Srid's PCE Log

Journals
1

Context

I’m specifically starting a PCE log, so that my journal remains focused on the immediate goal, rather than get sidetracked into ruminations or “investigating for its own sake”.

Initial objection: despair

The fear underlying the panic resurfaced today. It was generalized despair in action, specifically a claw-like control over a desolate future. See here.

I decided to try what Richard advised here:

RICHARD: […] simply sit in this starkness, this barrenness, and not move in any direction whatever. Not move psychologically, I mean. That is; emotionally or mentally. That is very, very important – not to move.

On first attempt, I was still “moving” psychologically … in that, there would still be the ‘story’ in the head (cf. Richard’s “mentally”), and feelings in the heart (cf. Richard’s “emotionally”), moving around psychologically.

So I sat on the couch determined to not do anything for next 5 minutes. I declined any story in the head (not move mentally), as well as declined any enticing/scary feelings in the heart (not move emotionally). This left me with the stark sensations in the belly (the deep sense of being). I was just being[1] it. No movement whatsoever.

I got up and went for a stroll whilst still ‘not moving psychologically’, intending to eventually take the bus to YMCA for my regular swim. Somewhere during the stroll, I began easing up. That despair (fear) was virtually gone, because: as I was staying with the deep sense of being that fear, it somehow[2] gave way to me being more here where this moment was unfolding. Hence, a sense of ease, because there’s no “future” to be afraid of. As I reach the bus stop, I was even enjoying & appreciating with a gay naiveté, thanks to that ‘ease’ of simply being here (and the appreciation of how life in this moment is already great). I could have even had a PCE, if I had kept going. But I felt quite satisfied already. So things ‘normalized’ from then.

I’ll now try appreciation instead of going back to normalcy.

  1. Is the ‘beer’ related to this? :thinking: ↩︎

  2. The ‘movement’ in head/heart largely happens over ‘psychic time’. But the instinctual passions (being) are more of an ‘in the moment’ thing? Perhaps this explains why being the passions work? ↩︎

7 Likes
2

Hi Srid,

I wrote recently about some similar explorations, I thought you might find some of it interesting / useful, the below posts explain pretty well what was going on :

Exploring fear

Abandoning hope

Post to Felix

Post to Andrew

2 Likes
3

Cheers @srid .

I enjoyed that. I was only contemplating today that, while I seem to be generally understanding more of my psychological reality by not actively trying to force any thoughts and interpretations, but let things bubble up and form their own conclusions, as it were, I was not employing the actualism method.

I was becoming depressed and more inclined to passively sink. Instead of thinking I had failed, I noticed rather it was the natural flow of my emotions to go towards sadness, fear, depression, anger. This wasn’t something unique to me, or my fault. It’s the natural way of feelings.

Thus it was easier to make a choice. Not dissimilar to your application of not moving in any direction; that was to notice the tendency towards sadness and madness, and gently put the brakes on. Digging into ‘me’ while definitely having a new aspect, is not the actualism method and that a choice needs to be in place.

Cheers

1 Like
4

It is interesting to see you writing about ‘abandoning hope’, in contrast to my ‘abandoning despair’. I suppose we describe the same thing differently.[1]

The stories in the head[3] and the feelings in the heart[4] add ‘weight’ and seriousness, reinforcing that imaginary timeline, further calcifying me in locked to the timeline. Whereas, when I drop down to the passions and stay with them, it becomes much simpler and naiveté automatically comes to fore[5].

It must be thrilling (maybe fearful at times) for you to meet Sonya as she is in this moment, without any regard for past or future and thus without the ‘safety’ of any relationship. Before, I found this way of relating quite scary, but now I know that all other forms (even if euphoric[2:1]) of relating sucks. This moment is where it is actually safe. Hope & despair is where it is very unsafe.

  1. For example, from the posts above, you write of “direct seeing into the depths of ‘my’ being”, whereas I wrote of “staying with the deep sense of being that fear [as the stark sensations in the belly]”. Where you wrote “fear - as real as it is - is not a fact” (or Peter’s “plunging into one’s own psyche and rummaging around the bottom, looking under all the rocks”), I wasn’t trying to do that at all (because I err’ed on the side of ‘not moving’ at all), but nevertheless the despair dissipated away, revealing the ‘fear of future’ to be nothing more than a feeling (i.e., not a fact). I can also relate to your “there is a certain confidence which develops to keep going no matter what as nothing can go wrong.” because now I’ve come to actually prefer[2] enjoying & appreciating this moment of being alive over any euphoric feelings (in male-female intimacy). And like you wrote “this fear had been there all ‘my’ life, in varying degrees from mild anxiety to full blown terror”, for me too this despair has existed in varying degrees (the mildest of it took the form of boredom). ↩︎

  2. “VINEETO: […] when you see – and know with certainty – “that every feeling other than feeling good sucks” then you know you have dedicated your life to being happy and harmless.” Chrono's Journal - #160 by Vineeto ↩︎ ↩︎

  3. “does she like me?”, “will she leave me?”, “will I end up alone?” … ↩︎

  4. “feeling euphoric when she is affectionate”, “feeling forlorn if she wasn’t as reciprocative”, “intuiting a bleak future”, … ↩︎

  5. By the way, has anyone noticed that naiveté is very close to the raw and titillating sexual desire (as opposed to the feeling/cognitive narrative atop)?. ↩︎

2 Likes
5

For the record: my most obvious PCE is from a long time back: Srid’s PCE & EE reports – Sridhar Ratnakumar

Context, contd.

When I set out 3 days ago to just allow PCEs, and use that as lodestone going forward, I had also given up everything (including ‘actualism method’) I was doing in the name of ‘actualism’.

Nevertheless, almost every moment I find myself automatically asking “What is preventing the PCE from happening right now?”. And the answer immediately reveals to be whatever is occupying me: a feeling, belief or attitude. Then I look into what that is. If it is too strong, I stay with the underlying passions to ‘calm’ the affective/cognitive overlay. Eventually I can ‘look around’ that overlay, and glean just what those beliefs underlying my social identity are. All of this is done with the only goal of having the PCE happen sooner than later. What I find interesting is that this way I can actually get to the bottom[1] of my social identity, rather than intellectually wank at the surface[2].

EE (center-less)

Having finished my swim, I walked to the bus stop. I got somewhat upset at the fact that the next bus wouldn’t arrive until 15 minutes later (which is unusual for this time). So, I lingered at the stop, strolling back and forth under light snow, (passively) listening to music. For important context, I should say that the euphoria[1:1] based hope/despair was still operating as an undercurrent.

At one point, I must have been completely ‘zoned out’ despite standing upright and pacing around (like an automaton). I realized that this was happening only as full awareness came back, but when it came back: it was more of a center-less awareness (I was looking at a building ahead and the snow in between us). Even though I couldn’t tell if it was PCE, the expression ‘the universe experiencing itself’ came to my mind. I realized that the “I” that I had been being (with “his” desire for euphoria[1:2] thus hopes/despairs and the attendant preoccupations) was no more because perception had virtually no ‘center-point’ anymore. I thought “Wow, this is cool. Is it as simple as this? “I” – even if the social “I” – simply had to step back and let the moment ‘happen’? Then I can just sit back and relax?”

Thereon, I allowed and appreciated this center-less way of perception because it would be silly to ‘go back’ even if that were possible. I stepped onto the bus, and the enjoyment & appreciation increased without me even trying. This was a busy period, so the bus was full, and people usually are tired due to returning from work. My visual perception was very ‘soft’[3]. There was no intense focus (like a predator scanning) anywhere; it was just great to be here and very refreshing and energetic (not in a frantic way). I enjoyed listening to music to the nth degree; it was no longer playing ‘passively’.

I made the decision to ‘stay’ in this way for being for as long as possible. And if/when I regress, I’ll aim to find my way back.

  1. Last two years, I was largely overcomplicating things. Once I stayed with despair, I was able to pinpoint the exact beliefs involved. I located two of them: a) woman is attracted to man => woman 'values' man => man feels 'valued'. This intuited ‘value’ was the source of my ‘self-worth’ (incidentally, this is a common experience for normal men too) . b) Loneliness: absence of that euphoric-bond with woman => alone forever. I’ve also identified a covert form of hope, which is this desire for euphoria itself, which kept the hope/despair loop alive albeit in a milder form. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  2. I discovered that reaching out to traumas are useless in my case. Nor do I have to analyze how my parents behaved to the younger me. The bulk of my ‘thinking’ (which is really rumination in disguise) about social identity has been a huge distraction. ↩︎

  3. Richard: “one gazes intently at the world about by glancing lightly with sensuously caressing eyes” ↩︎

6 Likes
6

It took me some time before making the “not move psychologically” way of affective awareness (post #1 and post #4) a habit whenever I find myself lost in the social identity maze (in the head). But once I did, it made the whole business so easy and fun! Now I can stay in enjoyment & appreciation for longer periods. And if I go astray by habit (which is only human), I can find my way back in.

When I ‘live in the head’, I have no option but to apply actualism in a ‘forced’ or moralistic way. Plus, I end up fooling myself by creating endlessly-varied plans & schemes in order to satisfy my ego / soul. This was what has been going on for most of the last two decades, and why I have not succeeded in actualism.

I’ve also discovered something new here. As I stay with the deeper passions, whilst not ‘moving’ at the cognitive and affective level, this body’s native intelligence comes more to fore, now being able to take a clear, objective and fascinated look at those cognitive/affective contents in real-time. I am able to experientially confirm Richard’s writing in the ASA article: “In attentiveness, there is an unbiased observing of the constant showing-up of the ‘reality’ within and is examining the feelings arising one after the other … and such attentiveness is the ending of its grip.”.

From those deeper percolating passions (and the fascinated awareness thereof), I can easily segue into enjoying & appreciating ‘what is happening’. So much so that I don’t need the world of people, things and events to change for me. It is fairly effortless to let go of whatever aspect of my social identity (those cognitive/affective contents) in this process, for no reason other than the fact that (whilst staying with the passions) I genuinely want to live what the peak experience from post #5 revealed, which I can now so easily revivify to the point of now living closer to it, which then further reinforces that enjoyment & appreciation. I call this ‘imitating the PCE’ to the extent humanly possible; I like keeping things simple. In the PCE video with Pamela around 33:45 mark, Richard talks about enjoyment of simply being here, to delineate unconditional enjoyment as distinct from conditional enjoyment. I’d say, there’s one layer above that ‘simply being here’ - which is more[1] of a sensuous enjoyment: enjoyment of what is already happening, and dynamically changing in this eternal moment … and it is this enjoyment (which is imitative of the PCE) that enables the giving of permission to allay the social identities (sexual identity,[2] in particular) since they are now being made redundant.

  1. Instinctual passions are sometimes involved, although without the headiness of the head or the heart. For e.g., I can enjoy the beauty of a female form in that moment (innocent, however, of the cunning social identity with its attendant possessiveness); yet that enjoyment is happening in the larger backdrop of enjoying & appreciating this moment of being alive, which is dynamic and constantly changing. ↩︎

  2. I tasted what it would be like to allay this sexual identity over a year ago, but it quickly arrogated control due to me still ‘living in the head’. Back then, I described it in a private correspondence as this (I’m highlighting the relevant part in bold): “I continued contemplating the ‘whether I really am in control’ part. That night, in bed, I watched the DVD video involving Pamela where they talked of PCE and the nature of the actual world. This time when watching it I was able to understand the subject much better than before. When Richard described the perfection of being here, I was able to understand it sufficiently enough to the point of dimly experiencing it (the perfection of being here). It was an interesting experience because it made me realize that I do not have to “achieve” anything on top of what is already happening. There being no boundaries (in time & space) means, perfection is already here – so I just need to enjoy & appreciate it. In relation to all of this, it made sense to allay the whole sexual identity in one fell swoop and stay where this moment is.” ↩︎

4 Likes
7
  1. A few hours after having emailed her, I began despairing ‘She would not respond at all’ (rejection)[1].
  2. This lead me to consider the likely possibility of going about it on my own[2].
  3. Which had me wonder about the actual meaning of Vineeto’s word “closeness” in that post linked above.
  4. Then, I checked out my honest motivations behind wanting to getting back with her
    • When I wrote to Vineeto “enjoying what already unfolds in this very moment, without any regard for (immediate or distant) future”, what I had in mind however was a plan (ha!) to ‘bottle up’ my affections for her boxed up in ‘this moment’ (which, unlike the actual moment, is sandwiched between the ‘past’ and the ‘future’) whilst not letting it “escape” into a ‘future’ via hopes & dreams.
    • This is how I interpreted[3] Vineeto’s word ‘closeness’ (as the ‘bottling up’), which is obviously different from how Vineeto and other actually free people use it.
  5. Finally, I wondered what this actual ‘closeness’ would be like with her (if I were to get back), concomitant to wondering how it will be for Vineeto if she were to interact with a man.[4] It hit me right there: there would be no affections at all (I felt a tiny sense of sadness at loss, here). How can that be! Seems like a freaking huge sacrifice! It would instead be a … umm … sensate closeness. In other words, an immediacy with her. Physical and sensate immediacy. No affectionate experiencing.

PCE (sensate reality)

At this point (right after 5 above), while remembering/ revivifying full well what “immediacy” means (see previous footnote[3:1]) as well as remembering my PCEs (especially the experience of this only moment), I “arrived here” experiencing the sensate reality of this perennially happening moment; i.e., no longer ‘bottled up’ or ‘boxed in’ or sandwiched between other-moments.

When this started happening, I was actually playing a game on my laptop (semi-focused; because points 3-5 were percolating in the background of the mind) seated on the couch in my dimly lit living room. I remarked to myself, “Whoa, this looks like it is in 4k” … referring to the indubitaly immediate visual perception of the entire living room being experienced in 3d and in “higher resolution”. Crisp, and everything’s here, with no ‘outside’ to it, and self-sufficient … thus automatically obviating the despair of ‘going about it on my own’ or the fear of ‘facing rejection’ or the hope of a permanently percolating aura of affections.

The answer to my wondering in (5) became experientially answered in this mini-PCE, and it blew my mind. No affections, really? “Just” a sensate immediacy—and, the same immediacy with the objects in my room, albeit with the difference being the other is a living and conscious fellow human (a female one at that)? In the PCE, it became so obvious to me that this moment is perennially happening (it is how it is all the time), so it is not a matter of ‘boxing’ myself in it from ‘there’ to ‘here’; it is just a matter of staying in it [the moment], leaving “me” behind in the process. This is the sacrifice involved.[5]

A strong golden clew has been established.

  1. Since this exact pattern happened before (a few days after our first meeting), I recognize this to be a common ‘cycle’ I tend to go through—swinging between two extremes (hope & despair) much more than a normal person would. ↩︎

  2. Cue Richard’s famous words saying that - if I do it, I would be the first one to become actually free without an other-sex partner. ↩︎

  3. While I can’t speak for others, I consider words like ‘intimacy’ to be counterproductive to me as I tend to immediately (no pun intended) associate affectionate factors with it. This doesn’t exist with words like ‘immediacy’ for instance, which is why I use it on my PCE reports (example) ↩︎ ↩︎

  4. In addition, I also recalled my prior experiences with ‘staying with the passions’ (see initial posts here) inasmuch as it brings me more here where this moment is, experiencing it more sensately, and thus enjoying and appreciating. Obviously, in this context, the passions in question are fear & desire … segueing into sexual arousal and thus the physical world. ↩︎

  5. From here, I have come to understand the difference between PCEs & AF. The PCE happens spontaneously when the self goes into abeyance; it cannot be made permanent, because the self, which wasn’t fully gone, will come back in full force anyway. For AF to happen, the self—whilst still being in situ (albeit as ‘beer’?)—needs to willingly (cheerful concurrence) die such that the actual world as experienced in the PCE can eventuate irrevocably, experienced as this flesh and blood body only. ↩︎

1 Like
8

Vineeto: The way “naiveté come[s] into picture” is that with sincerity and naiveté you apply no moral or ethical or ‘actualistic’ judgements as to what feeling is occurring and therefore can apply unrestricted attentiveness – (…) (Vineeto to Srid, 5.1.2005)

Srid:|

  1. A few hours after having emailed her, I began despairing ‘She would not respond at all’ (rejection).
  2. This lead me to consider the likely possibility of going about it on my own.
  3. Which had me wonder about the actual meaning of Vineeto’s word “closeness” in that post linked above
  4. Then, I checked out my honest motivations behind wanting to getting back with her
    When I wrote to Vineeto “enjoying what already unfolds in this very moment, without any regard for (immediate or distant) future”, what I had in mind however was a plan (ha!) to ‘bottle up’ my affections for her boxed up in ‘this moment’ (which, unlike the actual moment, is sandwiched between the ‘past’ and the ‘future’) whilst not letting it “escape” into a ‘future’ via hopes & dreams.
    This is how I interpreted Vineeto’s word ‘closeness’ (as the ‘bottling up’), which is obviously different from how Vineeto and other actually free people use it.
  5. Finally, I wondered what this actual ‘closeness’ would be like with her (if I were to get back), concomitant to wondering how it will be for Vineeto if she were to interact with a man. It hit me right there: there would be no affections at all (I felt a tiny sense of sadness at loss, here). How can that be! Seems like a freaking huge sacrifice! It would instead be a … umm … sensate closeness. In other words, an immediacy with her. Physical and sensate immediacy. No affectionate experiencing.

Hi Srid,

To answer your question regarding “the actual meaning of Vineeto’s word “closeness”” – it is the same meaning as in Richard’s description of Grace’s scale, which has been recently mentioned by you and others several times –

Richard: A closeness is where the personal boundaries are expanded to include the other into one’s own space; this is a normal type of intimacy. (Richard, Abditorium, Intimacy, #Intimacy)

By putting your own interpretation on it (perhaps because you regard yourself not like “normal” people) makes communication rather difficult and is, of course, misleading yourself. Here is where I perceived that you may regard yourself not like “normal” people –

Srid: I recognize this to be a common ‘cycle’ I tend to go through – swinging between two extremes (hope & despair) much more than a normal person would. (inserted comment to point 1. in Srid’s PCE log 7)

Srid: Once I stayed with despair, I was able to pinpoint the exact beliefs involved. I located two of them: a) woman is attracted to man => woman ‘values’ man => man feels ‘valued’. This intuited ‘value’ was the source of my ‘self-worth’ (incidentally, this is a common experience for normal men too). [Emphases added]. (Srid’s PCE Log 5, inserted comment)

I only mention this because if you to consider yourself better or worse than “normal people” (btw, from what I observed, most people class themselves on a hierarchy scale) – the fact remains that you are endowed with the same instinctual passions as everyone else. To feel yourself other than “normal people” only creates/ maintains yet another layer of a superior/ inferior identity.

Just out of curiosity, do you know how a “normal” person would be “swinging between two extremes” so as to be able to say you are doing it “much more”?

You said in another inserted comment –

Srid: While I can’t speak for others, I consider words like ‘intimacy’ to be counterproductive to me as I tend to immediately (no pun intended) associate affectionate factors with it. (third insert in Srid’s PCE Log 7)

Just to clarify, the word intimacy means affective/ affectionate intimacy unless otherwise specified. Below Richard goes into great detail what the word ‘intimacy’ means – no different to the normal dictionary meaning –

Richard: Therefore, what you are effectively asking – via your “is ‘real intimacy’ the same as ‘the affective intimacy of love’ mentioned below?” wording – is whether or not intimacy, for feeling-beings, is the same as the intimacy of love.
Yet, because intimacy can be referred in several ways (i.e., via its denotation, its connotations, and its consuetude) by feeling-beings – as indicated by those quick dictionary definitions you provided – then your query makes about as much sense as its obverse would (i.e., whether or not the intimacy of love is the same as intimacy).
As the word ‘intimacy’ refers to the state or condition of being intimate – a word which comes from Latin intimātus, ‘to make familiar with’, past participle of intimāre, intimāt-, ‘to make known’, from Latin intimus, ‘innermost’, ‘deepest’; from intus, ‘within’ – perhaps some more extensive dictionary entries than those quick ones will throw some light upon what it is you are wanting to know about intimacy per se and the intimacy of love. Viz: (extensive dictionary definitions and more details in Richard, List D, No. 46, 7 Feb 2016).

Hence there is no need to create your own vocabulary. It only interferes with clarity in communication. When Richard is referring to non-affective intimacy, he specifies it as actual intimacy.

There is more information both on affective intimacy as well as actual intimacy in Richard’s Selected Correspondence.

Srid: PCE (sensate reality)
When this started happening, I was actually playing a game on my laptop (semi-focused; because points 3-5 were percolating in the background of the mind) seated on the couch in my dimly lit living room. I remarked to myself, “Whoa, this looks like it is in 4k [resolution]” … referring to the indubitably immediate visual perception of the entire living room being experienced in “higher resolution”. Crisp, and everything’s here, with no ‘outside’ to it, and self-sufficient … thus automatically obviating the despair of ‘going about it on my own’ or the fear of ‘facing rejection’ or the hope of a permanently percolating aura of affections.
The answer to my wondering in (5) became experientially answered in this mini-PCE, and it blew my mind. No affections, really? “Just” a sensate immediacy—and, the same immediacy with the objects in my room, albeit with the difference being the other is a living and conscious fellow human (a female one at that)? In the PCE, it became so obvious to me that this moment is perennially happening (it is how it is all the time), so it is not a matter of ‘boxing’ myself in it from ‘there’ to ‘here’; it is just a matter of staying in it, leaving “me” behind in the process. This is the sacrifice involved.
A strong golden clew has been established. (link)

This short experience appears to have more the elements of a genuine PCE than the one you described before. You headed the last experience as “EE (center-less)” and said “even though I couldn’t tell if it was PCE” (link) but then proceeded to call it a PCE in your most recent reply to me, “(this was a few days before the PCE on post #5)” (link). It is indeed vital to have a clear, clean memory of a definite experience of a PCE to establish “a strong golden clew”.

Your follow-up ruminations, which obviously happened after the PCE had ended, thinking “it is just a matter of staying in it, leaving “me” behind in the process” need some clarifications.

Richard: I will take this opportunity to add that an as-fully-informed-as-possible identity is vital to the whole process as only an identity, and no-one else, can set its host free. For instance:

• [Richard]: ‘… you have a vital role to play, not only in regards peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as that flesh and blood body, but in enabling the already always existing meaning of life (or ‘the purpose of the universe’ or ‘the reason for existence’ or however one’s quest may be described) into becoming apparent.
In short: your freedom, or lack thereof, is in your hands and your hands alone’. (Richard, AF List, No. 80, 28 Dec 2004).

Another way of putting it is that identity has a job to do. Viz.:

• [Gary]: ‘Is it correct to say that ‘I’ am in abeyance during the PCE?
• [Richard]: ‘That was the word that occurred to me to describe the experience … ‘suspended’, maybe (as in ‘the operation has been suspended until further notice’)?
• [Gary]: ‘Or is it more accurate to say that ‘I’ have vacated the scene completely and totally?
• [Richard]: ‘Oh, yes, there is a marked absence of ‘me’ during the experience … perhaps it is more correct to say that it is after the experience, when ‘I’ reappear, that in hindsight it becomes obvious that ‘I’ was in abeyance?
• [Gary]: ‘What causes ‘me’ to return?
• [Richard]: ‘Because ‘I’ have a job to do: ‘I’ am going to make the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for this body and that body and every body … for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement … it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed … to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life’. (Richard, AF List, Gary, 15 Aug 2000).

(Richard, AF List, No. 74e, 28 Dec 2005).

In short, there is no way to proceed from a PCE into an actual freedom because the very process of “leaving “me” behind” requires ‘my’ action and ultimately ‘my’ full acquiescence, which cannot happen whilst ‘I’ am in abeyance or suspense.

Again, it is worthwhile noticing the many and various cunning tricks ‘I’ employ to stay in existence. It is quite amusing once you discover them.

Cheers Vineeto

1 Like
9

Hi Vineeto!

I understood the word cognitively. So it was not misinterpretation per se (and certainly nothing to do with me thinking myself to be “abnormal”). But an affective investment in the ‘good feelings’ that had me arrogate what you said for ‘my’ own purposes[1]. Wouldn’t you agree that it happens all too common among feeling-beings? Speaking of which (I was searching this forum for ‘intimacy’), I came across: Sweetness in the arms of the other

I misled myself not because of not understanding the word; I misled myself because I was oblivious to the ‘good feelings’ (plus hope) operating underneath to arrogate it. You may remember that back in Ballina I did it even with “happy and harmless”! Which is but yet another reason why I’m so keen on PCEs and establishing golden clew. The actual freedom vocabulary is excellent, but “I” am way too cunning especially if left on “my” own.

(Regarding the word ‘intimacy’ I will perhaps start a separate top-level post. And I’ll try to be more careful in my choice of words, and even more so when it comes to an expressed appraisal of them so as to not unwittingly mislead others.)

I agree with you! I have no intention to create my own vocabulary. The word ‘immediacy’ in fact is already used by Richard and a few others (including yourself to Chrono)[2], and it is in that sense I’ve always used it.

Regarding the “EE (center-less)” I had come to accept it as a PCE later on, but now with the clear PCE of yesterday, I reject that acceptance. In particular, a definitive sign for me is the quality of the sensate experiencing of this only moment, which makes both the 2008 ‘Microsoft PCE’ and yesterday’s one clear PCEs.

They happened so naturally as the PCE ended. A few hours later (so, perhaps you have not seen my edit) upon realizing how it could be misinterpreted, I did clarify them in the footnote (inserted comment) added at the end of it, right after the “This is the sacrifice involved”. It will look like this.[3]

That said, I’m not yet considering self-immolation. My focus currently is in consistently having the golden clew derived from the PCE inform me as to how I experience this moment of being alive (which naturally does mean practicing the actualism method, wordlessly).

  1. In the previous post, I described this arrogation’s target as: “the hope of a permanently percolating aura of affections” via “‘bottle up’ my affections for her boxed up in ‘this moment’ […] whilst not letting it “escape” into a ‘future’ via hopes & dreams.” ↩︎

  2. Examples:

    ↩︎

  3. image
    image906×538 71.1 KB
    ↩︎

10

Srid: Hi Vineeto!

Vineeto: By putting your own interpretation on it [the word closeness] (perhaps because you regard yourself not like “normal” people) makes communication rather difficult and is, of course, misleading yourself.

Srid: I understood the word cognitively. So it was not misinterpretation per se (and certainly nothing to do with me thinking myself to be “abnormal”). But an affective investment in the ‘good feelings’ that had me arrogate what you said for ‘my’ own purposes. Wouldn’t you agree that it happens all too common among feeling-beings? Speaking of which (I was searching this forum for ‘intimacy’), I came across: Sweetness in the arms of the other.
I misled myself not because of not understanding the word; I misled myself because I was oblivious to the ‘good feelings’ (plus hope) operating underneath to arrogate it. You may remember that back in Ballina I did it even with “happy and harmless”! Which is but yet another reason why I’m so keen on PCEs and establishing golden clew. The actual freedom vocabulary is excellent, but “I” am way too cunning especially if left on “my” own.

Hi Srid,

I appreciate your recognition that you arrogated what I said “for ‘my’ own purposes”. You are correct, it happens quite often and I am pleased it is cleared up now. Your most recent PCE is certainly a valuable guide – and ‘my’ cunning needs to be discovered and thus disarmed one trick at a time.

Srid: (Regarding the word ‘intimacy’ I will perhaps start a separate top-level post. And I’ll try to be more careful in my choice of words, and even more so when it comes to an expressed appraisal of them so as to not unwittingly mislead others.)

It is a very informative thread and perhaps more experiential reports will follow.

Vineeto: there is no need to create your own vocabulary. It only interferes with clarity in communication.

Srid: I agree with you! I have no intention to create my own vocabulary. The word ‘immediacy’ in fact is already used by Richard and a few others (including yourself to Chrono), and it is in that sense I’ve always used it.
Regarding the “EE (center-less)” I had come to accept it as a PCE later on, but now with the clear PCE of yesterday, I reject that acceptance. In particular, a definitive sign for me is the quality of the sensate experiencing of this only moment, which makes both the 2008 ‘Microsoft PCE’ and yesterday’s one clear PCEs.

I appreciate you have no intention to create your own vocabulary and also that you now recognize your EE as such, and not as a PCE.

I did find a quote from Richard on List D, where he used the word ‘immediacy’ as how the psychic network operates amongst all feeling beings –

Richard: Third, (the point you left unspoken): there already exists a world-wide network – requiring neither technological wizz-bangs nor competency in the English language – which has a truly global reach (inherently connecting every single man, woman and child alive today no matter what their age) and is instantaneous in its effect.
And, most importantly, it is where the real power-play takes place anyway – given that it by-passes both the cognitive and the affective filters – as its operation has the immediacy of ‘being’ to ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) directivity. (Richard, List D, James, 2 Jul 2013).

This general psychic kind of immediacy would always apply for all interactions amongst feeling beings. Also, there is the dictionary definition – “the quality of bringing one into direct and instant involvement with something, giving rise to a sense of urgency or excitement.” (Oxford Dictionary).

Most other of Richard’s quotes refer to the immediacy of being the flesh-and-blood body only, being actually free or in a PCE, Viz.:

Richard: One walks in wide-eyed wonder through this veritable paradise simply marvelling in immediacy. (Richard, AF List, No. 12k, 26 Jul 2001c)

Richard: Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the immediacy of the actual world – the world as-it-is – and the propinquity of ‘my’ fellow human being – people as-they-are – by ‘my’ very presence. (Richard, AF List, Alan-b, 13 Dec 1999)

Richard: I have generally found that, when the direct experience (actual intimacy) of being here now (pure consciousness experiencing) diminishes and one reverts to normal, the immediacy of being this flesh and blood body only, in infinite space and eternal time as the universe’s experience of itself, vanishes completely … and one (strangely) starts to settle for second-best. (Richard, AF List, Alan-a, 31 Aug 1999)

The quote I used in Chrono’s correspondence refers to living the “cutting edge of reality”.

Richard: I would say to myself: ‘This is my only moment of being alive … I am actually here doing this reading of these words now’. The past – although it was actual whilst it was happening – is not happening now … and never will again. A past peak experience can never be repeated … it is useful inasmuch as it bestows the requisite confidence that it is possible to experience the purity of the perfection of life here and now … but that is it, finish. One slips into this moment in time and this place in space by being aware that all this that is happening is happening for the very first time and that I have never been here before doing this. In fact: I have never been here before. In everyday terminology this moment in time is the ‘cutting-edge of reality’. Who knows what will happen next as ‘the future’ does not exist until this moment happens.
If this realisation is not thrilling I would like to know what is! (Richard, AF List, Vineeto, 5 Aug 1998).

As there are several distinct meanings, perhaps when you use it to describe your own experience in lieu of intimacy or near-actual intimacy it might need a qualifier or sufficient context for clarity.

Vineeto: Your follow-up ruminations, which obviously happened after the PCE had ended, thinking “it is just a matter of staying in it, leaving “me” behind in the process” need some clarifications.

Srid: They happened so naturally as the PCE ended. A few hours later (so, perhaps you have not seen my edit) upon realizing how it could be misinterpreted, I did clarify them in the footnote (inserted comment) added at the end of it, right after the “This is the sacrifice involved”. It will look like this:
[From here, I have come to understand the difference between PCEs & AF. The PCE happens spontaneously when the self goes into abeyance; it cannot be made permanent, because the self, which wasn’t fully gone, will come back in full force anyway. For AF to happen, the self—whilst still being in situ (albeit as ‘beer’?)—needs to willingly (cheerful concurrence) die such that the actual world as experienced in the PCE can eventuate irrevocably, experienced as this flesh and blood body only.]

I was more interested that you don’t misinterpret your own ruminations, especially because they happened immediately after your short PCE. I am pleased you fully understand what I had reiterated for clarity.

Srid: That said, I’m not yet considering self-immolation. My focus currently is in consistently having the golden clew derived from the PCE inform me as to how I experience this moment of being alive (which naturally does mean practicing the actualism method, wordlessly). (link)

That is good to hear.

Cheers Vineeto