The intimacy leads to a PCE!! I think that’s what the fear is, because ‘I’ will be no more, even temporarily. It is sort of funny in that it can be seen as perverse that ‘I’ don’t even get to “enjoy” the sex (since I’m absent). But what is perverse is rather that ‘I’ prevent the intimacy to allow ‘myself’ to exist and thus be disconnected from the actual experience of what is happening. It is sort of funny.
3 Likes
Yes I can see that Claudiu, the fear is how I keep myself separated and ‘intact’, stepping into that intimacy is risky for ‘me’ or so it seems haha because actually it’s great fun!
1 Like
Richard talks about how the fear of intimacy is related to the loss of self which can feel like a loss of control. There may be more in that direction to find
(Because ‘self’ is what is in the way of intimacy)
1 Like
One could obsess about intimacy in the same way one can obsess about it being now and everything one experiences always being here. I’m not exactly sure how such an obsession would work, however. Like I’m at my keyboard atm. The things I am thinking to relate to my keyboard are time and space. If I wanted to exclude time and space and focus exclusively on intimacy what would I reflect on?
1 Like
@JonnyPitt If you were with another person you could ‘be intimate’ with them. Without another person around, you can still be intimate with whatever it is around you, which really means being intimate with your own moment of experiencing being alive. It’s really the same thing
Just as a note of ‘actualism terms,’ Richard differentiates between when there’s someone else or not, where an ‘intimacy experience’ is when there are others around that one is being intimate with, and an ‘excellence experience’ is more general / refers to when one is by oneself:
Richard: The term ‘intimacy experience’ became part of the actualism lingo after a particularly instructive event in late spring, 2007, when at anchor upriver whilst exhorting feeling-being ‘Grace’ to no longer reserve that specific ‘way-of-being’ for those memorable occasions when ‘she’ was alone with me and to extend such intimacy to also include ‘her’ potential shipmates in order to dynamically enable the then-tentative plans for a floating convivium – which were on an indefinite hold at that time – to move ahead expeditiously (this was in the heady context of feeling-being ‘Pamela’ having already entered into an on-going PCE a scant five days beforehand due to ‘her’ specifically expressed concerns to me over the lack of intimacy between actualists). At some stage during this intensive interaction feeling-being ‘Vineeto’, who had been intently following every nuance, every twist and turn of the interplay, had what ‘she’ described as a ‘shift’ taking place in ‘her’ whereupon the very intimacy being thus exigently importuned came about for ‘her’ instead.
To say ‘she’ was astounded with the degree of intimacy having ensued is to put it mildly as ‘her’ first descriptive words were about how ‘she’ would never have considered it possible to be as intimate as this particular way of being – an intimacy of such near-innocence as to have previously only ever been possible privately with ‘her’ sexual partner in very special moments – when in a social setting as one of a number of persons partaking of coffee and snacks in a sitting room situation. Intuitively seizing the vital opportunity such intimate experiencing offered ‘she’ took over from me and commenced interacting intensively in my stead – notably now a one-on-one feeling-being interchange – and within a relatively short while feeling-being ‘Grace’ was experiencing life in the same, or very similar, manner as feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ (hence that 4th of December 2009 report of mine about how these intimacy experiences are potentially contagious, so to speak, for other sincere actualists as the atmosphere generated affectively-psychically can propagate a flow-on effect).
As for your query regarding how the intimacy experience (IE) differs from an excellence experience (EE): qualitively they are much the same, or similar, insofar as with both experiences there is a near-absence of agency – the beer rather than the doer is the operant – whereupon naïveté has come to the fore, such as to effect the marked diminishment of separation, and the main distinction is that the IE is more people-oriented, while the EE tends to be environmental in its scope.
In other words, with an EE the ‘aesthetic experience’ feature, for instance, or its ‘nature experience’ aspect, for example, tends to be more prominent, whilst with an IE the ‘fellowship experience’ characteristic, for instance, or its ‘convivial experience’ quality, for example, comes to the fore. In either type of near-PCE – wherein the experiencing is of ‘my’ life living itself, with a surprising sumptuosity, rather than ‘me’ living ‘my’ life, quite frugally by comparison, and where this moment is living ‘me’ (instead of ‘me’ trying to live ‘in the moment’) – the diminishment of separation is so astonishing as to be as-if incomprehensible/ unbelievable yet it is the imminence of a fellow human’s immanence which, in and of itself, emphasises the distinction the most.
For instance, the degree of intimacy experienced with minera, flora and fauna upon strolling through some botanical gardens with either near-PCE occurring – as in, with rocks, trees and birds, for example – is to the same gradation as when in a social setting such as a typical sitting room situation (as in, with ashtrays, flowers and humans, for instance) yet it is the ‘fellow human being’ element which exemplifies the already astounding diminishment of separation which ensues upon the blessed onset of this near-innocent intimacy of naïveté.
And that latter point – the felicitous advent of naïve intimacy – is another way the IE differs from the EE inasmuch if a near-PCE is initiated via intensive interaction with a fellow human being/ with fellow human beings it takes on the properties of an intimacy experience (IE) whereas if the near-PCE is triggered via interacting intensively with the world at large (as in, an aesthetic experience, a nature experience, a contemplative experience, for example) it takes on the properties of an excellence experience (EE).
The role they play in an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being virtual freedom (entitled ‘The Dynamic, Destinal Virtual Freedom’ on that web page to distinguish it from the still-in-control/ same-way-of-being virtual freedom entitled ‘The Pragmatic, Methodological Virtual Freedom’) is, essentially, in enabling the actualism process to take over.
In effect, the actualism process is what ensues when one gets out from being under control, via having given oneself prior permission to have one’s life live itself (i.e., sans the controlling doer), and a different way of being comes about (i.e., where the beer is the operant) – whereupon a thrilling out-from-control momentum takes over and an inevitability sets in – whereafter there is no pulling back (hence the reluctance in having it set in motion) as once begun it is nigh-on unstoppable.
By the way - this bit above was in correspondence with Claudiu, in December of 2009 - Hi, @claudiu !
(correction: it was originally with the unknown ‘Respondent #14’)
This also means it was scant weeks before the freedom of Peter and Vineeto (Peter on December 30 2009, Vineeto on January 4 2010!
1 Like
Since obsession is so near-total an IE would have to either be spontaneous or ad-hoc. It’s hard for the requisite obsession while with another unless both people are obsessing or one person is quietly allowing the other person to obsess. But when no one else is around or it’s just quiet strangers then obsession can and should take place. What would the obsessor be obsessively reflecting on in that situation?
What is the difference between out-from-control Virtual Freedom and the other form of it?
I disagree; for some people, when they’re around people is when they’re the most likely to enjoy & appreciate, & therefore they’re more likely to have an IE than an EE; when they’re alone they’re not as comfortable.
And for some people when they’re alone is when they’re most at ease, and therefore they’re more likely to have an EE than an IE. It’s a matter of who that individual self is.
Speaking for myself it has rotated, depending on which thing I’ve been more scared of.
1 Like
This is a relevant description, excerpted below:
… a pragmatic virtual freedom. One then goes to bed in the evening knowing that one has had a virtually perfect day, and knowing that tomorrow, without doubt, will also be a virtually perfect day.
Out-from-control virtual freedom:
a momentum not of ‘my’ doing takes over and an inevitability sets in; in an on-going EE the actual world has the effect of impelling one towards it – like a moth to a candle as the overarching benignity and benevolence of the actual increasingly operates such as to render ‘my’ felicity/ innocuity increasingly redundant; this is where being the nearest a ‘self’ can be to innocence – the naiveté located betwixt the core of being and the sexual centre (where one is both likeable and liking) – is attached as if with a golden thread or clew to the purity of actual innocence; an on-going EE is, thus, where one becomes acclimatised to benignity and benevolence and the resultant blitheness because the purity of the actual is so powerful that it would ‘blow the fuses’ if one was to venture into this territory ill-prepared.
The short version is that in an in-control pragmatic VF, ‘I’ am still largely ‘running the show,’ where in an out-from-control VF, ‘I’ have essentially ‘Let go of the steering wheel’ and ‘let the universe take the wheel,’ so to speak.
It is essential to note that a strong connection to pure intent is required to keep from simply becoming an out-from-control ‘me’ - an incredibly dangerous thing.
the key word was obsession
I can see, looking back, that I missed the following:
The obsessor would be obsessing on the experience of intimacy & events unfolding as it became increasingly close, increasingly peaceful, increasingly magical.
It’s critical to remember that the actualism method is an affective one: because ‘I’ am always here, there is always an affective component to what is happening (excepting PCEs), there is always something to notice, and it doesn’t require ‘your’ ‘full attention’ in the way that a ‘normal task’ might.
Richard notes that he was able to do the actualism method while raising several kids, while working long hours, while maintaining a household in general. That is because it doesn’t require constant attention in that normal way - remember, you’re looking for ‘flashing red lights’ of bigger emotions coming up, and moving the overall baseline up in steps over time.
So, in the situation with another person, it is no problem at all to give them your undivided attention, while the method itself ‘hums along’ in the background. The obsession is still there, because I am still obsessed with becoming free no matter what.
In this moment, freedom looks like: intimacy with this human being here, directly in front of me
The ‘being there with them’ and the method are, in that moment, the exact same thing.
I wasn’t equating obsession with eaatomoba. I don’t think you have to be obsessing over anything to eaatomoba. We pretty agreed on that in the other thread when we both noted how one can eaatomoba without knowing anything about actualism.
My question was about obsession. It’s okay if it goes unanswered. I’m in the process of sorting it out for myself. So far, and it’s only been one evening, I got the answer hinging on dynamism or vitality. I was gonna say it’s a lot trickier than time and space because there isn’t a single question you can repeatedly ask yourself to get to the fact of the matter. But I’ll have to re-think that. How are these things maintaining their form? seems to point to vitality in the exact same way as what time is it when these things are happening? points to eternity and the only starting time there can possibly be and where is this happening? points to infinity and the only starting place there can possibly be.
I’m interested to discuss further if you are, but it isn’t necessary.
I’m thinking that any question you can ask, when you look for an actual-experiential answer, it will always point to something interesting / worth finding. It almost doesn’t matter what the questions are, they come naturally from ‘me’ (it’s useful that this happens).
(I’m also wondering if we might be getting into something that is worth its own thread)
Good point!
To be obsessed, we have to be engaged, to be engaged ‘me’ wants a payoff.
So, you find the reason within yourself (as-you-are-now) that warrants obsession and is connected to pure intent.
I’ve had to re-do this a few times as ‘my’ previous reasons ran out of steam. I’m actually in the process of this right now.
Most recently, it was: “I want to be attractive to pretty girls, and I can see very clearly that the most attractive ‘Henry’ is the free Henry.” So, I used that for a few years and it generated plenty of requisite obsession.
Obsession takes a life of it’s own. It’s pretty much a disorder. Like a frenzy. I wouldn’t say we have to be engaged. I would say we have to be borderline pathological. I tend to think engaged is deliberate. And obsessed is wild.
The payoff theory seems okay. Most actions, both sane and crazy, stem from a motivation.
Most recently, it was: “I want to be attractive to pretty girls, and I can see very clearly that the most attractive ‘Henry’ is the free Henry.” So, I used that for a few years and it generated plenty of requisite obsession
I highly doubt wanting to be attractive to pretty girls makes for a good motivation to be free. And if you were to become obsessed with pretty girls, your own attraction or you being attractive to them then that would spell doom for you psychologically speaking. You did mention pure intent. I’m sure pure intent would help a lot when navigating the romantic market place but I really can’t see an example where holding on to the golden clew and being preoccupied with girls would co-exist. The key word being preoccupied and girls. Now, you never explicitly wrote preoccupied so my apologies if I read to much into it. But you were talking about obsession so you can see why I may have read to much into it.
Engagement is the minimum, obsession is the maximum. I’m partly saying this as someone that experiences boredom, and so ‘engaged’ is the first step toward that almost-pathological obsession. If it were over anything but AF, it would indeed be pathological.
The way I see it is, we use whatever motivation we can get to inch closer. It’s true, it’s not a big altruistic motivation. It’s not so bad, though, either. It’s not for nothing that half of Richard’s Journal is him waxing on about the delights of the bedroom (hey, it came back to sex after all! We’re in the right thread still) and he did indeed use that to become free, as did Peter and Vineeto.
That specific motivation doesn’t do it for you, but there is something within you that does get you to that frothing-at-the-mouth level that can be useful.
It’s also true that it’s to the point where it’s an obstacle for me. Hence, time to ‘change horses.’
Yep!
Makes sense!
The key in what I’m trying to say is, ‘I’ have to have some blood in the game in order to get off my butt. By definition that is selfish, it’s ‘me’ doing it after all. Richard notes that even human altruism is ultimately a selfish end (I am doing it for ‘humanity,’ but ‘I’ am humanity, after all…)
So I use that selfish motivation to remove myself. I’m using ‘me’ to remove ‘me.’
Yea. I don’t that will work. Being fascinated that it seems to always be now may do the trick though. It will be now when you self-immolate and it will be now when you are on your death bed and it will be now when/if you meet your lifelong partner and it will be now when the last person who ever even knew of you passes on.