Self-immolation

Actualism
38

True, but if the question is about actually free people in general with regards to how they are with “helping out people” - then it is intellectually dishonest to leave Richard out of the equation, being that he is actually free.

The best possible thing for “that body and every body” is a world of actually free people. This will literally end all the wars, tortures, rapes, famines, etc., everything that the Bill Gates of the world are tirelessly striving to resolve, will be completely resolved and in a far more beneficial manner than can be imagined, with an actually freed world.

And the first step towards an actually free world that anyone can make, the primary contribution that someone can make, is to become actually free themselves. As nobody can become free for you, you have to do it yourself.

All but a handful of the almost 8 billion people alive in the world have not made this contribution to peace on earth.

Everyone who has become actually free has already made this priceless and peerless contribution, demonstrated that it is possible, and made it easier for the ones following them by doing so.

No amount of help that a feeling-being can do, no matter at what personal cost, will have the same impact.

Now, of course, given the terrible havoc that feeling-beings wreak upon each other and the world, it is no small thing that some feeling-beings take it upon themselves to ameliorate the situation. Everyone is doing the best they can. But it will not lead to peace on earth. And their efforts wouldn’t be necessary in the first place were it not for the human condition.

Also each individual is different. Bill Gates, for example, wouldn’t be able to do what he has done without the billions he made from his technology enterprises, something that not everybody can do. So it doesn’t make sense to compare the world contributions of someone with a regular salary, to the world contributions of Bill Gates. And who is to say what an actually free Bill Gates would do with his vast wealth? We must compare apples to apples.

You keep bringing this notion up of having to suffer or sacrifice one’s own well being for the benefit of others. As @Srinath said, this appears to be a moral quality that you value - putting the other before oneself.

Firstly, here is the logical conclusion of a world where everyone is a ‘good’ person and puts the other before oneself (from Putting the Other Before Oneself):

Secondly, as it does require a tremendous sacrifice to become free - namely sacrificing ‘me’ in ‘my’ entirety, that which ‘I’ hold most precious - it is indeed not only unselfish but also not self-centered to become free. As such it is an actually caring act that a moral (i.e. still self-centered) unselfishness can only aspire to but never achieve.

So becoming free should satisfy your “requiring a massive personal cost” criteria. After all, at this moment, are ‘you’ willing to give ‘Kiman’ up entirely?

Cheers,
Claudiu

2 Likes
39

I didn’t leave Richard out. Since his past work can be shown to defend his retirement now, I didn’t want that discussion to sideline the main discussion.
OTOH, it’s intellectually dishonest to disregard that he had always been an agreeable person and was immensely concerned about others that puts him in the category of “uncommon.” That personal quirk may have continued even after his becoming free(In other words, his “fellowship regard” that continued even after becoming free was high even before he became free, although that was compounded and corrupted by instinctual passions).
And he evidently loved writing, immensely. That fact can’t be left out. Would an AF person who abhorred writing do the same as Richard did? And, would a normal person not do what he loved even without any other potential benefit when he was free of any other common encumbrances like family?

Point taken.

My qualm is that the Impact Factor of AF people is in question given that most of them aren’t actively contributing for the peace on earth.

Richard’s illustration is simplistic and reductionist and his conclusion is not grounded in reality–
In the sample he took, people are equally or similarly capable and can reciprocate the help they get, whereas in reality one wealthy person can leverage(not just donate away) his wealth to improve millions of lives. But those millions of people can’t do a thing together for that wealthy person, leave each of them doing something individually to him.

If that looks like an extreme example(especially given you pointed that wealthy are outliers), let me assure that every first-world citizen whose income is more than the median income of their country can take care of all needs of 5-10 children in Africa with a mere 10% of their income, whereas those 10 children can do nothing for their benefactor in return.

Given that people are differently capable in helping others, the personal costs will also be vastly different. As an extreme example, I cannot make the kind of sacrifices that Gandhi made for the masses and expect what he got gor them; His sacrifice is vastly more valuable than mine.
James, Charles, and Banting sold the patent of insulin for a symbolic amount of $1 because they felt it unethical to make money amount of a medicine which so far has saved billions of lives. Diabetes was a death sentence before insulin was invented. They could have minted money with that patent. You or I don’t have to lose what they had to lose in terms of wealth. So people are differently capable and one’s largesse can not be reciprocable in many cases.

Wasn’t it feeling-being actual freedom evangelist Vineeto who contributed vastly more than actually free Vineeto?

The “putting others before you” exists because what Q can offer Q1 from sacrificing his interests or needs is different from what Q1 can offer Q. And Q may not be in a position to reciprocate whatsoever because of his sacrifice doesn’t hold any value. Richard made it look like as if it was mere a ethical principle without any substantial value on ground and therefore can be dispensed with.

So Richard’s illustration can be wholly eschewed.

Life cannot be win-win all the time. It is a zero-sum game in many situations. An instinctual passions-laden mother will make it a loss(for her)-win(for her baby), whereas an AF person need not do that(I think this can be falsified only if the premise underying that the instinctual passions are more powerful than “fellowship regard” is proven to be false).

But for me to become actually free, I need to self-immolate which requires my brain to establish that my becoming AF is “best for that body and every body.” My PCEs/EEs didn’t provide any useful information in this regard, except that they hooked me on to actual freedom that it’s possible to be in that state all that time.
I asked Srinath if altruism was a key component in his becoming AF. He answered yes. Only Vineeto, at some point when she was still a feeling-being stated a different reason that’s required for self-immolation.

40

I’ll keep that in mind.

If an AF person can impact people’s lives by just short interactions, all of Srinath’s family and Geoffrey’s family should be actually free by now given the sheer amount of time each day they spend with their respective families.You do the math.

41

This reminds me of Richard saying that you can’t defeat the wisdom of the real world. So, ok, you win the argument :smiley: . Richard is wrong, I’m wrong, Srinath is wrong, Rick is wrong, you’re right.

What are you going to do now?

One of the qualities intrinsic to the PCE is the experiential knowledge it is available to everyone and that it is indeed the best for this body that body and every body. If you are interested in continuing despite winning the argument then I’d suggest you simply keep going in that direction and see for yourself.

As far as I can tell everyone has reported both altruism along with a desire for actual intimacy, as two critical factors in self-immolating. All the reports had these features in common. Where did you see differently?

42

Richard’s illustration was patently simplistic, no wonder it was a taped dialogue, not a well-thought out example.

I happily and thankfully took Rick’s point about humble imperative.

As for Srinath’s reply,
He is just continuing his pre-actual freedom parenting but without negative affectations.
Instead of providing for his daughter first-world but superfluous facilities, he can provide for 10 other children and help them stand on their feet. That’s logic which cannot stand the force of instinctual passions, which is why that isn’t applicable to real world people–they will choose their child over 10 other children any day. But why AF people don’t do that is a question.
But I’m not going into that area.

He simply stated what he is doing and that he can’t see why an AF person in a poor country wouldn’t work hard.
But my query was much deeper than working hard.
In the given case under consideration, the mother will exhaust herself working every day, which amounts to sacrificing her life and health. It doesn’t make sense on the face of it that one person sacrifices their life for the potential better life of another person. But a parent will sacrifice their life because of instinctual passions. Why would an Actually Free person sacrifice(or ‘trade off’ if the word ‘sacrifice’ isn’t applicable in actual world) their life for another life?

If he answered that he would sacrifice his life for his daughter, that would have been different(So Srinath’s reply was only superficial). And that would raise a deeper question whether he does that for others–a random but good(‘good’ added to bypass Rick’s objection regarding appraisal) Joe or Jane–as well.

Do you think “fellowship regard” has nearly the same power as “instinctual passions”?

43

@claudiu Can we really keep saying [quote=“claudiu, post:38, topic:215”]
The best possible thing for “that body and every body” is a world of actually free people. This will literally end all the wars, tortures, rapes, famines, etc.
[/quote]
to the extent that everything we do to uplift people is infinitesimally small compared to peace on earth(which I am not disputing) but turn a blind eye to the cold fact that the majority of the AF people are slacking off ?

44

"VINEETO: My practical mind has always had trouble with ‘altruism’ for the simple fact that even if I become free, everybody will have to discover and achieve freedom for themselves. And, as we have seen, up to now not many people have been intrigued to investigate the proposition. So I figured, cunningly, that it wouldn’t make much difference to the world at large if I became free or not. I pursued freedom simply for my own benefit and delight, knowing that this is the very best I can do with my life.

But in the last few weeks this line of pursuit has proved to be insufficient…

…But something else was needed to get me through the oddness. Stubbornness, guilt for ‘being’ an intruding entity and the glittering prize of actual freedom were not enough. And I found another line of Richard’s writing – a benefit of my extensive playing with the web-site:

Richard: The ‘I’ that was inhabiting this body, empowered with pure intent, deliberately, consciously and with knowledge aforethought, altruistically self-immolated so that I would be freed to be here.

Richard, List B, 25e, 19.10.1999

There it was again – ‘altruistically self-immolated’ – and this time I could see the word from another angle. It has nothing to do with being altruistic for other people – whether they get something directly out of my becoming free or not. It has to do with being unselfish as in my ‘self’ getting out of the way, so that the perfection can become apparent. ‘I’ won’t even get a medal for my altruistic behaviour – ‘I’ will simply not exist anymore. And thus my hang-up with the Christian – and spiritual – morality of being selfish or un-selfish has finally been resolved.

Now I can see the sparkling morning, the dewdrops glittering thousand fold on the thin tea-tree leaves, moving and shining like river stones, the birds chirping their birds-sounds and the air moist and warming for another glorious spring day. Everything is perfect when I stop insisting of keeping my ‘self’. Suddenly it is all easy and I am back on the wide and wondrous path – and the pain in the neck is just a signpost for the right direction. Ah, fantastic."

45

I read the quote you provided in full and I don’t see where it says that altruism wasn’t a key factor for Vineeto becoming actually free. Vineeto explains how she came to understand what altruism meant in a different way than before. This doesn’t mean altruism wasn’t a key factor, but rather that altruism is something other than what she thought it is.

From her report of becoming free, emphasis mine:

There it is, plain as day - intimacy and altruism.

And for completeness, from the Man from Sydney’s report:

It couldn’t have been written any more clearly - intimacy and altruism.

And Geoffrey’s report as well:

In a word: altruism!

As in sacrificing or giving up what one finds precious (‘me’ in my entirety) for the benefit of everybody, which includes this body as well of course.

(Incidentally I don’t see mention of intimacy specifically in Geoffrey’s report so maybe that wasn’t as crucial for him at the end? @geoffrey is that accurate?)

1 Like
46

Thanks for putting this together @claudiu, it’s super useful as usual. I’ve been watching this thread from the sidelines and just like with the other popular thread the discussion here has lead to a deeper level of understanding for me with regards to altruism.

This sense of doing it for this body and everybody and the sense of nearing ones destiny is not something that can be understood/discussed on a purely intellectual level. Which is again why these seemingly never ending discussions arise, it’s the lack of experiential knowledge.

The one thing that has often come up for me when either in a PCE or a coming close to the actual world is that ultimate preciousness of living the meaning of life.
The experience that to live actually free is what we are all here for.
It is also seeing that actual freedom is the answer to all the ills of humankind, it provides the answer to that which has plagued humans since time immemorial. And it is an actual answer as in something that will eradicate suffering, not simply alleviate it as with the real world answers.

From what I can gather so far this is what provides the intent to altruistically self immolate, as opposed to an intellectually calculated formula for how many bodies will benefit and in which way.

2 Likes
47

Even though, when I consider intimacy’s meaning in the above quoted reports, I can totally relate… it’s just not a word I use, or have ever used.
And it’s not like, when writing a sincere report, one concerns onerself with including all the key words :grin:.

2 Likes
48

:laughing: sure it is not about using the word “intimacy” per se.

But what I meant by the question is, was for example you wanting not to be ‘separate’ from everyone else, to end the separation, or to have this actual ‘closeness’ (or whatever word you want to use) with others, one of the key desires or considerations that led you to self-immolate in those final moments, the way it was for Vineeto & Man from Sydney ?

I ask as I didn’t see it explicitly written on your report, though of course as you say you will not be concerned with checking every checkbox when writing a sincere report :smiley:

I am curious if this is a shared element of self-immolating for everyone so far or just a few.

I think it provides good pointers for those of us who haven’t self-immolated yet. But as I am finding it is up to me to find out what I want in particular in order to succeed.

49

I remember being quite impressed, back then, by Craig’s statement that he would have “intimacy experiences” when driving his car, alone. ‘I’ could relate to that, something like having intimacy with everything, rather than specifically everyone. I also remember that ‘I’ spoke several times about being more prone to EEs than IEs, and I think this became part of ‘my’ ‘identity’ as an actualist, the way ‘I’ saw myself, with ‘my’ own way - emphasis on certain aspects, ignorance of others.
The way ‘I’ was framing the things that were happening to ‘me’ with the application of the method, transpired into a particular experience of ‘me’ coming to self-immolation.
Of course, from where I sit now, there is only one way. All these particular considerations that get a particular feeling-being to allow its self-immolation to occur… have no more existence than the feeling-being itself. :grin:

1 Like
50

That’s really interesting @geoffrey and and also very relatable for me. I actually wrote about an experience of actual intimacy back in 2014 when I first came across Actualism, the full PCE description can be found here around half way down the page - Various Descriptions of PCE's

The bit that comes to mind when you mention intimacy with everything is the below :

I had a few glimpses today of some interesting and amazing things about the actual world. I was listening to music and tried to activate delight, soon the music wasn’t happening in ‘my’ head but was out there in the world, what followed after was that the music was still happening outside of me but there was no more inside/outside, it felt totally intimate. Then it got better and better, I started contemplating and soon I was experiencing the stillness that Richard speaks of. The music was actually happening now, but it was totally still as in coming from nowhere and going nowhere and I was the experience of it.

I have had many experiences like this, of this magical intimacy with the world around me and somehow I could always tune into this more easily than intimacy with another human being.

But when reading reports of becoming free I was always under the impression that it is the desire for intimacy with another human being specifically that is needed :thinking:

1 Like
51

Yes me too! I relate more to the EE side of it too. Glad to know there is one less “requirement” than I thought :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

The few PCEs I have had interacting with people , I was astounded at the “cleanness” of interacting with people. I liked that when I did a helpful thing I felt no surge of good feelings , even a tiny one. It was totally and completely independent and actually not self centered. So it is amazing and wondrous. But I relate more with the EE aspect , of things rather than people …

1 Like
52

Then tune into this, why not?
I’m not saying to disregard the potential wonderful intimacy experiences one can have with other human beings. I remember a lot of those. It’s just that they were not, so to say, ‘my’ ‘entry point’, or what felt easier for me to tune into. But having an EE for example, and then coming into contact with another human being, was an awesome experience, sometimes jaw-dropping because of the unexpected level of intimacy.

A requirement?
It sounds like you guys are still looking for the magical recipe.
There is no recipe.
What ‘you’ have to do is get ‘yourself’ to the point where you allow self-immolation to occur. That’s it.
It’s all in ‘your’ hands.

2 Likes
53

Thanks @geoffrey, yes haha I do notice this tendency in me to look to work within a certain framework, like if I tick enough boxes the event will happen which I know that is not the case. These conversations lately have been really helpful though.

3 Likes
54

When I spoke with Richard in 2019 he enjoyed reminding me that there are no actual conditions to becoming free, this is all pioneering stuff.

In that sense, there’s no genuine obstacle to becoming free in this moment, so then I could ask myself: why am I not becoming free, right now? Consistently when I’ve asked myself that, and let it hang in the air, an answer does materialize, usually accompanied by feeling a bit sheepish. That’s exactly the next thing to investigate.

Something of a tangent but in that sense there aren’t any conditions - but I can always clear away more of ‘me,’ leaving more room for the universe to operate.

1 Like
55

The thing for me just now was “I want to be able to feel annoyed or angry or bad when things are bad” :laughing:

This was a sincere thing. I didn’t want to brush away my feelings any more , to pretend things ok when they are not… if things are bad why can’t I feel bad about it?

So then it was like ok great, I can feel bad about it. Here I am , feeling bad about it … … … doop de doop feeling bad

But then it’s like, well isn’t it always now? Hmm yes… then it clicked – feeling good instead of feeling bad, doesn’t mean ignoring or being insincere about things being “bad”. the factual state of the situation is identical and it is silly to pretend things are fine when they are not. but it’s just better to feel good than to feel bad, even if the situation is bad.

So that loosened things up for me :smiley:

Seems obvious and I am sure I have tread and re-tread this same thought dozens if not hundreds of times. But this time it was with more sincerity… i don’t wanna be insincere any more, in any way whatsoever, no more pretending …

2 Likes
56

Sincerity is what I have been thinking about also. I had this thought this morning that it is impossible to actually be here if I am not being genuine, as in being what I genuinely/actually am. All the ploys and games and schemes and dreams and the pretence etc happen in a different place to here, they happen in the psyche in some ‘other place’ and happen to a ‘persona’ that is not genuine ie does not actually exist. That persona is not what I actually am, it is the image that ‘I’ hide behind in order to fit into humanity.

And I can see in myself that there is still a lack of a complete commitment to being genuine, to being what I actually am as opposed to the who I feel and believe myself to be, so more things to look at :metal:

1 Like
57

I appreciate, @Kiman, that you have brought this point up because, like so many others, I think it is important that it be dealt with “in the market”, “in the open”, not only to discuss it now but also to keep it on record for those who may have similar doubts/concerns in the future.

In my case, I can no longer avoid seeing (and I don’t mean that I choose to see it this way; I simply can no longer see it in any other way) that the commitments and sacrifices you exemplify are part of the same evolutionarily acquired instinctive/identitary soft that generates conditions (capital accumulation, poverty, wars, environmental damage, murder, abuses, etc.) for those commitments and sacrifices to still be necessary. Once those conditions disappear, their necessity and usefulness will disappear.

Although it has always been characteristic of our species to be able to reprogram ourselves, the “AF experiment” shows that we have reached an evolutionary level in which we can reprogram ourselves to radical levels, unthinkable before. It is beginning to be evident that we can make a deliberate evolutionary leap so that that instinctive/identitary soft can disappear without anyone lacking food, shelter, housing, etc. (even without lacking goals, motivation or willpower).

I think that, like me for so long, you are troubled by questions and emotions related to what to do with the conditions already generated and that will continue to be generated, which continue to require commitments and sacrifices from some individuals to alleviate the conditions of others.

I believe that the experiential answer is provided by the history of humanity itself: there will continue to be individuals who compromise and sacrifice because of their instinctive/identitary soft, as long as the same instinctive/identitary soft that generates the aforementioned conditions continues to exist in themselves and in other individuals. But history has shown that those commitments and sacrifices will continue to be insufficient to change those conditions.

To take your example, the same instinctive/identitary soft that leads those parents to have children in the first place in unfavorable conditions and then to work their ass-off for them in order to save them socio-economically (as it happened to my parents), is the one that cannot help but strengthen in those same children (through instruction or mere example) the very instinctive/identitary soft that they already bring (oriented to fear, to attack, to compete, to accumulate, to resent, to covet, to seek to be loved, to seek to belong, etc). These children, in turn, will do the same with their own children through various commitments or sacrifices that may alleviate some of their sufferings, but which will perpetuate the causes that AF invites us to attack.

Finally, even if we take it as true that those who are actually free cannot or are not inclined to compromise and sacrifice, they are the only ones who effectively break the vicious circle. They break it by ceasing to be a link in the circle. They can also collaborate to weaken -as in this forum or personally- other links/persons that make up the human vicious circle.

If I am poor, it might be convenient, as you hypothesize, to have parents willing to compulsively work their ass-off (my parents did that; especially my mother since she was 10/11 because she was poor, father dead at 9, living in a room in a tenement with a shared bathroom; mother a seamstress, sick and finally invalid that she had to take care of; two children that until my 13 we slept in a dining room, etc.).
If I am in the middle of a revolutionary war, maybe it would be better for me to have Rambo by my side instead of Richard (for personal and family reasons, I have known directly and indirectly several of those who have participated and even died and killed in the name of “that body and every body” here, in Argentina; also the “side effects”, like my best friend being raised by her grandparents after recovering her from the kidnapping she suffered with her parents, who were then “disappeared”; or one of my friends who was born in captivity and given up for illegal adoption before her mother was tortured and killed).
However, if I want to eliminate the causes leading to need those commitments, sacrifices or revolutions to help the poor or in the name of justice, I think it is better to have next to me those who help me to stop being part of that cause.

Even if actually free people would do nothing more for others (for me, for you, for a poor child) than stop being who they were, than influence those who directly treat them (unless they isolate themselves in a cave) and than leave their testimony/responses as several have done (Richard above all, of course), I simply can no longer see any other better way than self-immolation -however slow or imperfect it may seem/be compared to other forms of diffusion/impact- to truly and causally help “that body and every body”…

3 Likes