Sincerity

[syd]

Vineeto, thank you for ‘spell[ing] out’ (it is straightforward for me to understand).

I see a misunderstanding regarding ‘harmlessness’. It is obvious to me that it is impossible to be feeling good if I’m also not harmless. Per Richard, “The word harmless, in actualism lingo, refers to the innocuity which ensues in the absence of malice (just as the word happiness refers to the felicity which ensues in the absence of sorrow).” Furthermore (link), being happy & harmless are two sides of the same coin, in that they are inseparable.

So, in my understanding, the difference between ‘feeling good’ and ‘felicity & innocuity’ lies in the intensity à la Richard’s ‘bester’ characterization or ‘uplevelling’. Ergo, my compass of feeling good naturally involves, felicity-thus-innocuity and happiness-thus-happiness.

Finally, sincerely knowing how I am, each and every moment (see the two ‘Bonus’ quotes here as well as the “danger to other people” one here), I personally put happiness before harmlessness (if it need to be ‘sequenced’ at all as that, even though such ‘sequencing’ makes no sense per favour the ‘inseparable’ characterization above), and results speak for the sensibility it.

So, obviously, I know that absence-of-malice is nothing to do with morality at all.

@Vineeto

What you are still to experientially comprehend is that for Geoffrey “‘enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive’ just made sense. It was never an ‘effort’ for me. And it didn’t require a ‘commitment’. It just made sense.” (link)

(Emphasis mine)

Yes. This is at the forefront of my mind, above all else.

@Vineeto

Syd: Okay, so sincerity = staying true to the facts. I get it. That’s enough for me for now. (link)

For your compass to ever change its needle from your present ‘point North’ (your affectively perceived facts) you will need to comprehend, with the whole of your ‘being’, that ‘I’ am the problem, ‘I’ stand in the way of peace-on-earth and in the way of actuality becoming apparent – only then will you see the sense in doing whatever you can to act with a self-less inclination rather than in a ‘self’-enhancing way.

Here, are you enticing me to self-immolate, like, today? Because I don’t think I’m ready yet. As you know, I’m not yet fully ready to give up on (some) ‘good’ feelings (even though the compulsion has started weakening). This needs some more looking into, and thus time, if I’m to comprehend “with the whole of [my] ‘being’”.

You also wrote that my comment on “a quality of ‘innocence’” is a “theoretical contemplation”, but this is not true^[1] as I did not describe it outside of an ongoing experience of such quality (the straightforwardness of acknowledging the facts of the matter). But again, I need time to comprehensively look into all these feelings standing in the way. The compass is still stuck on some ‘good’ feelings (and thus ‘bad’ feelings, cf. Richard on ‘addiction’ to James). Presently, I’m applying dollops of sincerity (including experiencing how “I” am those feelings), along with the intent to be genuinely happy (à la the ‘happiness’ aspect; link), wherever I can in order to glean the facts of the situation so as to patiently dislodge the stuckness …

@Vineeto

Syd: Also, the ‘bind’ makes sense for instinctual passions. It worked for panic, back in December. Neither repressing nor expressing (of which there are innumerable cunning forms) works with any instinctual passion, to weaken them. (link)

Just to make it clear, actualism is not a materialistic, therapeutically ‘self’-healing technique.

I’ve read the whole sequence from July 13 2004 to July 15 2004a and still I’m unable to comprehend how neither repressing nor expressing strong passions (via, for instance, the innumerable cunning expressions thereof) can be considered materialistic or therapeutic.

---

1. Lately, whenever I write here, I’m less interested in ‘self-presentation’ (the brownie points are completely imaginary) and more interested in simply (sincerely) describing my experience and understanding with the particular view towards receiving all corrective feedback such as to further aid me on the actualism path (via course-correction) … so I might very well say something stupid, incorrect, what have you … if that’s what I genuinely think/believe/experience. I’d have to be pretty silly to behave otherwise (such as to evoke ‘self-presentation’), as the last two decades demonstrate so easily. ↩︎