and the ‘many’ is ‘me’? (…)
Last night serendipity provided the answer to my question to you, which had been going on in my head since I wrote. The experiential answer to ‘I am many and many is me’ presented itself in the form a TV program on International Humanitarian Aid Organizations and their role and accountability. For one and a half hours there was ample footage presented on human suffering and devastation in war, famine, genocide and racial ‘cleansing’ on one side and the helpless, well-intentioned, yet almost useless effort of people in the aid organizations on the other side. Richard: Basically, most people mean well … it is just that, for all their best intentions, they are hog-tied. No one is to blame. ‘Vineeto’: The presentation was enough to make it utterly and unquestionably clear to me that there is no difference between me and the hundreds of thousands who have suffered and died and those who have, without success or effective change, tried to help – for ‘umpteen hundreds of thousands of years’. On an overwhelming instinctual level ‘I’ am ‘them’ and ‘I’ have had no solution and never will have a solution. Richard: There is no cure to be found in the ‘real world’ … only never-ending ‘band-aid’ solutions. ‘Vineeto’: The devastation is enormous and the only way ‘out’ is ‘self’-sacrifice. (Richard, AF List, Vineeto, 30 Sep 1999)
Perhaps you can give yourself permission to allow yourself to feel about what your fellow human beings experience, whilst knowing that compassion can never provide the solution. You already know the solution – nothing less than giving up all of ‘you’ will make “all the difference for the world”. (link).
Don’t you find it somewhat ironic that those who are affectively eager to try to help don’t know how to, and those who know what to do are hesitant?
Thank you Vineeto, the initial (intellectual) answer which came up was that - “well those suffering others could clean themselves up”, it wouldn’t be an actual freedom but they could be virtually free.
This is a demonstration of the kind of mindset which you wrote here :
Don’t you find it somewhat ironic that those who are affectively eager to try to help don’t know how to, and those who know what to do are hesitant?
So for whatever reason ‘I’ have been able to clean ‘myself’ up enough that life is good (in that “in the meantime” manner) and so ‘I’ am now hesitant to accept full responsibility.
And yet it is back to front because if not for ‘me’ there would be no need for the method in the first place. It wouldn’t be a situation where some “manage to make it” and others don’t. It is clear that at the current state of affairs it takes an unusual person to even consider applying the method, and then to succeed and then to go all the way. But the way out of taking full responsibility for ‘me’ is that - “Oh well ‘I’ cleaned ‘myself’ up, so surely others can too”.
In short it is as if ‘I’ do not face the urgency of the situation fully because ‘I’ have managed to “do alright”. The one thing that stands out here is wow how incredibly selfish this is.
It makes me think back to the hierarchy, as if ‘I’ have (by chance) managed to land on a higher rung of a ladder and then ‘I’ am gladly looking at those below clawing for survival. ‘I’ can weave some kind of a story that goes - “oh well it’s because ‘I’ was a special ‘I’, that is why ‘I’ am here and ‘they’ are there”.
There is definitely some kind of complacency that I can see here, it’s not urgent for ‘me’, well not urgent enough to sacrifice ‘myself’ for clearly. But even so the entire mindset is wrong to even allow such a thing as sacrificing ‘myself’. For as long as ‘I’ am chilling out on that “alright” rung of the ladder ‘I’ am clearly only concerned with ‘myself’.
This brings to mind what Geoffrey wrote :
RICHARD:I am full of admiration for the ‘me’ that dared to do such a thing. I owe all that I experience now to ‘me’. I salute ‘my’ audacity.
Geoffrey: Who is that ‘me’, if not humanity?
‘I’ am humanity. And as such, ‘my’ destiny can be achieved.
“Pleasant and wholesome” could become a refuge, a hiding place, for an individual ‘I’, a special ‘I’, fortified in dissociation from the dark soil of humanity by its acquired ‘actualist identity’.
If one is to be humanity, then nothing of humanity shall be foreign to one.
“The psyche is a frightful place” indeed.
What is it that Richard admires about ‘me’? Daring, and audacity.
It seems ‘I’ am chilling in that “alright place”, dissociated from the “dark soil of humanity”, from here any concern about actual freedom is primarily about what it would mean for ‘me’. As such it’s not a pressing matter for ‘me’, in the sense of a fire raging through. So sure ‘I’ will run at some invisible walls from time to time, then do some more cleaning up etc. But in all of this ‘I’ am as if blind to the role that ‘I’ play in this mess, to the fact that a fire is raging through right now.
So I can see that in the past the caring was almost like a means to the end? Something like - “Well ‘I’ want to reach ‘my’ goal and for that ‘I’ have to care”. Whereas it seems like the caring has to come as a first priority, otherwise it is ‘my’ existence that will take priority.
Also I can see that any pride in ‘my’ success with the actualism method has to be a furphy, fundamentally and at core ‘I’ am no different at all to those other 'I’s. How is it that this particular ‘I’ made some kind of success and others have failed? It wasn’t ‘me’ that was special, ‘I’ am exactly the same as those other 'I’s, the success that ‘I’ am enjoying in this complacent manner is because of the circumstances that ‘I’ found ‘myself’ in. It’s not so different to being born into a rich family with great connections and then making podcasts about hard work leading to success whilst millions starve.
What Claudiu wrote as part of his report of meeting with Geoffrey has been on my mind also :
Another interesting thing he imparted to me was just how much social identity can remain even for the basically free people. In other words, the ‘bar’ to basic actual freedom is really not that high. You don’t have to clean up all or even nearly all of your social identity issues… that being said, simultaneously it is still absolutely everything for me to self-immolate, as I (the feeling-being) am indeed fully going extinct, make no mistake about it. But you don’t have to clean up every last thing. It’s more a matter of seeing the way to oblivion and going there, full-on.
I always thought the bar was super super high so ‘I’ definitely made sure to tackle any potential “side quests” to fully prep the grounds. Which is to say that ‘I’ can stop concerning ‘myself’ with anything else other than self-immolation. What ‘I’ (the particular identity writing these words) require is not any more “actualist achievements”, it is more in the other direction of no longer being any kind of special ‘I’, of daring to care and caring to dare.
Just to clarify the above Vineeto, I was surprised when I read over it twice to notice that Richard wrote “an altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto is not, of course, only for the benefit of other bodies”. Is this to say that just as the benefit for ‘me’ is the ending of ‘my’ burden, the benefit to all those other ‘I’s is bringing closer the ending of ‘their’ burden?
If I am understanding this correctly this does indeed stir something strong in ‘me’. Because ‘I’ was always the one that let’s say “had a shit time” when I was younger - as in ‘I’ remember the extent of the horrible suffering that ‘I’ experienced, from which seemingly there was no way out but only to suffer more. Eventually with the assistance of the actualism method ‘I’ managed to drag ‘myself’ out but ‘I’ have always maintained a very keen and sensitive awareness of just the extent of how much it is possible to suffer.
So can ‘I’ who knows the extent of the possible suffering for ‘me’ bring about ‘my’ demise by keenly feeling that the end of ‘my’ burden is also the possibility of the end of ‘their’ burden?
I am quite afraid of flying and ‘my’ worst nightmare scenario is the one of the plane coming down and all onboard pummelling to their sure demise. What fuels this particular nightmare scenario is not so much the ending but the suffering that all on board would experience before hand. The worst version of this scenario that ‘I’ have dreamt up () is where I am there with Sonya, and what ‘I’ feel right at the core of ‘my’ being is that ‘she’ would be experiencing this suffering. That what ‘I’ would want more than anything (because life happens as it does) is for there to be no suffering.
That it is not the actual facts of life which need to change but rather it is the suffering that needs to be ended. Which is to say that ‘I’ do have a deep desire to end suffering for ‘me’ and for ‘others’.
It is something that ‘I’ can feel viscerally because ‘I’ do not have access to flesh and blood bodies, and yet ‘I’ can see ‘others’ stuck in that hell called ‘reality’, ‘I’ sincerely want the suffering that comes from this to end for all.
I think we both experienced something like this and what it is like being alive has not changed for me either. And the experiential portions of the reports we have made of it are accurate reports of what it is like, at least I haven’t made anything up .
However, does it attain to that which is called “out-from-control virtual freedom” in actualist lingo? There are, I think, two ways to tackle this question.
The first is the mapping approach which is trying to determine whether it really is this. What happened with me is: after talking about my experience of being alive with Geoffrey, he described a bit what it was like being out-from-control for ‘him’ in ‘his’ last week, and to me it sounded like a different thing than I was experiencing, and we were in concordance on that.
Part of that convo is where he asked me something like, do I think that how I am now will inevitably result in self-immolation, or do I think there is something more I have to do to have it happen? I said it was the latter, and he said something along the lines of that that’s good and he was wondering whether I have been “chilling” / waiting around (or something like this) as a possible reason for why I haven’t self-immolated yet.
Another way to take the mapping approach is to compare experience with already-available descriptions. Is something really described as being “nigh-on unstoppable” (link) really compatible with a state that just… stops? Frequently? Even for months at a time? Viz.:
(Note that even if once it starts again the experience is that of it never having stopped, it does not mean that it didn’t stop in the mean-time…)
And is a state that is described as a “different way of being” and “where the beer is the operant” (link) really compatible with one in which the controller is constantly “trying to re-assert control”? One where you have been “inviting the ‘controller’ once more” even after extensive experience in it? One where you are on a frequent basis returning back to a way of being that is a “dark and stagnant energy, this is the ‘normal’ which ‘I’ return to, this is the ‘gravity of being’”?
And is a state depicted as one where “Being naiveté is intrinsically part of that state (out-from-control/different-way-of-being)”[1] (link) compatible with a state experienced as nevertheless still needing “to discover how to ‘be’ naivete itself” (i.e. not being naivete itself yet)?
And lastly as far as this first approach is concerned, what is it that really sets apart an excellence experience (which is temporary) from an ongoing excellence experience (which is another way an out-from-control virtual freedom is depicted)? Vineeto may have some firm words for me here but… it is not even being out-from-control! As Richard wrote (emphasis added):
RICHARD: Given that it was a case of not being able to answer the question as-asked – to be having an EE (or an IE) is indeed to be out-from-control – then the word “No…” negates the entire query. […] It is more informative, though, to first set the query straight:
• [Respondent]: “Is it possible for someone who is in an EE and not out-from-control to experience near actual caring during the duration of the EE?”
• [Richard]: “As to be having an EE (or an IE) is to be out-from-control then the critical criterion, which you have evidentially been looking for throughout this email exchange, is the ascendant beer 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) and pulling one evermore unto one’s destiny”. [link]
In other words an EE (according to Richard in 2016) is a (temporary) experience of being out-from-control, while an out-from-control virtual freedom is set apart from this by the “critical criterion” of the ascendant beer (which is also ascendant in temporary EEs) being “in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent being dynamically operative” (my bolded emphasis).
Ehm sooo what does it mean to be in full allowance as opposed to a partial allowance? How would you know, experientially, the difference? Maybe you just think it is a full allowance but then later you allow it more and then you realize it was only a partial one? And especially, if you have come to associate a certain experience of being at least somewhat allowing of pure intent, as being the experience of an out-from-control virtual freedom… and you have come to consider that any gaps in the experiencing of this do not disqualify one from being virtually free… and whenever you reflect on the question of whether you are virtually free, that contemplation necessarily brings that (partial) allowance of pure intent into the picture… then wouldn’t you always conclude that you are virtually free even if you aren’t?
You don’t have to answer these questions, it is merely food for thought.
The second way to tackle this issue is I think a much more pragmatic and experiential approach, which is to say… … does it really matter, at this moment, in particular, specifically for the purpose of self-immolating sooner rather than later, what the way of being alive you are experiencing is called?
With this in mind I can only see it hindering, and not helping, to consider it to already be that “out-from-control virtual freedom” as depicted on the AFT site. Because this virtual freedom is one where it’s described as essentially inevitable, that pure intent is pulling one forward with impunity. And the only purpose this can serve, in my opinion, is to diminish my intent, to conclude it is not fully in my hands anymore (now it’s in the universe’s hands you see). If one is correct about it then it doesn’t change anything, but if one is incorrect about it, then this becomes another cunning and clever excuse to put off my inevitable demise (whether it be when the body dies or sooner). And, to be abstaining from the question or not thinking about where one is on the map, if one is indeed virtually free then again it changes nothing, and if one isn’t then one wouldn’t be selling oneself short.
So the winning approach, and indeed the obvious approach to me at this point, is this one, just not to really conceive of it in this way, and rather just naively go forth regardless.
At this point it sorta seems like the best approach is to go ahead and self-immolate, and then later the flesh-and-blood-body which continues being conscious (and is NOT me ) can see if what was experienced may have qualified for out-from-control virtual freedom or not. But that’s just how I’m thinking about it currently.
Cheers,
Claudiu
DONA:(To be clear, I wrote all of this, and they [i.e. Richard & Vineeto] both said it was accurate).↩︎
RICHARD: If the impact of pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) be not sufficiently enticing – an altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto is not, of course, only for the benefit of other bodies – then maybe a goodly dose of back-pressure may provide the requisite incentive.
Kuba: Just to clarify the above Vineeto, I was surprised when I read over it twice to notice that Richard wrote “an altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto is not, of course, only for the benefit of other bodies”. Is this to say that just as the benefit for ‘me’ is the ending of ‘my’ burden, the benefit to all those other ‘I’s is bringing closer the ending of ‘their’ burden?
If I am understanding this correctly this does indeed stir something strong in ‘me’. Because ‘I’ was always the one that let’s say “had a shit time” when I was younger – as in ‘I’ remember the extent of the horrible suffering that ‘I’ experienced, from which seemingly there was no way out but only to suffer more. Eventually with the assistance of the actualism method ‘I’ managed to drag ‘myself’ out but ‘I’ have always maintained a very keen and sensitive awareness of just the extent of how much it is possible to suffer.
So can ‘I’ who knows the extent of the possible suffering for ‘me’ bring about ‘my’ demise by keenly feeling that the end of ‘my’ burden is also the possibility of the end of ‘their’ burden?
You took the quote out of context and separated the words within dashes as if they were a statement in themselves. If you read the sentence without the words in dashes, or parenthesis, so to speak, then you can see that Richard is saying that if the benefits of living in, a what amounts to a 24/7 PCE, are not enough enticement then “a goodly dose of back-pressure” will provide the missing intent, i.e. “seeing – actually seeing – the human condition stripped-naked as it parades itself across the screen for those with the eyes to see … and thus knowing that, essentially, there too goes oneself, no matter how diminished”. [Emphases added]
Just for emphasis, Peter expressed the same sentiment in a different way –
‘Peter’: What I didn’t find at all subtle, and what really got me off my bum, is the fact that each and every human being is not only socially programmed to remain faithful to Humanity but that each and every human being is genetically encoded with the instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire. Understanding this was of such significance to me that I put it this way on the very first page of my journal –
[Peter]: … ‘Indeed, that has been the innate drive in my life: to make sense of this mad world that I found myself living in. The insanity of endless wars, conflict, arguments, sadness, despair, failed hopes and dreams seems endemic. And worse still, as I gradually forced myself to admit, I was as mad, and as bad, as everyone else.’ (Peter’s Journal, Foreword)
Yes well done Claudiu I think this is a really sensible summary of this whole thing and I agree. I do wonder if the difference of where we landed was to do with what we were aiming for. Geoffrey said he aimed only for actual freedom and he found himself in an out from control virtual freedom en-route there. I am not sure about you but I was certainly aiming for out from control virtual freedom - based on your reports at the time.
So for me it was like I knew I was aiming for a stepping stone towards actual freedom, I was aiming not for the ultimate but for the penultimate.
So that would make sense that having arrived at “whatever this is” that there is not a full allowance yet.
Thank you Vineeto, ok I understand. Essentially it is that no matter how diminished ‘I’ may be ‘I’ am still the human condition in operation and that this will be the case forever and a day unless ‘I’ altruistically self-immolate for the benefit of this body, that body and every body.
That no matter what ‘I’ do with ‘myself’ “in the meantime” ‘I’ am still fear, aggression, nurture and desire, no different than what the “diminished ‘I’” can observe all around the world or even in the soap opera - ‘I’ am no better and ‘I’ cannot ‘be’ better as this is what ‘I’ am.
That is to say that ‘I’ can never ever be innocent.
And yes Claudiu it is nice to consider that perhaps there is something more still - this doesn’t take away from anything. Especially as now it is clear that the ultimate is the only thing left to aim for, and if something utterly wonderful comes between now and then well that’s amazing too!
So Claudiu thank you because for the second time now (the first time being the “rift” thread) you have helped me to re-orient. I appreciate your sincere persistence at getting down to nothing less than the facts of the matter, even if initially I gave some resistance .
It’s interesting because I remember the thought (although it was more like the voicing of a deep commitment being made) just before the qualitative shift took place last year, it was - “I am never going back to normal”. And in that sense I got exactly what I wished for, because I have not been back to what normal was before then. But it was as if at the time I was looking to carve a place for myself right between reality and actuality, and that from there I would have a genuine shot at aiming for actual freedom - and again this is exactly what happened. I just remembered a meme by Elgin which is actually perfect to depict this :
So if we are looking for defining whatever this thing is, it’s whatever that picture shows
But the point is that the commitment ‘I’ made (if such a thing even was the way to do it) was not to allow pure intent to pull ‘me’ irrevocably to ‘my’ demise. So yes it could not have been the genuine one way ride towards ‘my’ extinction, it could not have been a “full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent being dynamically operative”.
Which means it does appear that there is something else yet to happen, which is rather wonderful!
Kuba: Thank you Vineeto, the initial (intellectual) answer which came up was that – “well those suffering others could clean themselves up”, it wouldn’t be an actual freedom but they could be virtually free. This is a demonstration of the kind of mindset which you wrote here :
Vineeto: Don’t you find it somewhat ironic that those who are affectively eager to try to help don’t know how to, and those who know what to do are hesitant?
Kuba: So for whatever reason ‘I’ have been able to clean ‘myself’ up enough that life is good (in that “in the meantime” manner) and so ‘I’ am now hesitant to accept full responsibility.
And yet it is back to front because if not for ‘me’ there would be no need for the method in the first place. It wouldn’t be a situation where some “manage to make it” and others don’t. It is clear that at the current state of affairs it takes an unusual person to even consider applying the method, and then to succeed and then to go all the way. But the way out of taking full responsibility for ‘me’ is that – “Oh well ‘I’ cleaned ‘myself’ up, so surely others can too”.
Hi Kuba,
It seems you have uncovered a major blackspot/ oversight in your investigations. I remember you wrote recently –
Kuba: It is more that ‘I’ am afraid to be seen, not anything specifically about ‘me’, rather ‘I’ am afraid to be seen full stop.
This seems to be part of the reason why I would always return to some kind of a ‘normal’ after all those extraordinary experiences. They would be precious but almost too precious to consider bringing them out into the open in my day to day living. So I would return to ‘normal’ which includes some kind of a ‘shield’, this is ‘me’ as the controller. (link)
Can it be that your regular returning to “‘me’ as the controller” is because your naiveté has been missing the aspect of “being a liker” (link) – liking others and caring about them as your fellow human beings, as epitomised by the ‘Theory of Mind’ (link, take also note of the last paragraph)?
Kuba: In short it is as if ‘I’ do not face the urgency of the situation fully because ‘I’ have managed to “do alright”. The one thing that stands out here is wow how incredibly selfish this is.
It makes me think back to the hierarchy, as if ‘I’ have (by chance) managed to land on a higher rung of a ladder and then ‘I’ am gladly looking at those below clawing for survival. ‘I’ can weave some kind of a story that goes – “oh well it’s because ‘I’ was a special ‘I’, that is why ‘I’ am here and ‘they’ are there”.
There is definitely some kind of complacency that I can see here, it’s not urgent for ‘me’, well not urgent enough to sacrifice ‘myself’ for clearly. But even so the entire mindset is wrong to even allow such a thing as sacrificing ‘myself’. For as long as ‘I’ am chilling out on that “alright” rung of the ladder ‘I’ am clearly only concerned with ‘myself’. (…)
It is of not use to blame yourself for being “incredibly selfish” – everyone is selfish, born with fear, aggression, nurture and desire. Now, that you have become aware of it, you can do something about it. I also wonder if your “it’s because ‘I’ was a special ‘I’, that is why ‘I’ am here and ‘they’ are there” is perhaps connected to what you once called the Messiah complex –
Kuba: So I have been having fun investigating self esteem / self worth. I can see this aspect of the human condition is what underpins most of the themes which remain. The archetype which I can narrow the thing down to is one of the ‘messiah’. […]
This desperate need to belong however is a beast that needs to be fed over and over, it never rests. Which means ‘I’ lock ‘myself’ in the never ending pursuit for the next ‘golden nugget’. This archetype of the ‘messiah’ is a tricky one to see for what it is, because this desperate need for a feeling of validation is masked by ‘doing good for others’ or ‘seeking excellence to uplift others’.
It’s like ‘I’ want to be Jesus, bringing light to those below ‘me’ and in doing so solidify ‘my’ place in the group forever, ‘I’ will then be forever needed.
The thing which I always wanted deep down was to be free to be me as I am, to be genuine, to be original and to be authentic. In short to exist completely outside of this structure of the ‘group’, of belonging, of identity etc. […] So ‘I’ have been keen to find that something ultimately precious which ‘I’ will be willing to give up ‘myself’ for. This seems to be in the right direction, the freedom to be me as I am for one and all. (link)
Now that you explained what being a messiah really means, it could well be that “the freedom to be me as I am for one and all” is an entirely different destination to being actually free, as in “the freedom to be ‘me’ as I am for one and all”?
The question is, has this possible re-interpretation of what it means to “be free” distorted/ corrupted pure intent all this while without you noticing it?
Kuba: It seems ‘I’ am chilling in that “alright place”, dissociated from the “dark soil of humanity”, from here any concern about actual freedom is primarily about what it would mean for ‘me’. As such it’s not a pressing matter for ‘me’, in the sense of a fire raging through. So sure ‘I’ will run at some invisible walls from time to time, then do some more cleaning up etc. But in all of this ‘I’ am as if blind to the role that ‘I’ play in this mess, to the fact that a fire is raging through right now.
So I can see that in the past the caring was almost like a means to the end? Something like – “Well ‘I’ want to reach ‘my’ goal and for that ‘I’ have to care”. Whereas it seems like the caring has to come as a first priority, otherwise it is ‘my’ existence that will take priority.
Yes, you can be having a grand time to a certain degree, but you can’t be confident that you are harmless, let alone innocuous, as long as caring about your fellow human beings is barely existent.
Kuba: Also I can see that any pride in ‘my’ success with the actualism method has to be a furphy, fundamentally and at core ‘I’ am no different at all to those other 'I’s. How is it that this particular ‘I’ made some kind of success and others have failed? It wasn’t ‘me’ that was special, ‘I’ am exactly the same as those other 'I’s, the success that ‘I’ am enjoying in this complacent manner is because of the circumstances that ‘I’ found ‘myself’ in. It’s not so different to being born into a rich family with great connections and then making podcasts about hard work leading to success whilst millions starve. (link)
Just think, if you were indeed a ‘messiah’ and everyone followed ‘your’ lead and did what you have done, chill in that “alright place”. People might be less sorrowful but callous nevertheless, and there certainly would be neither equity nor parity (link). In other words, as long as you are a feeling being, “this black/red blob” (link), as you perceived it, you are rotten to the core like every other feeling being, as you summed it up above – and that’s the ‘messiah’ would pass on.
Richard: As you are not separate from humanity/ as humanity is not separate from (you are humanity/ humanity is you) do you now see why I have kept on asking if you care about individuals, period?
Simply because blind nature does not care about individuals – essentially blind nature is only concerned with the survival of the species (and any species will do as far as blind nature is concerned) – and simply because only an individual can care about individuals then, unless/ until an individual does dare to care, all the misery and mayhem will go on forever and a day … just as it has done over the millennia which stretch back into the mists of prehistory.
And to dare to care is to care to dare. (Richard, AF List, Rick-a, 21 Jan 2006).
I can recommend to rememorate the flavour of your last outstanding PCE (not the interpretation the ‘controller’ inserted afterwards) and freshly connect to the genuine pure intent. Then daring to care and caring to dare is eminently possible.
Thank you for your post, there is a lot to untangle here as it seems I am indeed re-orienting myself, I will probably answer in multiple parts. I will start with the below as this seems potentially very important :
So when I wrote the below last evening :
What I am experiencing this evening is that the “enticement” which pure intent offers is irresistible, it makes all ‘my’ heroic efforts unnecessary.
I am very very confident that what I was experiencing was genuine pure intent. Because what I experienced matched exactly the description of - “a genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe”.
Now I will contrast the above description with Srinaths explanation on the simple actualism page :
If one thinks of the actual universe as a magical, benevolent, alive (but non-sentient), glorious, scintillating and infinite thing – then pure intent is our human experience of all of this: our connection to this radiant dimension of the universe. But as feeling beings we are many times removed from this purity
I remember there was a time on this forum when the words pure intent were replaced with purity. That instead of establishing a connection to pure intent one would connect with purity. I went along with this which I now see as a bastardised version of what pure intent actually is. What I confirmed yesterday is that indeed connecting with “purity” is missing the very key aspect of the “genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity”. I was blown away when I experienced it last night, it was sweet, it was irresistibly enticing, it was impossible not to care, it was something that could easily pull ‘me’ all the way to ‘my’ demise without a shred of resistance.
Whereas this whole “connecting to purity” I see more as something along the lines of allowing sensuousness. Because when sensuousness is happening there is very much this aspect of the world being like this perfect and pure jewel, and yet that is not pure intent - "a genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe”
Before the qualitative shift took place last year it would be more correct to say that I was allowing purity over and over, I was not allowing pure intent over and over, I was not allowing the “genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe” to be dynamically operative - certainly what I experienced last night, I was not allowing that over and over.
It seems Claudiu had it from the start around the time of the rift thread, this “sandpit actualism” is not the genuine article as described on the AFT. And what a damaging influence these bastardisations can have!
What I can say is that there was a qualitative shift last year and this qualitative shift has remained throughout. What changed then, has not unchanged, however it is as if ‘I’ the ‘controller’ have been trying to re-assert control or some semblance of control by habitually “doing what ‘I’ do”.
.
.