Thank you for your reply Claudiu, I do appreciate your 2 cents 
. I think I do see your point, in that an active going for it is needed as opposed to a passive waiting for something to happen.
The question is just what “it” looks like, whether it’s a door or what have you 
.
“A door as big as the universe” seems to be a good target though!
Kuba: Thank you for your reply Claudiu, (link) I do appreciate your 2 cents . I think I do see your point, in that an active going for it is needed as opposed to a passive waiting for something to happen.
The question is just what “it” looks like, whether it’s a door or what have you .
“A door as big as the universe” seems to be a good target though! (link)
Hi Kuba,
The following quote might give you a hint “what “it” looks like” –
Richard: On the contrary, what is promoted and/or promulgated on the web site is enjoying and appreciating being alive/ being here each moment again – that is, despite the normal vicissitudes of life – by establishing a general feeling of well-being (a.k.a. ‘feeling good’), as a bottom line of experiencing and, thereby, all the while agreeably complying with the legal laws and observing the social protocols (i.e., the many and various customs, traditions, conventions, values, principles, morals, ethics, codes, observances, etiquettes, niceties, formalities, ceremonies, rituals, and so on, as observed in many and various ways in the many and various countries around the world).
Moreover, as a central aim in all the above is the fellowship regard of an actual intimacy[1] whereby it is impossible to not like one’s fellow human being – and given that the means to the end are no different than that end (other than affectively for the one, in the meanwhile, and actually for the other, upon the end) – then any phantasy talk about having to minimise ‘the impact on others’ is patently preposterous [back-to-front], as well, as to maximise ‘the impact on others’ is to facilitate a global spread of peace and harmony. [emphasis and italics in original]. (Richard, Selected Correspondence, Hedonism).
Footnote[1]: The fellowship regard of an actual intimacy:• [Richard]: ‘Furthermore, by being actually selfless [i.e., sans any identity whatsoever] – which means a total absence of both selfishness and its antidotal unselfishness – an actual intimacy prevails (due to an utter absence of any separative identity whatsoever); with no separation whatsoever fellowship regard is automatically the default condition (whereby it is impossible to not like one’s fellow human being); with that involuntary fellowship regard of an actual intimacy operating, come-what-may, acting in a mutually beneficial way is the status-in-quo (the complete absence of any self-centricity whichsoever ensures equity and parity be paramount)’. (Richard, List D, Jonathan2, 1 Jul 2015)
To clarify: this fellowship regard relates to both the flesh-and-blood bodies of one’s fellow human beings as well as the identity inside those feeling beings, which is generating the very suffering that an actual caring operates to bring to an end sooner rather than later. The word “suffering” is the give-away. Viz:
Richard: I like my fellow human being and prefer that their self-imposed suffering come to an end, forever, sooner rather than later”. (Richard, AF List, No. 74f, 2 Feb 2006).
I write this specifically in response to a previous post of yours on 9 August 2025 –
Kuba: So indeed it will take an immense daring sourced in a deep and abiding caring. But what I see now (and I already dipped into this a while back) is that I have been aiming at the wrong target, not a genuine target.
To cut it short I have been aiming my caring towards other identities, towards ‘humanity’. And of course this can only have the effect of keeping ‘me’ chained to ‘humanity’. ‘I’ cannot sacrifice ‘myself’ for other identities or for ‘humanity’. The target and the beneficiaries of ‘my’ supreme sacrifice are the actually existing flesh and blood bodies.
And just as well because I have always struggled to care of other identities, after-all I know how rotten ‘I’ am and how rotten ‘we’ are, how could I have this deep and abiding caring for such entities? [Emphasis added] (link)
For a start, not caring for the “rotten” identity inside your body prevents you from winning ‘him’ as an ally to agree to your voluntary and cheerful demise. Why would ‘he’ – condemned and cast aside as not worthy considering, let alone caring about – want to sacrifice himself, and joyfully recognize that ‘you’, this very ‘rotten’ identity, have a vital job to do?
The misconception in your argument, bordering on dissociation, is that caring for your fellow human beings would keep you “chained to ‘humanity’” while ignoring what ‘being naiveté’ means. (Richard, Abditorium, Innocence, Naiveté). One doesn’t become actually free by chopping bits off that one deems unworthy.
Only when I genuinely like myself (all of ‘me’), and therefore my fellow human beings, can I allow myself to being less and less self-centric/self-centred via being naiveté, and in the absence of self-centredness caring becomes more and more intimate to the point of near-actual-caring. Two examples from the Selected Correspondence on Near-Actual-Caring –
Richard: As a PCE provides an experiential understanding of what an actual caring is – and that direct experiencing is streets ahead of any of my descriptions and explanations – it is the benchmark par excellence.
As such it is the quintessential point of reference upon which all terms of reference – and especially, for example, a near-actual caring – can be reliably and confidently sourced.
In the meanwhile, I will leave you with what I wrote, much further above, about the first time feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ experienced a near-actual caring as it very effectively conveys just how extraordinary a near-actual caring is.• [Richard]: “1. When feeling-being ‘Vineeto’s everyday feeling of caring first shifted into what has since become known as a near-actual caring the qualitative difference was so marked in its effect ‘she’ initially mistook it to be an actual caring (as per ‘her’ memories of PCE’s)”.
And –
Richard: Now, as the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago was in an out-from-control virtual freedom for something like five months – although not named as such back then, of course, nor thought of in those terms – I can readily report how ‘he’ was more empathetic during that period than ‘he’ ever had been in all ‘his’ 34 years of existence. So much so, in fact, that I would be inclined to characterise a near-actual caring as an acutely-empathic caring.
This acutely-empathic characteristic of the near-actual caring which prevails in the out-from-control way of being is, by virtue of not being self-centred/ self-centric, universal in its scope. As such there is no way the (self-centred/ self-centric) professional caring depicted in that article [quote] “aligns with” [endquote] a near-actual caring as that universality itself is the very potency required to effect the universal solution to the human condition – the ‘self’-sacrificial extirpation of blind nature’s instinctual passions by the feeling-being formed thereof cheerfully and thus willingly ‘self’-immolating for the benefit of this body and that body and every body … [Emphasis added].
Does this perhaps help to allow you to see “a door as big as the universe”?
Cheers Vineeto
Hi Vineeto,
Thank you for your reply and it is very nice to hear from you 
, I’m amazed how you are able to get right to the crux of what is going on for me. I guess that is an example of the actual intimacy which is being discussed, I remember how Srinath wrote (shortly after becoming actually free) about an exquisite attunement to others. And it seems that you are able to see me in a clearer light than I can see myself.
In the text below you highlighted this particular - “observing the social protocols” :
I am not sure why you highlighted this bit in particular but it is actually very relevant to me and how it relates to something which could be classed as an acutely empathic caring. I certainly would not describe myself as naturally empathic, actually my natural disposition would be something like intellectual-distanced.
In fact I would say that there is still something like a distaste for those social protocols as well as the general ways in which feeling beings operate. Of course this is where the dissociation comes in because I am a feeling being. Experiencing myself as if on the outside and “looking at all those feeling beings / social identities” with distaste can only be dissociation.
It’s almost like that archetypal mr spock character or sheldon from big bang theory (although I am not very intelligent in the analytic sense) who look at emotions and those who experience them with distaste whilst forgetting that underneath their prideful intellect is also a passionate entity.
And so I am not sure if I yet see the full extent of what you are pointing to however I can see that this distaste as well as the distancing/dissociation is preventing all of me from being on board and thus allowing a near actual caring to make visible this “door as wide as the universe”.
Of course if I genuinely like my fellow human beings then this would automatically take into consideration the fact that there is only 1 way into the world. Which means that those fellow human beings are programmed with the instinctual passions and furthermore they are programmed with a social identity (the social protocols etc) which is there to keep those passions in check.
But of course something is not quite there, because why the distaste and the distancing. Perhaps it is correct to say that I am slightly different in the sense of never having been able to emotionally bond like others do - it seems this distaste and the distancing is related to this. In fact I can very clearly experientially sense out this distance, it is exactly that - this cold and detached space which exists in the psyche and it is placed between me and others.
So yes I think plenty of hints here, this cold and detached space it has to disappear so that all of me can be on board. And of course I can see the immediate benefit also, of being able to thoroughly enjoy and appreciate living amongst others.
It is like I resent feeling beings and social identities for being feeling beings and social identities. Whilst I am a feeling being with a social identity. But it’s like I don’t want to admit it, this distance it allows me to believe that I am apparently different. And perhaps I am different in that I cannot bond like others do but this is more a difference in degree and not in kind, because I am still a passionate entity.
And I observed this as various people were delivering their speeches at mine and Sonya’s second wedding yesterday. I have always been afraid of a situation like this, because I know that in such a public speaking situation I would show emotion, some kind of fear, getting choked up etc.
The ultimate fear for me would be that I would be seen to have emotions - this speaks volumes about this detached persona. My biggest fear would be for others to see that I am an emotional entity just like they are!
Kuba: Thank you for your reply and it is very nice to hear from you ,
Hi Kuba,
You are welcome. I had taken a pause replying to your posts when you signalled that you wanted to “see where I am at without any of this information, without the map, without the recipe”. (link, 29 July 2025)
Kuba: I’m amazed how you are able to get right to the crux of what is going on for me. I guess that is an example of the actual intimacy which is being discussed, I remember how Srinath wrote (shortly after becoming actually free) about an exquisite attunement to others. And it seems that you are able to see me in a clearer light than I can see myself.
Have you noticed that often other people can detect your blind spots more easily than yourself and vice versa? Of course, it goes without saying that the perspective of an actual freedom (apperception) reveals the human condition in operation much more clearly than feeling beings can see it – ‘Vineeto’ experienced this often enough when talking to Richard and, even though ‘she’ wanted his expertise, was often also apprehensive about what might come to light.
Kuba: In the text below you highlighted this particular – “observing the social protocols” :
Richard: On the contrary, what is promoted and/or promulgated on the web site is enjoying and appreciating being alive/ being here each moment again – that is, despite the normal vicissitudes of life – by establishing a general feeling of well-being (a.k.a. ‘feeling good’), as a bottom line of experiencing and, thereby, all the while agreeably complying with the legal laws and observing the social protocols [emphasis and italics in original]. (Richard, Selected Correspondence, Hedonism).
Kuba: I am not sure why you highlighted this bit in particular but it is actually very relevant to me and how it relates to something which could be classed as an acutely empathic caring. I certainly would not describe myself as naturally empathic, actually my natural disposition would be something like intellectual-distanced.
If you had read the quote carefully to the end you would have noticed the addition “[emphasis and underlining in original]” before the link source, which means the highlighting was not of my doing but Richard drawing attention to his then-correspondent (List D, No. 04) who had his own objections to “observing the social protocols”. It is a fortunate coincidence that this issue rings a bell with you.
Kuba: In fact I would say that there is still something like a distaste for those social protocols as well as the general ways in which feeling beings operate. Of course this is where the dissociation comes in because I am a feeling being. Experiencing myself as if on the outside and “looking at all those feeling beings / social identities” with distaste can only be dissociation. (…)
Mmh, could what you call “something like a distaste” be resentment perhaps? And could the “experiencing myself as if on the outside” with “distaste” in regards to “observing the social protocols” be a feeling of superiority (or elitism) that those “social protocols” are only for the plebs but not for me, perchance? If this is the case the dissociation can be easily addressed looking at the elitism, don’t you think?
Kuba: And so I am not sure if I yet see the full extent of what you are pointing to however I can see that this distaste as well as the distancing/ dissociation is preventing all of me from being on board and thus allowing a near actual caring to make visible this “door as wide as the universe”.
I find it interesting that you didn’t mention (or didn’t notice) the other steps I described but jumped straight to “near-actual-caring” (on the map). Ha, it reminds me of a kid jumping up and down on a rickety chair to reach the top shelf with the cookie jar.
Kuba: Of course, if I genuinely like my fellow human beings then this would automatically take into consideration the fact that there is only 1 way into the world. Which means that those fellow human beings are programmed with the instinctual passions and furthermore they are programmed with a social identity (the social protocols etc) which is there to keep those passions in check. But of course something is not quite there, because why the distaste and the distancing.
Perhaps a more practical – rather than hypothetical or ratiocinative (link) – approach, would be to start being friends with yourself? I say this because you had said –
Kuba: I have always struggled to care of other identities, after-all I know how rotten ‘I’ am and how rotten ‘we’ are, how could I have this deep and abiding caring for such entities? [Emphasis added]. (link)
As long as you don’t like yourself, how can you genuinely like another fellow human being, let alone be considerate and genuinely (=naïvely) caring. They are just “such entities” like mannikins in a video-game.
Kuba: Perhaps it is correct to say that I am slightly different in the sense of never having been able to emotionally bond like others do – it seems this distaste and the distancing is related to this. In fact I can very clearly experientially sense out this distance, it is exactly that – this cold and detached space which exists in the psyche and it is placed between me and others.
As bonding is not a necessity, rather a hindrance, of genuinely caring, there is no need to be concerned. Distancing yourself originates in the (natural) misunderstanding that the choice is only between emotional bonding and distancing yourself. When you allow yourself being naïve and naïvely liking yourself and others you can experientially find out that there is another choice, as was your intention when you wrote on 29 July 2025 “see where I am at without any of this information, without the map, without the recipe”.
Kuba: So yes I think plenty of hints here, this cold and detached space it has to disappear so that all of me can be on board. And of course I can see the immediate benefit also, of being able to thoroughly enjoy and appreciate living amongst others. (link)
Not “has to disappear” – who likes obeying commands, even when they are your own 
. Be nice to yourself.
Kuba: It is like I resent feeling beings and social identities for being feeling beings and social identities. Whilst I am a feeling being with a social identity. But it’s like I don’t want to admit it, this distance it allows me to believe that I am apparently different. And perhaps I am different in that I cannot bond like others do but this is more a difference in degree and not in kind, because I am still a passionate entity.
And I observed this as various people were delivering their speeches at mine and Sonya’s second wedding yesterday. I have always been afraid of a situation like this, because I know that in such a public speaking situation I would show emotion, some kind of fear, getting choked up etc.
The ultimate fear for me would be that I would be seen to have emotions – this speaks volumes about this detached persona. My biggest fear would be for others to see that I am an emotional entity just like they are! (link)
How on earth can you notice and investigate feelings and channel the affective energy towards felicity and innocuity when you don’t even allow admitting your feelings (so that nobody else will notice). No wonder you can only brush all this aside with “I am rotten, we all are rotten and I don’t like neither myself nor them”.
Did you know that the actualism method is to affectively enjoy and appreciate – it’s always easy when you come back to the basics.
Cheers Vineeto
Maybe the biggest fear is not that others would see that you are an emotional entity, but actually that you would have to acknowledge to yourself and finally accept that you are an emotional entity just like everyone else?
I say it cause it was a rather revolutionary / ground-breaking realisation for me relatively recently, I finally thoroughly saw and accepted that “I am my feelings and my feelings are me”.
What it means in practice is that any feeling I feel, regardless whether I might think I want to feel it or not or I might feel it’s genuine or not genuine or that I may think it represents me or not or if I might think I don’t ‘really’ feel that way — none of that matters. I am that feeling that was felt. So even a tiny annoyance or irritation or even larger stuff, even if I don’t express it or alter my behavior as a result, still the fact that I felt it means that I am like that, I am a person that reacts and feels that way about whatever that trigger was, whether I want to be or not.
The only thing I can try to do is to pretend I’m not, but pretending doesn’t change the fact!
A ‘fatalistic’ way to put it would be there’s no ‘way out’, there’s no way to avoid the fact that I am a feeling-being and I am my feelings, any feeling I feel is me.
It clicked that the only reason I was able to try to put myself into actuality (as Geoffrey helped me discover), the only reason anyone would be able to try to do this, is by not seeing that I am my feelings & my feelings are me. Because by doing that I fancy that I am some entity separate from my feelings, and then it makes ‘sense’ how this entity could possibly continue to exist even though all ‘the feelings’ are gone. But when I see I am not something different than my feelings – then it’s impossible to even contemplate such a thing. As I am my feelings, if there are no feelings then there can be no me either.
However it is not a ‘fatalistic’ thing at all but really a freeing one. I no longer have to burden myself with trying to pretend that I’m not my feelings or that certain feelings don’t ‘really’ count .
I can see that it is difficult to accept at first because it means I really am a variety of things and feelings and relations etc., that I may not want to be (hence the trying to deny it). It requires admitting I am not who I thought I was. Yet once I was able to do it, it actually provides a solid and clear foundation for proceeding forward. Once I see that I am my feelings (all of them), then it rapidly becomes clear that there’s also no reason to ever ‘protest’ or try to ‘fight against’ any feeling! It is just so silly, that is me fighting myself, and to what end? I am still that feeling anyway! The feeling-of-it has already happened, and cannot be retroactively changed. But what can be changed is what I do now. The ‘feelings’ are not ‘out of my control’, it’s not like they are things that just happen. I don’t have to (and it’s not possible to) try to indirectly manipulate these strange ephemeral ‘things’ out there called ‘feelings’ – I am those feelings. It’s me! So there’s no barrier to changing ‘me’, it’s just me. Just accepting who I am and then determining how I want to proceed.
I am sure you’ve already seen all the writing about this, and thought about it, and even probably said the same or similar things to other people, as I had too in the past, but I am really stressing the point to attempt to convey how much of a fundamental thing it was for me even after all the time, and to hopefully have it be helpful to you and anyone else reading it as well. And it also serves as my own journal entry 
.
I wonder @Vineeto if this “I am my feelings and my feelings are me” would warrant its own topic page, and a collection of related correspondences? It is critical and features throughout the AFT site but I haven’t seen a single central place or page that has all this.
Hi Vineeto,
I am currently abroad in Singapore and staying in a hotel with access only to my mobile, also there has been a lot going on around the wedding (various social protocols :P) so my reply was probably not as thorough as I would like it to be.
I will say that I have been considering all this thoroughly however.
As per the above I’ll stick with the main bits that have come up so far… You are correct that this distancing is/was related to elitism and resentment. Me and Sonya went out for some dinner today and this word - elitism - was actively on my mind, there was certainly something there.
I remember Richard describing the enlightened master as being sat in aloneness, that the higher up the hierarchical ladder one climbs the more poignant the loneliness becomes. And I could see the flavour of the same thing happening, that of course it’s no fun at all for others to interact with an elitist but the elitist suffers too. This distance separating me from others when looking down from a pedestal, it is a painful distance, painful because deep down I yearn for intimacy.
And something else that Richard wrote came up too, which is that without equity one cannot have intimacy. I could see that only from a position of parity I can experience a genuine fellowship regard.
So I allowed myself to step off the pedestal / to remove the distance, I actually had a very wonderful time at dinner with Sonya, a very precious evening because I saw that equity and parity also set the scene for many other wonderful things, such as tenderness which seemed to come naturally. And these things when they are happening, they are so very precious, in fact they are actually priceless.
And so it seems (at least for now) this elitism and resentment is gone, however there is something that has become apparent underneath that. And it is related to what you wrote here :
I noticed that there is something like a cap, to how much intimacy I am willing to allow. And it is related to this fear of being seen for the emotional being that I am. Because if I am so concerned with others seeing my good and bad feelings then I will also habitually censor when the felicitous and innocuous feelings are happening.
That fear of being seen to have good and bad feelings it has spilled over to a fear of being seen to want and to enjoy intimacy. Like I have made it taboo for myself to explicitly show to another that I want to be close to them, somehow being “calm, cool and collected” aka distanced is taken as a priority instead.
Hi Claudiu,
Thank you and yes I think you may be onto something here, in fact I’m pretty sure you are!
Taking the public speaking thing for an example, the fact is that the who that I am finds it to be a fearful thing, the who I believe / assert myself to be - someone “cool, calm and collected” is a fabrication, it’s simply not in line with the facts.
And indeed it is probably more about accepting this for myself, rather than so much about others. I will leave it here for now as it’s almost 2am and I should be getting to sleep now but I will certainly look more in this direction - admitting/accepting that I am all/any of my feelings and those feelings are me.
Kuba: And something else that Richard wrote came up too, which is that without equity one cannot have intimacy. I could see that only from a position of parity I can experience a genuine fellowship regard.
So I allowed myself to step off the pedestal / to remove the distance, I actually had a very wonderful time at dinner with Sonya, a very precious evening because I saw that equity and parity also set the scene for many other wonderful things, such as tenderness which seemed to come naturally. And these things when they are happening, they are so very precious, in fact they are actually priceless.
And so it seems (at least for now) this elitism and resentment is gone, however there is something that has become apparent underneath that. And it is related to what you wrote here :
Vineeto: How on earth can you notice and investigate feelings and channel the affective energy towards felicity and innocuity when you don’t even allow admitting your feelings (so that nobody else will notice).
Kuba: I noticed that there is something like a cap, to how much intimacy I am willing to allow. And it is related to this fear of being seen for the emotional being that I am. Because if I am so concerned with others seeing my good and bad feelings then I will also habitually censor when the felicitous and innocuous feelings are happening.
That fear of being seen to have good and bad feelings it has spilled over to a fear of being seen to want and to enjoy intimacy. Like I have made it taboo for myself to explicitly show to another that I want to be close to them, somehow being “calm, cool and collected” aka distanced is taken as a priority instead. (link)
Hi Kuba,
Thank you for your detailed feedback and description.
And because you said that you wanted to “see where I am at without any of this information, without the map, without the recipe” (link) now is the perfect opportunity to do just that – to be practical, rather than conceptual, and explore experientially the various aspects standing in the way of naïve intimacy.
Perhaps revisiting the description of the actualism method in “This Moment of Being Alive”, especially between the second and forth banner (including tool-tips) is worthwhile, particularly keeping in mind acknowledging that ‘I’ am my feelings and my feeling are ‘me’. This acknowledgement that you are your feelings allows you to channel the affective energy from the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feeling towards felicitous/ innocuous feelings by choosing to be felicity/ innocuity.
Once you get the knack you have no need to express any of your ‘good’ or ‘bad’ feelings, and therefore don’t have to censor them either. But affectively recognizing, acknowledging and admitting those, so far rejected, feelings to yourself is vital.
Enjoy and appreciate the adventure of growing tenderness and intimacy.
Cheers Vineeto
Hi Vineeto,
Thank you for your reply, I am considering now whether after all these years I have not fully understood this key aspect of actualism - which is to actively channel ‘my’ affective energy from the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and towards the felicitous and innocuous feelings.
You wrote :
Which is to say that at the core of it there is no pre-set list of conditions which ‘I’ have to tick off as the ‘doer’ before felicity and innocuity is granted to ‘me’ - this is completely the wrong paradigm. It pre-supposes that felicity and innocuity is something that is granted as an end result of some kind of deterministic domino effect, all the while ‘I’ remain passive, waiting.
I guess this is exactly what the ‘doer’ is all about, that is how ‘I’ experience life as the ‘doer’. In that ‘I’ operate from the back-seat, ticking off the ‘right things’ and hoping that the goods will be delivered to ‘me’.
So instead what happens is that ‘I’ choose to ‘be’ the felicitous and innocuous feelings instead of ‘being’ the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings. Then ‘I’ am no longer operating from the back-seat, ‘I’ am directly and actively involved in how ‘I’ am experiencing this moment of being alive.
Of course as you mentioned this can only work if ‘I’ first fully acknowledge that ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings, which means that no feelings can be repressed, suppressed or dissociated from.
I remember on the AFT a correspondent asked something along the lines of “how long does it take for the actualism method to bear fruit”, Richard responded along the lines of “about as long as it takes to see that feeling bad sucks”.
So this is exactly what I am trying to point to, that the correspondent saw himself as merely a passive entity, hoping that some discipline will provide ‘him’ with the goods. This kind of paradigm has one as a victim to one’s feelings and moods and simply waiting and hoping that change will come as a result of ‘doing’ the ‘right things’. As if ticking off a long list of requirements and then handing in ‘my’ assignment to receive ‘my’ reward.
But actually it’s a lot simpler and more direct than that, ‘I’ don’t have to wait for anything at all, the goods can be delivered right now. What ‘I’ do is acknowledge that ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and then direct ‘my’ affective energy into ‘being’ the felicitous and innocuous feelings.
This is somewhat convoluted but I guess what I am getting at is the difference between ‘doing’ and ‘being’ . With ‘doing’ being something passive, living from the back-seat, waiting, trusting and hoping. Whereas ‘being’ is ‘me’ actively involved in how ‘I’ am experiencing this moment of being alive, no more waiting.
Kuba: Thank you for your reply, I am considering now whether after all these years I have not fully understood this key aspect of actualism – which is to actively channel ‘my’ affective energy from the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and towards the felicitous and innocuous feelings.
Vineeto: This acknowledgement that you are your feelings allows you to channel the affective energy from the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feeling towards felicitous/ innocuous feelings by choosing to be felicity/ innocuity.
Kuba: Which is to say that at the core of it there is no pre-set list of conditions which ‘I’ have to tick off as the ‘doer’ before felicity and innocuity is granted to ‘me’ – this is completely the wrong paradigm. It pre-supposes that felicity and innocuity is something that is granted as an end result of some kind of deterministic domino effect, all the while ‘I’ remain passive, waiting.
Hi Kuba,
You put it well – this is the difference between actively taken life into your hands and changing yourself fundamentally, rather than following the reward/ punishment template and therefore passively wait for an authority, ‘mother nature’, karma or some supernatural force/ entity to capriciously dish out the rewards. In fact, this is one big difference between the straight and narrow path and the wide and wondrous path.
Kuba: I guess this is exactly what the ‘doer’ is all about, that is how ‘I’ experience life as the ‘doer’. In that ‘I’ operate from the back-seat, ticking off the ‘right things’ and hoping that the goods will be delivered to ‘me’.
So instead what happens is that ‘I’ choose to ‘be’ the felicitous and innocuous feelings instead of ‘being’ the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings. Then ‘I’ am no longer operating from the back-seat, ‘I’ am directly and actively involved in how ‘I’ am experiencing this moment of being alive.
Of course as you mentioned this can only work if ‘I’ first fully acknowledge that ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings, which means that no feelings can be repressed, suppressed or dissociated from.
This seems to be quite a common obstacle – to fully comprehend that it is not ‘my’ fault that ‘I’ am the instinctual passions (not just the tender ones but also the savage ones), that ‘I’ am not to blame for ‘my’ genetic inheritance but instead can unilaterally do something about it. The sooner this is understood the easier it is to be the feeling one chooses to be.
Kuba: I remember on the AFT a correspondent asked something along the lines of “how long does it take for the actualism method to bear fruit”, Richard responded along the lines of “about as long as it takes to see that feeling bad sucks”.
Ha, this is such an excellent pithy quote. It took a while but I think I found what you are referring to –
RESPONDENT: How soon will the rewards can be reaped by the method (in getting rid of the ‘me’) so that the momentum can be acquired by the success rather than the veracity/ power of your words?
RICHARD: About as soon as it takes to realise that feeling anything other than happy and harmless sucks … and sucks big-time at that. (Richard, AF List, No. 71, 9 July 2004a)
Kuba: So this is exactly what I am trying to point to, that the correspondent saw himself as merely a passive entity, hoping that some discipline will provide ‘him’ with the goods. This kind of paradigm has one as a victim to one’s feelings and moods and simply waiting and hoping that change will come as a result of ‘doing’ the ‘right things’. As if ticking off a long list of requirements and then handing in ‘my’ assignment to receive ‘my’ reward.
More importantly – you can see that now. And as I understood you, it came about when you recognized that you had wanted to hide the undesirable feelings from yourself and others.
Kuba: But actually it’s a lot simpler and more direct than that, ‘I’ don’t have to wait for anything at all, the goods can be delivered right now. What ‘I’ do is acknowledge that ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and then direct ‘my’ affective energy into ‘being’ the felicitous and innocuous feelings.
Bingo, it is really that simple.
Kuba: This is somewhat convoluted but I guess what I am getting at is the difference between ‘doing’ and ‘being’ . With ‘doing’ being something passive, living from the back-seat, waiting, trusting and hoping. Whereas ‘being’ is ‘me’ actively involved in how ‘I’ am experiencing this moment of being alive, no more waiting. (link)
Before you make it into a new concept or map or something sophisticated – it is simply a matter of doing it – each time you “feeling anything other than happy and harmless”.
Cheers Vineeto
Haha yes thank you for the pointer Vineeto, I see you are well familiar with my tendencies by now As you said I do see this now and there is no need to formulate any further and more sophisticated formulas, rather it is a case of living this seeing each moment again.
It is a huge weight off my shoulders, to see that I am not a victim to my feelings and in fact that I never was, that felicity and innocuity is always available, each moment again. And furthermore that it is my life I am living, it is simply a question of how is it that I want to experience this moment of being alive, it is very refreshing to stand on my own two feet in this manner. If I am feeling sorrowful and malicious I do not have anyone or anything to blame and equally there is no one and nothing preventing me from getting back to felicity and innocuity, as well as remaining there indefinitely.
I noticed Geoffrey placed an emoji on your post and it reminded me that I actually asked Geoffrey this question point blank a few years ago during a zoom chat. And essentially he gave the same answer as what I have just re-discovered and what you have also confirmed. Somehow I had forgotten it or perhaps shoved it to one side for some reason… Either way it has been re-discovered now 
Edit :
And wow this is bearing fruit already, it’s like this huge space has opened up all around me, like a breath of fresh air, and the felicity and innocuity is so wonderful that I could stay like this forever .
This was brilliant. I don’t remember it being put that way, or so clearly, before.
Yes and this alone is insufficient — you then have to care enough to do something about the human condition, care enough about yourself and others to pursue the wide and wondrous path and choose to be felicitous rather than malicious or sorrowful!
I perceive it as really a very small set of things that have to be understood and cared about, and the path is more about caring enough and doing those things rather than not. Hence even stuff we have first read about years ago, continues to come up as fresh insights. Such is how experiential path works !
One of my favorite parts of the PCE DVD is when Pamela notices she’s no longer taking up any space. If you want to watch for reference, it starts at 27:27 and lasts until about 31:20.
During that time, she illuminates with Richard a feature of the human condition that is both so out in the open but easily overlooked: The phenomenon of taking up space and hiding.
Pamela: And it’s. I can actually look at you. Yeah. And it’s quite safe to look at you. And normally I never feel safe looking at people and, and I don’t know if it’s because I don’t want to be looked at, but I never I never feel safe or comfortable.
Richard: Have you’ve got nothing to hide right now?
Pamela: No
Richard: There’s your answer, isn’t it? Sorry I did butt in a bit.
and a bit later
Richard: You said you didn’t feel… normally you don’t feel safe to look at somebody.
Pamela: No. What is it? I mean, I don’t know. Well, I’d normally try to hide whether it’s sad. I don’t know what what it sounds like it’s just emotion that I would normally want to try and hide.
Richard: Or is it that identity or entity called me that doesn’t want to be seen? And when that identity slips away, that’s what I mean by nothing to hide. I have nothing to hide. Oh I mean I know it because I live at night and but…You’re simply here as a flesh and blood body. What is there to hide?
I agree with Richard that the identity doesn’t want to be seen. I’d say it exists on two opposite ends of the extreme. I think deep down, the identity desperately wants to be seen - but only on it’s own terms. Only if it is seen the way it wants to be seen. It desperately wants to be real and being seen validates it’s reality. Even deeper down it seems like it wants to disappear and quit all together.
In these regards, it dimly illustrates to me how the identity takes up space. Either it wants to shrink down into nothing, feeling constricted and feeling like other people are taking up it’s space OR it blows itself up to massive porportions where it’s totally absorbed in itself as if it’s the only thing that exists and barely notices anyone else (hence relieving the feeling of other people taking up space, while introducing a new handicap of not caring about them at all).
Some ways I’ve expressed the dichotomy to myself:
“I want to be seen” - - - as what? I’m already here as a flesh-and-blood body. How am I incapable of being seen? There must be some other way I am trying to be seen.
“I don’t want others to notice me” - - - notice me as what? A flesh-and-blood body? No? I must not want them to notice me as something else.
I also think deep down the identity knows it can never be seen. It’s not actual. It’ll never be actual. No sunlight will ever touch it’s cheeks to reflect itself into the eyes of another human. There is no dimension that is more actual than actual for it to reside. It could only ever reside in a dimension as unreal as itself.
In terms of the hiding, I took inspiration from Richard’s “cutting edge of reality” and Peter’s “edge of the eyeballs.” I like to ask myself, “what if I come out to play instead?” “Why can’t I come out to play?” “Is it because I’m feeling x, y or z?” “How long do I want to feel like this?” “Why do I want to feel like this?” “Why not felicitously come back to the senses and leave all this behind?”
I’m sorry if this seems rudimentary or silly.
Also recognizing that I can’t hide, because I’m already here anyway, was useful.
Richard: …there may be some things that there’s no need for other people to know about your personal life. Of course, it doesn’t mean that you go around being what they call utterly, frankly with everybody, but that there’s nothing to hide. Remember? I stood up and said, oh, excuse me for taking up space…that person has disappeared.
An aspect of being a person feels like taking up space. You feel like you take up space and feel like others are taking up your space. You feel like you allow people into your space and others allow you into their space. You feel like there’s limited space. In actuality space is unlimited. I must be experiencing my own version of space.
Pamela: …I normally feel withdrawn. I want to withdraw. So there’s a sense of, isolation in a way, but definitely, a definitely withdraw or withdrawal from, from my fellow human being.
Yup. As soon as I begin feeling dirty, I want to quarantine myself from everyone while simultaneously resenting them for not understanding me (aka not being seen). As soon as I feel dirty, other people start taking up my space and I have a bunch of opinions on how they are doing that. I really don’t like when I’m like that, and when I’m like that for too long I start to not like myself.
I don’t like feeling dirty. I don’t like myself that way. And I don’t like others. I see the dirtiness in others a lot more when I am feeling dirty.
My favorite excellence experience happened while deboarding a plane - which was an extremely unlikely place for me to feel good. What I remember most about it was that I found other people fascinating and I had no problem looking at them. I didn’t feel as if I was threatening them, I wasn’t being in their space, nor them being in my space. It was very unlike me at the time. I felt innocent and clean. I think about it every time when I watch this part of the video. I think about it when I find myself taking up space.
If I was on the plane looking at people while secretly resenting them for being feeling-beings, I’d have something to hide and would be nervous about making eye contact. There I would be, cut-off, alone and lonely all by myself in here. Hiding while I make snide remarks in hopes that something saves me. Don’t look too deeply in my eyes or you may see something dirty. I better button-up and play the part or else people might see me for the fraud that I am!
I think one of the biggest challenges I have right now is when I am feeling bad, and when I am around people at the same time, I don’t think I’m succeeding at neither repressing or expressing.
The feeling is there and present, and it’s tainting every word that comes out of my mouth. People are interacting with me and at best all I can do is put on a facade of friendliness until I get back to feeling harmless. And only then, can I really begin to let go of the controls.
@Kub933 - one thing I wanted to comment on that I didn’t end up doing was in regards to this:
I found your use of “it is like” to draw my attention. Why not say, “I resent feeling beings…” instead of “it is like I resent feeling beings…” Or “I don’t want to admit it” instead of “it is like I don’t want to admit it?” It is a slight obfuscation.
Given the overall theme of dissociation, the distance which is leading you to believe you’re different might disappear if you fully own the fact that you felt resentful. And I wonder if it could be as simple as saying to yourself “I am being resentful” instead of “it is like I am resentful.”
Reminded me of a realization I had a long ago where I thought of “my” validation as a certification, like needing a distinction, an emotional ISO 9000.
Then I thought about how silly that was, as our mere existence means we are already certified by the universe itself (as in you are already a “winner” and worthy of being here as you are a living product of eons of evolution). Like: why do I need to be personally certified if I am already universally certified? No need to be that greedy ;p
Hi Edzd,
I think I understand experientially what you are getting at. I was thinking yesterday about some of the things Richard said - that a gloomy or grumpy ‘me’ has no chance whatsoever at allowing a PCE to happen as I lock myself out of the perfection and purity of being here. That one must actually want to be here and that the actualism method will bring one here more than one has ever been before. Also that apperception happens as a result of an intense attention paid to being alive right now, which segues into fascinated contemplative thought at the fact that one is always here and it is already now.
First of all I was amazed how Richard worked all this out and was able to explain it so lucidly to others. But the main thing is that when I am resentful I simply don’t want to be here, I want to escape, life is stupid etc. It is no wonder that from this place of resentment, of not wanting to be here that I also dislike others. Resentment (at least for me) it is such a damaging habitual affective response. It is dirty in every way going… It locks me into sorrow and malice and prevents any possibility of perfection and purity being experienced, furthermore from the position of resentment I cannot be liking to myself nor others, which means that intimacy is not possible either. So really resentment it ruins everything haha, it makes sense that this was one of the first things Richard did when he first set off on the wide and wondrous path - he got rid of resentment.
And it seems for me in particular resentment has been a very persistent theme, having that intellectual-distanced predisposition somehow went hand in glove with being resentful about life in general. I am currently very much on the look out for any resentment, and the approach is simple - first of all to see, actually see, that I am being that resentment when it is happening, in plain terms I am being resentful. And of course once this is seen I now have the choice to be felicitous and innocuous instead.
And as you said when I am feeling felicitous and innocuous there is nothing like “I am taking up space, others are annoying, life is stupid, I want to hide etc”. Essentially it is that without resentment I actually want to be here now - this is such an important thing, of course! How else can I succeed if I don’t want to be here now.
Yesterday afternoon in particular it was as if I was consistently in a near PCE, as long as felicity and innocuity was active and resentment was out of the way. As soon as that shift took place - from feeling resentful about being here and wishing to escape to actually wanting and rejoicing being here - then it seemed like a PCE could happen at any moment, it was that close. Perhaps this is because I had spent so many years chipping away at all other affective habits of mine, and yet this resentment has remained somewhat untouched. So now when this resentment shifts into a genuine wanting to be here now, it is like straight into excellence.
So it is as Richard wrote that any escape from the human condition is doomed to fail - indeed this is the case. Because at the root of this desire to escape is a resentment at being here, I want to be anywhere but here and now. So instead I channel my energy into being the felicitous and innocuous feelings and I find that I want to be here now, and then the PCE is never far away.
In fact looking at how this plays out in practice, it seems that it is ‘being’ that resentment which is key, once I see that ‘I’ am ‘being’ that resentment then it already disappears. It’s very odd actually, I guess this is the end result of years spent distancing myself from it. ‘I’ chop this resentment off from ‘myself’ and then shove it somewhere into the corner of ‘my’ psyche. Then it’s almost like ‘I’ forget that it is ‘me’, instead ‘I’ experience it as some thing coming from somewhere else than ‘me’ and of course experiencing such a thing ‘I’ want to either fight it or run from it. It’s almost like once it is separated from ‘I’ begin to accept it as some ‘natural occurance’, that this is just what life is like, so much so that it becomes like part of the mosaic of ‘my’ psyche, it is just there and I wouldn’t even think to question it. At the very ends of dissociation, which I experienced with meditation, this feeling it is no longer even affective! (or experienced as such), it will morph into seemingly physical conditions, then it’s really a bugger to get by the throat, I remember how difficult it was back then.
This is basically describing the processes of dissociation and repression, it’s fascinating to see that this is indeed what happens, and yet all the while it is all me. ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ - this is groundbreaking, it seems that to be normal is basically to be in ignorance of this.
I remember a while back on this forum Geoffrey wrote about which articles or bits of information he would recommend to those looking to succeed with the actualism method. He wrote (paraphrasing) that “This moment of being alive” was the key article and this along with some other bits of information would likely be enough for anyone to succeed.
But he also wrote (again paraphrasing) that he saw the “Attentiveness and Sensuousness and Apperceptiveness” article as potentially problematic for various reasons. I can see how for someone like me - clearly prone to dissociation and defaulting to a meditative like focus - it has been problematic.
And I was always fond of that article, perhaps for that specific reason, that in my misunderstanding I would begin to apply that same meditative like focus to ‘examine the psyche’. This kind of focus can be summarised by the phrase - I am not that. ‘I’ would assume the role of attentiveness and ‘I’ would direct ‘my’ gaze on all these affective phenomena, looking at them come and go and examining them one by one.
This kind of looking it was quite addictive because it was safe for ‘me’, after all ‘I’ was only looking at these things which were not ‘me’, and ‘I’ could spend countless hours apparently exploring the depths of the psyche whilst remaining fundamentally unchanged. Essentially ‘I’ would assume the role of the watcher. Now writing this out I would wager that I am not the only one who has defaulted to such a thing.
What I see now is that genuine attentiveness to the cause of diminished enjoyment and appreciation automatically leads to change, it is only by acting as a watcher that ‘I’ can remain unchanged. I have often used the following example when trying to describe to others how getting back to feeling good takes place - to remember perhaps a moment when say the weather was starting to shift and affect one’s plans, and there would be this shift happening into ‘being’ frustrated or upset or what have you, and all of a sudden this would be seen - in the most matter of fact way - as simply silly, and it would cease there and then. I think most people have experienced something akin to this happening in their life. But there is no watcher in such a scenario, it is ‘me’ that sees how silly it is to let X spoil this moment of being alive, and this seeing is the ending of that particular drama. The reason why it works is because in such a scenario ‘I’ see that ‘I’ am ‘being’ frustrated or upset and that it is simply silly to ‘be’ that - the end.
It seems I am untangling now just what on earth I have been doing all this time Essentially it’s slowing bringing out into the open all these feelings and states of ‘being’ which ‘I’ have pushed to the side and ignored. And of course ‘my’ ‘actualist identity’ has solidified this even further, in that I just wouldn’t accept that yes it is me that is being resentful or anxious or what have you, it couldn’t possibly be me because I am an accomplished actualist lol. But as Claudiu wrote the other day this is indeed the case - that if there is a feeling happening then it is me, no matter who I believe or assert myself to be.
And often it is little things, silly things, that I would not allow “such an accomplished actualist” would ‘be’… For example just now there was this feeling that after I finish training BJJ today I will not have anything else to look forward too. I know this feeling because I have felt it for a long time, except that I would experience it as coming from ‘out there’ and somehow assaulting ‘me’. But no it is me after all, and now it makes sense experientially what Richard would often mention - is it not silly to let such a thing spoil this only moment of being alive? Indeed it is but I first had to see that it was me all along.
I guess if this was applied to any other thing happening it would make immediate sense. For example if someone saw me repeatedly hitting my head against a wall and then complaining of migraines they would say - isn’t it silly what you are doing? And indeed if I realised what I am doing I would simply stop.
And it is like that, in terms of how simple it is, but the problem seems that I have grown to believe that it is something else that is smashing my head into the wall, and in fact that getting one’s head repeatedly smashed into a wall is the way life is, and that this is for some reason set in stone.