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