The "Rift"

@Kub933 It seems this is the crux and I think it’ll be relevant to more people so I decided to make it its own topic :grin:

I’ve highlighted excerpts you’ve posted, my comments in-line…

I re-added more context into my quote here as it’s highly relevant. It calls attention to the precise nature of what is causing the rift, asking “whence the “pull” away from the direction towards Vineeto”.

This is critical to keep in mind when considering what’s happening. This “rift” did not just spontaneously self-generate out of nowhere. And it precisely is this in nature: a pulling away from where Richard & Vineeto are – which is of course a way of being conscious that has been called the full, meaning-of-life actual freedom – and towards something else.

What the “something else” is is also worth keeping in mind and considering, as we discuss all this.

I found it interesting that you here introduced the word “rift” but it’s not voiced yet between what and what the rift is.

Here you note that this tension that is the result of a rift due to something pulling away from meaning-of-life actual freedom, is for you a “stepping outside of authority”. This indicates you associate Richard and Vineeto as an “authority” to be pulled away from, which doesn’t actually exist in actuality of course.

The good side of this is that indeed they aren’t an “authority”, so any “authority”-following is at odds with becoming free. The bad side is if that doesn’t come with the realization that Richard & Vineeto are authoritative, as in reliable, knowledged, accurate conveyors of what they are experiencing, the genuine article (genuinely meaning-of-life free), etc. If what they write is discarded as “authority” and then not heeded, then that will lead one towards the “something else” and away from meaning-of-life actual freedom.

Here you’re voicing more about the rift but still in roundabout terms.

It is evidently something difficult to address head-on. But head-on is what we must do here!

And here’s the first time you voice what the rift is between. To bring in the terms I’ve used thus far, “old school actualism” = full, meaning-of-life actual freedom – where Richard & Vineeto are.

“new school actualism” = … the “something else”.

Namely, something that isn’t that meaning-of-life actual freedom.

Because if it were – and this is vital to realize – there would be no rift!!!

Make no mistake about it, this is precisely what’s happening here. A rift between the meaning-of-life actual freedom that Richard and Vineeto are experiencing, and “something else” that isn’t that!

Just without even knowing any more about the specifics of that “something else”… why choose to go in some other direction than that which you know to be genuine and the real deal?

You’re very percipient here! I believe you’ve identified the initial source of the rift – none other than Srinath!

He was very explicit about it here:

Or in the terms I’ve used here – going towards the full, meaning-of-life actual freedom that Richard (& Vineeto) evidently are, is a “dead end as far as actual freedom is concerned” (!). His solution is clear, to follow him wherever he wants to go… which, must necessarily be “something else”, else there would be no tension!

Very relevant hear is to read Richard’s “Update Two” to his “Addendum Four” that he wrote when the climate change topic was being hotly debated on this forum:

And of course, to read that very article to have some light thrown on that aversive attitude! To wit: The Formation and Persistence of Social Identity .

(Note that by writing this I’m not saying Srinath is not actually free. But apparently one can be actually free and have an aversive attitude towards Richard, so much so as to be creating this rift!)

It appears the debate around Milito’s claims has widened this rift for you @Kub933 somewhat, and interestingly your seeming acceptance of his claims lies on the “something else” side of the rift, more in the direction that Srinath has separated himself out towards.

So much so that Vineeto’s responses to some of what you wrote as part of this debate, are driving you further away from the full, meaning-of-life actual freedom direction, and towards the “something else”!

I guess I would ask you, what is the appeal of that ‘something else’, precisely? Why strike out towards a different direction than the one that you know for sure is genuine?

Ahh and I think this is the real crux of it. What reason, indeed, to do something other than what Richard & Vineeto already did, than… to be “original”!

Why separate oneself out from that if not for a desire to be different than them?

I’ll use an analogy that I think you used in one of your many wonderful posts on this forum. It’s like you’re in a video game, and the goal of the game is to find a nice oasis on top of a hill. You are looking for the hill.

Now comes a player and they say “I’ve been to the hill, you just go in this direction and you get there!” Then a second player chimes in and says “I’ve been there too, yes, go in this direction here, just as they said!”

And now the response is: “Oh but where would be the originality in that! If I follow what they say, how could I say I haven’t made it into a belief system, on any level? That by going in that direction I wouldn’t in some way be aligning myself with what someone who’s been to that hill is?”

And then you… what, go another way instead? But why! The direction they pointed out is the correct one for getting to the hill! :joy:

I’m afraid the analogy may break down a bit but consider what I said, especially as you very well know Richard and Vineeto would obviously advocate against making actualism into any kind of belief system, but in no way would they advocate going towards somewhere other than where they themselves are! If they themselves would give that advice then obviously it is possible to go to where they are without making actualism into this belief system. It’s a false dichotomy to think you can only go where they are by having this belief system set up.

Well I hope that by boldly and I would say passionately addressing this topic, I am bringing out any dark or hidden things into the light, where they can be revealed and openly discussed. Nothing untoward will be able to survive the bright lights of our awareness shining on them!

As a final note: I went through an intense questioning-Richard phase around the topic of global warming, and after I went through it all, started penning a post, ““The Virulent Anti-Peace-on-Earth Psychic Currents are Still Extant””. Here’s an excerpt:

I never finished the article but, I may very well do so now and post it as it’s very relevant!

There are very dark and powerful psychic currents still swirling in the psychic web. It really requires quite a bit of vigilance to stay the course!


  1. • [Holy Lord]: “Been expecting some ‘hauling over the coals’ by Richard for quite some time now for speaking my mind”. [emphasis added] (The Formation and Persistence of Social Identity; 23May2023; Message № 08).

    ["The Formation and Persistence of Social Identity" - #8 by Srinath] ↩︎

  2. • [Holy Lord]: “The list of contentious views that Richard and Vineeto have on a number of subjects are fairly long – climate change, smoking, NWO (didn’t know about that one) and a fair few others. (…elided…). Then there’s the thornier question of whether this sort of contrarianism (assuming it’s not entirely correct) has anything to do with actual freedom or not, its progenitors or actually free people in general.

    Maybe the better question is why are actually free people not protected from the sorts of everyday selection biases and logical leaps that we associate with conspiracy theorists – or even just normal feeling being persons? Does actual freedom give one a privileged and neutral POV in terms of weighing evidence? But if so why do these ideas sound like recycled conspiracy memes, rather than something refreshingly novel – like actual freedom itself?

    Given I haven’t heard these views from anyone other than Richard and Vineeto, I don’t think it’s something related to actual freedom. My guess is it’s something to do with their individual personalities and histories…”. [emphases added] (Cause of Bias; 09 February 2023; Message № 131).
    [Cause of Bias? - #131 by Srinath].

    1. (of a disease or poison) extremely severe or harmful in its effects.
    2. bitterly hostile
      source: Google

I’ll probably let this one stew for a while first but I have to say I am super impressed that you managed to grab this bugger by the throat haha. I agree, this is exactly what I was trying to get at with the rift.

For me, this uncovers something worth looking at. My native sympathies lie with defending originality and independence against conformity and authority, and generally I think those are good things. But maybe in this case, it’s the thin end of a wedge that gets very wide indeed. A last defense of ‘me’ against a fully-fledged actual freedom? :thinking: Very interesting!


Ok so I had a few days to let this clarify. Firstly I’d like to say thank you @claudiu for putting the time and energy into unraveling this thing and in general with sticking with the topic even through the messy bits. I see your involvement now as sincerity rather than trying to be difficult or asserting some actualist authority (as I saw it previously).

I agree with your general assessment in this post, with regards to what the rift is all about, how it came to be and where it can potentially lead one astray.

So I was thinking about this, and the only answer I have been able to come up with is that the ‘something else’ seems more familiar, more ‘human’. Which upon further reflection it becomes clear that this hanging onto something ‘human’ or familiar, is nothing else but sneaking in the ‘tried and true’ in some form or another.
Which also makes me appreciate why it may be important even for those who are newly free, to proceed all the way into full actual freedom, as those remnant bits which link them back to ‘humanity’ can become an issue, as we have seen happen here. Essentially the newly free individual may hold up a misleading ‘land here’ sign, I can see why Richard being pure intent personified would advise people to aim for him.

The other thing about the ‘style of communication’ comments and my resistance to specifics. I see this now as a cunning way for ‘me’ to hide, the devil does indeed hide in the details, so of course ‘he’ is against meticulously delving into them!

Which brings me to the next bit - frustration. This whole thing of “come on man, stop being so pedantic” is no less than saying “come on man, simply believe me!”, the frustration is because I want to believe and to be believed and yet I know deep down that if I was to be meticulous then it would become clear that there is actually no substance there, that it is just belief.

I see this as a general trend now with reading Richard’s writing, at times it’s like it’s painful for ‘me’, there is this cognitive dissonance there. But this resistance is all to do with ‘me’, not with the facticity of the writing, a feeling is not a fact.

With regards to originality I also agree with your assessment, if I take the same path as the 100 people in front of me, because it is actually the quickest path, that is simply sensible.
What is not sensible is to take the longer / more difficult path just so that I can fancy myself as someone original, this is like a perversion of what originality is about.
This perverted originality is actually still rooted in authority, as in it has to believe in authority in order to try opposing it in this way. Like the teenager trying to prove their independence by always doing the opposite of what their parents ask, where is the freedom in that?


I could add only one reaction on the post so here are all of them :smile:

:appreciation: :clap: :hibiscus: :muscle:

Just want to say am super impressed you were able to pull yourself out of it!

The past has shown that this is the far less likelier outcome!

Yea! I think that is exactly it. And these quotes from Srinath really corroborate that that’s exactly what has happened here:


I find it really amazing from my part the palpable difference between Srinath’s appearance of himself weaving into being, and a regular feeling-being – the latter with the full force of psychic currents behind them, and the former with those noticeably absent, a real toothless tiger!!

Yes, it’s also very relevant here to consider what Geoffrey wrote on his report of becoming free:

I can think of no better confirmation that it is sound advice to aim for the fully free people rather than the newly free people, and no more evident that to go into the known/the familiar is what is unsafe, than by looking at what happened on the forum when Militio made his claims with some warning signs on his posts. The rift that Srinath had started, widened, with the effect being for people to take less heed and be less diligent about Milito’s claims, i.e. to turn away from pure intent personified and towards something else! With potentially very pernicious consequences depending on the precise nature of his current state.

I’m glad it is all out in the open now and sensibility has evidently been restored!


1 Like

OK so to go a bit deeper into why I want to believe in Milito, why I want to move towards Srinath, what is the appeal all about?

I can see that on some level I am afraid of stepping out of ‘humanity’, out of being ‘normal’, specifically with regards to what that means for my interactions with others.

The appeal of the newly free individual who is still playing in that ‘sandpit of social identity’ is kind of like they can do both. Like they are a buffer between actuality and ‘humanity’, they still give credence to the real world concepts enough so that other identities can somewhat relate.
Which looking at it from the other side is actually harmful, as in it is perpetuating sorrow and malice by maintaining some link to ‘humanity’, keeping ‘humanity’ alive.

But then the other option, the one that Richard and Vineeto live, is so far removed from ‘humanity’ that there is truly no link anymore. I am afraid of living in that place where my words, my actions and my behaviours make absolutely no sense to identities still in existence.

Of course this all crumbles upon seeing that no identity exists in actuality.

But then here ‘I’ am and ‘I’ feel like maybe someone like Srinath or Milito can still see ‘me’. I think this is what draws me to the ‘something else’. Just like ‘I’ want to be seen by those newly free individuals, ‘I’ want to set it up so that other identities are not left behind completely when ‘I’ self immolate.

Yet again though the outcome is that ‘humanity’ is perpetuated, but the other option is pretty daunting in it’s ramifications - the ending of ‘humanity’ altogether, not just ‘me’ but all those other identities that ‘I’ am trying to keep alive.

This is the weirdest little dilemma actually. I am just putting it to myself like this - right now ‘I’ experience ‘myself’ to exist, and ‘I’ relate to other identities who equally exist in reality eg the identity that exists inside the flesh and blood body called Sonya. What ‘I’ am afraid of is disappearing completely and leaving ‘her’ behind, and not even remaining in that ‘sandpit’ where ‘she’ can somewhat relate, instead going so far that ‘she’ will never be seen again, that link will be cut forever. Although ‘she’ does not exist in actuality, I know from the experience of being a ‘self’ right now that ‘she’ will be left all alone to suffer. There is a great sorrow at this, and then on the other side there is the seeing the ‘she’ does not exist in actuality.

But this is the kind of drama that is drawing me to the ‘something else’.


I think the key here is to see that the best thing for the actually existing flesh and blood body called Sonya, is for ‘Sonya’ to cheerfully and willingly self-immolate!

And ‘her’ having an actual Kuba as a partner rather than feeling-being ‘Kuba’, will make that far easier for her!

So the actually caring thing to do is to self-immolate not to stay behind !

1 Like

Right it’s seeing that the actually caring thing to do is to self-immolate, whereas right now it’s back to front, the caring thing seems to be to continue alleviating the suffering of other identities by remaining an identity myself.
I can see the flip side is that by remaining an identity in any form I am actually maintaining suffering. By remaining an identity so that ‘I’ can alleviate ‘her’ suffering, ‘I’ am actually perpetuating suffering for all.


I find it interesting that this topic has turned towards caring and I have a few more observations here. This ‘something else’ is more appealing to ‘me’ because ‘I’ don’t exist in actuality.

Richard cannot be caring towards ‘me’, therefore his actual caring is invisible to ‘me’. Therefore he can appear to ‘me’ to be cold, uncaring, not bothered etc. Actual caring can only be directed towards this flesh and blood body, which is also invisible to ‘me’.

‘I’ want to perpetuate this ‘something else’ as it seems to be more caring to ‘me’, in the language that ‘I’ can understand. So ‘I’ take this something ‘familiar/human’ to be beneficial, (because it feels to be so) whereas what it is doing in actuality is perpetuating suffering.

It is all flipping upside down right now :smiley:

So guys I checked and @Sonyaxx said she wouldn’t remain an identity for ‘me’ so it’s all good :joy::joy:

“Would you remain an identity so ‘I’ don’t suffer alone” is the actualist equivalent of the “would you still love me if I was a worm” haha.

1 Like

I wonder if you guys can clarify for me how becoming actually free is more beneficial to my partner than actively trying to be caring. For example, if my partner is in a slump or depressed, I have this urge (drive) to push her to get out of it and do everything I can for her. Based on past experience, this usually has the opposite effect as people actively resist being told what to do. OTOH, if I focus on feeling good, I feel like I’m leaving her behind, marooning her to a life of suffering…

It didn’t even cross my mind to feel bad that you’d be suffering alone :sweat_smile: I just thought surely it would be better for you if I self immolate. I also wouldn’t be so sassy all the time :joy::joy:



I guess the difference to contemplate upon is the difference between alleviating (perpetuating) vs eliminating.

But I am only eliminating my own suffering

What happens when you alleviate her suffering though?

I think this bit from Devika might help [not sure about quoting the whole thing as journal states 50 words or less for sharing]

Well you see it for yourself here — “trying to be caring” doesn’t work to actually help the other. It’s self-centered. You want to alleviate her suffering so that your own empathetic suffering is alleviated. And I wager that it is upsetting to you when this doesn’t work — this reveals it’s really about you!

Well the first way didn’t work so there’s no reason to keep pursuing it.

I’ll just point out that good moods can be contagious and people generally want to hang around happy people as it’s a positive experience for them.

Also If you’re actually free then you’ll be able to actually care instead of just self-centrically trying to care. Then you’ll find yourself doing what is actually best for the other person, without any reference to your own ‘self’ (which will be absent).

You can get a preview of this in PCEs, and a very near imitation of it in EEs!


The one thing I am beginning to understand here is that ‘I’ will willingly and cheerfully self-immolate when ‘I’ see, with certainty that it is the best thing I can do for myself and others. If this is actually seen then how could ‘I’ not?