Kuba: Hi Vineeto,
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 :
Vineeto: 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.
Kuba: 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”.
Hi Kuba,
I appreciate your clarification and I am glad that you are confident to genuinely experience pure intent.
My suggestion simply derived from there hardly being any caring for your fellow human beings in your last post, let alone any sign of altruistic intent for the benefit of every body, and I couldn’t understand this lack whilst pure intent is operating.
Perhaps you know?
Kuba: Now I will contrast the above description with Srinath’s 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! (link)
I appreciate your elucidating explanation how the word “purity” instead of “pure intent” has temporarily derailed your practice and possibly that of others. Perhaps it’s time that a moderator puts a visible warning notice on “Simple Actualism” or at least on the specific misleading articles. I never read them.
Yes I will consider this deeply along with the rest of the suggestions in your previous post. Just before I head off to work I wanted to clarify the below :
Vineeto: 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)?
So the last bit of that page (the theory of mind link) reads as below :
To comprehend the importance of ‘theory of mind’, one only has to consider the task the ‘artificial intelligence’ theorists face in building a computerised model that would communicate like a human: they have to consider what kind of thoughts such a machine would have to be capable of to interact meaningfully with humans and how these kinds of thoughts could be modelled … let alone inputting feelings.
Incidentally, it is considered that autism (and/or Asperger’s Syndrome) is best characterised as ‘mind-blindness’; in other words, autistic individuals generally lack a ‘theory of mind’
So were you referring to the bit about the AI or the autism/asperfer’s syndrome? Or something else altogether? Now I am thinking I am not able to genuinely care enough for others because I have autism Sonya did say she reckons I am a little special although I certainly seem to have a functioning theory of mind.
Richard: Incidentally, it is considered that autism (and/or Asperger’s Syndrome) is best characterised as ‘mind-blindness’; in other words, autistic individuals generally lack a ‘theory of mind’.
Kuba: So were you referring to the bit about the AI or the autism/asperger’s syndrome? Or something else altogether? Now I am thinking I am not able to genuinely care enough for others because I have autism Sonya did say she reckons I am a little special although I certainly seem to have a functioning theory of mind.
Hi Kuba,
I don’t consider you having autism in the medical definition of the word, but perhaps a tendency to be less interested in how people you are not personally connected to are experiencing life in the ‘real’ world. Of course, I am aware that you have a “functioning theory of mind”.
I was pointing to the last paragraph of the article because it might explain to you if/that socializing and caring about the plight of others is a bit more ‘unnatural’ to you and therefore might need specific attentiveness and initialisation from your side more than for others. I am aware, experientially, that it can vary from person to person, and Sonya’s comment you being “a little special” seemed a possible explanation that caring and being able to put yourself in others’ shoes is not as natural and easy as it may be for others.
Well as you wrote your reply just now Vineeto, I also typed out the below, so perhaps there is something there :
But when I consider why ‘I’ am not automatically a liker of my fellow human beings, why this is not ‘my’ predisposition as a persona. It seems because ‘I’ am scared of them? I remember as a young child I could not readily establish relationships in the way that other kids did. I would have some very close friends but somehow I could not readily interact and bond like the other kids did. It’s like I could see what they were doing but I couldn’t quite do it like them, I was able to copy and go along with these ways of bonding but it was something that I had to consciously work on and this took effort - hence ultimately I preferred to stay away.
It’s like I could play the game of being normal but I never intuitively felt to be normal, I didn’t believe it.
Thank you for your replies Vineeto, time to digest it all.
Ps yes I understand you are not hinting at me having autism in a medical sense but perhaps a predisposition that is slightly away from the normal.
Kuba: Well as you wrote your reply just now Vineeto, I also typed out the below, so perhaps there is something there :
But when I consider why ‘I’ am not automatically a liker of my fellow human beings, why this is not ‘my’ predisposition as a persona. It seems because ‘I’ am scared of them? I remember as a young child I could not readily establish relationships in the way that other kids did. I would have some very close friends but somehow I could not readily interact and bond like the other kids did. It’s like I could see what they were doing but I couldn’t quite do it like them, I was able to copy and go along with these ways of bonding but it was something that I had to consciously work on and this took effort – hence ultimately I preferred to stay away.
It’s like I could play the game of being normal but I never intuitively felt to be normal, I didn’t believe it. (link)
Hi Kuba,
I appreciate your explanation how you felt/feel. It may well have been beneficial that you didn’t fall into the all-to-common trap of universal sorrow and then universal compassion. Now, for your aim of developing the altruistic impulse for self-immolation you can address the initial fear of having been unable to “bond like the other kids did” and move straight to daring to genuinely care (without emotional bonding).
Kuba: Thank you for your replies Vineeto, time to digest it all.
Ps yes I understand you are not hinting at me having autism in a medical sense but perhaps a predisposition that is slightly away from the normal.
I am pleased you understand and am confident you can make use of it.
Well what I can see now is that to cut a long story short ‘I’ have been aiming at the wrong target. Essentially those attempts at self-immolation were not aimed at benefitting flesh and blood bodies, they were aimed at the various inhabitants of reality. Driving home just now I lol’ed to myself as I remembered the instructions - Allow ‘my’ self-immolation for the benefit of this body, that body and every body.
It makes sense that no matter how hard ‘I’ ran or how frantically ‘I’ searched it was always another invisible wall. ‘I’ cannot sacrifice ‘myself’ altruistically unless there is a genuine target. The genuine target is those factually existing flesh and blood humans ie my fellow human beings.
What I realised today very quickly is that I was never afraid of my fellow human beings either, it was the identities that I was afraid of, that I resented etc But it doesn’t matter now whether I can ever bond in a normal way with other identities, because they are not the target of all this.
I remember in the Q and A’s from Australia there was a quote utilised - “Give to me a fulcrum on which to plant my lever, and I will move the world”. I understand this now because before it was as if the energy which kept ‘me’ in place would not budge even if ‘I’ pushed as hard as ‘I’ possibly could - of course because who is doing the pushing and who is being pushed
Whereas this genuine target, something outside of ‘me’ is what makes it possible. And with seeing the above it sunk in deeply just what happens, in that ‘I’ do indeed sacrifice ‘myself’, it is exactly what it says on the tin.
So it seems now ‘I’ have seen that there is a cliff edge, ‘I’ haven’t jumped yet though. And this is really big, it is the end for ‘me’ which means only genuine altruism will do, in that ‘I’ will sacrifice all of ‘myself’ to benefit something outside of ‘myself’.
This “really big” aspect it is not fearful but it is more like what Srinath wrote :
I would need to truly die. The enormity of this dawned on me suddenly like it never had before. The enormity of what I had to give up. It took my breath away
I can understand what Geoffrey said to Claudiu in that it is not “kid business”, neither is it serious though… but it is very very sincere
Vineeto: 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? (link)
Kuba: Well what I can see now is that to cut a long story short ‘I’ have been aiming at the wrong target. Essentially those attempts at self-immolation were not aimed at benefitting flesh and blood bodies, they were aimed at the various inhabitants of reality. Driving home just now I lol’ed to myself as I remembered the instructions – allow ‘my’ self-immolation for the benefit of this body, that body and every body.
It makes sense that no matter how hard ‘I’ ran or how frantically ‘I’ searched it was always another invisible wall. ‘I’ cannot sacrifice ‘myself’ altruistically unless there is a genuine target. The genuine target is those factually existing flesh and blood humans i.e. my fellow human beings.
Hi Kuba,
It’s amazing how often ‘I’ manage to deceive ‘myself’, but even more amazing how one can get back on track with attentiveness and refocusing on pure intent and its apperceptive penetrating insight(s).
Kuba: What I realised today very quickly is that I was never afraid of my fellow human beings either, it was the identities that I was afraid of, that I resented etc But it doesn’t matter now whether I can ever bond in a normal way with other identities, because they are not the target of all this.
That is a is a wonderful realisation how to use your propensity and intelligence.
However, being passionate identities, your fellow human being need your altruistic offering and the eventually emerging of personalized pure intent to have demonstrated what is possible. Just look how often you refer to the few actually free people for guidance and encouragement for your own endeavour to become free.
Kuba: I remember in the Q and A’s from Australia there was a quote utilised – “Give to me a fulcrum on which to plant my lever, and I will move the world”. I understand this now because before it was as if the energy which kept ‘me’ in place would not budge even if ‘I’ pushed as hard as ‘I’ possibly could – of course because who is doing the pushing and who is being pushed.
I always liked that Archimedes’ quote and ‘Vineeto’ thought it was for ‘her’ a perfect expression how to escape from the human condition. The fulcrum being pure intent, of course, outside of ‘me’. The ‘who’ is doing the “pushing” and is “being pushed” is one and the same. As you said yesterday –
Kuba:What I am experiencing this evening is that the “enticement” which pure intent offers is irresistible, it makes all ‘my’ heroic efforts unnecessary. [Emphasis added]. (link)
Kuba: Whereas this genuine target, something outside of ‘me’ is what makes it possible. And with seeing the above it sunk in deeply just what happens, in that ‘I’ do indeed sacrifice ‘myself’, it is exactly what it says on the tin.
So it seems now ‘I’ have seen that there is a cliff edge, ‘I’ haven’t jumped yet though. And this is really big, it is the end for ‘me’ which means only genuine altruism will do, in that ‘I’ will sacrifice all of ‘myself’ to benefit something outside of ‘myself’.
This “really big” aspect it is not fearful but it is more like what Srinath wrote :
I would need to truly die. The enormity of this dawned on me suddenly like it never had before. The enormity of what I had to give up. It took my breath away (link)
I can understand what Geoffrey said to Claudiu in that it is not “kid business”, neither is it serious though… but it is very, very sincere. (link)
This is marvellous to read and what a remarkable difference to you previously thinking/saying “well those suffering others could clean themselves up” (link) ! And now you know that what is written “on the tin” (hehe) is spot on.
Kuba; 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 […] being out from control is not a leisurely club to hang out in […] what it means to be out from control is the very antithesis of having such a static plateau to hang out on […] 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. […] (link)
Claudiu: 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?
Kuba: I banished myself from remaining where it is so magical for no good reason at all, and hence I entered a “parenthesis period” that lasted months! (link)
(snip) (link)
Hi Claudiu,
After giving it some deliberation, I decided to comment on the whole topic.
One reason is that I encouraged both yourself and Kuba to collect messages from the forum that appeared to fit the description of being out from control for publishing it on the AFT website, when it eventually turned out that this might not be the case.
The other reason is that I take the words my correspondents write at face value and therefore can only go by what they write, and not what they live day-to-day, when Claudiu’s visit to Geoffrey provided a more complete experience –
Claudiu: 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.
The last but not least reason is that I will have to be more careful in my writing that I better not encourage people to adopt the label of being out-from-control according to what they write, so that time (a person’s and other readers’ most valuable asset) may not be frittered away by believing that they only have to “chill” and wait for the actualism process to complete by itself when this is not yet the case.
For additional help in the action of determining your own situation I have collected some unambiguous quotes from Richard and one from myself from Richard’s selected correspondence (Richard, Selected Correspondence, Dynamic Virtual Freedom) –
Respondent: Can you determine whether someone is living a virtual freedom … Richard: It is entirely up to the person concerned to determine how they are experiencing this moment of being alive each moment again … if another wishes to fool me, by reporting something which is not the situation then, when all is said and done, they only end up fooling themselves (when I go to bed at night I have had a perfect day and upon waking another perfect day is presenting itself). (Richard, AF List, No. 25a, 15 Jun 2003)
Respondent: However, I think, I am beginning to understand pulling back/ turning away: it is like crossing a Rubicon, an experience of it can be physically felt as an empty space/ throbbing right under the belly (the uterus contracting). But of course, the person in question may be able to corroborate on this much more. Richard: (…). But you are correct – it is indeed like crossing ‘a boundary, a limit; esp. one which once crossed betokens irrevocable commitment; a point of no return’(Oxford Dictionary) – and it is only upon such a crossing that the actualism process, as distinct from the actualism method[1], can start whereupon an inevitability thus set in motion begins to gather a momentum all of its own accord.
Then one is on the ride of a lifetime! [Emphases added]. (Richard, List D, No. 6, 16 Nov 2009)
Richard: There is a distinct difference betwixt the actualism method and the actualism process – inasmuch the former is voluntary, or still-in-control, and the latter is involuntary, or out-from-control – to the degree that any comparison is akin to chalk and cheese in regards effect). [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, No. 7, 10 Dec 2009)
Richard: An obvious out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom is an on-going excellence experience (EE) but an on-going intimacy experience (IE) may very well be the most likely state as an EE, being so close to a PCE as to be barely distinguishable … [emphases added]. (List D, No. 12, 9 Dec 2009). (See Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 28 Jan 2016).
Vineeto: My period of being out-from-control started when I (metaphorically speaking) traversed the ‘wall of fear’, described by Richard as ‘a fear so vast as to best be called dread’ occurring at the ‘utter imminence’ at the gate to an actual freedom. (see first pop-up footnote). Richard described it this way in a private email about me –
Richard: ‘Vineeto, who is now fully out-from-control/ in a fully different-way-of-being, and thus on my side of that enormous wall of fear completely encircling all of humankind, …’ (24.12.2009)
During this period, which for me personally lasted about four-and-a-half weeks before it culminated in the final event on January 5, 2010, I experienced an ever-increasing pull to move forward into what I clearly and unambiguously recognized as my destiny – an irrevocable freedom from the human condition. It set in motion a process that was to undo all of my remaining bonds to humanity, my residue of inhibitions, my last hesitations and any and all lingering doubts. Having finally arrived at being out-from-control, living the ‘beer’ rather than being the ‘doer’, filled me with a previously unknown confidence and certainty that ‘my’ redemption was indeed nigh. [emphases added]. (Direct Route, James, 16 Jan 2010).
That all makes sense, I just want to address this quote you included:
There is an implication here (maybe unintended) that I was fooling you (and others) by “reporting something which is not the situation”, and I want to affirm that this is not what happened.
Here was my initial report which you accepted as concrete evidence that I was now living an out-from-control virtual freedom:
There actually not much in the way of descriptive experiential detail there, other than “that agency is now in the hands of the universe and not of ‘me’ anymore”. A lot of stuff could be experienced to be that way though, of course, especially as a (temporary) excellence experience also entails that “out-from-control” aspect (link).
Here’s what I wrote the very next day to you (emphasis added):
So here I am accurately relaying my experience, which is evidently one that is full of fear, and asking you (someone who experientially knows better than me) if it still lines up with living an out-from-control virtual freedom?
From the quotes you provided just now it certainly doesn’t seem like the person writing this report is on the other side of “that enormous wall of fear”, but rather, hasn’t traversed it yet? And how is such large quantities of fears to be squared with “being so close to a PCE as to be barely distinguishable” …?
In any case your response was that “you are not like you used to be and the brain itself, not just the feelings, needs to rearrange itself to accommodate to the new way of being in accord with your realisation that you are not actually in control anyway” and that it’s “a big shift”, i.e. confirming that what I wrote continues to qualify as being living an out-from-control virtual freedom. (link)
You also gave advice to “allow what is happening without letting yourself slip back to the old familiar ways”, which is interesting in comparison to Richard’s quotes here where he writes as an "irrevocable commitment" and “a point of no return” and “an inevitability thus set in motion” which would indicate it isn’t really a consideration anymore that one has to not let oneself slip back.
I was always very clear about my continuing doubts, I wrote this on July 1 (emphasis added): “The main doubt I have about whether what I am experiencing can be called out-from-control virtual freedom is due to the following: […] That is, I wouldn’t say I am consistently feeling excellent per se, as I have been feeling much fear which is not pleasant by the nature of what fear is.”
I even wrote how it ended on July 9th: “Tuesday (July 9th) while falling asleep, I experienced an oddity […] as I went throughout the day, it seemed that the magicality wasn’t consistently there any longer. I’ve become increasingly sure that this is the case, and the best I can do is pin-point it to that weird July 9th shift-like feeling while falling asleep Tuesday.” (link) and started again 8 days later: “On July 17th, at some time during the day, I noticed that the new way of being out-from-control was happening again. It has been consistent since then, just like before :)” (link)
I even wrote how then, later, on July 29th I experienced “a bit of a speed bump” (link) which on August 8th I clarified “has turned out to be more of a derailment […] during which I have certainly gotten to the low levels of feeling bad and terrible and upset” (link) and on August 18th I wrote to you how “I have not been able to get back to out-from-control” (link)… which you later on September 3rd affirmed “I would still classify you as being out-from-control for the whole time” (link) despite these frequent gaps.
So if (part of) the conclusion is that I have somehow fooled you (and others) by writing inaccurate reports, then I demur, this is not what happened.
As to what did happen: well, it’s tricky. You were well aware of all these quotes and what it was like for ‘Vineeto’ and others to be living an out-from-control virtual freedom and how Richard described it, yet when you read what I wrote, you did not see it as being disqualifying. This means there is something to it that is more than just what is in those quotes, since if we just do a straightforward textual comparison it’s clearly not the same thing.
But then again… it’s “irrevocable”/“an inevitability thus set in motion”? Ok but Devika lived it for 13 months (link) and then she revoked it, this didn’t disqualify her 13-month period. It is “so close to a PCE as to be barely distinguishable”? Ok but ‘Vineeto’ had an out-of-control panic period, this didn’t disqualify ‘her’ virtual freedom… and was the entirety of Devika’s 13 months really nearly indistinguishable from a PCE? (Maybe, I don’t know). Geoffrey told me he experienced it as a “constant acceleration”, but he later clarified he doesn’t consider adding this as part of the definition that Richard uses, since it seemed like Devika didn’t experience it that way for her 13-months.
So… what is it, what is an out-from-control virtual freedom? I don’t entirely know. The actual, strictly speaking, ultimately distinguishing “critical criterion” as far as I can tell comes down to what I wrote earlier:
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” [link]
In other words, the ‘dynamic’ aspect.
It makes sense with this being the genuine distinguishing factor that all what I wrote wasn’t disqualifying. Because one could (I presume) be being the ‘beer’ with ‘doer’ abeyant and experiencing all those emotions, feelings, and doubts (which are nevertheless very distinguishable from a PCE) meanwhile still being in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent being dynamically operative (just as ‘Vineeto’ was during ‘her’ out-of-control panic period within ‘her’ out-from-control virtual freedom period).
As far as I can tell, the ultimate test of whether one was virtually free or not may very well be whether the feeling-being experiencing it then self-immolated. Then we can look in hindsight and say, indeed, they were (although this did not disqualify Devika so it’s not just this).
As to what did change for me on that plane ride on June 23, 2024 (link)… something certainly did, but I don’t know how best to characterize it, exactly. I would not put it in the same bucket as “out-from-control virtual freedom” just to not water down the term.
What I will re-affirm and maintain is that it has been markedly easier ever since then to allow the controls to be let go of / to allow pure intent to be more dynamically operative / to get back to feeling good when not feeling good / to become more naive when not naive, etc. All of it is much easier and it most of the time boils down to just seeing/agreeing with myself that I want to do it, and then it happens. Part of what it entails is that it’s a lot easier to have EEs and IEs.
But it’s certainly not been an ongoing excellence experience by the genuine high bar that such an experience would entail. And it is certainly clear that explicitly and consciously aligning myself in the direction towards extinction, towards blessed oblivion, and reflecting on and contemplating the genuine benefit this will bring this body, and that body, and other body, brings me closer to allowing that last step of self-immolation to happen. Discovering that I was trying to put myself into actuality, was a big boost, as that was a big blocker to allowing me to fully appreciate just the thoroughness and totality of my extinction that it will entail.
So we could try to come up with something to name how I am now, or say well maybe it’s like somewhat or partly giving up of the controls but not fully, or this or that… but… rather than try to piece it together or name it or this or that, I will just self-immolate, and cheerfully manumit this body, and then this body continuing to be conscious can figure it out if he so chooses . In other words it is no longer my problem hahahaha. But maybe we should remove the link from the AFT site page lol. We can keep the pages themselves up without anything linking to it, if we ever do decide to call it something else later or whatever.
Also just wanted to add that the funniest thing about this all is, when being naive, that it “doesn’t really matter” what transpired. Like there’s no moral weight or blame or “something done wrong” on any side of anyone. It was well-intentioned people doing their best with given information at the time, to navigate and attempt to label experiential ways of being, which can certainly be tricky. And there is no lasting harm or anything that has been done… ultimately it’s up to me anyway to self-immolate, I had already grown suss for a few months and recognized something more was needed, visiting Geoffrey helped me see what I think the main blocker was (trying to put myself into actuality), and now that I have been able to properly contemplate and reflect on just what my total extinction means and entails, I am having a blast and experiencing myself as having gotten to further ‘reaches’ than I ever have before. So all is, in the final analysis, going just fine really
Claudiu: Hi Vineeto,
That all makes sense, I just want to address this quote you included:
Vineeto: Respondent: Can you determine whether someone is living a virtual freedom … Richard: It is entirely up to the person concerned to determine how they are experiencing this moment of being alive each moment again … if another wishes to fool me, by reporting something which is not the situation then, when all is said and done, they only end up fooling themselves (when I go to bed at night I have had a perfect day and upon waking another perfect day is presenting itself). (Richard, AF List, No. 25a, 15 Jun 2003)
Claudiu: There is an implication here (maybe unintended) that I was fooling you (and others) by “reporting something which is not the situation”, and I want to affirm that this is not what happened. (snip). (link)
Hi Claudiu,
Before you continue with your response to your own “implication”, which you already classified as “perhaps unintended”, let me tell you there was no implication when I sent off the message. It must have crept in when you read it.
The intentioned reason I included this quote was because of the first sentence –
Richard: “It is entirely up to the person concerned to determine how they are experiencing this moment of being alive each moment again …”
That means I will be refraining from labelling who is at what stage in the actualism progression, and I have already taken responsibility when I gave my reasons for providing the quotes in the message you are replying to (which you said makes sense to you) –
Vineeto: After giving it some deliberation, I decided to comment on the whole topic.
One reason is that I encouraged both yourself and Kuba to collect messages from the forum that appeared to fit the description of being out from control for publishing it on the AFT website, when it eventually turned out that this might not be the case.
The other reason is that I take the words my correspondents write at face value and therefore can only go by what they write, and not what they live day-to-day, when Claudiu’s visit to Geoffrey provided a more complete experience – (…)
The last but not least reason is that I will have to be more careful in my writing that I better not encourage people to adopt the label of being out-from-control according to what they write, so that time (a person’s and other readers’ most valuable asset) may not be frittered away by believing that they only have to “chill” and wait for the actualism process to complete by itself when this is not yet the case. [Emphases added]. (link)
The comment is my hindsight and what I will be doing different in future. We are all pioneers in this business of bringing about peace on earth.
Where in that introduction did I say that you were “fooling” me? It is up to you to determine that.
Let me put it in a different way – to explain why Richard wrote the second part of the above quote – the whole process of actualism includes finding out about one’s emotional/ passional habitual thinking and (at times passionate) feeling which encompasses finding out about one’s beliefs, morals and ethics inculcated from birth onwards, which prevent enjoying and appreciating being alive.
Each time you are able to replace a belief/ truth with a fact you recognize you have been fooled and as such been fooling yourself. The same applies to any other social identity issue you have inadvertently swallowed hook, line and sinker, when you eventually find out that they make no sense when compared to the sincere intent of imitating the actual.
Your visit to Geoffrey enabled you to find out the fact that his being out-from-control doesn’t match your own belief of being out-from-control –
Claudiu: 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. (link)
And –
Claudiu: But this has got me all looking around, now that I’m confident I am not out-from-control in the way Geoffrey was at the end … (link)
So you were able to replace your previous belief with the newly discovered fact.
Now why you want to go back discussing what happened a year ago (June 23, 2024 and June 24, 2024) to justify anything that was happening then, and then have me “imply” that you were or were not “fooling” me, is anyone’s guess. For what purpose? Why not appreciate that a new fact has come to light which makes the previous belief obsolete?
I am reminded of a quote from Richard (he always said it better than I ever can) –
Richard: A fact is patent, obvious, apparent, evident, tangible, palpable, substantial, tactile, verifiable and indisputable. The marvellous thing about a fact is that one can not argue with it. One can argue about a belief, an opinion, a theory, an ideal and so on … but a fact: never. One can deny a fact – pretend that it is not there – but once seen, a fact brings freedom from choice and decision. Most people think and feel that choice implies freedom – having the freedom to choose – but this is not the case. Freedom lies in seeing the obvious, and in seeing the obvious there is no choice, no deliberation, no agonising over the ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ judgment. In the freedom of seeing the fact there is only action, and that action is the movement into perfection. (Richard, List A, No. 14, #No.09)
Besides, your additional message confirms what I just said – why not appreciate that a new fact has come to light which resultant action makes the previous belief obsolete? As a guess, the qualifier “when being naïve” is the clue.
Claudiu: Also just wanted to add that the funniest thing about this all is, when being naive, that it “doesn’t really matter” what transpired. Like there’s no moral weight or blame or “something done wrong” on any side of anyone. It was well-intentioned people doing their best with given information at the time, to navigate and attempt to label experiential ways of being, which can certainly be tricky. And there is no lasting harm or anything that has been done… ultimately it’s up to me anyway to self-immolate, I had already grown suss for a few months and recognized something more was needed, visiting Geoffrey helped me see what I think the main blocker was (trying to put myself into actuality), and now that I have been able to properly contemplate and reflect on just what my total extinction means and entails, I am having a blast and experiencing myself as having gotten to further ‘reaches’ than I ever have before. So all is, in the final analysis, going just fine really. (link)
Regarding your question what to do with the out-from-control reports of yourself and Kuba we can sort this out in a private email.
That’s good to hear – it was the combination of you writing how you “can only go by what [your correspondents] write” and that you provided some quotes “for additional help in the action of determining [my] own situation” and that the first quote contained Richard saying “if another wishes to fool me, by reporting something which is not the situation then […] they only end up fooling themselves” that led me to read in an implication which was not actually there.
Everything is clear now and I don’t disagree with anything you wrote. Indeed we are all pioneers here, part of the motivation for me self-immolating now is that it will make it easier for those who follow.
So things are going swimmingly , naivete is blossoming more and more. It is such an immediately rewarding way of being alive. It is worth every penny by itself and then there is more! Initially it is the ‘doer’ that steps back and then ‘I’ am ‘being’ ‘my’ way through life, this is already wonderful, but then there is the perfection and purity just “underneath” that, in that direction there is no longer a ‘me’ at all, instead I am the doing of what is happening and only pristine purity and perfection abounds. It’s quite incredible how the better gets bester and then there is still actual perfection and purity to be found.
It has been such a rewarding endeavour to discover how to be naive more and more, and I can tell there is still more to go. Because this naivete is still something that ‘I’ can try on for size and later put it back, there is still a more ‘normal’ ‘me’ to revert back to. But the more I experience naivete the more I simply wish to be alive in this manner.
When I contemplate what it could be like if this way of ‘being’ was simply ‘my’ default, with no ‘normal’ to revert back to - it blows ‘my’ socks off! For then there would be only 1 direction left to travel - only deeper and deeper into that wonderland, and it seems in that direction there is just no cap to the wonder and delight which is possible.
So I understand now what Richard meant about craft becoming art with regards to the actualism method and the actualism process. In that it is when happiness and harmlessness becomes “taken for grated”, as in it is something that happens of itself without any vigilance - it becomes a default way of life. From that place ‘I’ simply expect to be experiencing this moment of being alive happily and harmlessly, and then the controls can be loosened, then ‘I’ go into gay abandon.
It is a very wonderful realisation, to notice that not only can ‘I’ expect a further happiness and harmlessness as a fundamental modus operandi but also that ‘I’ am no longer required for it to happen, or to maintain it.
It is that very realisation of no longer being needed and yet for happiness and harmlessness to be a guarantee, this takes things into that “bester” place. It always has that flavour of a “blessed release”.
So this “blessed release” of going into gay abandon is already so wonderful, ‘my’ blessed release into oblivion must be a blaze of glory indeed.
Kuba: So things are going swimmingly, naivete is blossoming more and more. It is such an immediately rewarding way of being alive. It is worth every penny by itself and then there is more! Initially it is the ‘doer’ that steps back and then ‘I’ am ‘being’ ‘my’ way through life, this is already wonderful, but then there is the perfection and purity just “underneath” that, in that direction there is no longer a ‘me’ at all, instead I am the doing of what is happening and only pristine purity and perfection abounds. It’s quite incredible how the better gets bester and then there is still actual perfection and purity to be found.
It has been such a rewarding endeavour to discover how to be naive more and more, and I can tell there is still more to go. Because this naivete is still something that ‘I’ can try on for size and later put it back, there is still a more ‘normal’ ‘me’ to revert back to. But the more I experience naiveté the more I simply wish to be alive in this manner.
When I contemplate what it could be like if this way of ‘being’ was simply ‘my’ default, with no ‘normal’ to revert back to – it blows ‘my’ socks off! For then there would be only 1 direction left to travel – only deeper and deeper into that wonderland, and it seems in that direction there is just no cap to the wonder and delight which is possible. (link)
Hi Kuba,
You described living with/in naiveté in such a delightful way, and are even anticipating the prospect of having “only 1 direction left to travel” with no negative side effects in sight – so what is it that is preventing you from proceeding?
Is it the irrevocability of an actual freedom once it occurred?
Have you ever heard from an actually free person who wanted to revert back to ‘normal’?
Alexander: What is meant by “ascendant beer”? (link)
Hi Alexander,
As a short summary – in an excellence experience (EE) or intimacy experience (IE) the sophisticated doer (controller) is abeyant and the naïve beer is ascendant. The more you dare to be naïve the more the naïve beer (with pure intent) can come forward.
Even though it is best to understand it experientially, when you feel like a child again but with adult sensibilities, I have collected a few of Richard’s quotes for you to theoretically understand more of what the “ascendant beer” refers to –
Richard: To explain further: when out-from-control – out from being under control of the ‘controller’; that self-centred/ self-centric ‘doer’ (i.e., the ‘doer’ of deeds; the ‘actor’ of acts; the ‘speaker’ of words; the ‘thinker’ of thoughts; the ‘feeler’ of feelings) – the primary impetus of agency is the benevolence and benignity of pure intent being dynamically operative via the full concurrence of the ‘beer’ of those deeds, acts, words, thoughts, feelings (i.e., being the experiencing of same, as a state-of-being, as opposed to doing them).
And the words “primary impetus of agency” (‘impetus’ as in, “being dynamically operative”, that is) are used advisedly as, with the ‘doer’ abeyant and the ‘beer’ ascendant, the modus operandi of this mutual agency is indeterminable due to an incapacity to distinguish between the one and the other.
I have written about this quite extraordinary state of affairs before (albeit expressed as “unable to distinguish between ‘me’ doing it and it happening to ‘me’” due to those words of mine being read/ heard by a ‘doer’ and not a ‘beer’).
Viz.:
• [Richard]: “… one has to want it like one has never wanted anything else before … so much so that all the instinctual passionate energy of desire, normally frittered away on petty desires, is fuelling and impelling/ propelling one into this thing and this thing only (‘impelling’ as in a pulling from the front and ‘propelling’ as in being pushed from behind). There is a ‘must’ to it (one must do it/ it must happen) and a ‘will’ to it (one will do it/ it will happen) and one is both driven and drawn until there is an inevitability that sets in.
Now it is unstoppable and all the above ceases of its own accord … one is unable to distinguish between ‘me’ doing it and it happening to ‘me’.
One has escaped one’s fate and achieved one’s destiny”. [emphases added]. (Richard, AF List, Rick, 4 Jan 2006)
–
Richard: Lastly, because the terms ‘doer’ and ‘beer’ are utilised in religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical literature to refer to ‘ego’ and ‘soul’, respectively, it is apposite to point out here that those terms are not being used thataway when referring to the doer being abeyant, and the beer ascendant, in either a near-PCE – else IE’s and EE’s would instead be ASC’s (i.e., egoless) and thus not near-PCE’s – or when in an out-from-control virtual freedom. (Richard, List D, Srinath2, #out-from-control)
–
Richard: The gradations of ‘her’ [Grace’s] scale were, basically, good, very good, great, excellent, and perfect – whereby, in regards to intimacy, ‘good’ related to togetherness (which pertains to being and acting in concert with another);
‘very good’ related to closeness (where personal boundaries expand to include the other);
‘great’ related to sweetness (delighting in the pervasive proximity, or immanence, of the other);
‘excellent’ related to richness (a near-absence of agency; with the [sophisticated] doer abeyant, and the [naïve] beer ascendant, being the experiencing is inherently cornucopian);
and ‘perfect’ related to magicality (neither beer nor doer extant; pristine purity abounds and immaculate perfection prevails, a.k.a. an excellence experience) – all of which correlate to the range of naïveness from being sincere to becoming naïve and all the way through being naïveté itself to an actual innocence. (regarding “being naïveté itself” see A Quaint Clay-Pit Tale, last tooltip). (Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 28 Jan 2016)
(…)
Richard: In other words, just as it is possible for someone whose manner of living/ way of life is yet to have feeling good (i.e., a general feeling of well-being) established as a bottom-line of on-going experiencing, come-what-may, to have either an EE or IE (wherein the doer is abeyant and the beer ascendant), be they spontaneous or induced, from time-to-time – just as they can have a PCE itself (where identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty is abeyant) – so too can a person yet to be able to describe their modus vivendi as either “feeling as happy and harmless (as free of sorrow and malice) as is humanly possible” or “feeling excellent/ perfect for 99% of the time” such as to be designated “a pragmatic, methodological virtual freedom” (a.k.a. “a still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom”).
Indeed, anyone at all can have an IE or an EE – or even a PCE – at any time in their life (albeit totally ignorant of any such nomenclature and what they actually signify).
What sets the ongoing near-PCE known as “a dynamic, destinal virtual freedom” apart from ever other way of life/ manner of living is, as is expressed in that paragraph, by 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 – such as to be pulling one evermore unto one’s destiny.
And here is why the actualism process is imperative:
• [Richard]: “(…) the out-from-control/ different-way-of-being term, in actualism lingo, specifically refers to the actualism process superseding the actualism method – meaning the controlling doer is abeyant (hence: ‘out-from-control’) and a naïve beer is ascendant (hence: ‘different-way-of-being’) – whereby the benignity and benevolence of pure intent increasingly renders the otherwise essential societal moeurs (a.k.a. ‘mores’) redundant, whilst simultaneously precluding anomie [a.k.a. ‘lawlessness’] …”. (Richard, List D, Andrew, 28 Feb 2016).
RICHARD: The vital distinction is the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to infinitude – which has nothing to do with any affective felicity and innocuity – being dynamically operative due to the cheerful and thus willing concurrence of the beer.
For instance (from 2005):
• [Richard]: “The actualism method is not about undermining the passions … on the contrary, it is about directing all of that affective energy into being the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (that is, ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, which is ‘being’ itself) in order to effect a deliberate imitation of the actual, as evidenced in a PCE, so as to feel as happy and as harmless (as free of malice and sorrow) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’.
Such imitative felicity/ innocuity, in conjunction with sensuosity, readily evokes amazement, marvel, and delight – a state of wide-eyed wonder best expressed by the word naiveté (the nearest a ‘self’ can come to innocence whilst being a ‘self’) – and which allows the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to the infinitude, which this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is, to operate more and more freely. This intrinsic benignity and benevolence, which has nothing to do with the imitative affective happiness and harmlessness, will do the rest.
All that was required was ‘my’ cheerful, and thus willing, concurrence. [emphasis added]. (Richard, AF List, No. 60f, 29 Sep 2005).
The pragmatic approach is to be ruthlessly honest with yourself, utterly sincere, and thus allow your hidden-since-puberty naiveté to come to the fore.
Yes this glimpse of what it would be like to only have 1 direction left to travel it happened yesterday and it reminded me of a writing from Richard where he compared a PCE to an experience where one travels deeper and deeper into a rainforest, until one comes across this “hushed stillness”. So this is how I saw it, as if I would walk deeper and deeper into that wonderland until the way back to ‘reality’ is lost and there ‘I’ would loose ‘myself’ too. It was very very wonderful and I realise this is what I deeply desire.
What I found most desirable about it for ‘me’ as ‘I’ am now is this aspect of having lost ‘my’ way back to ‘reality’. That it would be out of ‘my’ hands as there would be nowhere left to travel back to, only deeper into the wonderland.
I went on a wonderful drive just now to buy some steamed buns for dinner later as Sonya’s parents are visiting. I had this question running and it seems I couldn’t come up with any answer, rather the more I contemplated it the more wonderful the world around became, and there was this aspect of a “hushed stillness” that was as if just on the outside of ‘my’ periphery.
So as ‘I’ am now ‘I’ want to loose ‘my’ way back to ‘reality’. I have been discovering how to remain naive more and more and now I want to discover how to forget ‘my’ way back to ‘reality’ altogether.
Initially it almost seemed like a “naughty thing” to be doing, to proceed into the wonderland whilst everyone else is ‘back there’ - but I don’t think this is the reason.
Then I considered whether it is the fear of ‘my’ death, I do notice that often what pushes me out of naive enjoyment and appreciation is something to the effect of what Richard called - grasping at redemptive straws - but I am not sure about that one either.
Hmm actually I wonder if it is this one, I am still worried about what those other identities will make of where I am proceeding. Like I can just hear those identities chattering “what a fool” all the while I am lost in the wonderland.
But at the same time I do remember what I discovered recently, that those identities are not the target of all this, it is the flesh and blood bodies that all this is for.
It seems perhaps ‘I’ am yet to abandon ‘humanity’, to not only be an utter fool in their eyes but also a complete deserter, and to proceed anyway. Because once ‘I’ am lost in that wonderland, with no way back to ‘reality” then ‘I’ am completely and utterly on ‘my’ own.
This being on my own I am not afraid of because in that wonderland there is the perfection and purity with me all the way. It is more that by virtue of even daring to enter the wonderland I am going against the whole thrust of ‘humanity’, every step taken transgresses some rule in ‘reality’. How could I speak to another when we are as if speaking from different worlds?
I realise this is what you are doing right now as you converse with us Vineeto
Sonya did say she reckons I am a little special although I certainly seem to have a functioning theory of mind.
. In other words it is no longer my problem hahahaha. But maybe we should remove the link from the AFT site page lol. We can keep the pages themselves up without anything linking to it, if we ever do decide to call it something else later or whatever.
, naivete is blossoming more and more. It is such an immediately rewarding way of being alive. It is worth every penny by itself and then there is more! Initially it is the ‘doer’ that steps back and then ‘I’ am ‘being’ ‘my’ way through life, this is already wonderful, but then there is the perfection and purity just “underneath” that, in that direction there is no longer a ‘me’ at all, instead I am the doing of what is happening and only pristine purity and perfection abounds. It’s quite incredible how the better gets bester and then there is still actual perfection and purity to be found.