Self as a property of feeling

[claudiu]

Hi Andrew,

First I want to re-iterate Vineeto’s excellent post that she linked to this question from:

@Vineeto

Kuba: Indeed it is as if ‘I’ am a cattle, where ‘I’ cannot find any action within ‘myself’ that would exist completely outside of the ‘herd’. ‘I’ and the ‘herd’ are inextricably linked. It’s interesting because I have abandoned ‘humanity’ to the extent that I have virtually eliminated the social identity. But there is a much more fundamental aspect of what it means to be ‘one of many’. It goes deeper than just the beliefs and values that were taught to ‘me’ by society. [emphasis added].

Even though you may or may not be correct when you say “I have virtually eliminated the social identity”, you are certainly correct in your observation that “‘I’ and the ‘herd’ are inextricably linked”, because belonging to humanity is an instinctual passion, and as such “it is impossible to separate the whirlpool or the eddy (the vortex) from the swirling stuff which is the cause of it”.

• [Richard]: Put expressively the affective feelings swirl around forming a whirlpool or an eddy (which vortex is the ‘presence’, the ‘spirit’, the ‘being’): mostly peoples experience ‘self’ as being a centre, around which the affective feelings form a barrier, which centre could be graphically likened to a dot in a circle (the circle being the affective feelings) which is what gives rise to the [spiritual] admonitions to break down the walls, the barriers, with which the centre protects itself.
Those people who are self-realised have realised that there is no ‘dot’ in the centre of the circle … hence the word ‘void’. (Richard, AF List, No. 25a, 10 June 2003).

I put it in that expressive way because it is not possible to separate out the feeler from the very feelings he/she is – just as it is impossible to separate the whirlpool or the eddy (the vortex) from the swirling stuff which is the cause of it as, for example, a whirlpool or an eddy (a vortex) of water or air is the very swirling water or air (the one is not distinct from the other) – hence ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’.
If you have followed all the above thus far you will find the following informative:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘So the feelings are innative to the human being, that means they are actual. Instead the feeler is a real entity, but not actual.
• [Richard]: ‘… just because the genetic-inheritance of the instinctual passions is actual – deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), being a nucleic acid in which the sugar component is deoxyribose, is a chemical substance – does not necessarily mean that a feeling engendered by that genetic software programme, such as the feeling of fear for example, is actual – any more than the fearer it automatically forms itself into by its very occurrence is actual – especially as you go on to say that the feeler is a real entity but not actual (which implies that the fearer is not the fear – as in ‘I’ am not ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are not ‘me’ – which, at the very least, smacks of denial if not detachment/ disassociation or even full-blown disidentification from one’s roots).
Now, I could go on from this to say that the feeling is a movement, a motion, and not a thing, as there is no such happening as a stationary (static) feeling and that it is this very movement or motion of the feeling in action when it occurs which automatically forms the feeler (such as in the whirlpool of water/air analogy above) but, again, it would be far more fruitful if you were to intimately examine all this, by feeling it out for yourself rather than just thinking about it, and if you were to actually do so – literally feel it for yourself – you will surely find out, just as ‘I’ did all those years ago, that you are your feelings (as in ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings) and your feelings are you (as in ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’).
The actualism method is an experiential method … not an intellectual method (an analytical method, a psychological method, a philosophical method) or any other self-preserving method of inaction. (Richard, AF List, No. 44e, 9 Oct 2003).

[emphases added]. (Richard, AF List, No. 25g, 1 Dec 2004).

This also answers @Andrew’s hypothetical musings if the ‘self’ is independent from the feeler and can be separated out and treated like a buffet to choose a particular ‘self’. (link ) The whole affair is an exercise in dissociation to ensure that ‘I’ remain as ‘I’ am. For instance, to be naïve, requires to be ruthlessly honest with oneself, which then gives access to sincerity (genuine, originally referred to a plant which was of pure stock) and is the key to naiveté. To allow naiveté is to be like a child again (with adult sensibilities), to be ingenuous, simple and unsophisticated and to be what you are rather than what (internalized) other people want you to be. Hence being ruthlessly honest with oneself is an unavoidable prerequisite.

The emphases she added are very relevant: actualism is about actually doing it, experiencing it, feeling it out, rather than thinking about it and constructing beliefs or worldviews about these things.

---

That being said, your thought process here is a bit confused, which is inevitable when it isn’t grounded in experiential probing but rather in intellectualizing.

You start with feelings, then hypothesize a ‘self’ arises out of the feelings because each feeling has a property called ‘self’, then that there are many selves because there are many feelings, then hypothesize the reason the self feels continuous is because of thoughts (i.e. beliefs & “other ‘thought’ based’ commonalities”), and then that you have to use thought to ‘construct’ a self in order to feel a certain way!

Note the inversion at the end there – you went from feelings being primary and creating a self, and then by adding thought as tying selves together you ended with thought being primary and creating a self and thus creating feelings!

This is of course about-face: feelings are indeed primary, and a Self remains even if the ego disappears, as Richard experientially reported during his enlightenment period.

And now after having concocted this new belief you’ve set yourself on a challenge to try and ‘construct’ a naive self! As to be naive is to be ingenuous, straightforward, artless, without guile, cunning, deceit, or trickery, and comes from being sincere, as in genuine, pure, whole, and without pretense, I can hardly think of a less effective way to become more naive!

@Andrew

It’s quite apparent to me that the primary reason I couldn’t embark of a journey of feeling good all the time, no matter what, is that none of my ‘selves’ had any of the qualities required. None of the feeling states, with the shared conditioning and beliefs, came close to a ‘naivete’ featured ‘self’.

Again it’s about-face here. You think that you have to use thoughts to create feelings, to concoct naive beliefs to force yourself into becoming a naive self. This will not work.

Look, every human is born the same way and as a result of genetic inheritance has the capacity to feel the full range of passions, feelings, calentures, and emotions, ranging from the good feelings of love and compassion, the bad feelings of aggression and fear, and the felicitous ones of joy and delight and generally having a good time. As the ego is constructed on top of the soul, which soul is these passions/feelings (as in the whirlpool analogy above), you do not have to ‘think’ or ‘believe’ anything to be able to experience these feelings. Your soul (which is who you are) already comes pre-equipped with this capability.

I would suggest that rather than hypothesize and try to have “insight about anything to do with actual freedom”, you follow the advice of people who have had success with the actualism method, try and do what they did, and if you fail and can’t figure out why it’s not working then you can try posting on the forum and explaining in detail what you did and what happened, and there are many forum members active now that would be able to offer assistance.

To feel good more consistently you don’t have to do anything other than experientially employ the actualism method. First get to a point of feeling good, regardless of how you do it. Then notice that it feels good to feel good – isn’t it better to feel good than to feel bad? This is experiential advice, not something for you to be reading now in a bad mood and nod your head and agree ‘of course’. It’s an advice to be done when you are actually feeling good – feel out the feeling good, doesn’t it feel nice? And then you can appreciate that you are feeling good and how much nicer it is than the feeling bad of a short while ago.

This way you will make it easier for you to naturally gravitate towards feeling good, as it feels so good to do it. It will give you motivation and incentive to notice as soon as possible when not feeling good, and then get back to feeling good soonest (see: This Moment Of Being Alive and flowchart: Actualism Diagrams Hub - #3 by claudiu)

In other words it is a skill issue and you will only get there by doing it, but luckily you can start at any time and progress at your own pace.

As for not being able to “embark” on this journey… if you have to take a long drive somewhere, do you bemoan how you can’t embark on the drive for various reasons? Or do you just get in the car and start driving? Once you make the decision to get into the car you’ve already embarked, and then it’s a step by step process of getting the keys, walking to the car, getting in, and starting to drive. The journey of “feeling good all the time” starts now, by deciding to do it, and then each time you feel good, that is a step on the journey, you are already doing it! Nothing is ultimately holding you back from doing this. There is no quality or aspect of you that makes it not possible for you to do this – every feeling-being is rotten to the core, including all the ones that successfully self-immolated. You are not especially set-up to forever fail, the universe is not set up that way, as evidenced by pure intent.

Cheers and best of luck,
Claudiu