In hindsight, I’ll say that I don’t know what the fuck I was writing about. (1) kinda makes sense, but I couldn’t even bother to re-read my own (2) and (3).
Having said that:
I found this:
https://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf27d.htm#sincere
RICHARD: As being sincere in the context under discussion is to have the pure intent to enable peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, it would therefore take a perspicuous awareness of what is unadulterated, genuine, and correct (seeing the fact) to be sincere … rather than an instinctive feeling of what is unadulterated, genuine, and correct (intuiting the truth). The feeling of caring (be it a pitying caring, a sympathetic caring, an empathetic caring, a compassionate caring or a loving caring), being primarily the feeling being inside one flesh and blood body caring for the feeling being inside another flesh and blood body (or for an anthropomorphised feeling being called mother earth for instance), is insincere by its very nature. And to realise that such feeling caring is a ‘self’-centred caring – and thus corrupt and/or tainted – is the first step towards sincerity.
Anybody can be sincere
(about anything) – all it takes is seeing the fact (of anything) – and in this instance the perspicacity born out of the pure consciousness experience (PCE) ensures sincerity in regards to enabling the already always existing peace-on-earth into becoming apparent. The basis of such sincerity lies in comprehending the fact that caring starts with oneself – if one is incapable of caring for oneself one cannot care about others (or anything for that matter) – lest it be a case of the blind leading the blind.
There are two forms of ignorance about the genesis of the affective feelings: nescience and ignoration – wherein the former is to be incognisant of the root cause and the latter is to be disregardant of the root cause – and the latter has much to do with what is often expressed as ‘you can’t change human nature’ (only recently on another mailing list the sentence ‘we can’t change biological predisposition’ was pithily presented as if it were a valid reason not to discuss the genetic inheritance of aggression). Meaning that, apart from fanciful notions about genetic engineering, it is generally held that as human nature (biology) cannot be changed therefore biology cannot be the root cause of all the ills of humankind … or so the bizarre rationale goes.
Obviously part of the first step towards sincerity is the acknowledgement of blind nature’s legacy.
My current understanding is that, for a feeling-being - the application of ‘sincerity’ (at least initially when practicing the actualism method) is a matter of being genuine (authentic, guiless, etc.) in regards to what is happening (especially affectively) such that we see clearly (without nescience or ignoration) as to how both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings (and the instinctual passions that sustain them) stand in the way of feeling good, which understanding is to automatically result in action (in getting back to feeling good).
Beyond that I don’t yet understand what ‘being sincerity’ means (nevermind ‘being the key’ to ‘being naiveté’) – except it is interesting to note that Richard says that “being sincere [..] is to have the pure intent” — or what being ‘true to facts and actuality’ means.