This moment has no duration

Journals
101

Something clicked here that I keep coming back to, that the doors are already wide open, with that magical wonderland right at the fingertips. It’s as if the belief that ‘you can’t change human nature’ has it that the cage is locked, and the key has been thrown out.
But this is not so, it is just that in order to step out of the cage ‘I’ have to leave ‘myself’ behind, and ‘I’ remain in the cage (the doorless cage mind you) because of the safety that it seemingly offers.

This ‘safety that it seemingly offers’ is expressed as those last remaining objections which ‘I’ have, those last few dramas that constitute ‘me’. What I am wondering is whether it is about first going after those last few dramas until they too dissolve or do ‘I’ simply proceed to step out of the cage now, with the dissolution of those last dramas coinciding with the dissolution of ‘me’, it seems it is about the latter.

I am reminded of what you wrote here - V – All-Pervading Sweetness

On Monday evening the fourth of January 2010, I knew I was running out of time. We expected a guest for the next day and I didn’t want to wait until we three were on our own again. I consequently sat on the toilet taking a few minutes longer than usual to gather any scattered bits of intent that were missing to make up the 100% I needed – I pulled out all the stops. When I returned to the living room a dynamic and quite frivolous interaction developed and in that uninhibited hilarious atmosphere I blew the last remaining cobwebs of seriousness, cautiousness and social correctness out of the corners of my psyche. It was all very casual, jovial and funny, unrehearsed and spontaneous and I became confident that this is how I wanted to live my life forever.

I heard myself saying to Richard that ‘We’ve got all the time in the world’ and when I contemplated on the sentence that had just slipped out, time suddenly stood still.

I stopped in mid-sentence and the ensuing silence caught the attention of my two companions.

It was all over, in an instant

Those ‘last remaining cobwebs’ is exactly how I would describe those remaining dramas, it seems ‘I’ am only holding onto what’s left of them in order to block the momentum that would otherwise follow. This is the tricky part, proceeding without knowing with certainty what the destination is like, it’s stepping into the unknowable. It seems ‘I’ am instead searching for 100% certainty before ‘I’ dare to step out of the cage, which is of course an impossibility as this can only be had upon actual freedom.

1 Like
102

Hi Jon,

Your report begets some skepticism, as the result of genuine contact with the actual world is experientially seeing that the actual world is the world that actually exists, has substance, is tangible, and is the locus where everything actually happens in the universe, whereas the normal ‘real’ world is the world that doesn’t exist, is ephemeral, not actually tangible or existing, and is the locus where things are only imagined to happen/people only pretend that things happen.

With this in mind, your introductory sentence reads as follows:

Maybe the primary objection to self immolation is not being sure whether one wants to be by oneself in a fantastical place that [actually tangibly exists] vs [imaginarily] being among others in a place that [doesn’t exist].

The answer to the query is now obvious: imagining oneself to exist among others that are imagining themselves to exist in a place that only exists in a collective imagination, is no substitute for actually existing among others that actually exist in an actually existing place.

A further oddity is noticed which is phrasing the question as “whether one wants to be by oneself”, which is factually untrue as the actual world is becoming increasingly populated with actually free people living in said actual world.

You are saying that you would rather believe in Santa Claus because everybody around you also believes in Santa Claus and you can bond with others about your belief in Santa Claus and extoll the virtues of Santa Claus and eagerly look forward to Santa Claus bringing you presents (which, notably, will never happen if everybody believes in Santa Claus, as there needs to be at least one person who knows Santa Claus is a fiction to actually go and buy the presents) and join in righteous anger, indignation and even hatred towards those heathens that believe in some other mystical creature that brings them presents.

Of course, you can certainly make that choice, but seeing as you presented the choice backwards (swapping the tangibility and actuality of “actual” and “real”), you must already know the choice is silly, which it obviously is when presented like it is above. At that point the question for you to ask yourself would be, what is really the objection here?, as it certainly can’t be this.

Cheers,
Claudiu

1 Like
103

Hi @Kub933,

Your post reminds me of one that you wrote only 11 days ago and Claudiu’s follow-up reply.

When I consider this it makes sense to me what an out from control virtual freedom is about, it is the abeyance of the ‘doer’ (that very ‘cell’) and now the ‘beer’ (the remaining ‘centre’) is left freely exposed for the perfection and purity to dynamically do it’s thing. [link]

Claudiu: It is very freeing in a way. Before, I would need to maintain an EE to some degree, and in a sense there was sort of a restriction of just what I could look at, as the EE would fade if I rocked the boat too much.
But now the boat is stable and it seems like I can freely explore anything and everything with this reliable rock-solid foundation of purity that remains unshakeable regardless. Thus I can freely explore the depths of ‘me’ without any fear or concern that the out-from-controlness will fade[link]

It seems as if in the meantime this possible in-between step between ‘normal’ and actually free has slipped your mind?

The report you quoted of ‘Vineeto’ becoming actually free was precipitated by several weeks of being out-from-control and it made the last part of the journey to an actual freedom not only so much easier but also eminently delicious.

There are a lot of benefits when one allows oneself to let the universe (pure intent) to take over control. You say –

Those ‘last remaining cobwebs’ is exactly how I would describe those remaining dramas, it seems ‘I’ am only holding onto what’s left of them in order to block the momentum that would otherwise follow. This is the tricky part, proceeding without knowing with certainty what the destination is like, it’s stepping into the unknowable. It seems ‘I’ am instead searching for 100% certainty before ‘I’ dare to step out of the cage, which is of course an impossibility as this can only be had upon actual freedom.

Once you allow yourself to be out-from-control and the actualism process is set in motion, the brakes no longer work and you are in for the ride of a lifetime not to be missed. I can highly recommend it.

‘Vineeto’s’ last question ‘she’ endeavoured to answer (one day before it happened) was – do I want to live like this forever (the delicious, dynamic experience infused with ever increasing pure intent and experiences of sweetness)? Even though the answer was clear, the moment Richard posed that question to ‘her’, ‘she’ still decided to check it out carefully. But the next day it was still the same answer – yes, of course, I want to live like this forever.

Cheers Vineeto

4 Likes
104

I just took a course on how to bluff more effectively. But that’s poker not anywhere else. :slight_smile: In poker one bluffs their chips to get the chips that are already in the middle. Those chips can then be cashed out for money. Which can then be used to keep the lights on at home and the belly full. One needs leverage to bluff and a pot worth bluffing for. Bluffing doesn’t work without leverage and isn’t necessary if there’s nothing to win.

That is exactly what I was trying to convey! I was looking for objections to staying as near to the actual world as I was. My focus then and there was on my objections. I am absolutely afraid of leaving my “seemingly safe cage”. That’s exactly what I wanted to convey. Though I wouldn’t use the term “safe cage.” More like fortifications. I am afraid of abandoning these fortifications for fear that an enemy will take advantage.

That’s it exactly!

Exactly! It was so magical that it reminded me of mythology. For me it was medieval fables and fairy tales that came to mind but same difference. As my attention was focused on my own objections, it occurred to me that this fantastical quality may be what I am afraid of.

Hi Claudiu. I agree with everything you wrote. Just one a little note. I was looking for my own personal objections, which I knew to be irrational and factually inaccurate. I chose to put those objection into words and share them because I don’t remember ever hearing an objection expressed in that way before. I thought it was interesting how imaginary conflicts can seem more valid than actual peace. And how that dichotomy between made-up conflicts and actual peace got me to experience a fear that I was choosing to go crazy. Hence the terms derealization and depersonalization. Because it felt a little bit crazy to ignore the dangers I take for granted and to go towards an utter peace that is completely outside the common consensus. Like bathing with alligators simply because one is dirty and nothing can possibly befall me. I’m not saying moving towards actual freedom is crazy: That it’s like bathing with alligators. I’m just saying that is the objection I’m currently exploring.

2 Likes
105

Hmm, okay – do you see how the way your message was written, it conveyed that you were writing what you thought was a rational & factually accurate description of actual freedom?

On a practical note – in the past, I had a habit of, when noticing a belief, telling myself that I don’t ‘really’ believe it or I ‘know’ it’s not true. I would preface it to myself like that. What I came to see is that just the act of having the belief meant that deep-down, where it mattered, I did believe it. Me prefacing it to myself as of “I know it’s silly” yet still holding it/feeling compelled by it, didn’t actually serve to dispel it. So I found that with any such belief, I had to actually look at what I thought was the case, and settle for myself what the facts actually are about it.

This can seem ‘scary’ for someone who is adopting a faux-actualist identity (which may be par for the course for an actualist, a stage one goes through, and you may or may not currently be), where one believes one has to already agree with everything written there. Because by genuinely investigating it, one opens oneself up to the possibility that one makes a determination that is contrary to what is written about actualism and actual freedom. Because when you don’t yet know what the facts are, the facts can certainly be different than what you thought they were!

After doing it enough though one sees that the facts always end up on the side of that which was reported on the AFT site, by other actualists and by actually free people. This results in a confidence borne of experience that then allows one to proceed.

My advise would be, rather than assuring yourself you know what you wrote is “irrational and factually inaccurate”, actually take a look at what you wrote, and determine for yourself if it is indeed the facts or not. When comparing actuality and reality, is actuality really the less substantially-existing one and reality the more substantially-existing one? Once you know the answer, for yourself, genuinely and sincerely – only then will the objection be dispelled.

Cheers,
Claudiu

1 Like
106

To some extent. I did choose impact over thoroughness. I wanted my prose to have some style. I didn’t want it to sound like a manual. I wanted it to be fun, not boring. How can I leave the reader surprised while still understanding my point was the unverbalized question I asked myself. When going for that effect, my style is to use some flourish and the least amount of words I can. Word play. It’s kind of fun. I always had an affinity for words. Not a true talent. I could never monetize it - not nearly talented enough. But it’s something I like to dabble in. I did accept that someone would take it the wrong way as it’s par for the course when not being explicitly clear. But I also knew that no one’s resolve would be undermined. I simply lack the leverage to do that and I don’t think anyone here is gullible enough to fall for it even if I, or someone else, had that intent. So I just chose to combine flair with brevity. It’s what I wanted to do and no harm could come of it.

That is and was the intent. Process ongoing! And I wasn’t assuring myself. I was pointing out to you what you missed. No fault of your own - just the result of the style I chose.

107

Yet the impact of what you wrote is to convey to the reader that actuality is “a fantastical place that isn’t real”, a “completely unreal world of pixie dust and theory-less music and plotless pomp” such that the word actual “didn’t seem to convey how unreal it was”, while reality is the place where your “very real friends and real family” are, which is “at least, real”.

Yet the point conveyed to the reader is not that you are questioning whether the above is factual or have found that it isn’t, which is the proper focus of attention, but rather whether you want to make the choice to live in the unreal unreality rather than the real reality, which question is built on a false premise and thus is invalid in the first place.

This is a false dichotomy that conveys to the reader that one can either write factually and be “boring” and “sound like a manual”, or if one “want[s] it to be fun” then one has no choice but to be imprecise and inaccurate where it will be “par for the course” that some will “take it the wrong way”.

It is patently false when considering the obvious example of Richard’s writing, for example, “A Rather Quaint Clay-Pit Tale”, which is both fun and fantastical and nowhere near “sound[s] like a manual”, yet is completely factual and accurate, to boot.

In other words it sounds like you didn’t put the requisite effort into what you wrote to have it be both fun and factual, at the expense of possibly misleading your fellow human beings, which you accepted as a possible consequence.

Upon further reflection, is that really a sensible approach?

There’s just no way you could know that. Someone who doesn’t yet know that actuality is actual (and not unreal) and reality is ephemeral (and not substantial), will certainly be misled by your report into thinking they have to sacrifice something that is ultimately of value in order to succeed, rather than the factual framing which is that reality is ultimately illusory and there is nothing of value in it, it is only imagined to be so.

There’s not only the current readership, but anybody who may come across your words at any point in the future.

Personally I find it more sensible - and satisfying - to write in a way that stands the test of time.

This sentence contains two parts, and only one of them is true.

Good! Just to re-iterate, the advice is that the process will be far more fruitful if you cease telling yourself from the outgo that you already know the belief or objection you currently hold is "irrational and factually inaccurate".

If you did indeed already know that, you would no longer hold that belief or have that objection. The fact that you do, means you don’t yet know that.

The “rather than assuring yourself” refers to you, from the outset, telling yourself that “the objection [you’re] currently exploring” is one that you actually already “knew to be irrational and factually inaccurate”, not the writing out of your reply to me.

If you already knew it was irrational and factually inaccurate, the objection would cease at that moment in time already and there would be nothing left to explore about it.

In order for somebody to miss something, it does indeed have to be present such that the reader can overlook it. If it’s not there in the first place, there is nothing that can be missed, it is simply absent from the source material.

Again, to re-iterate, the issue is that your message presents actuality as being “a fantastical place that isn’t real”, a “completely unreal world of pixie dust and theory-less music and plotless pomp” such that the word actual “didn’t seem to convey how unreal it was”, while reality is the place where your “very real friends and real family” are, which is “at least, real”, with the question conveyed to the reader being not whether this is factual but rather whether you want to make the choice to live in the unreal unreality rather than the real reality, which question is built on a faulty premise and is thus invalid and rendered irrelevant once the faulty premise is seen.

To forestall possible criticisms, there are three reasons such detail was gone into in this message:

  1. To establish the facts of what actually happened in the correspondence such that there are no nails to hang any criticisms on and everyone involved is clear about what the situation is.

  2. To convey with precise detail the suggested advice, applicable to not only the correspondents involved but all readers as well, that it is of benefit to not, from the outset, tell oneself that they already know their belief or objection is “irrational and factually inaccurate”, and to set the high standard for oneself that one will only know for sure that that is true once that belief or objection is actually fully dissipated.

  3. To cover all the bases with regards to there being a possible continued missing that the very premise of the question is what is faulty in the first place and that the way to actually resolve the question is to see the faultiness of the premise.

With cheers, best regards, and an unyielding consideration and appreciation,
Claudiu

108

@JonnyPitt I enjoyed your depiction of the fairytale like quality, which seems so unreal as to be fantastic.

I had never experienced it fully , and have but vague memories of anything at all.

However, It was indeed something I hadn’t read before.

The solid feeling of real, vs the fantastic realm of the actual.

Thanks.

109

Hi Andrew,

Do you see how, although reality feels very solid and real – once one is experiencing that wondrously amazing and unparalleled perfection intrinsic to actuality, one sees that the real world is not actually “very solid” at all, and in fact is just an illusion, with actuality being that which substantially and intrinsically exists?

And further, that all those personas and personages you experience as your friends and family, though felt to be real at the time, are seen to also be nothing but illusory personas parasitically inhabiting their host bodies, which actual flesh and blood bodies actually exist as your fellow human beings, each of which has a peerless and impeccable capacity to be wondrously intimate with you and for you to be wondrously intimate with them, in cohesive delectable harmony?

Cheers,
Claudiu

1 Like
110

Hi Jon,

Let’s start with some facts.

@JonnyPitt: Maybe the primary objection to self immolation is not being sure whether one wants to be by oneself in a fantastical place that isn’t real vs being among others in a place that is real.
The words depersonalization and derealization come to mind. I just experienced actual not as something that is more real than real or Real2.0 or super real but as something that is unreal. So unreal that the word Actual seemed counter-intuitive. Actual and real being synonyms in normal conversation, I found it at odds with the world I just experienced. A synonym for real didn’t seem to convey how unreal it was. Any word at all could be used to describe it as the place has no parallels. Something conveying a magic like quality well known to be fantastical fiction might convey how unreal it is: Genie land, pixie world, fairy land, a spontaneous song and dance with no choreography and no duration where the stage itself is singing and dancing and there is no audience… ([This moment has no duration - #98 by JonnyPitt])

This is clearly not a description of a PCE but of an altered state of consciousness. When you have a genuine PCE, it is never experienced as unreal the way you described it, i.e. foreign. It is more in line with the purity and perfection of the actual world become suddenly apparent –

*“it was so easy and simple to just be there” ([Mushrooms PCE]),
“The light was golden, every little swaying movement of the trees just emphasised the stillness. There was an utterly brilliant clarity and peace” ([Various Descriptions of PCE's]),
“I had a micro-pce a couple nights ago watching my fingers make a paper plane, just doing it on their own”. ([Everything happens of its own accord])
*“And then in a PCE I am that very pure intent.” ([Claudiu's Journal - #36 by claudiu])

You say you had experienced PCEs in the past ([This moment has no duration - #41 by JonnyPitt]), so with a bit of honest discernment you could have seen the difference for yourself.

But that was not the intention of your strange tale – the intention was –

JonnyPitt to Claudiu: I did choose impact over thoroughness. I wanted my prose to have some style. I didn’t want it to sound like a manual. I wanted it to be fun, not boring. How can I leave the reader surprised while still understanding my point was the unverbalized question I asked myself. […] So I just chose to combine flair with brevity.” [emphasis added] ([This moment has no duration - #106 by JonnyPitt])

You also knew it was “irrational and factually inaccurate” whilst not disclosing the “unverbalized question”, i.e. “looking for my own personal objections” –

JonnyPitt to Claudiu: “I was looking for my own personal objections, which I knew to be irrational and factually inaccurate.” ([This moment has no duration - #104 by JonnyPitt])

So on several levels you have led your fellow human beings astray. You can call this lying (presently a political incorrect word) or bluffing i.e. not showing your cards for the “impact” you wanted to achieve (the course for more effective bluffing seems to have crept into real life after all :blush:).

JonnyPitt to Vineeto: I just took a course on how to bluff more effectively. But that’s poker not anywhere else.
Vineeto: […] because in reality he is afraid to leave his seemingly safe cage when the doors are wide open, and he could instead enjoy and appreciate this moment of being alive.
JonnyPitt to Vineeto: That is exactly what I was trying to convey! I was looking for objections to staying as near to the actual world as I was. My focus then and there was on my objections. I am absolutely afraid of leaving my “seemingly safe cage”. That’s exactly what I wanted to convey. ([This moment has no duration - #104 by JonnyPitt])

So after clarifying that there is a marked difference between a PCE and an ASC, and pointing out your present lack of honesty, especially self-honesty, we can get to the meat of the matter – your objections to leave the cage “when the doors are wide open”.

  1. “Whether one wants to be by oneself in a fantastical place that isn’t real”
  2. “The words depersonalization and derealization come to mind”
  3. “I am absolutely afraid of leaving my seemingly safe cage”

No. 1 is easy – who wants to live in an ASC – you would certainly be in a world of your own, with so many different types of ASCs to choose from.

I am not alone in the actual world – I only meet flesh-and-blood human beings and there is an actual intimacy happening with every body and every thing and every event because there is no separation (no separative self whatsoever). (see [Mailing List 'D' Respondent No. 6]).

No. 2 – Richard has written about the 4 psychiatric symptoms he has been diagnosed with –

• [Richard]: ‘… I have not been reticent about having been closely examined, over a three-year period by both an accredited psychiatrist and psychologist, and found to be having the following symptoms: 1. Depersonalisation (no sense of identity) as in no ‘self’ by whatever name. 2. Derealisation (lost touch with reality) as in reality has vanished completely. 3. Alexithymia (inability to feel the affections) as in no affective feelings whatsoever. 4. Anhedonia (inability to feel pleasure/pain) as in no affective pleasure/pain facility. (Mailing List 'AF' Respondent No. 46)

Incidentally, according to these psychiatrically defined terms, myself and everyone else free from the instinctual passions could be diagnosed with the same symptoms. It only means that psychiatry is as yet unaware about the Third Alternative. Hence I think your objection that comes to your mind is rather the fear of going mad, not “depersonalization and derealization” per se. I won’t be guessing any further, you did say you “did choose impact over thoroughness”. I am happy to talk about the precise objection when you have pinpointed it more informedly and accurately.

No. 3 – this is perfectly understandable. After all, this cage of yours is decorated with posters like “which, […] is, at least, real”, you can’t change human nature, you become derealized when you leave this cage, you will loose all your friends and family and be totally alone in the world – and similar scare stories. And in front the open doors of your cage there are images of AI fiction stories and snapshots of sci-fi films :wink:.

Now tell me Jon, when you have read this post so far, which of your fears has been resolved and which objections remain? It will make the discussion about your objections so much more concise when you are scrupulously honest with yourself, and with your correspondents, honest with yourself with the aim of being sincere (=at root)(*).

(*)[Richard]: The word ‘sincere’ can be traced back to the Latin sincerus, meaning ‘whole’ or ‘pure’ or ‘sound’, and which is arguably derived from the roots ‘sin-’ (one) and ‘crescere’ (to grow) in that the Latin ‘sincerus’ originally referred to a plant which was of pure stock – not a mixture or hybrid – and thus came to mean anything which was genuine (as in ‘true’ or ‘correct’) and not falsified, adulterated, contaminated.
Sincerity is to be in accord with the fact/being aligned with factuality/ staying true to facticity (as in being authentic/ guileless, genuine/ artless, straightforward/ ingenuous). (Richard, Abditorium, sincere)

Btw, it’s more fruitful to examine those fears and objections from a more dispassionate perspective, i.e. after you get back to feeling good first.

Cheers Vineeto

1 Like
111

Yes thank you @Vineeto it seems you stopped me right in the tracks of a habit of mine - of hanging back in the ‘normal’ and from there trying to throw some kind of a Hail Mary towards actual freedom. It never works because the distance is too great and from that ‘normal’ place ‘I’ am not advised by the perfection and purity, instead ‘I’ resort to theories. It’s like ‘I’ am hanging out in the cage (with the doors wide open) whilst coming up with the next ‘great escape plan’ :laughing:.

It is becoming clear to me that going out-from-control is the next step, in fact I have been hanging out on the edge of this decision for a long time. Now is a great time to do it, with @claudiu having already gone ahead and done it anyways, which I am full of admiration for.

What I have been doing is setting the intent to continue allowing the perfection and purity each moment again come what may, committing to having that golden clew active at all times, with each instance of the connection being severed being treated as a flashing red light in the same way I would with a diminution into feeling bad.

It is exhilarating to commit in such a way, this is going further than I would usually allow myself to, and some more, the rewards are certainly worth the effort though.
Last night I was watching a random YouTube video which was showing the latest high resolution pictures of mars and comparing it with earth. Usually watching astronomy videos ‘I’ feel somewhat alien, alone, small, in danger etc. Essentially there is that backdrop of the existential angst of being a ‘self’.
This time it was different, I saw that there is no outside to this universe, that I as this body am not separate from it, and then looking at the pictures of the earth I was able to fully appreciate the wonder and magic of it all.
That this enormous and infinitely complex universe even exists in the first place, and further that it has arranged itself into the azure planet called earth, and further that this planet is teeming with life, and further that from all of this a thinking and reflective creature was born, and further that as this creature the universe is able to experience itself - WOW.
I realise that all of the above is this body’s and every body’s birthright, and this brings a depth to the words “fellow human being” which I can’t quite put into words.

3 Likes
112

Kuba: Yes thank you @Vineeto it seems you stopped me right in the tracks of a habit of mine - of hanging back in the ‘normal’ and from there trying to throw some kind of a Hail Mary towards actual freedom. It never works because the distance is too great and from that ‘normal’ place ‘I’ am not advised by the perfection and purity, instead ‘I’ resort to theories. It’s like ‘I’ am hanging out in the cage (with the doors wide open) whilst coming up with the next ‘great escape plan’

Dear @Kub933,

Ha, you have a delightful way with words. I had been wondering if it was ok to prod you a bit or if you’d rather proceed at your own pace. Now I am glad that I did. Habituation can sometimes be quite a procrastinating feature – and ‘Vineeto’ used to do that a lot.

Kuba: It is becoming clear to me that going out-from-control is the next step, in fact I have been hanging out on the edge of this decision for a long time. Now is a great time to do it, with @claudiu having already gone ahead and done it anyways, which I am full of admiration for.

Yes, Claudiu is boldly showing the way and giving detailed reports about how an out-from-control virtual freedom works wonders and also what the pitfalls can be which those after him can avoid. Pure intent is far more easily accessible once you made the conscious decision to let go of the controls and it’s a great, thrilling and delicious adventure.

What I have been doing is setting the intent to continue allowing the perfection and purity each moment again come what may, committing to having that golden clew active at all times, with each instance of the connection being severed being treated as a flashing red light in the same way I would with a diminution into feeling bad.
It is exhilarating to commit in such a way, this is going further than I would usually allow myself to, and some more, the rewards are certainly worth the effort though.

That’s it and it is indeed exhilarating, galvanizing, electrifying and thoroughly wonder-full.

Kuba: Last night I was watching a random YouTube video which was showing the latest high resolution pictures of mars and comparing it with earth. Usually watching astronomy videos ‘I’ feel somewhat alien, alone, small, in danger etc. Essentially there is that backdrop of the existential angst of being a ‘self’.
This time it was different, I saw that there is no outside to this universe, that I as this body am not separate from it, and then looking at the pictures of the earth I was able to fully appreciate the wonder and magic of it all.
That this enormous and infinitely complex universe even exists in the first place, and further that it has arranged itself into the azure planet called earth, and further that this planet is teeming with life, and further that from all of this a thinking and reflective creature was born, and further that as this creature the universe is able to experience itself – WOW.

This is so excellent to read, I had to interrupt because tears of appreciation were running down my face – it is just so mirificent that another fellow human being is about to come out of the cage and is able to marvel at and fully appreciate the magic of this amazing universe, of our verdant and azure planet hanging in space, of all the flora and fauna, and most of all of conscious human life with the ability of being apperceptively aware of being alive.

Actuality is utterly breathtaking.

Kuba: I realise that all of the above is this body’s and every body’s birthright, and this brings a depth to the words “fellow human being” which I can’t quite put into words.

Indeed – you will discover that the depth of intimacy with your fellow human beings increases exponentially the more you allow this marvellous beneficent infinite universe to live you. And your – and ever body’s – birthright is to be the universe experiencing itself as a flesh-and-blood sentient human being.

Life is truly wonderful.

With all my appreciation for your bold step.

Cheers Vineeto

2 Likes
113

Hi Vineeto.

It’s really hard to know where to start. I’d rather keep it informal. I’ll start by saying I’m really happy you’ve been participating here. There have been things you’ve written here that have really hit home. In particular, comments that point to seeing for yourself how silly it is to waste this moment feeling bad when this moment is the only moment happening. And how getting back to feeling good is the first step and a necessary step to seeing that aforementioned silliness and how this moment is the only moment happening. There is no other moment then this, right? I can’t think of one.

My experience of late has been rather wonderful. It may be an ASC. If I were to call a PCE foreign then that would be clue. Because that would be impossible. PCEs aren’t like that. Nor are EE’s or IEs. This I know from experience. But examining my objections while being temporarily free of my normal anxieties did lead me to a place that seemed both foreign and a lot closer to the actual world than I am normally. I thought that foreignness might be an objection a lot of us have. And I was keen on conversating about that if anyone was interested. And if not then I was happy just putting it out there.

Leading others astray didn’t occur to me. I didn’t think anyone would make any conclusions. When I think about that, a person sitting in a chair reading my words, I can’t imagine them taking what I wrote and ignoring their own PCE(s). And if they haven’t had one yet then I can’t imagine me saying “unreal” would cause damage. Maybe I’m wrong. But as of now I just don’t see how I can have that effect on anyone else.

The actual world is pretty foreign when you’re not in it. When you still have access to all your anxieties yet see a world where those anxieties don’t exist and it’s like well i can stay here or go back - i think some interesting thoughts occur, some conversations can take place where words like unreal and foreign are bandied about. But maybe this an ASC.

An objection must remain, right? Otherwise, I’d have immolated, no? I think living without fear is an objection I have. I think the danger of having no fear is the objection. However, the foreigness I described has lessened. It feels more normal to have this level of reduced defensiveness, this level of reduced boredom, this level of assuredness that everything will be fine, this level of reduced responsibility and neediness. It’s still not totally normal though. I’m not used to thinking that everything will work out and I really don’t need to worry. That other people are their own people. Like they are over there living full lives without me and my projections over them aren’t actual. Those projections are real but not actual. (I’ve been contemplating that distinction quite a lot lately and I can talk bundles about it) I’m used to thinking that I have a role to play in other peoples lives and I really should play that role as well as I can. I’m not used to feeling that such roles are unnecessary and that me being me will work out just fine. I’m not used to thinking that money won’t be an issue. If I need a new source of funds sometime in the future, if this current source drys up, I’ll go and find a new source. And if there are no jobs or I’m disabled well shit, no master plan I start executing now will make that situation markedly better. And such a situation is pretty unlikely anyway. It’s just different thinking like that. And I think that’s still an objection. Maybe I should worry more. Ya know. If I don’t worry then christ shit might hit the fan and I won’t be prepared.

1 Like
114

I agree that when you aren’t in or near the actual world, it can seem foreign — because it’s impossible to imagine or think one’s way into what it’s like. But actually experiencing it is quite the opposite — I’ve often had a sense of utter familiarity like “oh yeah I know this from a while ago, I even forgot how wonderful it was”. And together with that the experience of actuality is that it’s safe, nothing can go wrong, and all the rest that comes with it.

As you wrote it’s not like other PCEs you had, so you know yourself it wasn’t a PCE — it seems you’ve conflated the current non-PCE state you’re in with a PCE? Or maybe you know it’s not a PCE but you think you’re gaining accurate information about what actuality is like? It seems this may be misinforming you as to the nature of actuality.

Well, in response to your post Andrew wrote this:

Now it seems Andrew’s take-away, not having experienced it fully himself, is that a quality of actuality is this unreality that you wrote about.

It’s telling that he wrote it is something he hadn’t read before — because that feeling of actuality being unreal is indeed not a quality of a PCE.

So there’s no need to imagine what you wrote causing damage, it has already misinformed at least one person!

I say this not as a moral judgment but just to show you that your words do have an effect on people and so it is indeed sensible to put one’s best foot forward when writing about these topics, not only for the benefit of whoever may read it but also for yourself, as I find writing in a contemplative and reflective manner, with care and consideration taken to write only that which I know to be factual and explicit pointing out of that which I’m not sure of, to be a helpful way for me to learn and understand more about my own experience.

Cheers,
Claudiu

1 Like
115

lack of reality. The real world - very dangerous. So many threats. Actual world - where are they? They don’t exist. Even just approaching the actual world, you can see that those threats don’t exist there. How can the actual world be real if those threats don’t exist? And it’s not real. It’s actual.

1 Like
116

Hmm… you are being cunning or tricky here, but it’s not possible to tell if it’s intentionally/consciously so or not. Maybe if I re-phrase such that no ambiguity is possible.

Vineeto wrote:

You agreed with this:

Now, my rephrased question:

CLAUDIU: Now it seems Andrew’s take-away, not having experienced it fully himself, is that actuality is experienced as “unreal” like you initially described in your report, whereas as Vineeto pointed out a PCE “is never experienced as unreal the way you described it” and it is actually experienced as described in the reports she quoted afterwards.

Let me know if that makes sense now.

Cheers,
Claudiu

117

I’m sorry. What’s your question? Oh. Wait. If I can see that I could be misleading someone. So yea. Someone could be misled. But I doubt it. You say Andrew was misled but was he? He just said my description conveyed to him that “the actual seeming unreal as to be fantastical”. So yea. That not exactly what I met. Was he misled into thinking the actual seems unreal? Maybe he was. Maybe the word unreal just should never have been written. I’m still having trouble understanding why exactly it was a foopah. I don’t think Andrew would have been caused any harm had he read my post without any further clarifications and/or critiques. But what do i hell do i know.

118

Yes I am glad too, I took a couple of days to reply to your suggestion because I wanted to come to the answer experientially, as opposed to just intellectually answering from that ‘normal’ place.
I am very appreciative of you writing on here and I have been keen to make the most of it, as in actually doing something in light of each topic being discussed before hitting reply.

119

And this is excellent to read too because that experience (of actuality being human kind’s birthright) although temporary for me, was of something so very precious, to have confirmation that what I glimpsed is your ongoing experience and furthermore that it is the correct target, is great.

120

Here again is what you initially wrote (bold emphases added):

Your report is unambiguous – it reports an experience of the actual world as something unreal, so unreal that the word “actual” does not fit to describe it. So if Andrew was “misled into thinking the actual seems unreal”, it would only be because you literally said that it is unreal, that it is experienced as such.

Look it’s very simple:

  • You wrote an inaccurate report which, if someone were to take your words sincerely and accept them as accurate, would mislead them as to what a PCE is.
  • When this was pointed out, you deflected saying you knew it was irrational and inaccurate at the time but you just made a stylistic choice.
  • When pointed out that there was no way for a reader to know that, you stated that you don’t see how it could lead anybody astray.
  • When pointed out a specific example – that Andrew appears to have taken your initial report at face value and thus may be left with an inaccurate picture of what a PCE is like – you repeated again that you don’t think it misled him or could mislead anyone, but threw in a “what do i hell do i know”.

But there’s no question here. You wrote an inaccurate report, which was written as if it was believed to be accurate at the time. This is an irrefutable fact. A reader can either accept the report as accurate, which would necessarily lead them astray, or they can be skeptical or reject it outright, in which case they wouldn’t be led astray.

The only way a reader wouldn’t be misled is if they are reject or ignore your report. As you’re saying you don’t see how what you write can mislead anyone, you’re essentially making the case that nobody should take what you write as being sincere. The continued demurrals and deflections don’t improve the case, either.

It’s up to you, ultimately – do you want to write in a way that people can take it at face value, appreciate it and use it to further your own and their own journeys, or do you want to write in a way that everybody essentially ignores it because it’s a wild card whether you are even writing what you genuinely think at the time?

Well, you could have just written it at the outset like you wrote about it later:

Here there is nothing to mislead anyone. You report still experiencing emotions, having access to all your anxieties, and that when you reflect upon what a world without those anxieties might look like, it seems unreal and foreign to you. This is perfectly normal and of course worthwhile to bring up and discuss, which can lead to, for example, sharing of experiences of actuality where it is experienced that in a PCE, actuality is actually what is familiar and safe, and the ‘real’ world is seen to be what is actually “unreal” from that vantage point.

We all make mistakes, it’s certainly possible to have an experience and you think it’s something so you write about it on the journal, and then others can comment. And if it turns out you were mistaken about it, so be it, then you learn something. But I find the saying you knew it was wrong the whole time and the constant deflection and demurrals to be contrary to having a sincere, fruitful, and mutually beneficial conversation. I’m not actually even sure at this point if when you had that experience and wrote about it, that you really thought it was a PCE at that time or not. Such is how things go when conversations aren’t clear and straightforward.

Cheers,
Claudiu