Oops i forgot to feel good first again

[claudiu]

@srid

[RICHARD:] Once the specific moment of ceasing to feel good is pin-pointed, and the silliness of having such an incident as that (no matter what it is) take away one’s enjoyment and appreciation of this only moment of being alive is seen for what it is – usually some habitual reactive response – one is once more feeling good …

The verb “seen” (along with ‘silliness’) here refers to a combination of ‘affective awareness’ (or ‘affective monitoring’) and ‘cognitive attentiveness’ (or ‘cognitive rectification’) … or, in other words, ‘awareness-cum-attentiveness’:

Hmm I don’t think so. Richard is talking about ‘seeing the silliness’ here. This comes after one has already recognized one isn’t feeling good (i.e. the affective part), and after one has already engaged cognition to pin-point the specific moment of ceasing to feel good. Having used both the awareness and the attentiveness parts of it, now one is at the last (perhaps also cognitive?) step to “see the silliness”.

I find that when this works, it is an instant all-at-once insight that “oh yea that is silly”. If this doesn’t work, it means I don’t see that it is silly… and then it usually makes more sense to get back to feeling good via some other means (like do something fun; just go about my day and wait; etc…) and investigate it later, rather than try and investigate it then. And by investigate I mean a thorough going-through and deconstructing an issue, etc. While ‘seeing the silliness’ is much different, it’s more of an instant insight kind of thing.

@srid

What you call ‘investigation’ (in the context of getting back to feeling good) essentially refers to being aware-cum-attentive, nothing more.

In this context we’re talking about the role of investigation, and that investigation is to be done only once one is feeling good, as opposed to one when is not yet back to feeling good. The investigation in this context is in seeing how ‘I’ tick so as to prevent future diminutions of feeling good.

While ‘awareness-cum-attentiveness’ refers to a) affectively monitoring how you feel to catch when you aren’t feeling good, and b) pinpointing the specific moment, and seeing the silliness of that so that you are already back to feeling good.

So we’re talking about two different things here.

@srid

But of course, given how cunning the identity is, more often than not you are not fully acknowledging how you feel when feeling bad … thus leaving an undercurrent of unacknowledged feeling-activity to persist just beneath the level of conscious awareness.

How would you know this about me? It sounds like what you are really saying is this:

@srid

But of course, given how cunning the identity is, more often than not [I am] not fully acknowledging how [I] feel when feeling bad … thus leaving an undercurrent of unacknowledged feeling-activity to persist just beneath the level of conscious awareness.

That may be so – indeed as you say, sincerity is the key.

@srid

So whatever ‘investigation’ is done cannot be called awareness-cum-attentiveness […]

Indeed, I think this is a conflation of terms.

@srid

[…] as there is not that sufficient affective awareness in the first place (much less the sincere cognitive attentiveness to rectify it).

That may be so. I find generally that advising someone that they are not succeeding because they aren’t sincere enough, has limited practical/beneficial effect. I find that something a bit more hands-on or specific-to-the-circumstance is what helps someone get past a particular issue.

@srid

Pure intent is not strictly necessary to see the silliness and get back to feeling good; sincerity is. Specifically, as Richard calls it, “sincere/ naïve intent”:

I agree - pure intent certainly helps though!

@srid

Which in turns requires making actualism the no. 1 priority in one’s life.

Indeed, that is why Vineeto advised me to add this note at the top of the actualism flow chart:

Cheers,
Claudiu